The present gay “marriage” debate is an important one, but I am more worried about the broader, encompassing matter at hand, namely the dark forces trying to redefine social institutions essential to a free society. The family is traditionally the private institution commanding the most intense loyalty from its members, along with churches (at least in happier times). Leftist theorists are now working to drill down past the family, extending their hands into the crib to rob us of our God-given individual identities as males and females and the important roles and responsibilities which have always accompanied these identities.
Given the significant personal loyalties generated by natural, non-governmental unions of individuals, he who would seek to create a statist, socialist utopia must break the influence that the traditional family and church have traditionally held over most individual citizens. These are the bonds that those of us who are advocates of traditional marriage are really seeking to preserve. A few thousand gay men and women calling themselves married will not in and of itself remove everything recognizably American in our constitutional republic. However, thorough degradation of our traditional private social constructs, the family and the church, certainly will do so. Ultimately, it is not only a union, contract or sacrament that is at stake in this debate over the meaning of marriage. Rather, the very foundations of an entire society are at stake, because the society we know was built by millions of individuals carrying out responsibilities inherent in their traditional gender-based roles.
Thus, I strongly oppose any attempt to redefine “marriage” to include more than two people or people of the same gender. However, played out on the stage of real human interaction, it must be said that this is almost a straw man issue in one important respect: many gay men–outwardly the most vociferous activists–would never pursue the option of “marriage” as it does not match up with the lifestyles pursued by most urban, liberal American gays.
Those of us with gay friends meeting that description know this; I have never been shy about telling them so, and surprisingly few have attempted to argue differently when I put the point to them directly. The idea of having the right to be married to a same sex partner is very important to the average gay in the abstract, but the idea of conforming to something resembling the settled lifestyle of most married heterosexuals is simply not attractive to many gays. The gay male activist community was, after all, the demographic that fought against the closure of the San Francisco bathhouse scene even after the outbreak of HIV. This is not a community of individuals generally identified with sexual exclusivity, long-term unions, moderation or temperance, all of which are generally demanded of men betrothed to females in Western societies. It should surprise nobody, gay or straight, liberal or conservative, that the ugly side of one gender is so magnified and exaggerated by the absence of the shaming and civilizing influence of the other.
Separate from the equality of hetero and homosexual romantic unions, gay activists are, knowingly or not, striving for the complete deconstruction of gender identity and gender-specific roles. If you want a society that creates men who are man enough to be soldiers defending the city gates, and women who are woman enough to birth and raise such men, this should give you cause for alarm.
A particularly disturbing organization leading the perverse fight to intellectually deconstruct the very concept of gender is WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (http://www.wpath.org). The logical extreme of their core position is that a person is whatever gender they thought they might be when they woke up this morning. To this end, they promote such measures as the use of hormone therapy to prevent the onset of puberty in youths who think they might be transgender.
It is self evident that same sex couples raising children will produce a higher number of such “questioning” youths; from where would a male raised by two lesbians acquire the learned portion of his male gender identity? Most likely, from nowhere, no matter how well-meaning the lesbian couple might be. As has been the case for thousands of years, a man is not made by anatomy and testosterone alone, but by the positive example of those men near to him who are viewed as role models worthy of emulation.
You may believe WPATH to be representative of an oddball, fringe position, but that is not the case among the left. Interestingly, the Obama Administration itself has explicitly enshrined recognition of WPATH’s guidelines in the operating regulations of both the Departments of State and Homeland Security. Now, when applying for a visa or passport, you can be whatever gender you choose, as long as you present a doctor’s note affirming that this corresponds to your “lived” identity.
Recently, I have attempted to draw attention to the fact that the Obama Administration already made green cards for same sex marriage a reality in 2012, when they changed the DHS/USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual to require immigration officers to treat all aliens, regardless of their anatomy, according to their self-selected gender identity. See my article here: https://johnqpatriot.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/immigration-update-u-s-government-now-giving-green-cards-for-gay-marriage/
If a gay male wants to bring in his foreign partner, the alien in the couple need only produce a doctor’s note stating he is now living as a female. The two will then effectively make an end-run around the Defense of Marriage Act by being classified as a heterosexual couple for immigration purposes.
Some gays have responded by saying this is not good enough, and that they should not be forced to adopt such a administrative charade in order to be geographically united with their partners. But I would tell them this is a logical consequence of the triumph of those–like WPATH and many in the “LGBT Community”–who are fighting to deconstruct male and female gender identities. Once that work is accomplished, the terms and “gay,” “lesbian,” and “bisexual” will become become meaningless because these terms only have meaning in the context of their relation to (and conflict with) traditional gender roles.
If the radicals like WPATH have their way, we will not be weighed down with such burdensome constraints as the traditional two gender parent team that successfully reared the vast majority of human infants for thousands of years. Even if most gays find conservative positions distasteful, they should still stand opposed to the deconstruction of gender roles if only out of enlightened self-interest.
All of us, regardless of orientation, have enjoyed the benefits that have accrued from our society’s past respect for the traditional family structure and its component gender roles. Likewise, all of us, regardless of sexual orientation, will suffer from the results of this structure’s breakdown.