Whoever thought that there would be actual voiced concerns about men in America wanting to marry their goats? Is there something going on in our great Heartland that I’ve missed? Instead of “The L Word” does Showtime have a special series just for the Midwest called “The G Word”?
Of course not.
But the debate over the idea of gay marriage has brought out concerns by one extremist end that it will lead to people marrying their livestock to Gay Gestapo charges of homophobic bigotry against those opposed to same-sex nuptials.
Neither accusation is valid, so as an independent gay woman, I think it’s time to make a few things clear. First of all, despite what you hear from the Gay Elite, there is not a consensus in the gay community about this issue. We do not all operate in the cultural or political equivalent of a Vulcan mind-meld.
I, one among many, respect and understand the growing concern about the disintegration of our traditions and values. I am so concerned, it is the heart and soul of my second book, The Death of Right and Wrong.
Consequently, I respect the majority of Americans and their opinion that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman.
At the same time, as an American, I also believe that every American deserves the same rights and protections as every other. Most of you do, too. The very same polls that show how united Americans are against “gay marriage” indicate a majority approving of civil unions.
That doesn’t surprise me. It is consistent with the American belief that we can have fair play and equality while recognizing the need to honor traditional institutions.
Frankly, I believe the cultural trouble and moral vapidity in our society today—the moral relativism I write about in DRW—has sprung from the ‘liberation’ movements of the ‘60s and ‘70s. It was then that the Left began to attack the traditional in the name of liberation and equality.
Anything that would strike a pose against authority and social norms, ranging from promiscuous sex to drug abuse to adultery to riotous violence, was embraced and encouraged by leftist leadership. The “Counter Culture” was born.
Courtesy of cultural Incrementalism (which I explained in my previous column) what it became has rivaled Rosemary’s Baby.
Today’s struggle with single-parent families, drug addiction, the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among the young, suicide rates, the devaluing of the family, and even the extraordinarily high divorce rate, I contend, can be traced back to the time which lionized the destruction of the traditional and the elevation of moral relativism.
Despite this, American society remains committed to equality, but it’s apparent that we don’t like the aftermath of taking our traditions for granted. So, yes, we’ve decided to maintain the idea of “marriage” as it has stood, while finding another way to guarantee the rights of gay people.
While this should actually be a relatively easy situation to resolve (heck, Bush, Kerry and Edwards all hold the same position—against gay marriage, for civil unions), all Hell seems to have broken loose—not only in San Francisco, but in Washington, D.C., as well.
On one hand you have the reckless law-breaking behavior of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom bestowing marriage licenses on gay couples. A few of my gay friends have voiced their support for this. I reminded these friends, who are also pro-choice, that Fresno, California has a pro-life mayor. How would they feel if that mayor decided to ignore the law and keep women from accessing their legal abortion rights?
They heard me, but it was disturbing that I had to put this into perspective.
Now, in Washington, D.C., the president has declared the need to amend the U.S. Constitution! Really now—that appears to be as much of a stunt as the rogue gay marriages in San Francisco. And this from a man (who along with Cheney) in the last election who said it should be a matter left to the states. It seems, though, only if the states do what you like.
Clearly, the Constitution should be amended as a last resort. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, or abortion, or saving the spotted owl (or not), the Constitution is not made of silly putty—to be twisted and shaped and torn apart depending on our national mood. It is written in a way that makes us have to struggle with issues we face.
After all, if we are truly committed to wanting to save and not tamper with our traditional institutions, which represent the core of the American value system, doesn’t the Constitution fall into that category as well?
I am heartened by a few true conservatives, including Representative David Dreier (whom I got to know on the Schwarzenegger Transition Team), who have voiced concerns about the rush to amend.
We’ve been through worse; we’ve survived and found solutions. We’ll survive this too, but the gay community must come to terms with a few issues first.
Gays ultimately need to stop looking to government for unconditional love and approval of who we are. Andrew Sullivan, a political commentator and writer many of you know and respect, wrote a piece for Time magazine where he actually equated governmental recognition of gay marriage as a necessary element to all gay people feeling accepted and wanted. He claimed that anything other than marriage will “build a wall between gay people and their own families.”
While his story was personal and moving, the argument was, frankly, nonsense, and representative of the general mentality among the gay elite. It also gives the government and other people’s opinions far too much power over the quality of our lives and effectively eliminates our own responsibility for our happiness.
Part of the fight for gay marriage is based in Sullivan’s lament—that it is only governmental recognition of who are that will make us whole. Let’s get real—the only thing that will make gay people whole is personal acceptance of ourselves by ourselves. Instead, we are still looking to Mommy or Daddy, now in the form of Society, to tell us we’re “okay” – to sanctify, if you will, our lives and relationships.
Society has been the benevolent parent for a very long time. And it has been amazing, and a testament to the American character, that despite being a people of faith who have legitimate concerns about the gay lifestyle, Americans have made this the best place on Earth for gays and lesbians, where we are free to live incomparably rich lives.
Now, when Americans have said through polls and voting, that they do not want to give up the meaning of marriage but support a comparable alternative, how do the gay elite respond? When you ask for one cultural thing to be left untouched, the Gay Elite become the Gay Gestapo.
It’s a very fast change from the polo shirt to the brown shirt these days.
In classic Thought Police fashion and like children throwing a tantrum, the name-calling flies—those who oppose gay marriage are “homophobes,” “haters” and, the label du jour, “bigots.” Once again, the Left, unable to answer critics with respect, resort to name-calling only to further the divide they need to validate their inevitable victimhood.
Marriage is worth protecting, in more ways than one. It’s also worth noting the cavalier way in which heterosexuals have handled marriage has lent fuel to the fire of this issue.
How seriously can any of us take the president’s vow to “protect the sanctity of marriage” when Britney Spears indulges in it for 5 minutes in Vegas? Marriage has become a television reality game show. And protecting children? Before amending the Constitution, perhaps the Feds should make divorce a little harder to get. It’s divorce that is ruining children’s lives at the moment, not a couple of lesbians who want to get married (no matter how scary some of those pictures were out of San Francisco).
If George W. Bush is serious about “saving the institution,” he has his hands full and he’s running late.