In yesterday's post I made a reference to the social and cultural destruction about to be unleashed on this country by the push to legalize gay marriage; nobody thinks the homosexual population will be very long satisfied with just Massachusetts and California, which means that what happened yesterday in California is just the point of the spear, the camel's nose under the tent, the first raindrops of the approaching hurricane. (I offer several phrases in the hopes that we can allow the poor frog to stay away from pots of tepid water, as I've encountered that analogy with increasing frequency, each time explained in tedious detail as if the reader has never heard of it before--but I digress).
In the comments below yesterday's post Irenaeus of Retractiones, whom I admire tremendously, asked if I'd elaborate a little on the idea of the nascent social and cultural destruction. I'm happy to do that, but if you all don't mind, I'd like to approach the subject a little differently than I have before.
Imagine an American Christian family in the not-too-distant future. Like many families today, they're unhappy with the public school their children attend, but can't afford private schools, either. They've thought about homeschooling, but since the passage of the Educational Diversity Act of 20--, they know that even homeschoolers must use "approved diverse" textbooks and materials, which include units on homosexual families, pictures of gay men and lesbians with the children they are currently raising, and even "sex ed" materials that include discussions of heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, and other "options" which the child is encouraged to explore in order to discover "hyser's" orientation ("hyser," of course, being the new gender-neutral singular possessive pronoun which has replaced "his" and "hers," in much the same way that "shehei" has replaced he/she). So although homeschooling would avoid some of the troubles of the public school, it wouldn't avoid them all; while homeschoolers initially fought this Act, they lost when its proponents repeatedly compared them to people who only want to see white couples in textbooks, and questioning whether "known bigots" should have the right to teach their children at home in the first place.
The children go to school. One of the girls has a married lesbian teacher this year; the teacher has a wedding picture of herself and her spouse on her desk, and talks openly to the children in the classroom about her spouse's pregnancy. The Christian family has already had to answer questions about this, as their daughter wanted to know how two women could make a baby; she also asked questions about why Mom decided to marry a boy instead of a girl. Though the family did their best to explain their values, their daughter is very angry at them, because when she repeated the family conversation in school she was sent to the principal, who assigned her to mandatory counseling to, as he put it, "counteract your parents' heterosexist/heteronormative bigotry." From the school's point of view the counseling, which is putting a rift between the daughter and her parents and causing the child to reject the Christian viewpoint they have tried to instill in her, is working perfectly.
The father goes to work. On his way he stops to pick up a co-worker, who kisses his male spouse at the door. The father has been assigned to carpool with this co-worker because of the company's new green energy policy; this particular co-worker was assigned to his carpool, the father suspects, because his boss knows that the father is a committed Christian whose church lost its tax-exempt status over their refusal to stop preaching against gay marriage and encouraging people to vote for a Constitutional amendment to stop it once the Supreme Court made it the law of the land. So far the father has kept quiet about his religious beliefs despite the fact that the co-worker openly calls him a "breeder" and insults his Christian faith at every opportunity; the father knows it's a setup to get him fired, ever since the company found out about his religion.
The mother, who stays at home with the youngest child, a toddler, goes out to get the mail. There are advertisements and catalogs who have adopted the country's new diversity guidelines by enthusiastically incorporating all sorts of "couples" into their ads; a man in a dress is comically depicted in an ad for a laundry detergent for "delicate undergarments," while a wedding caterer's ad proclaims, "We accept all clients, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, as directed by state anti-discrimination law." Before her marriage the mother once worked for her parents' bridal shop, which went out of business when a lesbian couple threatened to sue her parents for discrimination. In fact, her parents had only informed the couple that it wouldn't be possible to get the dresses both "brides" wanted in the extremely short time period they demanded; but the threat of a lawsuit was the last straw for her sad parents, already demoralized by the conflict between their work life and their Christian beliefs.
Another piece of mail is a curt letter informing the family that their son's Scout troop is disbanding. Only a handful of Scout troops remained active in America anyway, and now that their troop was being forced to hire a gay scout leader to prove that they were in compliance with anti-discrimination policies the troop had decided to cease to exist, instead. A rival organization, the "Gay Scouts," dedicated to the self-discovery of gay or questioning boys between the ages of eight and eighteen, was flourishing in terms of grant money and public funding (though their membership remained rather low).
At least the Christian book ordered on the Internet had come with the mail; most small Christian bookstores, including Catholic ones, had closed up shop rather than face endless legal harassment by gay activist groups insisting that the shops promoted "hate speech" and ought to be shut down. Since the pressure was growing for America to conform with European and Canadian standards for the definition of "hate speech," the bookstores might have been wise--even the publishing companies might soon be sued out of existence, if the redefinition of "hate speech" proceeded the way gay activists wanted it to.
This fictional family of the future no longer has a television, as the gay programming and advertisements have become more and more graphic; they no longer go to movies, because even in children's movies at least one gay film will be among the previews; they avoid most public events, because public decency laws have been struck down as "unconstitutional" in light of the Court's decisions on gay marriage and the right of people to define the pursuit of happiness however they want. They pay increasingly high taxes for the privilege of being defined as "bigots" and "haters" because of their religious beliefs; one daughter has already started to agree with society, and may avail herself of the "right" to leave her family and be raised by strangers, which exists due to the adoption of the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child.
And this is a relatively benign view of the likely future of a post-gay marriage America.
We are venturing into uncharted territories, but what we do know from every other state or country that has legalized gay marriage is that religious people suffer the loss of rights and freedoms at an alarming rate, all to make us conform to the prevailing social view that there is nothing at all different or special about the heterosexual married couple and the children who are their gift from God. Although God Himself is the architect of the family, although it pleased Him to make us male and female, and give us the command to be fruitful and multiply, our hubristic and selfish generation sees no harm at all in tampering with that Divine ordaining and command, and to raise up as an equal to the family a sinful disordered image of it which is as perverse as it is untrue. Satan can make nothing new; he can only bend and distort what was intended to be good into something ugly and destructive; and the destruction may be much, much worse than I've described here.