Gayness, Litigation

JW,

The case that promises to be to homosexuals what Roe v. Wade was to irresponsible women is happening in San Francisco right now. The plaintiffs, shockingly led by Bush-administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson, are arguing in Federal District Court that Proposition 8--the recent California measure that outlawed gay marriage by popular decree--is unconstitutional. Regardless of which side wins, the case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. May I predict a 5-4 vote with [the clerks of] Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority? I'd bet my life on it.

Similarly, I'd wager very large stakes on the following, though the smart bookmaker has long since taken it off the board: Whether or not this case is the one that does it, gay marriage is going to happen in this country, sooner rather than later. Though in no way the moral equivalent of interracial marriage (more on this in a moment), gay marriage is already following the public-opinion trajectory that led to 1967's Loving v. Virginia, and while that case's 9-0 decision delivered a cultural exclamation point that today's divided court cannot and will not duplicate, a split decision will carry equal legal weight.

The problem for Conservatives is that the generational shifts, media blitzes, and snazzy spokespeople who have spearheaded the gay-rights movement have been met with a political and rhetorical strategy that is not just useless but morally suspect. Gay marriage, the Conservative argues, goes against how marriage has always been defined. It damages the institution of heterosexual marriage. It forces the values of a small minority upon an unwilling majority. Meaningless, absurd, and insensitive, respectively. The truth of the matter is that Conservatives--even those few who don't identify with a religious faith--are opposed to gay marriage because they believe that homosexuality is wrong. They're afraid to say so, for the most part--they've long had moral certitude beaten out of them by a culture that holds absolute truth in lower esteem than pedophiles--but that's the heart of their opposition. Appropriately articulated, such a case makes a distinction between homosexual identity--like blackness, a morally neutral fact--and the homosexual act, which has no equivalent in the civil rights narrative. Homosexuals and their allies will argue that asking gay men and women to be celibate is cruel and unreasonable, but society has no problem asking thieves not to steal, for example. Either the homosexual act is in that category or it isn't. If not, there is no basis upon which to deny homosexuals the right to marry. None.

Careful readers will understand, then, that a society unhinged from Religion's objective truths cannot long forbid any activity that one human commits unless it measurably harms another. All laws--all moral standards--will be based not on principles exterior to (and thus independent of) society's current beliefs but on shifting cultural ideals. Just as homosexuality has come to be accepted, so too will bestiality, incest, and polygamy--provided a large enough minority wishes to practice those things. What is inconceivable today is tomorrow's norm. Everything in post-Christian history tells us as much.

A final note: Despite Obama's stated opposition to gay marriage--the biggest and most obnoxious political whopper since Jimmy Carter claimed Christianity--the Sophisticate-in-Chief will be leading the parade when it finally happens. Can we please get a news story calling him out on it?

-GM

GM,

"...provided a large enough minority wishes to practice those things."

This dependent clause was perhaps the most important excerpt from your entry. Though it may not have been the most compelling or provocative, it provoked me to begin with this question: Do we live in the land of the free or the land of the majority?

First, so I can't be accused of not taking a stance, let me quickly express my opinion on gay marriage. We live in a society where pimps and prostitutes profit in Nevada, where pornographers who demean women as a gender make a better living than teachers, where bartenders can drop a few grand on breast implants and get a 100-percent return on investment in one fiscal quarter, and where infidelity is glorified in entertainment more often than it is rebuked. By no means whatsoever can this society make a moral judgment on whose genitals belong where. We can, however, decide what we want, and, more specifically, what we want to acknowledge.

So to the liberal, I say, "Stop trying to raise awareness; everyone knows." For now, the people of most states have thought about it and decided they'd rather not live in a place where marriage is defined as the union of any two consenting people. And really, that's the issue--or at least it should be. It's not about what we're letting homosexuals do; it's about what we're willing to call it. The last time I checked, that's our choice. By popular demand (sorry, LGBT), we're electing to hold off on calling it marriage. And if this social issue can't be left up to the states, we might as well not even have states, as their sovereignty has completely vanished.

I don't believe straight married couples should receive any benefits from the government, as this is a decision to respect one lifestyle over another. So as long as a straight couple can get a tax write-off, there should theoretically be a way for a gay couple to get the same write-off. But do we as a society want to call it marriage? For now, no. The majority is free to make that decision.

Knowing this, Obama told a lie so transparent that even Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese gave him the benefit of the doubt by not believing him!!! Now there's a politician who can do no wrong!

-JW