One moment gay and lesbian protesters are demanding that we regard them not by their insipid sexual acts, but as complex human beings deserving of the same inalienable rights the constitution reserves for all "humans." The next moment they are labeling and dismissing any human who breaks ranks with their cause.
Exhibit A: Mary Cheney, the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney. Amid the hubbub over the proposed gay marriage amendment, gay protesters have trained their scorn on Mary. A new website, dearmary.com, attempts to shame her for not publicly opposing the administration's support of an amendment banning same sex unions. A proposed ad on the web site features Mary's picture on a milk carton. The caption reads, "Have you seen me?" and suggests that she is a coward for not joining their cause. The site also posts thousands of emails imploring Mary to speak out for homosexual rights. Web founder and DC political consultant John Aravosis sees nothing wrong with harassing the Vice President's daughter. "The White House has no problem publicly discussing whether my family's relationships are valid and healthy, yet they refuse to discuss their own," said Aravosis to The Washington Post.
Never mind that they've completely objectified Mary. Never mind that they've distilled this complex human being into a symbol designed solely to solicit a knee-jerk reaction. Or that they've shown no respect for her right to privacy. Or that they've put her sexuality on a public stage and demanded that she sculpt it to meet their idea of proper gay etiquette-as defined not by an abiding respect for human privacy or civil rights, but by what they think a homosexual ought to do.
Get it? Mary doesn't act as gay as they feel she should so they label and dismiss her. How neat and easy and ridiculously absurd. I mean, isn't this precisely the sort of reductive stereotyping that the homosexual activists are supposed to be fighting against? I mean, isn't that their thing? Respecting a human beings freedom to make intimate decisions without heaps of third-party indignation and scorn? Apparently the ideas that are supposed to animate their cause with meaning fall by the wayside at the first chance for some decent pub.
All of which is incredibly telling. The homosexual activist aren't so much concerned with respecting an individual's right to privacy, as they are with forcing social change. If that means harassing the Vice President's daughter, so be it. If it means undermining the standards and norms of a culture they never felt a part of, even better.
After all, why do gay couples want the church's blessing? They could go about their business just fine without having been "wed" in a church, right? Unless there is more to it. It is political, and often economic. They want greater standing and treatment among the heterosexual majority. The best way, they believe, to achieve that end is through a union like marriage. So much the better if anti-gay institutions are destroyed as a result. They see it as another victory. But if you look behind the rhetoric about civil rights, it becomes clear that they are acting at the expense of what is best for society, and to grant them victory, would be to rip our most sacred religious and cultural ideals to shreds. This no one owes them!