A reader named James Cameron emailed me a link to an interview with Alan Keyes that is pretty much par for the course for him (incidentally, I hope this isn’t the James Cameron who directed Titanic or I shall forever have to hate him for foisting that damn Celine Dion song upon the world – your heart may go on, but your brain shut down years ago). See part one of the interview here and part two here. Keyes trots out a new argument, at least one I’ve never heard him use before, which is to blame abortion and gay marriage on the invention and use of contraception:
Take the issue of same-sex marriage, for instance. This issue is actually rooted–it begins–in the very place the church has for the longest time taught that it begins. Do you know where it begins? It beings in contraception. You’re going to say, “What does that have to do with same-sex marriage?”
The contraceptive mentality is the mentality that suppresses the child, that basically says that the sexual relationship is not about procreation, does not exist in the context of God’s plan for procreation. Once you’ve turned your back on that plan, the next logical consequence–and sadly we’ve seen it, in great tragedy–is abortion. Because having suppressed the child conceptually and in your action from the meaning, the central meaning and significance of the sexual act, when the child appears as a consequence, it is then suppressed by this brutal means. Its life is taken.
Finally, of course, that means that when you look at sexual relations in marriage, if the child is no longer central, if procreation and the plan of God is no longer central, what is marriage? Marriage is just a relationship between two individuals for self-fulfillment, selfishness, self-interest, for what they can get out of it.
And however high-minded we make it, at the end of the day once you have removed that God-ordained purpose of the relationship between the sexes, what you get is a selfish relationship looking for selfish fulfillment. And guess what happens? Then people who are homosexuals for whom the relationship can be no more than the personal pleasure involved–it isn’t haunted by the presence of that third being, the child, who represents in fact the authority and will of God for the relationship, it’s not there–and then they step forward and say, “Well, if marriage is just about pleasure and personal fulfillment and the relationship between the parties involved, we can do that. How can you discriminate against our relationships?”
He also echoes reconstructionist rhetoric during the interview when he says that “the purpose of law in human affairs is to try to conform the rules and regulations that govern society with the will of God.” Catholics, of all people, should be careful in invoking reconstructionist themes because if that particular political movement should ever succeed, Catholics will be the first folks imprisoned for heresy. But in the meantime, Keyes is happy to join forces with the enemies of freedom. The man quotes excitedly from the Declaration of Independence, but does not believe in the ideas found in it at all. He is a theocrat, plain and simple.