Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Obama, North Carolina, and the plastic heterosexual couple

The two big stories on gay "marriage" today: Obama finally admitted what most of us have known all along, which is that he's for it; the state of North Carolina overwhelmingly rejected it, preferring instead to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

I have written enough about gay "marriage" before not to get into the matter in detail today, but I would like to point to something from that above article which, I think, helps explain why again and again when gay "marriage" is put up to a vote at the state level, it loses:

About 250 amendment supporters crowded a ballroom at the Hilton North Raleigh for the celebration that was part standard-issue campaign victory party and part wedding reception.

There was a cash bar, and music that included love songs. The centerpiece was a seven-tier white wedding cake, capped by a plastic heterosexual couple embracing. [Emphasis added--E.M.]

That detail describes one celebration held by traditional marriage supporters when it became clear that North Carolina's amendment to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman would easily pass. But please note the phrase from the news article which I have put in bold print.

Who the heck, outside of the mainstream media elite, would ever describe the bride and groom figure on the top of a wedding cake as "a plastic heterosexual couple embracing?"

Read more here:
Does anybody (again, outside of a small deviant pocket) even think that way?

The gay "marriage" lobby would like us to think so. Supporters of same-sex "marriage" envision a world where the logical question, when your friend tells you she's getting married, is "To a man or a woman, this time?" Their push to eradicate heteronormativity has created a battleground out of Massachusetts classrooms, where a lesbian teacher can insist to her eighth-grade class that she and her partner can have "intercourse" (provided that your definition of that word is twisted enough to include the use of various objects in the act). To those who dwell in this world, cake toppers for weddings should not just include "plastic heterosexual couples," or a bride and a groom respectively, but a bride kissing a bride, a groom embracing a groom, and perhaps, if the polyamorists get their way, numerous plastic figures of both genders engaged in plastic group sex, too.

And the problem, for the dwellers in that world, is that that world is very, very small.

Sure, Americans are tolerant. Not too many Americans would support rounding up and arresting people for deviant sexual practices, ranging from heterosexual adultery to the kinds of parties that would have made Oscar Wilde blush. We draw the lines at sexual acts or behavior that is abusive, non-consensual, or involves children (and long may we as a nation continue to do so, the push by various groups to mainstream pedophilia notwithstanding).

But I think that even most tolerant Americans have a tendency to think that a bride and a groom belong on top of a wedding cake. One of each. And that marriage isn't just a special sort of friendship which involves sex (and therefore can be composed of various assorted numbers of men and women), but a union of one man and one woman who, if God blesses them, will raise their children within that nascent family.

The more the media elite push average, ordinary Americans to see the wedding cake topper as "a plastic heterosexual couple embracing" as if this is some sort of confectionery monument to heteronormative bigotry, the more there will be a backlash from those same sorts of ordinary Americans who don't particularly wish to see heteronormativity branded as evil and banished from sane civil society. Those who were pushing for gay "marriage" in North Carolina have learned that today, and it's just barely possible that President Obama may learn it a few months from now. There are too many kindly, tolerant, nice Americans who look at the wedding topper and see, not the derisively dismissed "plastic heterosexual couple," but their own reflections. And to be lectured again and again that seeing such couples as the normal basis for the family in society is somehow wrong is to create a growing rejection of so intolerant a message.


Patrick Praying said...

"Does anybody (again, outside of a small deviant pocket) even think that way?"

- Yes. Many.

Red Cardigan said...

Many, Patrick? Then why do ballot amendments protecting traditional marriage keep winning--31 times so far?

Just a reminder to all: I will NOT be allowing anonymous comments on this thread. If you have sent something to me as "anonymous" and you want it posted, please add at least a nickname to facilitate conversation.


Siarlys Jenkins said...

I really have a hard time getting worked up over this question, but I have a low tolerance for the way this inane topic seems to dominate political discourse far too often.

When I read President Obama's email (no, I'm not special, millions must be on the mailing list) I knew Erin Manning and Rod Dreher would have something to say about it. I think the president is wrong, even though his heart is in the right place. His statement is compassionate, logical, pulls at all the right heartstrings, but I think he's wrong.

No person has been denied "marriage equality." Every man, and every woman, has a perfectly equal right to marry. Nor does not being able to get a marriage license rise to the level of being "considered less than full citizens." Rights of citizenship remain unimpaired, regardless of sexual orientation.

