Skip to comments.Winds shifting on gay marriage
Posted on 08/01/2009 3:52:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
Not too long ago, conventional wisdom seemed to dictate that gay marriage in America was inevitable. Conservatives, surprisingly, would tell me this more often than anyone. But something has changed. Carrie Prejean has had an effect on us.
That's the argument made by my friend, Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, in the latest issue of National Review.
After a series of judicial usurpations, legislative victories, and public-relations onslaughts, the gay-marriage movement took a blow this past November, when Proposition 8 was passed in California. Voters affirmed a ballot measure that defined marriage as "between a man and a woman."
The sea change just may have come when a pretty, empathetic face came onto the national scene. A young beauty contestant was asked about her position on gay marriage, and she answered honestly (and as it turns out, bravely): "I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman." She added: "No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
The fact is that however you spin it, gay unions are not marriage. And I write this totally aware that heterosexual culture has not done what it should to protect marriage. But our falling short -- individually and culturally -- is no reason to call the whole thing off and erase a cornerstone of civilized society.
Gallagher writes: "Same-sex unions are really not just like opposite-sex unions when marriage is in question. Celebrating all forms of adult romantic love equally is not a very good justification for redefining a fundamental institution whose public purposes reach far beyond the affirmation of romance."
The New York Times, just a day or so after Gallagher's piece ran, confirmed that something has changed. In an article titled "Backers of Gay Marriage Rethink California Push," the paper reported on how, discouraged by the political and cultural climate, many gay-marriage advocates are scaling back efforts to overturn Proposition 8. This, despite the supposed inevitability of which some of my friends on the right were all but convinced, not long ago.
And despite the shrill assertions of the Prop-8 protesters, it's not impossible to find members of the non-heterosexual community with an ambivalent view of marriage.
After the recent release of a documentary about his life and career, fashion designer Valentino Garavani was asked if gay marriage should be legal. He answered: "For myself, all these years, I never thought about it in terms of changing the laws. [His business partner and longtime companion Giancarlo] Giammetti and I found our own way -- nothing conventional -- and it was always friendship first, always the most important thing: the friendship. I am neither for it legally, or against it, so I have no personal agenda here."
Not particularly political, this answer can't be taken as outright opposition to gay marriage. But to these ears, there seems to be an acknowledgement of an inescapable truth: There is something transparently different between two men who decide to spend their lives together and a marriage.
And unlike the most strident advocates of gay marriage, who spent the time during and after the Proposition 8 campaign intimidating and punishing those who supported the measure, most of us who oppose gay marriage are not looking to exclude anyone from any kind of happiness.
Carrie Prejean is now a face of that kind of tolerance. The contrast of her measured, mildly offered opinion to the angry, ugly Internet response from beauty-contestant judge Perez Hilton, who asked Prejean the fateful question, was striking. As Maggie Gallagher puts it, Hilton's Web video "reminded too many people of what they saw after Prop 8."
According to a recent CBS/New York Times poll, support for gay marriage has dropped nine percentage points from a 42 percent historic high. According to Gallup, only 13 percent of Americans believe that gay marriage would make us better off, while 48 percent believe it would be change for the worse. While Republicans were tripping over themselves to pose with the party's Log Cabin branch and join the march of inevitability, a beauty queen made it OK to confidently acknowledge reality, in a loving and beautiful and even tolerant way.
I am not sure I would give that much credit for the turn around in public opinion to Carrie Prejean, but I give her lots of credit for taking a stand on the issue in front of a hostile crowd of judges. She had to know nearly all the judges would be huge pro-gay marriage supporters.
For the sake of the nation's survival, I sincerely hope this is true.
I pseudo-blogged this odious subject until I just burned out:
A Gay ( or not! ) Old Time- GM links
various FR links | 02-22-04 | The Heavy Equipment Guy
But here is the Money Quote:
“Heres actor John Barrowman on what it really means:
‘Its been a long wait but we legitimised our relationship to each other a long time ago when we signed our mortgages together and this is just something that forces people who dont want to recognise it that they have to.’
No room for misquote there then. Yes, indeed. It was never about folks solemnly waiting for the State to endorse their lifestyles, it was always about using the power of Big Government to impose their lifestyle on third parties”
When a gay marriage proposition was defeated in Oregon of all places I knew it was not going to be a shoe in and these folks had a tough fight they probably can not win (THANK God)!
Showed us what BALLS were like!
The King has NO clothes!!!
Genesis 13:13 Nowthe men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and
4. Before they had gone to bed,
Psalms 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.
Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.
2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
But there IS hope!!!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape.....
“I’m not sure I would give that much credit...”
I agree, although I admire her stand. I think there is no question that our society has become more tolerant of homosexuality, although I think the Gay Rights movement has overplayed their hand. There are a lot of “live and let live” folks out there, and when the argument was that 2 consenting adults shouldn’t be arrested, or people shouldn’t be persecuted for being gay, people went along with it. Now, as they demand the right to marry, and their public behavior grows ever more outlandish, the “live and let live” crowd is saying enough.-—JM
Funny thing is, many liberal Bible scholars try to deny the factual historicity of Sodom and Gomorrah, or write off their fate as just some ancient myth or allegory. Still others claim that the two cities just suffered a natural calamity that was "blamed" on God, etc.
The fairy tales liberals can come up with are very amusing, for sure. But the events that took place at those two ancient, perverse cities are definitely not a subject modern perverts would want to acknowledge as being true!
Well you ya gonna believe? Some lunatic liar (and his enablers) that got himself crucified, or modern wise men?
Just goes to show: never underestimate the impact one person can make, nor the impact from one principled conscientious stand for what one believes to be right.
The problem is that you still have judges who want gay marriage and don’t care a whit about public opinion. That and liberal State legislatures who are only too happy to comply with their decrees.
