How fast has same-sex marriage gone “mainstream”?
Only 10 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, struck down sodomy laws in the Lone Star State.
In his dissent in that case, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that such a ruling would open the door inevitably to polygamy and same-sex marriage.
He was ridiculed by critics. Same-sex marriage? Whoever heard of such a thing?
Just a decade ago, even the most radical sexual revolutionaries had not considered same-sex marriage seriously. But it didn’t take long for them to start the struggle for what they euphemistically termed “marriage fairness” or “marriage equality.”
At first, the movement was overwhelmed by setbacks – with defeats by voters in 31 states including California.
But the revolutionaries didn’t give up.
They were in it for the long haul. And they got plenty of help from the news media and the popular culture.
A recent survey by the Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism found pro-same-sex marriage stories outnumbered anti-same-sex marriage stories by five to one.
In other words, there hasn’t been a fair debate in the media. Those opposed to same-sex marriage – a radical idea conceived not because of a serious demand by homosexuals for marriage, but as an effort to undermine the institution of marriage – have been portrayed as opposed to “marriage equality” and “marriage fairness.” They are, in fact, labeled as bigots for standing up for a 6,000-year-old institution widely regarded as a cornerstone of civilization.
How stacked were the media in favor of same-sex marriage?
To qualify as “biased” in the Pew study, stories had to feature at least twice as many comments in support of same-sex marriage as against it. Even at the “fair and balanced network,” Fox News, stories favoring gay marriage far outnumbered those opposing it – by an almost four-to-one margin.
That’s how an idea considered preposterous and laughable just 10 years ago wins the day in a decade.
Social changes are occurring at warp speed – with little regard for the intended or unintended consequences of those promoting them.
What will be the long-term effects on society if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land? How will it impact child rearing? How will it affect those who have strong religious objections? What will happen to churches and people of faith who refuse to participate in conducting ceremonies they find abhorrent and sinful? How will the Creator of the universe judge a nation that embraces a policy at odds with His own definition of marriage?
These are questions not being asked in the public square. They are off limits. They are marginalized. They are censored.
Just a few years ago, even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had to say they were opposed to same-sex marriage if they wanted to be elected. Today, most Democrats can’t afford to be opposed.
I can’t think of any social movement in history that has so quickly transformed public opinion.
The question becomes, “What next?”
If it’s only a matter of “fairness” that two men or two women be permitted to take part in marriage in America, one must ask the obvious questions: “What about three men? What about three women? What about two men and one woman? What about one man and two men? Where does this end? How can one suggest ‘fairness’ only applies to couples? Hasn’t there always been, throughout history, a demand for polygamy? How can we stop here? What kind of ‘fairness’ would that be?”
|
|
