Yesterday, I posted about the impact of redefining marriage on the District of Columbia. Some of the comments about my post and others on this topic around the web, seem to say that if only the Catholic Church would stop being so stubborn and get with the program, they wouldn’t have these problems. These are the new values of society, and the Church needs to give up its beliefs.
Wait a minute: How do you know these are the new values? Every time we ask the voters what they think, they say, “no thanks, these aren’t our values.” If these are small issues, why doesn’t the Gay Lobby give way once in a while? How can they tell the public, with a straight face, that same sex marriage is no big deal, a simple change to include the excluded, and then turn a blind eye to the numerous instances in which it turns out to be a very big deal?
All we ever hear is that we are to blame unless we go along quietly with the whole plan of the Sex Radicals for eliminating gender from our language and law, marginalizing fathers from the family, disconnecting parenthood from biology, expanding the power of the state over civil society, and telling children that they should suppress their desire to know biological origins. No matter how you answer these questions, you have to admit that these are serious questions that deserve discussion. The people of DC would like to vote on these questions. The Gay Lobby and their allies do their best to prevent people from discussing the issues.
Why do we only get to talk about what the Sex Radicals want to talk about?
These are some of the values that the traditional religious people are defending. The Sex Radicals oppose the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, the Orthodox Jews, and the Evangelical world, precisely because these religions think that gender is real, that fathers are important, and that children ordinarily have rights to be affiliated with both their parents. The Gay Lobby judges solely in terms of their peculiar definition of fairness. But they don’t actually defend the final result of their policies, answer our objections, or explain to us why we should allow them to push our churches and our values out of the public square.
We plan to keep talking about these issues, and hope that at the very least, they get a full airing before we go sailing off the cliff into a radical redefinition of our most basic social institution, and a radical restructuring of the relationship between the state and civil society.