Studying news reports of England’s recent “equality drive” to award courtesy titles to gay partners of knights, one gets the sense that all gay people endorse gay marriage. Then again, one gets that sense with all mainstream media coverage of the topic, although this is hardly the case.
Right-leaning gays—yes, they exist—dismiss pretend marriage-equality arguments because they’re unbalanced. An opposite-sex union offers children a gender-balanced model of family (meaning one father and one mother), and we all know that even ninety-nine great moms can never replace a real father. Designing motherless and fatherless “marriages” is deliberate. Honest and compassionate citizens have never planned or sanctioned easy divorces.
The pro-free-market gay writer Richard Waghorne stresses a point we all need to digest:
A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes, that children raised in marriages that stay together do best across a whole range of measures.
For centuries, conservatives have supported the time-honored institution of marriage between one man and one woman. It’s why so many Republicans opposed polygamy in Utah and expressive divorce laws in general. When they weren’t being shouted down, conservatives always said expressive divorce laws would hurt society through welfare dependence and father hunger.
Given that liberal/left heterosexuals have been campaigning against the institution of marriage for decades, why can’t liberal-left homosexuals? And why support gay marriage and not polygamy if love-feelings are all the rage? Where is the consistency in all of this “equality” talk?
Self-identified lesbian and feminist Julia Bindel asserts in The Guardian:
I absolutely agree that fighting for the rights for same-sex marriage is going too far. I would outlaw marriage for everyone, including heterosexuals, and grant access to a civil partnership union across the board.
Yet her position has received little attention. The mission media doesn’t know how to deal with gays outside the box. Unscripted television and blogs can throw politically correct agendas off course. Bindel, no robot, also spoke out on Murdoch’s Sky News.
“I’m very anti-marriages, because I think that is for heterosexual couples,” asserted self-identified gay celebrity Christopher Biggins on another British television show. He comes from a more conservative position and so is also problematic for the mission media.
Even on the libertarian side, David Coburn of the UK Independence Party advances the position that same-sex marriage will harm free religious speech and divide us. The obvious problem:
But [Prime Minister] David Cameron seems to be saying that marriage is something else. If so, it is clearly in the domain of the church and other faiths—and it is none of government’s business to meddle with it.
Coburn, who identifies as gay, accuses the gay-marriage movement of stirring mainstream religious people with “an aggressive attack on people of faith, and an act of intolerance in itself.”
The mission media’s servants aren’t ready to hear all sides of the debate because they’ve chosen a side, not a principle. Principled journalists understand that many gays object to gay marriage because they feel it’s patronizing. Why play dress-up when there are civil unions and/or other legal protections? It looks like middle-class mirroring.
Many same-sex-marriage activists use a negative to sell their ideals. They seem to be saying, “OK, some heterosexuals have dirtied marriage, so we deserve to experiment on it some more.”
Mission media types are addicted to a made-for-television fundamentalism that allows them to ignore the history of fatherless boys clogging up prisons, motherless babies being denied natural breast milk and bonding time, high rates of gay domestic violence (AKA the broken rainbow), and the many ways in which redefining marriage is used as a license to censor religious folks.
Abandoning children’s rights for a grand experiment is about control. We need to strengthen existing marriages rather than trying to weaken the institution itself.
Copyright 2016 TakiMag.com and the author. This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order reprints for distribution by contacting us at firstname.lastname@example.org.