Clarifying Positions (Maybe)

I have a few answers of my own to Liam’s response to my last piece on the subject of gay marriage and adoption.

I have, thus far, understood Don to be advocating that homosexuals be excluded from marriages recognized by the state (i.e., civil marriages.) If that is not the case, then my efforts have been misguided.

Perhaps.  Starting with the piece that started this ball rolling, I have always hoped that someone would come up with a more creative solution to this problem.  For example, if the state simply went to civil unions entirely, the Christian churches could concentrate on building up relationships that really reflected the relationship between Christ and his church rather than had proper legal status, because the two would have a clear distinction.  Everyone else could pursue their own agendas for marriage and the family.

But that hasn’t happened. Gay marriage is what has been demanded.  In Canada, homosexual groups opposed the idea that civil marriage be abolished altogether.  Here and in the UK they’ve also opposed extending civil unions to heterosexual couples (as is the case in France.)

The result was commented on by Jeff Gannon of the Washington Blade:

Gay leaders demonized opponents of same-sex marriage as hateful bigots and homophobes, completely ignoring the religious and social motivations behind the opposition. The reality is that marriage as the union of one man and one woman is our most basic social institution and deeply rooted in our culture.

Even though during the last few thousands of years marriage has had some variations that departed from strict monogamy, same-sex combinations have never been one of them. Gay marriage represents such a fundamental change that few can grasp it, let alone support it.

Instead of waging efforts to change hearts and minds, gay movement leaders have tried to bludgeon opponents and pursued a strategy where a very small minority would impose its will on a vast majority though judicial fiat.

But back to Liam:

I have little patience for those who wish to be part of a private club for no reason other than that they have been told that the club does not want them.

Where were you when Augusta National needed you?  In case this news hasn’t filtered out your way, this country club (where the Masters golf tournament is played) has fought a long campaign to force it to admit women members.  But seriously, Liam has hit upon an important issue: freedom of association.  Liam’s desires notwithstanding, there is a substantial movement that would break freedom of association in the name of "fairness" and "anti-discrimination."  That’s what drove the litigation in NJ about the Boy Scouts.

We can float solutions like getting the state out of the marriage business, or allowing people to continue to exercise their First Amendment rights in freedom of religion and association.  But such ideas will probably sink in the storm of our political and social dynamic.

One Reply to “Clarifying Positions (Maybe)”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: