It Has Never Been About Gay Marriage

Gay Tolerance


Brendan O’Neill nails it at Spiked:


What is being sought through gay marriage is not the securing of rights but the boosting of esteem. And this is a problem for those of us who believe in liberty. For where old, positive forms of social equality were a narrowly legal accomplishment, concerned simply with either removing discriminatory laws or passing legislation forbidding discrimination at work or in the public sphere, cultural equality is far more about… well, culture; the general outlook; even people’s attitudes. It is not satisfied with simply legislating against discrimination and then allowing people to get on with their lives; rather, it is concerned with reshaping the cultural climate, discussion, how people express themselves in relation to certain groups. In the apt words of the Yes campaign, this goes ‘beyond the letter of the law’. It is undoubtedly the business of society to ensure social equality for gays, so that they may work and live as they choose free from persecution or harassment. But is it the job of society to ensure that there is parity of esteem for gays? That they feel good? That they feel validated, respected? I would say no, for then we invite the state not simply to remove the barriers to gay people’s engagement in public life but to interfere at a much more psychic level in both gay people’s lives, in order to offer ‘sanction for their intimate relationships’, and in other, usually religious people’s lives, in order to monitor their refusal to validate gay people’s lifestyles and offer them ‘support, kindness and respect’.

This is why we have seen, across the West, the bizarre ‘gay cake’ phenomenon, where there are more and more cases of traditionalist bakers (and other businesses) being purposefully approached by campaigners to provide services to gay weddings. The aim of this very modern form of religious persecution is to discover and expose those whose attitudes have not yet been corrected by the top-down enforcement of parity of esteem, of protected feelings, for gays. That cultural equality is concerned not merely with altering laws, but with reshaping culture and even belief itself, is clear from the growing trend for harassing those who do not bow before the altar of gay marriage. Joan Burton made clear that this trend will now intensify in Ireland, when she said there will be no ‘conscience clause’ in the New Ireland: it would be intolerable, she said, to ‘exclude some people or some institutions from the operation of marriage equality’. That is, all must agree, all must partake; there can be no room for the exercise of individual conscience when it comes to the engineering of a new cultural climate.

What Ireland crystallises is that gay marriage has nothing to do with liberty. The presentation of this as a liberal, or even libertarian, issue is highly disingenuous. For in truth, gay marriage massively expands the authority of the state in our everyday lives, in our most intimate relationships and even over our consciences. It simultaneously makes the state the sanctioner of acceptable intimate relationships, the ultimate provider of validation to our lifestyle choices, while empowering it to police the cultural attitudes and consciences of those of a more religious or old-fashioned persuasion. This is bad for gays, because it reduces them, in Kenny’s words, to ‘fragile’ creatures who require constant recognition from others; and it is bad for those uncomfortable with gay marriage, since their ability to in act in accordance with their conscience is limited. Making the state the validator of our intimacies and the policer of our moral outlooks is a very dangerous game.

Go here to read the rest.

Homosexuals make up 1.6% of the population and of that only about 10% have bothered to get married in jurisdictions where marriage is possible.  The hullabaloo about gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage.  What it is, is part of the ongoing attempt of gay activists to compel everyone to adopt a smiley-face attitude towards homosexuality.  That is why bakers, florists and photographers have been sued, when there are hordes of bakers, florists and photographers who would be happy to provide services for a gay wedding.  The wedding is merely a pretext in order to hammer people for holding on to the view that civilizations have  overwhelmingly had about homosexuality:  that it is a sexual perversion and in no way is on a par with heterosexuality.  That is why gay marriage is not the end but the beginning of the attempt of gay activists to bully those who hold to traditional views as to homosexuality.

More to explorer


  1. I think the whole acceptance thing got started with the “hostile work environment” doctrine which is probably reasonable when applied to women and minorities. One of the gay movement’s great achievements has been equating their struggle with the civil rights movement.

    Back in the 70s they described homosexuality as a lifestyle, now they’ve shifted to “”born this way” like skin color and, sadly that has gained traction with the public at large.

  2. In France, we had Christiane Taubira, the Minister of Justice, in an interview with Ouest-France (7/11/2012) say of the proposal for the law of 19 May 2013 (2013-404) that “it is a reform of society and one could even say a reform of civilization, We do not intend to act as if we were only retouching three or four commas in the Civil Code.” [« C’est une réforme de société, et on peut même dire une réforme de civilisation. Nous n’avons pas l’intention de faire comme si nous ne retouchions que trois ou quatre virgules dans le Code Civil »] If that is how the garde des Sceaux, who was responsible for producing the legislation describes it, perhaps we should take her at her word.

  3. It’s also about the state finishing what it started with welfare: the destruction of the family.

  4. Or else you’ll be sent to an island where your savage, pre-Fordian ideas of morality won’t disturb anyone.

  5. Donald R. McClarey on Sunday, May 31, A.D. 2015 at 7:02pm []:

    “[…] Gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with social acceptance of gay sex as good. Forcing relatives to participate in such appalling perversions of a Christian ceremony is all part of the strategy.”

  6. I have to copy-and-paste something I said about Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner on another site:

    “I’m reminded of the observation about communism, that the Soviet media used to make statements that were absurd on their face, because it’s more degrading to a populace to have to repeat blatant untruths. The difference between men and women is basic stuff, and some of the most important stuff in the world to us. It’s a demonstration of political muscle to pressure people into repeating the lie that a man can become a woman.”

    This is what natural law means. It’s the things that you don’t need a religion to understand. Life is better than death. Male and female are different. Man is capable of reason. If a person spits on one of those, I have to wonder about him. If a person regularly opposes all of them, I don’t have to wonder any more. I understand that his goal is to overthrow natural law. I can’t cooperate with that.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: