The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : The Gay Marriage Bandwagon

Text Size

The Gay Marriage Bandwagon

By W. James Antle, III on 5.1.09 @ 12:49PM

In the issue of The American Spectator now going to press, I have a column looking at recent shifts in the same-sex marriage debate. That debate has been remarkably stable for the past 16 years. The reason for that stability was a broad national consensus that marriage is a union between a man and a woman that held up even as public support for something called same-sex marriage was on the rise. Ballot initiatives reaffirming traditional marriage pass easily in both red and blue states. Same-sex marriage was only possible in states where the voters had no recourse against the judges, but even those states were easily marginalized because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

No more. Vermont took the first step, redefining marriage through a legislative act and overriding the governor's veto. New York is contemplating a similar move, with apparent popular support. This week, the New Hampshire voted 13-11 in favor of same-sex marriage. Yesterday the Maine legislature approved a similar bill by 21-14. Public opinion has been trending in same-sex marriage's favor in Massachusetts since Goodridge. Connecticut's legislature is moving toward ratifying a state supreme court's decision to impose gay marriage.

Although Democratic politicians have been as slow to adapt to these changing political circumstances as authentic social conservatives, support for same-sex marriage has become a mainstream liberal position. We are seeing a trend toward same-sex marriage in blue states and traditional marriage in red states, a divide that will be very hard to sustain. Ryan Sager, a gay marriage supporter, says that these state actions might be producing a bandwagon effect in favor of same-sex marriage nationally.

Obviously, I don't agree with Sager's framing of the issue, much less his substantive position. But on the question of whether the "storming is coming" -- and also how history is likely to treat marital traditionalists if they lose -- I think he's exactly right.

View all comments (24) | Leave a comment

Dan| 5.1.09 @ 2:03PM

You're dodging the issue.

The legal issue of same-sex marriage will depend on whether or not a social stigma exists on the behavior in question.

To the extent that social stigma decays, likewise the position of holding the line on marriage will decay. BUT, to the extent that people continue to understand that the behavior in question isn't simply demonstrably pathological, but intrinsically immoral, and immoral semper et pro semper, then the position against marriage won't just be maintained, but grow stronger.

Conservatives can't even bring themselves to say publicly that the behavior at bar is a wrong, a malum in se, and not merely some malum prohibutum.

Think of it this way. WAY BACK IN ANTIQUITY, in societies that sacrificed their young, engaged in orgastic religious rituals and offered human sacrifice to the "gods," even in societies such as that which got so much wrong, even them, as clearly whacked out as they were, EVEN THEM NEVER considered extending marriage privileges to "same sexers."

There is some decadence that you have to be "well-educated" and overly degreed to embrace. And the pathology in question happens to be one of them.

So man up, cut to the chase, and address whether we're dealing with a malum in se or malum prohibutum.

W. James Antle III| 5.1.09 @ 2:36PM

Dan, the social stigma against homosexuality has already decayed. The fact that we've relied on that social stigma, rather than inculcating a full understanding of why marriage is a union between a man and a woman, is the reason the debate is trending in the direction it is. People support same-sex marriage because they see traditional marriage as stigmatizing homosexuality, a stigma they don't understand or regard as bigotry.

There is no question that if homosexuality was as effectively stigmatized as it once was, we wouldn't be talking about "gay marriage." But those stigmas have broken down, and not just among the "well-educated" and "overly degreed." Taking a declining view of homosexuality shouting it louder won't win the debate.

Jim Hlavac| 5.1.09 @ 3:55PM

There you go again, Spectator. Yep, got to prevent gay marriage, by whatever name. But keep divorce legal and celebrate serial monogamy, adultery, wife swapping and any other straight shenanigans, for it's good and wholesome, no doubt. And sure, let's get all those gays back into the closet or jail or worse, and have them in fear and loathing of their very being and nature. And for what purpose? You don't like gays, simple and true. And no doubt the lessons of history are important, like when woman could not own property, and were treated as property, back in the good old days. And when slavery was legal and Bible-blessed. Yep, what a time! Meanwhile a brief sentence should sum it all up. "All Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Apparently gays are not part of this little bit of inconvenience of the social contract you claim is under peril from every source. I suppose gays should all move to one state and then you can let us secede and be done with the problem of two people living in harmony with each other with legal protection for their union according to their own choice and desire.
Keep it up, you'll get a majority to agree with you any day now to get rid of the gay problem in America. You can then join Iran as another country "with no homosexuals." Charming.

Russet| 5.1.09 @ 3:56PM

These comments make laugh - gay, gay, all the way!

