READER RESPONSE -- Protecting society from same-sex marriage

This comment to this post on same-sex marriage is a good summary of the prevailing attitude among traditional conservatives. It captures the frustration that comes from constantly defending traditional values against those that would “willy-noilly” destroy them and replace them with a vapid amoral society. He writes --

If my position is "reactionary" it is because I am reacting to those extremists who believe society must be forced to treat gay marriage "equally" now. It is a well- justified backlash to the Massachusetts decision, and the attempt to extend that decision across the country by judicial fiat. The "conservative" view ought to be that we do not change society's norms willy-nilly, and certainly not through judicial activism.

And I don't think we (society, as I see it) are "marginalizing" based on orientation at all. We have no way to do that! It is only when their /behavior/ becomes public and obnoxious that we object, and only when they start demanding that we NOT object, that we start talking about preserving our own rights, in the law or constitution.

Only a small number of gay activists are wanting to marry, anyway, and the rest I think wish they would just shut up. The best thing for everyone might be to put that objective out of their reach, until another, "more enlightened" day.

I agree, until the last paragraph. The writer’s reaction is to those that would change America into something it is not -- “liberalism” in the worst sense of the word, expressed, in this case, through sexual orientation. One could make the same argument against women's rights, environmentalism, civil rights and even fundamentalism vis a vis the teaching of evolution.

We do not marginalize women because of the pronouncements of NOW. We do not disregard care for the environment because of Greenpeace? We don't abandon civil rights because of Louis Farrakhan. We abandon neither religion nor science when they seem to conflict. Why abandon a minority of conservative same-sex couples because of the actions of liberals acting out through sexual orientation?

In the America I know, a few are not required to “shut up” because people tire of their argument. A few are not required to “shut up” because others pervert their cause. A few are not made to suffer because of the will of the many.

Conservatives have a tendency to wish problems away based on who advocates for them. Nick Coleman writes one of his soppy columns on homelessness, and the blogs go nuts fisking Nick, essentially ignoring the homeless problem, which is real even if Nick’s portrayals of it and presumptions of cause are asinine. Liberals make illogical arguments for a pseudo-equality; conservatives would rather stone the logic than address real issues of inequality that nonetheless exist.

A gay man pranceing shirtless wearing a tutu says he wants to marry is no reason to ignore a the spiritual desires of a same-sex couple seeking acceptance for their permanent commitment to one another. Not in the America I know, nor in the Bible I read.

Until conservatives are willing to roll up their sleeves and work for conservative solutions to social problems (not just serve lunch to each other to talk about them), liberals are going to step into the void and exploit social problems for political gains to the detriment of those they purport to help and to society in general.

There is no difference between wanting to silence the same-sex marriage issue and Bob Moffit’s (as representative of health care providers) desire to end debate on the smoking ban (we have entered the “enlightened era“ on that issue). Simply refusing to acknowledge issues doesn’t make them go away.

Category: Reader Response, Same-Sex Marriage