"Freedom to Dissent" on Gay Marriage—Would It Apply To Race, Too?
Print Friendly and PDF

 A bunch of bigwigs signed a statement in support of 1) gay marriage and 2) the right to express objection to it. [Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both  A Public Statement, April 22, 2014]

How gracious of them.  Yes, you grubby groundlings, you may retain your cherished beliefs—just remember that when it comes to the setting of actual policy, we tall beings of light will run the show.

From a purely tactical perspective (I do not support gay marriage), the success of the gay marriage movement has been one to behold.  It's got big wins and converts all over, pulling ahead decisively since the not-to-distant past when Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were on record as opposing it.  In less than a decade, it went from being an "are you nuts?" suggestion to one that people fear expressing opposition to.  All the more impressive when you consider that gay marriage was always a solution in search of a problem—there were precious few compelling tales of oppression and hardship arising from the inability of gays to marry.  They just wanted to, that's all. 

The courts—acting purely out of elitist, liberal impulses—are coming down in favor of gay marriage.

 One of these days, I'd like to see a careful analysis of how it achieved the success it did.  Of course, when the entire media/legal/think tank machine supports it, that certainly helps, but doesn't guarantee a win. Voters in California opposed it, only to be overruled by the federal courts. The gay mafia's got power.

 One idea:  the stakes weren't that high to begin with.  It's a crushing blow to traditionalism and Biblical values as expressed in the state power to grant marriage licenses, but no, I don't see too much evidence of how the existence of gay marriage tramples on the rights, pocketbooks or every day lives of everyone else.  There were a few eloquent defenses of traditional marriage—and the gut reaction of millions ranges from "wacky" to "disgusting."  But they never got traction.  "Marriage is between a man and woman" somehow turned to cardboard as the gay marriage tanks rolled through.  

My own personal objection is wrapped up in an overwhelming frustration with the deterioration of society generally—I half expect the pope to come out in favor of gay porn screenings for Catholic schoolkids sometime soon.  As a practical matter, homosexuality doesn't create children, and what business does a healthy society have putting the stamp of approval on a practice that undermines that?  If Mayor DiBlasio's formerly lesbian wife is right—that sexuality operates more on a spectrum than in discrete categories—shouldn't the traditional society bend its policies toward affirmation of heterosexuality?  Gay marriage is really a substance-free, symbolism-heavy culture battle, and the traditionalists are losing.

Question for the signers of the Politico statement:  would you say the same of racial issues?  I oppose "civil rights" on grounds that races aren't actually equal—would you oppose me getting fired from my job?  I suspect not.

Print Friendly and PDF