The battle for gay marriage has essentially been won. No, it is not legal everywhere in the United States, and may not be for some time. However, with increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage across the United States, as well as more involvement from the courts (which are starting to see this as a 14th amendment issue), the question is when, not if, we will have nationwide same-sex marriage.
Personally, I am happy about this development. Since for the most part I am an originalist when it comes to the constitution (like Justices Scalia and Thomas), I have some reservations regarding the use of judicial review to strike down bans on gay marriage, but I am still someone who has always supported the idea of allowing gay people to marry one another. In fact, back in 2005 when I first heard about gay marriage in 5th grade, I counted myself a supporter. Well before frauds like President Obama and Hillary Clinton hopped on board the bandwagon.
It is my belief that same-sex marriage strengthens, rather than undermines, the institution of marriage, and it is something more conservatives such as myself should embrace. With higher rates of broken homes in the US than in decades past, this is clearly something that can help make the concept of marriage become popular again. Sure, it changes the definition of marriage, but in a way it is like a club opening up its doors to new members. In essence, it could help the club from dying out.
What worries me is what may come next. Once the battle for legal equality is over, I feel that the gay rights movement might take a turn into betraying one of its core arguments and principles. That argument being, ‘homosexuality does not affect you, so stay out of the bedroom.’ Whether this argument is used against anti-sodemy laws, or in favor of marriage rights, it essentially means that people who will not be affected directly from homosexual activity should let others do what they want.
The argument worked. Even if someone personally feels homosexuality is immoral or repulsive, it is not their role to tell others they can’t participate in those activities. Gay Marriage does not directly affected straight marriage, and isn’t a direct threat to your heterosexual relationships. These are all fair points, and I agree with them. What’s troubling is that certain members of the gay rights movement are starting to force people into these activities, making those activities have a direct effect on others.
Take for example the recent case of a photography business, owned by a religious couple, refusing to photograph a lesbian couple’s ceremony. The lesbian couple sued, and the Supreme Court of New Mexico forced the photography business to take the pictures. Here you have a case of religious individuals, who own a photography company, choosing to not get involved with homosexual activity. The photographer, Elaine Huguenin, didn’t try to stop the ceremony. She just said that they she didn’t want to be present, and a part of what she saw as an immoral activity, which she felt would piss off the creator of the universe. Sounds like something you would expect. However, instead of going to someone else, the lesbian couple sued the photographer, racking up court costs, time, energy, tax-payer dollars, and ultimately succeeded in getting the courts to force someone into an act she deemed immoral.
To be clear, I don’t think businesses should be able to deny service to gay people for being gay. That is ridiculous and mean-spirited. But, if this continues, it’s possible that we could one day see the government threaten to take away tax exempt status for religious organizations that don’t perform same-sex ceremonies. Or, threaten to shut them down altogether. What about religious private schools, as well as home schools that don’t teach their kids about homosexuality, or accepting the morality of it? Government might want to shut that down too.
My point is, if we continue down this road, one day the gay rights movement might evolve into something it swore it wasn’t at the start: something that forces their sex life, love, and companionship on others who disagree with it.
If you think the opposition to gay rights is bad now, wait until you see how nasty things get when you actually start to interfere with people’s religion, kids, and speech. All I can suggest to the gay rights movement is this: For the sake of the country, our cohesiveness as a nation, and for the preservation of liberty, watch your step.