The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Cultural Loss Presages Political Defeat in the Marriage Debate

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Cultural Loss Presages Political Defeat in the Marriage Debate

By John R. Guardiano on 7.1.11 @ 12:47PM

In the wake of the "gay marriage" vote in New York, David Bass tells social and cultural cons to cheer up because, he argues, politically, we've done pretty well so far. Just "consider the numbers":

Thirty states have amended their constitutions to protect marriage. With the exception of New England, those states encompass every region of the country -- the Pacific and mountain west, the Midwest, and the south.

By my count, at least two more states will have amendments on the ballot in 2012 - Minnesota and (likely) North Carolina. If both pass, that would take the total to 32 states, or nearly two-thirds of those in the union. (Indiana might pass one in 2014).

But here's the problem: We've won (most) political battles, but lost the culture and the argument. If current trends continue -- and there's really no reason to think that they will not -- then it's only a matter of time before "gay marriage" overtakes the nation. (And if the politicians are slow to act, you can be sure activist, left-wing courts will force their hand.)

Politics and politicians, after all, follow the culture. And there has been a concerted, decades-long effort by Hollywood and the media to legitimize homosexuality and to put same-sex relationships on a par with traditional male-female relationships.

You don't need to look at polling data to see this. Instead, look at the culture. Gay characters are celebrated and portrayed as plaster saints, and the more squalid and unhealthy aspects of the gay male lifestyle are ignored.

The popular television show, Will and Grace, for instance, has two very likeable gay male characters. Another popular television show, Glee, produces story lines that portray gay men as no different, really, than their straight male counterparts. Behavioral differences between heterosexual and homosexual men simply don't exist in Hollywood's mythical world.

This is what Maggie Gallagher means when she talks about the cultural power of the gay lobby. That power is strong, capable, sophisticated and formidable -- and on the ascent politically. Why, even Fox News has given short shrift to the marriage debate, Gallagher notes.

Our problem as conservatives has been to draw the line between tolerance and acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters (a good thing) and putting homosexuality on a social, legal and cultural par with heterosexuality (a bad thing).

Simply put, we have not been able to draw that line. When Hollywood and the media propagandize about homosexuality -- which they do incessantly -- we have been left defenseless. Consequently, misplaced notions of "rights" and "equality" have quickly overwhelmed the reasonable and modest notion that society should affirm a traditional sexual ethic and historic understanding of marriage.

I don't suggest that this means we should give up; far from it. As a deeply fallen and sinful Catholic, I must believe in miracles, even political miracles. And even if we lose the larger-scale culture war, we might still win important battles involving religious liberty.

But Focus on the Family's Jim Daly has it right: Although we're winning the younger generation on abortion, we're losing them on same-sex marriage.

65 to 70 percent of [20- and 30-somethings] favor same-sex marriage. I don't know if that's going to change with a little more age -- demographers would say probably not. We've probably lost that. I don't want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture."

View all comments (14) | Leave a comment

Al Adab| 7.1.11 @ 1:48PM

As a society we no longer worship Truth. Instead we have established a state religion (publicly funded with taxpayer dollars)worshipping "Tolerance" "Diversity" "Gaia" and "Choice" among other idols. That road is not one we should wish to travel.

kenny bunkport| 7.1.11 @ 2:15PM

i don't think hollywood led to this: "65 to 70 percent of [20- and 30-somethings] favor same-sex marriage," as much as personal experience. the age groups cited have grown up around out gays. The demonizing doesn't work when it runs up against daily life.

i suspect that they don't see the "notion that society should affirm a traditional sexual ethic and historic understanding of marriage" as "reasonable, " especially in the face of a 50% divorce rate among hetrosexuals, including, in many cases, their own parents.

John Guardiano| 7.1.11 @ 4:50PM

Ken,
No one's "demonizing" anyone. That's your propagandistic way of trying to silence legitimate dissent. And the numbers just don't support your theory.

Gays accounts for an estimated three percent of the population. Given these rather low numbers, it's highly improbable, statistically, that "personal experience" explains most of the recent change in public attitudes. Cultural conditioning and cultural indoctrination are far more pervasive and far more influential.

Divorce is a problem. But divorce doesn't involve a wholesale redefinition and discounting of traditional marriage, which is far more troublesome.

