I think we should stop saying “gay marriage”—and not because it singles out the gays and lacks “equality” but because it’s nonsensical, it’s not true. If those with same-sex attraction could truly marry someone of the same sex, we wouldn’t have to call it “gay” marriage, we’d just call it marriage.
The fact that you have to say gay marriage when referring to two homosexuals as “married” proves that as much as the Left wants to push for marriage equality, no such thing exists when additional adage and clarification is required.
Marriage already has a definition, and it deals with the sex of two persons and the creation of a third. You can’t redefine it; you can only add additional words onto it to give it a new spin or meaning; to sanction something new. This is why the term “interracial marriage” is dumb, too, but for a different reason. Is it not marriage? For race doesn’t alter the marriage definition, sex does. And this is the literal defining difference between the two that are always paired together in the “gay marriage” conversation.
Orthodox. Faithful. Free.
Sign up to get Crisis articles delivered to your inbox daily
It is because of this that I really hate the title of the gay bill that was just passed and signed into law, the bill that Tucker Carlson sarcastically says, “makes ‘gay marriage’ double legal.” The title, the “Respect for Marriage Act,” implies the opposite of its meaning: that marriage is marriage and that our society respects the first society and foundational institution at all.
In response to the signing of the “Respect for Marriage Act,” Tucker Carlson, the leading nightly dissident voice of the Right, missed an important opportunity to educate us on the interconnection of contraception, abortion, obscenity, and “gay marriage”—and why some who rightly refused to accept the legalization of abortion also refuse to accept the legalization of the other related sexual social issues. He fails to understand something that the Left intuitively grasps.
Tucker rhetorically asked in his opening monologue: “Should people be able to get married if they love each other? Yeah, they should, that’s fine. Not that controversial of a point at this stage.”
He then went on to poke fun at the libs who are concerned that contraception might be next on the chopping block if the Right gets their way. As my friend put it, “his central point wasn’t to tout these decisions as cultural wins, but he managed to appear to do it in passing.” Can this be, or is there a strategy here at play? It was suggested maybe he “just wants to gaslight the libs and say they’re being paranoid while we march through the bad decisions and overturn them.” But that might be wishful thinking.
More likely, his Episcopalian background and former libertarianism would have him conclude that “gay marriage” and contraception should be left alone, that they’re settled law and don’t have much to do with abortion, the porn epidemic, and the transgender hysteria we find ourselves in.
However, it doesn’t take a genius to see how the “right to privacy” made up and established in Griswold (which legalized birth control for married couples) gave us all of our current social ills, including “gay marriage.” Allowing contraception to enter into marriage changed the definition of marriage and the nature of intercourse because once the marital act eliminated the expectation of children, the marital act no longer remained marital and necessarily exclusive. It no longer was about the gift of self within the context of a sacramental and lifelong commitment with the possibility of and openness to new life; rather, it became about self-satisfaction, and—as we’ve seen in our sexually extravagant culture—the quest for self-actualization knows no end.
In fact, that is where the fault lines exist within the pro-life, or greater pro-family movement—between the Catholics and the Protestants. As Cardinal Manning once said, “all human conflict is ultimately theological.” Prior to 1930, all Protestant denominations were aligned with the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control and sexual ethics; but as is Protestant custom and nature, the denominations fell victim to the cultural tide.
You see, what the Left understands that Tucker isn’t acknowledging is that the minute Roe was overturned, all bets were off. They know where this fight is going—that it moves well beyond abortion, that the unraveling of Roe has the potential to unravel all of liberalism, even calling into question other government-granted “rights to privacy.” I heard one activist outside of Justice Alito’s house cry out, “This will ban condoms! That is not okay.” First, I think that’s okay. And second, no need to worry, we’re not based enough for that…yet…
But they went further than mere social issues like contraception that served as a precursor to abortion. One of the speakers outside the vacant Alito residence went on about how “not everyone follows the same religion or religion at all.” They got right to the heart of the matter—that life and how we live is a fundamentally religious and philosophical question.
Pluralism, or liberalism, gives the illusion of government neutrality on moral questions; but the city is naturally religious, and right now we have a false one—secularism. And its number one enemy is the Church, Catholicism itself. Let us not forget the persecution the Catholic Church has already faced in the wake of the Dobbs decision.
They’re not paranoid. I think they’re prepared to have the real fight in the civic square, which makes me wonder why Tucker isn’t.