Even though Proposition 8 was voted on democratically by the citizens of California, these activists think they have the right to challenge what has been democratically supported by the majority of their fellow citizens. But more than that, they equate homosexual rights with civil rights, treating homosexuality the same as skin colour. They don't seem to recognize that, while some homosexuals change their sexual orientation, no one has managed to change their skin colour. (we won't talk about Michael Jackson here)
Melanie Phillips, a writer with The Spectator in England, has written a brilliant column on the defense of traditional marriage, the best that I have read anywhere. She is taking David Cameron (leader of the Conservative Party, thus the opposition in England) to task for his statement that society needs to uphold commitment, whether that be the commitment of a husband and wife, or a same sex couple.
As Phillips says so well:
Second, marriage is not all about commitment. Commitment is only part of it. We may be deeply committed to our friends, to our brothers and sisters, to our employers. We are not married to them.
Marriage is the solemn and binding union of the two people who come together to create the next generation. That is why it is afforded such unique respect as a unique institution which plays a unique role for society in safeguarding the upbringing of children. That is why the ‘commitment’ of man to man or woman to woman is not in the same category at all. To treat it as such is to denigrate and further undermine marriage. It shows a total failure to grasp just what marriage actually is.
She has written several times before on the epidemic of fatherlessness in Great Britain and here she connects the dots:
And yes, I do actually know that too many marriages also end in divorce; but the fact is that marriage is still the most reliable mechanism to help couples remain together, while the ‘committed’ relationship of cohabitation – which breaks down many times more frequently -- is now the major engine of mass fatherlessness in Britain.
In large measure, that is surely because the genuine commitment that marriage requires of both parties is based on a unique sexual bargain and family dynamic. The mother of a child requires the father of that child to commit himself to the duty of helping raise it for the duration of its childhood; only the biological father will be prepared to undertake that onerous burden; but the father will only commit himself if he is absolutely certain the child is his, for which he requires the mother to be faithful to him. And the child requires both its parents to raise it, because they form the two crucial and interlocking pieces of the jigsaw of that child’s identity. If those pieces fall apart, the child’s identity is in danger of fracturing too.
Warning that this all-inclusive understanding of commitment leads to the acceptance of polygamy (men with more than one wife) and polyandry (women with more than one husband), and also the legalization of incest (I'm serious, this has been raised already in some places), Phillips doesn't hesitate to call a spade a spade - acceptance of same-sex marriage is a return to a pagan way of life, it is not the mark of an enlightened civilization.
Sexual restraint and the monogamy which enshrined and protected it were once considered a hallmark of civilisation and progress. It was primitive societies for which sex was merely a carnal and entirely non-judgmental procedure devoid of any spiritual, moral or socially progressive dimension. That is a key reason why such societies were very often marked by the oppression of women, cruelty and savagery and remained backward or even died out altogether.
Read Melanie's entire article here