The Gay Marriage Movement Has Never Really Been About Gay Marriage
I'm recommending this column by Maggie Gallagher in National Review Online. She analyzes the arguments offered by the pro-gay marriage lobby, particularly that of equating resistance to gay marriage to racism, and demonstrates pretty effectively what the true goal is. Her conclusion is right on the money:
The architects of this strategy have targeted marriage because it stands in the way of the America they want to create: They hope to use the law to reshape the culture in exactly the same way that the law was used to reshape the culture of the old racist south.
Gay-marriage advocates are willing to use a variety of arguments to allay fears and reduce opposition to getting this new “equality” principle inserted in the law; these voices may even believe what they are saying. But once the principle is in the law, the next step will be to use the law to stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government’s new views on marriage and sexual orientation.
And,
Many of the harshest legal conflicts could be alleviated with religious-exemption legislation. But gay-marriage advocates will fight those religious exemptions tooth and nail (as they did in Massachusetts when the Catholic Church asked for one for Catholic Charities) because, they will say, it’s the principle of the thing: We wouldn’t give a religious-liberty exemption to a racist, so why should someone who opposes gay marriage get one?
We miss the forest for exact descriptions of trees when we offer up the track record of homosexual promiscuity and disease, the need of children for a father and a mother, and the slippery slope of polygamous, bestial, and incestuous unions as primary reasons why gay marriage should remain illegal. Every one of these arguments is quite true, and useful in some contexts. Yet each of them assumes that what gay marriage advocates want is marriage. Ms. Gallagher makes the compelling point that the goal is not marriage but elevation of sodomy to the status of an inalienable right, with all the chilling ramifications that would have for anyone who dares to speak or to advise in favor of biblical norms.
The architects of this strategy have targeted marriage because it stands in the way of the America they want to create: They hope to use the law to reshape the culture in exactly the same way that the law was used to reshape the culture of the old racist south.
Gay-marriage advocates are willing to use a variety of arguments to allay fears and reduce opposition to getting this new “equality” principle inserted in the law; these voices may even believe what they are saying. But once the principle is in the law, the next step will be to use the law to stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government’s new views on marriage and sexual orientation.
And,
Many of the harshest legal conflicts could be alleviated with religious-exemption legislation. But gay-marriage advocates will fight those religious exemptions tooth and nail (as they did in Massachusetts when the Catholic Church asked for one for Catholic Charities) because, they will say, it’s the principle of the thing: We wouldn’t give a religious-liberty exemption to a racist, so why should someone who opposes gay marriage get one?
We miss the forest for exact descriptions of trees when we offer up the track record of homosexual promiscuity and disease, the need of children for a father and a mother, and the slippery slope of polygamous, bestial, and incestuous unions as primary reasons why gay marriage should remain illegal. Every one of these arguments is quite true, and useful in some contexts. Yet each of them assumes that what gay marriage advocates want is marriage. Ms. Gallagher makes the compelling point that the goal is not marriage but elevation of sodomy to the status of an inalienable right, with all the chilling ramifications that would have for anyone who dares to speak or to advise in favor of biblical norms.
Labels: Families
posted by Aaron @ 3:06 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
The whole gay marriage thing would not be an issue if:
(1) We realized that marriage is inherently a religious institution
...and...
(2) The government should have never gotten into the business of regulating a religious institution in the first place.
Think about it. Imagine if you were only allowed to take communion if you were on an official government registry. The religious people would go crazy if that were to happen, but they don't for marriage. We just don't see our own inconsistency.
This error has cause much discrimination against single people. I mean, what difference should it make whether you are married or not when it comes to paying a tax based on your income? People look the other way with this discrimination because the overwhelming majority are married.
Lyle, many Christians would join you in saying marriage is an inherently religious institution, considering this to be self-evident. But is it? Consider that the institution of marriage in Genesis 1-2 is given to the entire human race, before the Fall. Does this not imply that God expects all humanity to marry? Marriage existed before the church, and indeed before the need for redemption, which is the whole reason for the church. To approach the same matter another way, does the seventh commandment apply only to believers, or is all humanity accountable to God for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18)?
In the gospel, marriage is shown to be a type of the relationship between Christ and His church (revealing a heretofore unseen reality within it) but this does not undo its basic design as the building block of the family, and thus, society.
I will agree with your second point, though, at least a little. Governmental intrusion into matters beyond its scope (along the lines of Romans 13) is truly scary. Government does properly bear the sword to punish evildoers, however, and this would presumably include those who abandon or otherwise mistreat their families. Therefore, the civil government has some role vis-a-vis the family.
That government becomes a tyrant when it takes to itself the regulation of religious belief, along the lines of your communion example. That would be a bit like King Uzziah burning incense in the Temple; he doesn't belong there. But there is a fundamental distinction between the sacraments (which are for the called-out church only), and marriage (which is for everyone). Mindfulness of this distinction, btw, is one of the key reasons why, unlike Rome, Protestantism has never called marriage a sacrament.
With that foundation, let me respond to your final paragraph. I would very much like to see a simplified tax code, along the lines of a flat income tax, or perhaps even something like a value-added tax, which (so the argument goes) taxes consumption only, rewarding saving.
There may be overwhelming arguments against both of these, of course; my point is that the whole debate is confined within economics. Which is why a person with different circumstances than yours might object to your characterizing the system as discriminating against single people. What about the so-called marriage penalty, some would undoubtedly ask?
Proponents of the status quo would likely reply that the current law is intended to reward/aid those who have undertaken the staggering expense of raising children (e.g. by providing child tax credits), because (the argument goes) the bearing of children is an overall economic good for the entire society. (There has to be a next generation of workers to fund the golden years of all those childless retirees, after all)
Economic arguments come and go (and can be argued endlessly). Another factor in the crazy mix of tax policy is that well-intended efforts by Congress to reward certain behaviors and penalize others often have unintended consequences. I already mentioned the VAT idea, which reasons that the present system of taxing of income actually rewards consumption and discourages saving. I don't know how to sort all this out, but I do lean toward simplification and the rewarding of the sort of economic risk-taking that tends to create enterprises that give more people work to do.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home