Of course I'm going to vote to re-elect him. This is a rather minor issue. If I lived in New York, I would not even think about it when voting for legislators. If I lived in California, I would have voted for Prop 8, with some reluctance, since it was badly written. I don't know how I would vote if I lived in North Carolina. I voted against Wisconsin's defense of marriage amendment, because I knew there wasn't a snowball's chance in south Texas of our courts establishing a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.

Anyway, the president can't do much about marriage. It just isn't in his jurisdiction. His opponent's platform amounts to "I really admire the image of me as president... what do I have to say this week?" And as Erin says, there is no point in voting Republican...

Anonymous said...

I seem to have forgotten a nickname and I will assume that is the reason my comment was not published.

The Amendment you are so happy to have seen passed is not so amazing as it seems.

It made the only legally recognized union in North Carolina a marriage between a man and a woman.

Widows, single parents, hetero civil unions, and any other bonds once considered LEGAL are now complete denied any kind of rights. This includes such cherished and most-voiced ones as hospital visitation and important ones like Last Wills.

The children of single parents and widows or parents in a civil union (hetero or otherwise) can now be torn away from their parents because of this Amendment.

North Carolina already said the only valid marriage was male-female, why ban ALL unions but a male-female marriage? Because the people who so happily voted yes were misinformed. This misinformation was passed from republicans and clergy who knew the inner workings of this Amendment to the common man who knew not just to further their own agendas. (And they like to call those for equal rights evil agenda pushers?)

There were several religious leaders in the state who signed something saying they would NOT vote for this Amendment because of its effect not only on one group or people but on so many.

The only hope for the people effected other than same-sex couples is a reversal of this thing immediately. Other wise all hell will break loose in the courts as innocent people's right are considered void.

Your friend, The News Woman

c matt said...

Widows, single parents, hetero civil unions, and any other bonds once considered LEGAL are now complete denied any kind of rights.

I do not follow - what bond does a widow or single parent have that is no longer recognized? Bond to whom? The widow would still be the widow with repect to the deceased - there is no "marriage" to a deceased. A single parent, well, same thing - with respect to the former spouse, it is former - no longer a current marriage bond of which to be deprived. Can you offer some further clarification? I am just not following the point.

c matt said...

Is it the "plastic" part that seems to rub the wrong way? In the context of the story, I can understand referring to a heterosexual couple. In this day and age, just calling it a Bride and Groom may not mean much. I guess "plastic" is their way of sneering at it - in reality the idea of male-female couple is fake or at best malleable and completely of our own choosing.

PS - your verification words are really taxing my visual acuity.

Red Cardigan said...

Sorry, c matt--I have no control over Blogger's word verification. I hate it too! :)

Patrick Praying said...


I take your point to mean that the majority of voters vote NO on gay marriage. That is true. That doesn't mean it is right. And relying on majority rule/mob rule on a fundamental issue like marriage is likely against your interest as most studies show that younger generations favor gay marriage. Accordingly, if we really think that "who you can marry" should be decided by idiots in voting booths then I predict in 15 years you're not going to like what they vote for.

Anonymous said...

Wills of loved ones that widows have can be made completely useless by this ban. Example: A man leaves his wife everything in his Will. His sister wants to take it all from her and fights the will in court. She could win because there is no longer a wife to consider because the marriage is no longer legally valid.

Single parents (single, for legal reasons, means anyone not married even if they are dating/seeing/engaged to someone) can just be ignored now. Example: A single mother living with her fiancee gets her children taken away because her engagement is not legal (or, for the sake of argument, his income is not valid)and the state has determined she does not have enough money to raise them.

Your friend, The News Girl

thomas tucker said...

Your point is absolutely correct. For the goal of gay advocates is for everyone to accept that homosexuality is normal. That is the motive behind it all, and why civil unions is not an acceptable alternative.

Anonymous said...

Mr. thomas tucker,

The goal of most gay rights activists is to have equal rights for the gay community.

To the general comment community,

It is normal to love and that is all anyone has ever done. If someone wants to stand up for that particular right and shout from the rooftops that "separate but equal" is a lie then I applaud them. Civil Unions will not be good enough because it is not the same as marriage and so the fight continues.

I really don't see what the religious are so scared/angry at. Marriage started as a legal concept and should remain a legal concept; not a church one.

You can add your religious bells and whistles and permissions to your own wedding. Leave the marriages of others untouched. Church and State should not go hand in hand.

Your friend, The News Girl

Red Cardigan said...

