Two Views on Same-Sex "Marriage"

Here are two opposing views on same-sex marriage: one from George Neumayr of the "Catholic World Report" writing in the "American Spectator" and the other from Professor Dale Carpenter, writing in the "Bay Area Reporter."

While each writer has a diametrically opposed view on the issue, they both share an understanding of the stakes involved and the civilizational importance of the issue. This is quite refreshing after the mainstrem media's "oh, isn't that cute!" coverage and even some rather weak statements by those who claim to be defenders of marriage.

Some excerpts are below. First, Professor Carpenter:

"It's impossible to predict now what the net political effect of all these gay nuptials will be. But it is possible to say what the stakes are . . .

If Californians reject the amendment, it will be the first time voters anywhere in the world will have approved gay marriage. (emphasis added) They will have done so where the issue is squarely presented. They will have done so in a state inhabited by almost 40 million people, a state whose influence on the nation's culture and law is even larger than its share of the population. Vermont could be ignored. Massachusetts could be legally quarantined. But California can be neither disregarded nor isolated.

In future years, gay couples from across the country will be able to go to California – not to some foreign country – to have their relationships sanctioned. This alone will put enormous pressure on other states to move ahead and to do so more quickly than they otherwise would have. The federal government, too, will face increased political pressure to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in a state . . .

The stakes for the cause of gay marriage are higher than they have ever been. We are headed for a momentous battle in a full-scale culture war on the most strategic terrain in the country."

Now, Mr. Neumayr:

"'A passionate tumultuous age will overthrow everything, pull everything down,' wrote Soren Kierkegaard, 'but a revolutionary age that is at the same time reflective and passionless leaves everything standing but cunningly empties it of significance.'

Something like this seems to be happening in California. In the heat of revolutionary fervor, California's leftists once called for the abolition of marriage, which they regarded as an 'outmoded' and 'oppressive' tradition. But these days they praise marriage as a hallowed institution while they harness it to their original destructive purposes. (emphasis added).

What the open radicalism of the 1960s sought to accomplish overtly its more circumspect successors achieve subtly, leaving state marriage standing but trivializing and discrediting it. The Golden state that first took a cudgel to marriage with no-fault divorce takes a final swipe with same-sex marriage . . .

MEANWHILE, THE OPPOSITION to gay marriage seems depressingly wan, as a note of agnosticism about the immorality of homosexual behavior saps its drive. The case against gay marriage ultimately rests on the natural moral law, (emphasis added) but Republicans and conservatives seem to consider that too passe or embarrassing to be useful in the debate. Yet without that philosophical basis, the case against gay marriage appears arbitrary and strained . . .

Implicit in all these previous concessions was an acceptance of homosexuality that made the state's full embrace of it in gay marriage inevitable. Negotiating with the gay-rights movement at this point is obtuse. The revolutionary path blazed by the Summer of Love has terminated in the Summer of gay marriage, and there is no turning back unless the issue is engaged at a deeper level than politics."

Both men understand the nature of the issue. Supporters of same-sex "marriage" are well funded, supported at the highest level of government and business, and they are relentless.

Will we, as defenders of marriage, answer the call?