![\"Elton](\"http:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/shutterstock_69711367-998x701.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
By Daniel Payne -The Federalist.<\/strong><\/p>\n Article Source<\/strong><\/p>\n http:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2016\/06\/10\/elton-john-inflates-the-big-gay-marriage-lie\/<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The big lie of gay marriage<\/a> was always this: \u201cIt will affect nobody outside of the gays who wish to partake in it.\u201d That is clearly false, as any number of bakers or photographers will tell you after having gone through the legal wringer of forced gay wedding compliance. Yet sometimes the big lie gets even bigger. Sometimes it threatens more than the livelihoods of cake-bakers in north-central Colorado.<\/strong><\/p>\n Sometimes it threatens free speech. That seems to be the situation out of England regarding a case in which a celebrity gay couple has placed an injunction on the British press to cover up reports of an extramarital encounter. According to Paddy Manning (a gay Irish columnist notable for his opposition to gay marriage), the couple is none other than Elton John and David Furnish<\/a>, the latter of which supposedly flew to New York City several years ago to participate in a m\u00e9nage \u00e0 trois<\/em> with two other men; scheduled events allegedly included some time in a wading pool filled with olive oil.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n The Sun<\/em>, a British newspaper, attempted to write an article about this tryst, yet the couple successfully managed to bring an injunction against not just the Sun<\/em>but the entire British press: \u201c[N]othing at all,\u201d writes Manning, \u201cmight be written about the matter in England or Wales.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n British freedom of speech is something of a bad joke these days\u2014a few years ago a man was arrested for singing \u201cKung Fu Fighting<\/a>\u201d\u2014yet it is still occasionally incredible to witness the depth and the breadth of Great Britain\u2019s culture of not just reactionary speech codes but its enforcement of prior restraint. Nothing approaching this exists in the United States; the First Amendment, perhaps the most precious legal proviso in the history of all human governments, does not allow for such obscene excess.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n If you want to write about Furnish\u2019s olive oil escapades, you can do it right here in America and still wake up the next day a free citizen. Fly six hours east, and you could be thrown in jail for doing the same thing.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n In one sense, this kind of press injunction is not limited to practitioners of gay marriage. Other British celebrities and public figures have sought prior restraint to cover up sexual exploits. Some years ago (right around the time that poor man was being arrested after singing \u201cKung Fu Fighting\u201d), the soccer coach Ryan Giggs secured a gag order to silence reports on his affair with a supermodel. In this sense, British speech law is an equal-opportunity kind of tyranny.<\/strong><\/p>\n Yet this latest debacle is baffling in one important respect. There is a general understanding that John and Furnish have an \u201copen relationship<\/a>,\u201d which means they are both free to have sex with other people (indeed, an interim injunction<\/a> issued in early January appears to admit just that). Yet the gag order sought, in this case, was reportedly granted to protect not John and Furnish themselves but their children, for whom the media storm surrounding such an affair might be troubling or traumatic.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Ponder that for a moment: John and Furnish are allegedly raising their children in a household where the two parents are free to have sex with numerous other partners; they presumably consider this an acceptable moral environment in which to raise kids. Yet apparently it would be devastating for their children to learn about this in print.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Does this make any sense to you? Is there anything you do in your<\/em> marriage that would so profoundly disturb your children that you would muzzle freedom of speech to cover it up?<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n There\u2019s a dirty little secret about gay marriage that isn\u2019t actually all that secret: for a great many gay couples\u2014gay men at the very least\u2014\u201cmarriage\u201d is not, strictly speaking, marriage: most gay couples are not monogamous.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\nDon\u2019t Tell the Kids What They Already Know<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n\n\n<\/div>\n\nImagine That: Gay Marriage Isn\u2019t Actually Marriage<\/strong><\/h2>\n