Douglas Wilson has his eye on the ball on this gay marriage situation:
The same sex marriage crusade has nothing whatever to do with what people can do sexually in private, and it has everything to do with what you will be allowed to say about it in public. We are not talking about whether private homosexual behavior will be penalized, but whether public opposition to homosexual behavior will be penalized.
It finally dawned on me a few years ago that the whole push for “gay marriage” is being falsely, albeit effectively, couched in terms of personal freedom when it’s really about violating the free conscience (and wallets) of those who disagree.
This “gay marriage” movement is like one long, tiresome political propaganda campaign. Come on everybody, get on board or get left behind!
The Supreme Court, from what I can tell, fills two roles. First and foremost, it puts the seal of approval on government usurpation of power, like the political equivalent of a sacrament. Second, from time to time it puts its foot on the seesaw of contentious topics based on whatever direction the political wind is blowing. I expect that the court will do its damage soon. Typically it tries to avoid an F5 storm in favor of an F3 or F4. Moderate damage. It’s the judicious thing to do.
NBC News informed me the other day that this change in the culture is because “gays” are coming out of the closet, and we all know them now. We all know they have their problems. Before we were all just dense and lacking in compassion (principled opposition is unthinkable). Agitpropsters always assume that their targets are fools and their opponents are knaves. They’re often right about the first part.
What’s really going on is that a determined minority has used television propaganda and benefited from the rise of desensitizing internet pornography and the decline of Christendon to persuade a large minority of the populace. The bandwagon gets rolling and there is a sea change in the culture where something once unthinkable becomes reality– snap, just like that. Most people are what Joe Sobran once called Gerald Ford: political driftwood.
Speaking of Sobran, he once asked how the immoralists would resist the next degradation in a probing and hilarious 1974 sendup of Hugh Hefner:
Still, Playboy [magazine] has to be careful how it gets indignant; it is paradoxically inhibited by its own libertinism. When, in a survey of current porn films, Contributing Editor Bruce Williamson tried to put his foot down, there was nowhere to put it. Straight and even gay films were okay with him, but films of bestiality… and sex with children were, he said, “weirdo junk” which “even dedicated swingers” “might” find “hard to stomach.” He didn’t go so far as to can for police action, or even to speak of a “shock to the conscience” (Williamson is no bluenose). He couldn’t: he could only sniff, mustering up the withering contempt of the tastemaker, that kiddie and doggie sex are sort of infra dig [beneath dignity], or infra dog, as the case may be. Weirdo junk indeed, frowned on by the right people.
So here we are, near the top of hill, our rollercoaster car ready to crest the next great mountain in the legitimization of homosexual degradation.