I'm revisiting the question of gay marriage today, prompted by this news article, in which some of the Democratic candidates, who've been awfully cagey about the degree to which they promote gay rights, come out in support of a Massachusetts second-grade teacher who read the pro-gay fairy tale King and King out loud to her class.
Particularly chilling is the article's final sentence: "School officials stood by their decision to teach about different kinds of marriage and said that Massachusetts law requires them to do so." (Emphasis added.)
Think about that last sentence for a minute. Think about the times you've heard pro-gay marriage people say that this is just about them and their happiness, and the right to be treated equally before the law. Think about how they're always saying that making gay marriage legal won't change anything at all about you or about your heterosexual marriage.
Now think about the reality in Massachusetts, where a classroom full of children who are still in their latency period is held hostage to a sick sort of ideology where these innocent children must be indoctrinated with images and stories of same-sex couples and told about "different kinds of marriage" regardless of the fact that they're way too young to have to deal with such a heavy dose of cultural poison, regardless of their parents' objections to the material, regardless of any concern whatsoever for the children's own well being in terms of their mental and emotional development--regardless of any concern other than making sure that Massachusetts bends over backwards in servile appeasement to their same-sex attracted citizens and the sham marriages those citizens have entered into--sham, of course, in the eyes of God, regardless of what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts thinks it can single-handedly do to overturn human history, common sense, and religious beliefs that will still be around when Massachusetts itself is just a barren stretch of empty wasteland (probably not such a distant prospect in terms of history).
The simple fact of the matter is that when gay-marriage supporters say that allowing them to get married won't affect heterosexuals, or wider society, at all, they are lying. Oh, maybe not personally or intentionally; from my encounters with members of this group on the Internet I must observe in all charity that rational thought on this issue isn't very prevalent. But those who are agitating for gay marriage, for a sweeping change in the laws of every state in the Union to allow two men or two women to call themselves married, know perfectly well what they're doing, what the stakes are, and how they'll be able to use laws permitting and protecting gay marriage to control and enforce a societal view of homosexual behavior as normal and morally good.
For example, in this post on business and conservatism, Rod Dreher points out that if things play out on the gay marriage front like we can expect them to, most traditional religious institutions will lose their tax exempt status at some point in the future, possibly in a decade or two. Many of his commenters seem to think that's a good idea; just as few people objected when California decreed that the Catholic Church had to offer its employees contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans, so do few seem to care that churches may be placed in an untenable position in regards to marriage in the relatively near future.
Teaching children about gay marriage and forcing churches to be silent about the matter are bad enough. But for the architects of the new Gaymerica, that's only the beginning. What they want is full approval of society for their degenerate lifestyles, and gay marriage (monogamous or not) represents only a tiny fragment of homosexuals' lives. What they really want is for every aspect of the lifestyle to be approved by society, from bathroom hookups and anonymous park encounters to serial relationships to open "marriages" with many partners. Again, not every person who seeks gay marriage seeks these things; but it can hardly be denied that what same-sex couples mean by "marriage" has very little in common with what heterosexual couples mean by the term.
But widespread acceptance of the gay lifestyle will never happen as long as traditional marriage is seen as normative, which is why the very word "marriage" has to be re-invented in such a way as to make it almost meaningless. I once pointed out to a pro-gay marriage supporter that the way she was defining "marriage" would make it possible for two elderly widowed heterosexual women to enter into a "gay marriage" as a tax shelter; her answer was, "So what?" It didn't matter to her in the least that if such "marriages" became widespread, the very word and concept would cease to mean anything definable at all.
The author of this piece, a lesbian, writes, "We came out to dismantle marriage as an institution." The context is her essay about why gays shouldn't want marriage, or be fighting for it at all, but I think she doesn't realize that the new strategy to dismantle marriage isn't merely to come out as gay, but to clamor for marriage. By doing so, by forcing states to rewrite their laws in such a way that a heterosexual married couple and a homosexual "married" couple must be treated exactly the same way by the law, and by wider society under threat of coercion by the government, they will in fact be dismantling marriage.
As I pointed out in these posts, same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage are completely different, thanks in part to the reality that heterosexual marriages tend to produce children as the natural and desired result of such relationships. The whole reason governments care about marriage at all is that up until the present time, governments have preferred to offer some support to those citizens who are raising new generations of citizens, as this duty would otherwise fall to the government. Homosexual relationships do not, in and of themselves, produce children. To expand the rights and privileges of marriage to an entire class of people who will not face the duty and burden of raising offspring as the natural and expected result of their relationship is to create a situation of inequality, one in which homosexual couples may claim all of the benefits of marriage without ever having to undertake its most serious burden and responsibility.
Such an unjust situation will lead to further erosion of marriage, already crumbling due to serial divorce, rampant cohabitation, and other destructive influences. And it won't help things any to have laws on the books, like in Massachusetts, that make it mandatory for second-graders to sit and listen to King and King.