Dan| 5.1.09 @ 4:18PM

W. James, healthy societies don't go around bantering about the specifics of the intellectual position against homosexualism. It's a given. It's like the air you breathe.

The subject at bar is so morbid, that healthy people have better things to do with their time. Discussing how many angels dance on the head of a pin may have been diverting, wasteful, needlessly picyune, {sp?} but such a conversation wasn't morbid.

This issue is morbid.

Fixating, as some have ardently desired that we should fixate, is morbid.

Is the stigma decayed? Yes and no. Yes because nobody has the courage to man up and say it's wrong. No to the extent that wide numbers still think it's something wrong. BUT, they're not willing to say so openly, because they don't want to be targeted, or sometimes for the very simple reason they don't want to appear strident or disagreeable.

But I'd maintain that the numbers are still there. EVEN OREGON didn't jump on board legalizing this behavior. That should tell us something.

"Bigotry?" Is it "bigoted" to suscribe to the Western cannon on this issue? Is it "bigoted" to happen to think, {not just feel, but think, reason, intellectually work out} that the issue is so cut and dried, one of those self-evident truths that former generations understood, that opposition is OBLIGATED. That's it's so clear that we're left with no option on the subject.

Jim H., you lack sophistication. Which is par for the course for the Perez Hilton gang. Nobody here is eager to throw you behind bars. Nobody here is even considering that. Jail space is at a premium, and we have more important creatures to put behind slammers.

All we're saying is that a healthy and sophisticated society wouldn't be treating on the subject, wouldn't be fixating on it, wouldn't be hosting gay "pride" parades, wouldn't be having men's rooms places where little boys couldn't go unattended.

A healthy society would seem avoid the whole subject, and decline the invitation to get all obsessed about it.

We're effectively being invited to obsess on something that we shouldn't. And those extending the invitation are those suffering from a needless obsession.

Dan| 5.1.09 @ 4:24PM

You have my sympathy, but my sympathy does not entail my intellectual consent, nor my intellectual sanction.

Man exists within a moral universe he did not create, and priests and prelates did not create needless restrictions on sexual expression. That hindrance exists within you by virtue of your making, and did not await formalization by subsequent priestly classes.

Every single person West of the Red River could jump for joy over same-sex marriage, and every single person East thereof could pine away to participate in such a ceremony, but for all that, the behavior in itself would not, could not become morally licit. Public opinion cannot make something moral, that is immoral, semper et pro semper.

Sorry, but that's the lay of the moral universe.

Dan| 5.1.09 @ 4:26PM

My latter post didn't apply to W. James, but to the other posters.

Roy| 5.1.09 @ 6:04PM

"We're effectively being invited to obsess on something that we shouldn't. And those extending the invitation are those suffering from a needless obsession."

Yeah, I agree, but that pass has been sold. In fact, I'm guessing a lot of people are supporting this agenda because they hope that if the gayists get what they want, the issue will go away and they won't have to think about it.(They are wrong; the next thing that will happen is endless "anti-discrimination" lawsuits against anybody who treats normal marriage as the norm, which people won't even realize they do till it's too late. Do you run a bridal shop that only contains dresses? BIGOT!)
Certainly if you want the issue to go the other way it's going to require a sustained period of "obsession" to reverse what has already happened.
Pessimistically I think it is too late for this issue. The educational establishment and popular culture are both thoroughly gayist and between the two the younger generation is strongly gayist. Nobody's going to stand up to that. In that respect like pretty much every other respect we're in steep moral decline. There's going to be gay marriage followed in a decade or two by plural marriage followed a generation or two later by "interspecies marriage". All will be followed by a blizzard of "antidiscrimination" lawsuits to silence anyone who disagrees. It's possible that before that happens secular marriage will collapse under the weight of its own absurdity, but that will cause plenty of damage too in the form of more and more children's lives run by family court judges.

I think the pro-life movement is going to have to quickly and aggressively separate itself to avoid being dragged down. "Abortion and homosexuality" should never be allowed to be spoken together without an instant disavowal; it's like saying "The Holocaust and rampant single parenthood".

However - if a fight is going to be put up it will require distinguishing people with a certain set of desires, or even people who regularly act on those desires, from people who promote this behavior as a political agenda. Most gays are not extreme gayists, and most gayists, including extreme gayists, are not gay. The words "homosexualist" abbreviated to "gayist" have to be aggressively used everywhere the subject arises.

BPT (Australia)| 5.1.09 @ 8:06PM

Laws or no laws, this reminds me of the abortion issue, and it will make America a more divisive nation. In the long run, Republicans will win over more voters because of this though.

somnolence| 5.1.09 @ 10:33PM

Is there any in-between, or middle in this debate?What about those folks that are asexual? I bet the gay lobby doesn't believe that asexuality or celibacy among couples cohabiting exists, but it does in significant numbers. But of course that is culturally incorrect for the news media to broadcast that.

