|
IS GAY MARRIAGE INEVITABLE?
What's all the fuss about?
A couple of hundred same-sex couples in California flock to
the justice of the peace -- why should anybody care?
This is the single most powerful argument for gay marriage out
there: Why should you care?
The second most powerful argument is its twin sister: Gay
marriage is inevitable, so stop worrying about it.
Oddly, at the moment of its greatest apparent victory, the
consequences of gay marriage are becoming ever more clear.
As the gay marriage movement becomes more confident of
inevitable victory, it is also becoming more open and explicit
about what gay marriage will mean for the rest of us.
For example, redefining "infidelity." Back in the '90s, when
Andrew Sullivan first suggested gay couples had a thing or two to
teach opposite-sex couples about our rigid insistence on sexual
fidelity, public reaction was so negative that he recanted (and
to this day he gets mad if you even mention he said it!).
But from the new-won confidence of his legally recognized gay
marriage in Massachusetts, Eric Erbelding is quite comfortable
explaining to The New York Times: "Our rule is you can play
around because, you know, you have to be practical." Eric says
most married gay couples he knows are "for the most part
monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way."
For the most part ... except for the casual three-way?
Try explaining that one to your wife.
But hey, if the word "marriage" can be redefined as a civil
rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like "monogamy" or
"fidelity"?
Similarly, gay marriage advocates are becoming quite candid
about what this ruling, if left undisturbed, will mean for
traditional faith communities. A May 30 Washington Blade story
asked, "What about religious adoption agencies or daycare
centers? Will they be forced to accommodate gays?
"Experts say organizations that receive state and federal
funding will not be allowed to oppose working with gays for
religious reasons," the Blade forthrightly reports. "Some, most
notably Catholic Charities of Boston (gay marriage is legal in
Massachusetts), have opted to get out of the adoption business
rather than be forced to allow gays to adopt."
What about the next step: "Could churches in time risk their
tax-exempt status by refusing to marry gays?"
Here's what the gay newspaper of record thinks: "That remains
to be seen and will likely result in a steady stream of court
battles."
Even NPR, that bastion of evangelical hysteria, frankly
admitted this week: "Two titanic legal principles are crashing on
the steps of the church, synagogue and mosque: equal treatment
for same-sex couples on the one hand, and the freedom to exercise
religious beliefs on the other.
"The collision that will play out over the next few years will
be filled with pathos on both sides," NPR says. But the story
also acknowledges that so far, the religious groups are
losing.
I do not mean to underestimate the powerful forces pushing for
gay marriage. But excuse me, I'm 48 years old. I've grown up with
successive waves of progressive myths, all preaching "resistance
is futile." I was told as a teenager that nobody would be
pro-life once all the old folks died off, and that no mothers
would be home with children. I was told communism -- or at least
socialism -- was inevitable, too. Have you looked at the Soviet
Union lately?
War is not about killing your enemies; it's about crushing
your enemies' will to fight. Guess what? Culture war is too.
Nothing is inevitable but death and taxes. If we lose marriage
at the polls this November, it will be because gay folks cared
more, fought harder, gave more -- and I don't believe that's
going to happen.
Prediction: Californians are going to surprise the elites and
the progressive mythmakers by joining the 27 other states (from
Oregon to Wisconsin) that have voted to protect marriage as
between husband and wife.
We're here, we believe in marriage, get used to it.
(Readers may reach Maggie Gallagher at MaggieBox2004@yahoo.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2008 MAGGIE GALLAGHER
|