Some time ago, in the early days of this blog, I garnered a bit of attention around the blogsphere for my post on the gay marriage thing. I had said that pigs get slaughtered and that the advocates of gay marriage ought to be careful in how they advocated for marriage. Since the vast majority of the nation is against gay marriage, I thought then (and still think today) that forcing gay marriage through judicial fiat based upon the faulty Roe v. Wade type reasoning employed by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas is both troubling and dangerous for liberal advocates.
The shenanigans and hijinks of a greedy and impatient gay community, not content with the tremendous gains of the last few years, have grown more and more vocal and are now demanding full marital rights. In the face of opposition to this idea, they have resorted to sneaky judicial activism and outright contempt for the law in the loony kooky kook lands of Massachusetts and San Francisco. As a result of these foolish, impatient, and petty actions, they are going to force a massive national debate on the subject and a concerted effort to change the constitution, with President Bush’s endorsement. Not only does the amendment stand a good chance of passing but the ensuing fight stands to roll back many (if not all) of the gains they have made as a community over the last two decades.
First, it will engender a massive backlash that is likely to erase the strides gays have made in leaving the closet and becoming members of mainstream society. A second reason is because that in the anger the gay marriage issue generates, liberals also risked a major roll back of abortion rights, Roe v. Wade, and its ilk (not necessarily a bad thing - but I find the idea infanticide so upsetting that I try to refrain discussing it here).
What I really thought should have happened was a strategy based upon the 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Religion - whereby a church performs a wedding and then a lawsuit is filed (using Roe v. Wade and Lawrence reasoning if need be) that ultimately allows for gay marriage. Most people would be reluctant to challenge the freedom of religion, and it has always seemed to me the best strategy. Unfortunately, I opined then and still believe now, the gay movement was run by a bunch of short sighted moonbats who do not care about society, their gay constituents, or even the rule of law. Rather they only care about radical political agendas and a celebration of hedonism.
In the months since I made my post, gay opinion leaders like Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch have tried rather professionally and eloquently (if not a bit obsessively) to successfully convince average American's of the desire for gays to be just like everyone else. They and others have gone to great lengths to show how gays really aren't as promiscuous as stereotypes would suggest and are fully deserving of the rights of marriage.
Well, with the latest news out of Boston, it appears the leaders of the gay marriage movement just don't agree.
Jonathan Yardbrough and Cody Rogahn may arguably be the first gay couple in America to be legally married. Their wedding, which was the first to take place in the Gay Mecca of Provincetown, MA and their subsequent media statements are clearly designed to shock mainstream America and will undoubtedly drive many more people to oppose this movement. Both gentlemen have a clearly different outlook on life, love, and marriage than the one Mr. Sullivan is working so hard to project to America.
Yarbrough, a part-time bartender who plans to wear leather pants, tuxedo shirt, and leather vest during the half-hour ceremony, has gotten hitched to Rogahn, a retired school superintendent, first in a civil commitment in Minnesota, then in Canada, and now in Massachusetts, the first U.S. state to recognize gay marriage.As I said in that first post, be careful what you wish for . . . Pigs Get Slaughtered and unless the gay movement does a real quick job of reeling in the whackos, this little experiment in social re-engineering is going to backfire big time.
But he says the concept of forever is "overrated'' and that he, as a bisexual, and Rogahn, who is gay, have chosen to enjoy an open marriage. ``I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner, not in the polygamist sense,'' he said. ``In our case, it is, we have, an open marriage.''