Those pushing for legalizing same-sex marriage present it as a matter of tolerance and “civil rights.” That’s how President Obama explained his views. But it’s not about tolerance, it’s about intolerance. Let me explain.
The Left has gotten away with this mask of tolerance for too long. You’ll notice I call them “The Left” rather than Liberal, and I do that because they are not liberal. Their movement sprang from liberalism, because when the views of the Left were much less popular, they got their voices heard by appealing to tolerance. But as they have gained power, their intolerance has become much more evident.
A couple of months ago, the Pew Research Center published a study about tolerance. They found that “Liberals” were twice as likely as “Conservatives” to block or unfriend people on social network sites because they posted something they disagreed with. We conservatives have known about this intolerance for a long time. It’s a difficult thing for the Left to acknowledge.
So that should give us cause to question that legalizing gay marriage will be a step toward tolerance and understanding. In fact, it will be a giant step away from those values.
Gay people have the right to marry just the same as everyone else. I recently had occasion to examine a marriage license application here in Arizona. Nowhere on the application was there any question about sexual orientation. I’m confident the same is true in every state in the union. Gays can marry—they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex because that’s what marriage is. Gay marriage is not about civil rights, it’s about changing the definition of marriage.
And here is the heart of the issue. The problem radical gay activists have is that there is a word in our language whose definition implies that there is a difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one. They don’t want there to be such a word.
It’s not about tolerance of gays. This is about silencing people. We are not permitted to have a word that implies a difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. And once the definition of the word is changed, they will keep pressing to ban any expression in the pubic square that there is any such difference. People who hold that view will not be welcome to broadcast their views on television or radio, maybe even on the Internet. They won’t be allowed to express those views in public schools. They will be drummed out of public office. If the locations of their homes are known, they will be in jeopardy.
Look at how they are treated already. Carrie Prejean was disqualified from serving as Miss USA for expressing her belief in traditional marriage. Gay blogger Perez Hilton exploded over her response. Proponents of Proposition 8 in California have been vandalized and attacked. Actors who backed the measure have been blacklisted.
In Massachusetts, schools are already moving to purge any expressions of preference for traditional marriage, lest the young ones be exposed to any such notions.
After my last posting about gay marriage in January, I received several responses from gay marriage activists. One, in particular, gloated over what he saw as the inevitability of public acceptance and boasting over what he saw as the defeat of religion. You see, certain religions say that homosexual acts are sinful. That can’t be allowed. And that is what this is about—silencing those voices. No, no, don’t fall for it. For the Left, tolerance is a mask, not a conviction.
Follow-up – here is a PERFECT illustration. A gay marriage advocate posts a sign at a church that speaks of including everyone, but her comments in which she reveals the thoughts and emotions that motivated her to put up the sign speak of her intolerance and her delight over the uproar that she caused. See my follow-up post: Gay marriage advocates and their intolerance of religion.
Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.