Regards,
John

CalMark| 7.1.11 @ 10:18PM

What a foolish post. Yet another instance of an AmSpec contributor viewing everything in a "conservatism is doomed" vacuum.

We (the Moral Majority--and everyone better believe that we are both) keep doing the right things, winning big battles the right way, only to have some arrogant leftist overrule law by fiat. One can only suppose that Providence, for reasons unknown (if I'm lucky enough to meet the Big Guy someday, I'll demand answers, you betcha), keeps allowing leftists to squash our victories no matter what we do--and we are playing a VERY good game. (Like winning 52% in California, where "Yes" meant "No," to trick people, thanks to the contemptible then-A.G. Jerry Brown).

Americans deeply resent imposition of leftist "morality" from the bench. We are fast approaching an explosion, its form yet to be determined. It's coming.

David C| 7.2.11 @ 9:53AM

I agree that the business of "if the politicians are slow to act, you can be sure activist, left-wing courts will force their hand" was something his essay didn't need.

Mind you, he makes a good point: our weak-willed politicians would love to let judges give them cover for controversial decisions. However, one can -- and should-- hope that they would stand up to activist judges. Indeed, the time has long since come when the people should DEMAND that they do.

However, you seem to have missed the thrust of his argument. There can be no resentment of imposed morality if the majority of Americans already hold to that same morality.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 7:16PM

It's hilarious when they call themselves the 'moral majority'...

How much further out of touch with reality, and the world around them can they possibly become??

Here is yet another article by a conservative recognizing their defeat.. it's only a short matter of time really... but you will still have a long time to live while the rest of the world moves on without you..

Pelligrino| 7.2.11 @ 12:43AM

The evil encroachment of gay-this, gay-that needs to end now.

Homosexuality is perversion; is an evil of the worst kind.

It fundamentally destroys.

Everyone should know several things:
1. Whether "marriage" or civil unions, the perverted effort to add the next state after New York will continue. I am told Minnesota is next on the agenda. The overall aim is NOT a "decision" in every state. Don't have to bother with that much trouble. Once a Massachusetts, New York, or Iowa couple move to Mississippi or Oklahoma, or Georgia, well, we all know what the perverted lawyers then do.

2. We are all concerned about the state of the family in our nation. There is no stable street, neighborhood, town, state, or nation without stable, good, bedrock families. But...if you think the children of divorces pose problems with self confidence, genuine love, direction in life, sense of purpose, strong moral character -- if you think the status quo is bad (and it is), just wait until we have children as the "products" of homosexual couples.

3. The problem begins with the men of our country. Men need to man up. In the workplaces. In the neighborhoods. In mentoring young boys through sports and scouting. In volunteering. Men need to be back in the church. Men need to be teaching Sunday School (forces one to really learn what the Bible says). Men need to man up in their marriages. Men need to man up with their children.

This moral wayward flakiness evident in those under 45 years old is directly attributable to the self-centeredness American males have "made their own" trademark in the last 3-4 decades.

4. God is not mocked. He is slow to anger, but His anger is real. His wrath will be visited on the unrighteous.

David C| 7.2.11 @ 9:58AM

"Homosexuality is perversion; is an evil of the worst kind.It fundamentally destroys."

"God is not mocked. He is slow to anger, but His anger is real. His wrath will be visited on the unrighteous."

The presence of religious fanatics like you, Pelegrino, amongst America's cultural conservatives is the main reason they haven't been able to draw the line that Guardiano wants to make: the line between tolerating homosexuality and equating it with heterosexuality.

Pelligrino| 7.2.11 @ 1:33AM

Mr. Guardiano,
I, like CalMark, also disagree with the tone of your article. Unless I am mistaken (yes, I could be), the tone is: "It's inevitable. Homosexuality will be here, there, and everywhere. There's nothing to be done."

(Or is this what you wish for?)

Might I suggest that you have Mr. Jim Daly of Focus on the Family do a full length article with you. A collaboration for American Spectator. Perhaps a Q&A.

I don't much like or approve of your use of his three sentences from that very short World Magazine interview. I think that Mr. Daly would want to expound upon his statement if shown your article in its entirety.

And if Mr. Daly would somehow stick with his prognosis on how 20-30 year olds will be later in life in their thinking, I would say to both of you: Malarkey.