Dan| 5.1.09 @ 11:41PM

Somnolent,

I think the middle ground was the classy non-reference to their presence.

The "gays" drop using that term, {which is linguistic hijacking}, knock off their parades, stop holding San Francisco and the beautiful bay area hostage, and in return, nobody bothers them.

Restrictions on service in the military still obtain, marriage is off-limits, but then again, there are no progroms and there aren't any prosecutions. And everybody goes on with life as if the issue had never been brought up.

That would be the classy and sophisticated option. That would be the middle ground. They're left with their conscience, society is untroubled because kids are once more able to go to the men's room without adult escort, and Hollywood ceased all attempts to force this down America's throat.

It would be what is oft termed a "win win."

But they're too damn strident, too damn frenzied, too damn lost to even be able to entertain the thought.

Roy| 5.2.09 @ 3:19AM

Re: Dan:

'It would be what is oft termed a "win win." '

No, it wouldn't. From where we are now to that would require massive, repeated victories over the homosexualists. That is, we win, they lose. You see that happening?

grzmlyk| 5.2.09 @ 9:00AM

Sanity has lost the debate. Again. People under 30 love the idea of gay marriage. Everyone in the media and the arts trips over themselves in their rush to normalize it. Craven politicians are holding as firm as paper plates in a summer shower.

It's over; we'll see the states fall like dominoes. The momentum has only begun. Another victim group uses the battering ram of "civil rights" to open yet another breach in what was once an edifice of cohesive culture (every stable society has taboos) . And like all insensate mobs that storm the palace, they have no respect whatsoever for the valuables contained therein.

It's not equal ownership of the crown jewels they want; like any mob, what they really lust after is the power to settle some scores and destroy those of us (and our institutions) they "feel" have oppressed them lo these many years.

Just as we see with the feminists and the greenies (who ain't about respect for women or preserving the environment), it's about finally having in their grasp the power to destroy. The reign of Terror is upon us and is being abetted by a good number of the Palace 'Guard themselves.

I almost feel sorry for the jihadists; they must feel cheated now that they have to stand in line.

History shows that the prognosis for those representing the old guard - those with a vested interest in the dying dominant culture who now have targets on their backs - is not a good one.

But no matter how the winds of political correctness blow, these people will never be normal; they know it, and that just makes them hone the blades of retribution with all the more glee. The abettors smile with self congratulation never suspecting that they're next.

Anton B.| 5.2.09 @ 10:39AM

Dan, you have made clear that you believe that homosexual acts are per se immoral. How do you respond to the person who has homosexual feelings and would like to share them with another person who has homosexual feelings? Just don't do it because it is immoral? He will ask WHY it is immoral and will you say simply because it is immoral? He will ask, is it immoral for me to marry and have a physical relationship with someone of the opposite sex, despite never having a desire for her? You will likely say no, that that is the MORAL thing for him to do. He will ask if he has a duty to tell his wife about his desires, and I imagine you will say yes, because to NOT tell her would be to lie to her, which should not happen in a marriage. He will tell you that he likely will not be able to marry, then, because few women will be interested in marrying a man like that. You will tell him to seek psychological help, or spiritual help. He will tell you that there is no legitimate, scientific proof that either of those can cure his condition. He will also tell you that he is lonely, and still confused as to why he and his friend, who enjoy each other, cannot "enjoy" each other as they both wish. You will tell him, just because. He will wonder if it is actually immoral for him NOT to behave in the way that God made him, you will tell him that it wasn't God who made him that way, but rather Satan (or evil). He will tell you that he has done a lot of praying, and has been an active member of his church, but still feels this way. You will tell him to keep trying. He will tell you that he really, really wants to be a moral person, but also really, really wants companionship. He will think about suicide.

Simply saying it is immoral semper et pro semper (nice Latin, btw), does not take away the problems these people face.

I would also like to challenge you on the issue of hermaphroditic people. You say marriage and sex are strictly restricted to one man and one woman. But what do you tell the person who was born a little bit of both? You're out of luck on companionship in this life, because . . . well, just because?

Dan| 5.2.09 @ 2:30PM

No. Let's not trivialize it by reducing the issue to what I do, or do not "believe." This isn't about subjectivism, relativism. This is about the distilled wisdom upon the subject of generation after generation, going back unto the dawn of time itself. This is about what the mind, on its own, by its own lights, objectively, can work out, upon the subject at bar. And what's more, HAS worked out, collectively, generation after generation, tribe after tribe, community after community, nation after nation, state after state.

