Friday, May 16, 2008

Gay Mirage

The fallout continues from yesterday's utterly illogical decision by the California Supreme Court that in order for marriage to be "fair," people who lack the ability to become parents as the natural and expected result of their relationship must be treated exactly like people who can. That this is inherently unfair, and has the result of maintaining a legal fiction that couples who can find themselves pregnant and in need of state aid unexpectedly are exactly like couples for whom surprise pregnancies are biologically impossible seems not to have occurred to the brilliant legal minds in California, who are probably busy discussing the next "inequality" they can remove by judicial fiat. Should they make short people exactly the same as tall people by making it illegal to have rulers? Should they insist that physical fitness is defined as not actually being dead at any given moment in time, thus making it possible for the morbidly obese to be firefighters? The possibilities are dizzying.

But here in the land of the sane, where words actually mean something, there's a lot of uneasy speculation about the likely consequences of a nationwide push to legalize gay marriage. At the very least, there are likely to be quite unpleasant results for Catholics; this and this are both examples of how bad the legalized discrimination against practicing Catholics could get.

So what do we do? How should Catholics prepare to defend our rights if and when the legal mirage called "gay marriage" becomes the law of the land?

First of all, if you're not already homeschooling you might have to consider it. All schools will eventually be required to indoctrinate children from the earliest ages to believe that two men or two women are a marriage (in fact, if the "diversity" practices of the current age are any indication, these families will be shown as the norm, with the occasional man/woman family being presented as the alternative lifestyle). Don't think that Catholic schools will be exempt from this; state and federal anti-discrimination laws will be applied at every level to make sure that even religious schools toe the line on the indoctrination into the belief that it is possible for a same-sex couple to be "married" to each other.

Second, anyone employed by a corporation is going to have to adopt even more of a "head down, mouth shut" approach at work than you already do. Just as some feminists with agendas used to file frivolous sexual harassment lawsuits to further their cause (and I'm not saying by any means that most or all such lawsuits were frivolous, just that the environment allowed for some abuses) so will there be a concerted effort by gay activists in the workplace to "out" their conservative religious colleagues as people whose beliefs make them "bigoted" or otherwise unworthy of corporate existence. While it has already happened that people have been fired for openly displaying their religious beliefs about homosexuality, if gay marriage is legalized it won't take an open display to get you terminated--just knowing you are a practicing Catholic who doesn't dissent from Church teaching on homosexuality may be enough for some.

Third, you may have to be more careful about the adults your children come in contact with than you are now--and most of us are already pretty careful. Not only will you want to be sure, for instance, that your child's pediatrician isn't a gay "married" person who will grill your child to be sure he/she has the "appropriate" attitudes toward the wonderfulness of all things gay, but you'll also want to know whether heterosexual adults in your child's life (babysitter, coach, etc.) don't consider it their duty to teach your "sheltered" child all about gay marriages.

Fourth, you'll also want to know a bit more about the children your child regularly encounters. You don't want to find out *after* Billy has spent the afternoon at Bobby's house that Bobby's parents are a lesbian couple--not unless you want to have to explain to a six-year-old why Bobby has two mommies. Of course, this can already happen--but it's going to be much harder to determine in the gay marriage future, since one of Bobby's moms could casually mention that she and "Chris" are celebrating their tenth wedding anniversary without ever mentioning that "Chris" is also a woman.

Fifth, although you'll probably still be able to go to Mass on Sunday etc., several things could be different. Every Catholic Church in America may lose its tax-exempt status, for one thing, which would mean a greater need for contributions from the parishioners. Every Catholic social service that gives aid to families might have to shut down to avoid violating the Church's teaching on gay marriage, as the Massachusetts Catholic Charities adoption placement agency has so far had to do. And being Catholic is going to be equated with being a bigot in the minds of many, who equate "gay rights" with civil rights and see no difference between racial discrimination and the Church's teachings about homosexual activity.

There may be other effects, as well--only time will tell. But rest assured that merely getting the laws changed concerning marriage will not satisfy the gay activists out there. Their end game is to make it illegal to express anything other than total unequivocal approval of every single aspect of the immoral homosexual lifestyle--and they won't stop until they've achieved that goal.


Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

You're completely right. I've written in the same vein, and I agree that the outlook is grim, at best.

But my biggest concern is not the pressue that the Church will come under, but that the bishops of California are not my first choices to withstand increased pressure from the secular culture.

Red Cardigan said...

I agree, Paul; at least in Mass. the bishop showed some leadership on the question of gay adoptions/Catholic Charities.

John Thayer Jensen said...

Just a thought - I wonder what will happen the first (and second and third) time a pair of men or a pair of women show up and want a priest to 'marry' them. If the right to marriage is a legal requirement, is the duty to perform a marriage ceremony also a legal requirement? One would not have thought so - but then one would not have thought that a pharmacist could have lost his job because of a refusal to sell contraceptives or abortifacients.


peaceandquiet said...

I would hope that priests wouldn't be "required" by law to provide marriage ceremonies. That would cross over so much more than gay marriage issues. For the gov't to require that a church provide a religious ceremony for anyone would be so far from constitutional it would be insane. I'm not saying that we may not already be on that road now, but it is a much farther strech. I hope.


John Thayer Jensen said...

peaceanquiet, I hope you are right. But if a form of marriage has become a right - then it must be someone's duty to perform the ceremony. I was astonished when it seemed that American judges deemed it a pharmacist's duty to sell contraceptives (or anything else, for the matter of that). I had always naively supposed that one had the right to sell whatever one wanted to a willing buyer - and also to refrain from selling.

Silly me!


Pistol Pete said...

Tough treatment of a thorny issue. Thanks.