The disordered liberal belief system

By Tom Quiner

“I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong.”

The quote is from Bill Clinton in 1986.

His conviction, then, was abortion was wrong.

Former President Clinton jettisons another conviction

Former President Clinton jettisons another conviction

A few years later he changed his mind. Nothing had changed except for politics. A pro-abortion stance would get him more votes in his presidential run. So he jettisoned one set of convictions for another, one Truth for a non-truth.

So did Al Gore.

So did Jesse Jackson.

So did Richard Gephardt and Ted Kennedy and one liberal politician after another.

I bring this up today, because Bill Clinton has just jettisoned another conviction, his belief that a marriage is between one man and one woman.

If you recall, then President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. It provided protection to states with the traditional marriage definition from being coerced to recognize so-called gay marriages sanctioned in other states.

Now, Mr. Clinton says he was wrong:

“When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.”

For the record, marriage laws have not been discriminatory. They have been applied equally regardless of one’s attractions.

Those with opposite gender attractions have been prevented by law from marrying someone of the same gender.

Those with same gender attractions have been free to marry someone of the opposite gender.

The purpose of marriage was never based on attractions, it has been based on protecting children and the family unit that can only be produced by opposite-gender unions.

Mr. Clinton joins a parade of liberal politicians who are quickly jettisoning conviction for the sake of politics.

Some might say that Bill Clinton isn’t doing this out of politics because he won’t be running for public office again. True, but his wife most likely will. His latest flip-flop gets the issue out of the way now before his wife begins campaigning in two years.

The liberal belief system is disordered.

Once they thought slavery was okay. Now they don’t. But it took brute force to get them to change their mind.

Once they thought abortion was bad. Now they think it is good, because it gets them votes.

Once they thought abortion should be rare. Now they want taxpayers to fund it.

Once they thought that every single human being on earth had a God-given right to Life. Now they think everyone has a right to abortion, and that you’d better keep your religious views to yourself.

Once they thought marriage was between one man and one woman. Today they’re okay with boys marrying boys and girls marrying girls. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Can you honestly say that liberals’ belief system won’t “evolve” further to embrace polygamy? Or marriage between an adult and a child? Or an animal? Or a favorite tree?

Liberals’ belief systems are fluid, confused, fallacious.

You may take me to task and say I am being unduly harsh on our liberal brothers and sisters, that they don’t all embrace abortion and so-called gay marriage. Your point is a good one.

By the same token, there are conservatives who are conservative on fiscal issues, but liberal on social issues.

This essay reacts to the historic fluidity of conviction on core issues by American liberal politicians. As G.K. Chesterton put it:

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”


  1. NotAScientist on March 8, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    “Those with same gender attractions have been free to marry someone of the opposite gender.”

    Which is one of the stupidest things anyone has ever said. Luckily, it did not originate with you.

    Those with attracted have been free to marry people who they are unattracted to. The fact that in some places it is specifically illegal to marry the people who they are attracted to is the issue.

    • quinersdiner on March 8, 2013 at 12:57 pm

      Kind sir, that is the entire point, if you read the essay. Marriage should not be based on attractions. It should be based on children. Thanks for writing.

      • NotAScientist on March 8, 2013 at 12:59 pm

        No, it should not. And if it were, you are eliminating a great deal of heterosexuals from marriage.

        • quinersdiner on March 8, 2013 at 2:00 pm

          Sounds like we’re in agreement that marriage should be based on attractions, very important common ground for us. However, I humbly demur on your second point.

  2. lburleso on March 8, 2013 at 2:43 pm

    Heterosexual marriage, even when unable to conceive, still follows the natural law, and is open to life. A homosexual union is not.

    It seems so easy to understand, but those with “fluidity of conviction”, as Tom wrote, are quick to willfully deny these self-evident truths.

    • quinersdiner on March 8, 2013 at 2:50 pm

      Well said. Thanks.

  3. oarubio on March 10, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    And, of course, who gave the State the authority to change something (marriage) it did not institute and which even the Church is not authorized to change?

    • quinersdiner on March 10, 2013 at 6:13 pm

      Of course, I agree with you. I would suggest that even if religion didn’t exist, secular society would have still created marriage for the express purpose of protecting children and the family. The current redefinition is illogical, and is based on a liberal theology that calls for normalizing the disordered.