No society, no tribe, no community, not even the lost souls given over to shrinking heads, not even those given over to chomping down upon human flesh, not even those have ever considered sanctioning this behavior by recognizing what we are now ordered, coerced, strongarmed into recognizing.

This isn't about tolerance. This is about mental conformity. And it's utterly futile. Their conscience works upon them, and will continue to work upon them grinding down their self-serving rationalizations into the dust.

This isn't about what I think; it's not about how I subscribe to the millenium old Western cannon. It's about that cannon itself, and it's about whether morality can, or cannot be worked out by the mind of man.

Is morality a matter of feelings, temporary and subject to the mouth of every fool that roars, or is morality a matter of the mind.

What we're witnessing in this bad taste attack upon cultural mores, is nothing short of an attack upon the very mind of man.

Dan| 5.2.09 @ 2:37PM

And it's that, that attack, which bothers me to no end.

That's what gets me worked up.

It's that which calls me to the barricades.

I don't desire to see these people tormented, but regardless of their feelings, and regardless of mine, there is a moral universe, which man is subject to, and which exists FOR HIM, and not against him. Morality is not some straitjacket upon the mind of man, nor upon his actions. It is given by an all-knowing and all-loving father, who has deigned to allow his children to share in the fullness of discerning what is right, and good, and what constitutes the beautiful.

But this very subject, this ongoing and growing furor, is what follows when a society has lost sight of the Natural Law. For without the Natural Law, then we're left with nothing but an unrelenting power struggle, and a "civil discourse" that consists of nothing but endless shouting, ranting raving, protesting and parading, placards and sloganeering. And that's where we are today.

It's a total breakdown of the public square, and it's all because we've lost sight of the Natural Law.

Dan| 5.2.09 @ 2:41PM

Roy,

No. I don't see that happening. For the simple reason, that people like Perez Hilton and the Hollywood gang lack the simple manners, class and good taste to see their way clear to accepting something of a shared contract of silence.

We do know this however. The verdict of history on societies that embrace that attitude and accept that behavior, isn't very comforting.

I think we're heading for Weimar. I think we're heading for a fascism.

Kat| 5.2.09 @ 3:29PM

Dan, you're a douchebag. You rail on and on about morality like it isn't subjective. Not everyone subscribes to your brand of Christianity. Get over it. You lost. Deal with it. If you say "morals" or "morality" one more fucking time, I'm going to break my hand punching my computer monitor.

Cameron| 5.2.09 @ 10:05PM

What I don't understand is what little boys going to the bathroom have to do with gay marriage. Last time I checked men's toilets were safe depending on their location, the time of day and perhaps their proximity to drugs, not the sexuality of their occupants.

There is no such thing as a universal set of morals.
When you look 'moral' up in the dictionary, the resulting definition is something along these lines; "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes."

That does not mean that my morals and your morals are the same. Nor will either of our morals be the same as our next door neighbours. Stop fooling yourself into thinking that you're the only right one here. You're right. But that's just according to you.

Anton B.| 5.3.09 @ 9:14AM

Dan, I'm troubled by your unwillingness to question which parts of the "moral universe" are actually universal truths and which are social constructs. I agree that there are objective moral truths, and many in the pro gay marriage crowd do, too (not sure about the Perez Hilton wing, though). Cannibalism is wrong because it destroys our own species (leaving the more difficult Andes mountain question aside). Pedophilism is wrong because children are neither completely developed beings nor legally autonomous individuals yet. Interspecies relationships are wrong because there can be no consent. Of course each of these have many more reasons for their wrongness, but at least each of them HAVE reason to be wrong other than "it's wrong because it always has been wrong."

While history can be evidence suggesting a universal moral wrong, it by no means proves it. I argue that homosexuality (and by extension, gay marriage) is NOT universally wrong despite the historic condemnation of it. The historic condemnation of it can be explained by (1) the ick factor (it runs counter to how most people's sexuality run, so it seems absolutely gross to most people); (2) the small population of gay people (if a larger portion of the population were gay it would be less easy to condemn them); and (3) the ability to hide it (easy for gays to pretend they're not; not easy for races to hide). People like Paul cemented this into the Bible, Christianity spread like wildfire, and the circular argument began to run and run, from tribe to tribe (Why is it wrong? cuz the Bible says. Why does the Bible say? cuz it's wrong.)

Anton B.| 5.3.09 @ 9:22AM

And Dan, I really would like to hear your solution to the hermaphrodite problem (or "intersex" as they're called these days.) What is god's plan for them? How does the moral universe, according to the construct you subscribe to, work "FOR [THEM]"?