Of course 20-30 somethings are squishy on how they view marriage -- just like how they view a whole host of many things. They are either from mixed marriages, divorced homes, or certainly know many friends who are. They're bewildered. They've had lousy educations. They see morally bankrupt "leaders?" in every walk of American life (just today Mr. Farkas sentenced in Alexandria: http://www.heraldonline.com/20.....fraud.html) . They see a country in economic collapse. They see no jobs. But that does not mean they somehow lack their down deep moral compass.

It's there. In hibernation perhaps, but there.

Yes, that moral compass will indeed be reawakened and energized when the heterosexual male at 29, married to his 28 year old wife is learning about the curriculum and teachers at the public school his children will attend.

Hearing your child at age 7 or 8 tell you about what they did and talked about in class today has an incredible five-alarm-bell "wake up call" function.

That 29 year old pop is not going to be real thrilled when he hears about the class going to a gay wedding or watching a civil union take place at the courthouse.

Have you heard a 7 year old tell you about what occured when the minister said, "And you may now kiss the bride...?" No, I haven't either. And I'm not looking forward to that conversation.

(My aim is that conversation will never need to take place.)

29-year old dad also not going to be real thrilled when he realizes that Sergio, his son's 3rd grade teacher, is perhaps a little too "into" little boys -- even if Sergio is in a truly "committed" relationship to Stan.

Ditto for when pop learns about Edwin the Cub Scout Leader. Or Susan the pee wee soccer coach for his daughter.

Life makes us grow up. Realities have a way of sharpening our vision. Moral clarity comes when we encounter the horrid. Today's 25 year old is uncertain about a lot of things to include what career path to take so he'll somehow have a job. And he's uncertain about many moral things because he has not yet encountered personally the "horrid."

Give Mr. Daly of Focus on the Family an opportunity to re-think, re-phrase, re-do (expound upon) that terribly short statement.

We are not surrendering. And I cannot believe that this would be Mr. Daly's position (athough it might be yours, Mr. Guardiano).

That would make for a much better American Spectator article.

David C| 7.2.11 @ 9:41AM

"Our problem as conservatives has been to draw the line between tolerance and acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters (a good thing) and putting homosexuality on a social, legal and cultural par with heterosexuality (a bad thing)."

This paragraph neatly and completely describes the situation cultural conservatives find themselves in.

What such conservatives need to do is ask themselves just why they've been unable to draw that line.

Tony in Central PA| 7.3.11 @ 3:10PM

It is inevitable that same - sex marriage is going to lead to legal challenges involving religious freedom in this country. If the law states that the gender of the principals is irrelevant to marriage, then the only argument for restricting marriage to two people becomes arbitrary. There is no appeal possible to any part of the traditional definition of marriage when that definition has been demolished under the law.
This means a Muslim or Mormon man could challenge antipolygamy laws on the basis that they infringe upon his religious freedom. If antipolygamy laws are upheld, it signifies the State has power over the religious definition of marriage in America.
Eventually, there will be lawsuits brought against religious denominations that do not recognize and perform same - sex marriages. It isn't difficult to imagine churches on the losing end of these rulings, which may eventually lead to sanctions against churches that do not comply with federal antidiscrimmination laws.
This would have sounded like something out of science fiction only twenty years ago.

Aaron| 7.6.11 @ 7:18PM

Get used soon to having to keep your disapproval and hatred to yourselves.. just like the racists in the 60's finally had to do... within a couple generations you will be viewed with the same shame and disgust by others..for how you attempted to dehumanize other souls.. and even worse... in the name of Christ.

David C| 7.14.11 @ 4:48AM

Aaron,

Your comments here are a splendid example of what George Will has called the liberal ratchet effect: Leftists believe that all social change in their favor is irreversible, and that the only irreversible change is that which they approve.

Your charges that the disapproval of same-sex marriage of people like Guardiano amount to nothing but dehumanizing based on "disapproval and hatred" are not backed up by anything.

If you have nothing but baseless attacks to make against others, I suggest you simply shut up.

yisong| 10.28.11 @ 9:35PM

Three Row Roller Bearings are constructed with three independent rolls of rollers to handle a combination of axial, radial and overturning moment loads. http://www.1stbearing.com