by Peter Bearse
The basic issue of gay marriage is not civil rights. It’s public vs. private values. Gay “rights” advocates can’t tell their public parts from their private parts.
Most people don’t give a damn what gay people do in their bedrooms. They care deeply, however, when homosexuals use politics to promote their private behavior as if it had some redeeming public value, and insist that it be honored as such in the schools, courts and other public arenas.
Heterosexuals care even more deeply when gays diminish the value of an institution, marriage, that has been ordained for tens of thousands of years by forces far more powerful than a church, the forces of nature. If natural evolution did not ordain marriage, it wouldn’t have invented sex. It’s incredible that politicians who support gay “marriage” have the gall to think that present political pressures from a private interest group should be allowed to overturn something as fundamental as human sexuality embodied in marriage and expressed in the formation of families via the union of a man and a woman. This is the public value of sex, fundamentally different from the private values of recreational or homosexual sex.
The private (non-public) interest of the gay community is also revealed by how narrowly they view the issue of “rights.” One would think that if they were really concerned with the civil rights of cohabiting couples vis a vis the truly married, then they’d be making common cause with unmarried heterosexuals but, apparently, they don’t. Fortunately, Bob Clegg’s legislation does this by treating the two groups as having equally legitimate claims for fair treatment under law.
The narrowness of homosexuals’ private interest is further exhibited by their self-seeking narcissism. The coming together of a man and a woman in a marital relationship is far more than just sexual. It is the gradual realization that there is a whole other side of life. It is the beginning of an understanding of the value of diversity – of what it takes to live with a fundamentally different other. Ironically, liberals and gays who say they love “diversity” prefer sameness.
As one of the leading advocates of gay marriage put it “Civil unions are nice…but they are not marriage.” Indeed, Mrs. Janeway, they are not, nor have they ever been, nor should they be.
Finally, it’s too bad that politics is played in the present tense and is so swayed by media and private interests. If politics starts to change for the better as we approach ’08 [and it will because most people are fed up with politics as usual], and if the majority anti-gay marriage forces finally get their act together by redefining the nature of the marriage debate, then the minority gay-marriage movement will not gain support within the majority of the American political community. Rather, it will continue to lose support, state-by state, and go cold even as the world warms.