It’s the same thing as abortion, they do what is evil and they know it. They believe the laws of men will give sanction for their wickedness.
Law or no law, it is unnatural to a vast majority of the population ~ and by that I mean the population of humans, not just Americans ~ and it can never be elevated to anything near marriage between a man and woman.
Regardless, the end result has been a culture that is not only tolerant of this behavior, but also seems to be welcoming to it, or views homosexuality as something which is benign.
I first had this discussion of a woman marrying another woman about 12 years ago, at that time I had never even heard of or even given thought to it, now it is discussed in terms that make a person a bigot or intolerant, on a par of raciscm, if they do not accept such ridiculous notions.
I’ll go one step further and tell you that I do not consider what 2 individuals of the same sex do with one another to be considered sexual intercourse. In my eyes, it is not.
I believe a good bit of the social and political upheaval that is going on in our nation today is a direct result of the immoral and promiscuous nature of so many of our fellow Americans. Hopefully, all of it can be changed, otherwise I don’t have a lot of hope for our country.
I’m not sure this will ever come to SCOTUS, but will continue to be fought on a state by state basis.
What’s scary though is the breakdown of this issue among age groups.
Is gay marriage the same as heterosexual marriage?
Well, if you ordered a $40 steak in a restaurant and they brought you a hamburger would you complain?
Hamburger is steak....just different.
However, we do not define the two as the same and we do not allow one to be substituted for the other.
No room for misquote there then. Yes, indeed. It was never about folks solemnly waiting for the State to endorse their lifestyles, it was always about using the power of Big Government to impose their lifestyle on third parties
It's always been my opinion that for all practical purposes LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bi-Transgender) people have arrived when they can be out to everyone about how they want to live their lives and have the same legal rights as everyone else (not be subject to harassment, have the ability to sign legal contracts together, assign partner benefits to their chosen partner, etc.).
But beyond that, as I have tried to explain to my gay friends, I personally think that it's just as morally wrong to force others to have to accept what you are doing is right regardless of their personal beliefs as it would be for them to try to prevent you from living your life in the way that you think is right for you.
I like the article Tammy Bruce did on the subject some time ago. http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=14020
A lot of people took the side of the perverted homosexuals out of fear. As we have seen repeatedly if anyone that speaks out against the perversion of homosexuality pays dearly.
If what the perverted homosexuals chant about the perverted homosexuality lifestyle choice is so good. Then why the need to use fear to push it?
“The problem is that you still have judges who want gay marriage and dont care a whit about public opinion. That and liberal State legislatures who are only too happy to comply with their decrees.”
Agree - simply a tactical retreat - liberals NEVER concede defeat. They knew they were getting a backlash, simply because the country, as a whole will not accept that agenda. So back to what works:
2) Public Schools, under the guise of non-bullying. They need to get one more generation of kids indoctrinated, and then they will be pushing the degree of public support necessary for a frontal assault (so to speak).
Thanks for the link- I like Tammy’s writing and thinking.
(Former) Bishop Chilstrom wrote (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2304933/posts):
“Id like to share my perspective on the fundamental issues that are raised in the CORE Letter and invite you — if you wish — to reply. Im open to seeing things from a perspective that may not have occurred to me.
“If you asked those in this generation if our stance on homosexuality kept them away or drove them to another denomination they would probably look at you and wonder where youve been in the last couple of decades. . .
“Are we in the ELCA on our way to becoming a minority people in an alien culture? Possibly so.”
Perhaps the new-think in this article will be just in time for all the delegates and ELCA members who adjust their theology after holding their finger up to see where the wind is coming from!
12There is a way which seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death. Pr 14
OOPS! Here I go again, listening to Scripture for God’s perfect, loving instruction for living, even though the bishop also asserts:
“So we have to ask as we did with the role of women and the place of divorced persons — if a collection of a few verses is the last word. Or is Christ saying something different to us at this moment in the history of the church?”
Follow the money. If legally married partner is eligible for benefits. How much does that cost taxpayers for state/fed employees?
But homosexual "marriage" is to marriage as a wax model of a hamburger is to a steak. Hamburgers and steaks, after all, are both edible.
Homosexual "marriage" is so unlike marriage that the same word cannot be used properly of both. I mean to say, if you want to talk about something you call "gay marriage", then you need a different word to name the union of a man and a woman.
We have got so used to equivocation these days that it gets mistaken for a substantive discussion.
Concurring bump. And it's good news, as well as a good read.
The John Barrowman "money quote" is one of several that go to this issue. Gay diva Michelangelo Signorile spilled the beans years ago in The Village Voice in the course of his long-running diatribe against Andrew Sullivan, when he finally stated openly what conservatives would have played hell to establish on their own, viz., that gay marriage has always been about destroying the heteronormative child-nursery called marriage, precisely because it is heteronormative.
Mating displays and nesting arrangements show all the world nature's providence for the raising of young, and just by existing, they rebuke as deviant the empty couplings of homosexuals.
Liberals use those numbers as part of their propaganda armory when they are campaigning against wishy-washy (RiNO) supporters of the natural moral order.
The numbers they don't use are those that show shifting of attitudes with age, as the cohorts mature.
They're not quite in such a hurry to lay those numbers out for us.
Reminds me of a song from SOUTH PACIFIC...
You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught
From year to year,
It’s got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught.
You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.
You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You’ve got to be carefully taught!
Thank you NEA and millions of parents who have GIVEN their children to Moleck!
I think that as the homo-leftists, in their drunken frenzy of imagined power, carelessly continue their in-your-face, outrageous actions, that the general public - even those who have tried not to pay attention out of disgust - will become fully aware of their agenda to shove their value system on everyone. I hope people wake up and push back hard.