So, The News Girl, since it's normal to love, you're fine with polygamous marriages and incestuous ones? Or do you think that two brothers or a group of three women and the husband they share aren't a marriage?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

The News Girl is making this up, stretching wild fantasies to bolster her predetermined point.

A widow would be the survivor of a lawful marriage. A will is not a union. A single mother, if anything, would have a stronger claim to her children (the children ARE hers, she IS their mother, that is not subject to contract), whereas the live-in boyfriend has NO CLAIM since there is no valid union.

It sounds like a bad law, but these are not credible fruits of its passage.

PatrickPraying said...

Further to my point, a leaked memo - written on 5/11/12 by Jan van Lohuizen, a respected Republican pollster, to various leading Republicans - confirms poll data on marriage equality and gay rights in general, and advises fellow republicans to evolve on gay rights issues or face political irrelevance. I think Obama will prove to have been on the right side of history here.

Anonymous said...

Look the law up, ladies. It can be twisted in so many ways now that nothing is safe.

I draw the line at two legal, competent adults. Everything else is a matter of personal choice (for medical reasons, I hope no one chooses incest). Polygamy is in the Bible as a legitimate relationship (with possibly bad endings) so see that as you wish.

A marriage between two women or two men does not effect your marriage. The same as a neighbor giving her kids chocolate chip cookies instead of an apple does not effect your children.

All you do with your protests and your venom-filled words is hurt innocent people who have done nothing more than find someone who loves them unconditionally.

You think of only yourselves and not those you hurt. You encourage hate, oppression, fear, and violence. You force people to either "change" who they are or to suffer quietly. And when they decide to fight back with pride you call them evil.

Children and adults take their own lives every day because you have shouted at them that they are wrong, they are Satan's workers, just by being themselves.

You are judging people whom you have no right to judge, Jesus himself told you this, and yet you do so proudly.

You are not following the Bible but the gays are the ones going to hell? I would not be surprised to see all of you at the burning gates when you die.

But I will pray for you. Oh yes, I do pray. I will pray that you will let others be happy and that you will keep to your own lives. Just like the Bible says.

Your friend, The News Girl.

Red Cardigan said...

News Girl, I don't hate gay people. I have some in my extended family, after all.

But I hate the lie that a two-man or two-woman relationship is exactly the same thing as the relationship between a man and a woman who are raising their own biological children. I hate the lie that if we just approve of the evils of sodomy and mutual masturbation those things will magically change into good things instead of still causing psychological and emotional trauma, despair, relationship damage and destruction, and self-hatred, as they always have and always will. I hate the lie that it won't harm a young woman to pass through her adolescence with two "dads" and no mom to talk to about what having a period is really like (and no, it's not the same to talk about such personal things with one's favorite teacher or neighbor lady). I hate the lie that a heterosexual boy is not harmed by being raised by two women who can't teach him anything about how to become a man.

You see all of that as bigotry, and I can't help that. But I wish you'd consider, just a bit more, about how your loud demands are going to hurt the innocent, children who don't deserve to be forcibly deprived of a mother or a father just because someone else demands the right to do exactly that.

Red Cardigan said...

Oh, and before anyone make the obvious comment: yes, some children tragically lose a parent, and have to grow up without a mother and a father. There's a big difference, though, between fatherlessness or motherlessness as the result of tragedy or even societal breakdown, and fatherlessness or motherlessness done on purpose and with great "pride."

Siarlys Jenkins said...

News girl, what makes you think we are all ladies? Look up some Welsh. ANY law CAN BE twisted to conform to any desired end... that's why lawyers are ubiquitous and well paid. But if you want to make a legal argument, YOU look up the law, and write a brief, or condensed blogging equivalent. You haven't done your homework, you've just offered a rather improbable series of claims.

Glad to know you're praying. Erin prays for me too. It is true the the Old Testament accepts polygamy. I asked a rabbi about that -- he said European Jews adopted monogamy during the middle ages to reduce tension with their Christian neighbors. We may all be monotheists, but we are not all monogamists. And the same text does condemn at least male homosexuality. If you choose to cite authority, be consistent. Ditto, those who cite Biblical authority to condemn homosexuality should not eat crab, lobster, or oysters, raw or cooked.

Patrick Praying said...

"There's a big difference, though, between fatherlessness or motherlessness as the result of tragedy or even societal breakdown, and fatherlessness or motherlessness done on purpose and with great "pride.""

No there isn't.