"Gay marriage ... represents a demand for the institutionalisation of new moral and cultural values"

Frank Furedi, writing for Spiked Online, offers this solid and rather chilling analysis of the passage of "same-sex marriage" legislation in New York State:

From a sociological perspective, the rise of the campaign for gay marriage provides a fascinating insight into the dynamics of the cultural conflicts that prevail in Western society. Indeed, over the past decade the issue of gay marriage has been transformed into a cultural weapon, which explicitly challenges prevailing norms through condemning those who oppose it. This is not so much a call for legal change as a cause, a crusade – and one which endows its supporters with moral superiority while demoting its opponents with the status of moral inferiority.

The campaign for the legalisation of gay marriage does not simply represent a claim for a right; it also represents a demand for the institutionalisation of new moral and cultural values. This attitude was clearly expressed last weekend by Trevor Phillips, chairman of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission. He argued that Christians, particularly evangelical ones, are more troublesome than Muslims in their attitudes towards mainstream views. In particular he warned that ‘an old-time religion incompatible with modern society’ was driving Christians to clash with mainstream views, especially on gay issues. Incidentally, by ‘mainstream’ he of course means views which he endorses.

Phillips’ choice of words implies that opponents of gay marriage are likely to be motivated by ‘old-time religion’, which is by definition ‘incompatible with modern society’. From this standpoint, criticising or questioning the moral status of gay marriage is a violation of the cultural standards of ‘modern society’. What we have here is the casual affirmation of a double standard: tolerance towards supporters of gay marriage, and intolerance towards opponents of gay marriage.

And so soft totalitarianism slowly hardens into overt discrimination, even oppression:

In the US, questioning the status of gay marriage is often depicted, not simply as an expression of disagreement, but as a direct form of discrimination. The mere expression of opposition towards a particular ritual, in this case gay marriage, is recast as more than a verbal statement – it is itself an act of discrimination, if not outright oppression.

So American journalist Hadley Freeman recently argued in the UK Guardian that gay marriage is not a suitable subject for debate. ‘There are some subjects that should be discussed in shades of grey, with acknowledgment of subtleties and cultural differences’, she wrote. But ‘same-sex marriage is not one of those’. Why? Because ‘there is a right answer’, she hectored, in a censorious tone. The phrase ‘there is a right answer’ is really a demand for the silencing of discussion. And just in case you missed the point, Freeman concluded that opposition to her favourite cause should be seen for what it was: ‘as shocking as racism, as unforgivable as anti-Semitism’.

It is worth noting that the rise of support for gay marriage, the emergence of this elite crusade against sexual heresy, coincides with the cultural devaluation of heterosexual marriage. Today, heterosexual marriage is frequently depicted as a site for domestic violence and child abuse. A review of academic literature on the subject would indicate a preoccupation with the damaging consequences of heterosexual marriage. Terms such as the ‘dark side of the family’ invoke a sense of dread about an institution where dominating men allegedly brutalise their partners and their children.

Do read the entire piece, "The unholy marriage of snobbery and snideyness" (June 27, 2011).

Comments

[LJ]

I had an extended discussion in the com-boxes at the National Catholic Register with a belligerent supporter of so-called "gay marriage" whose comments exemplified the momentum of intimidation that the organized campaign has used. Essentially, they do not believe that the Church as represented by the Bishops, in this case the USCCB, has any moral right to speak on the issue, but stopped short of denying the legal right, when called on the point.

I made the point there that I have made here many times (perhaps tiresomely so) that there is no neutral ground. The notion of the separation of Church and State, in the minds of many Catholics who give homage to the idea, seems to be predicated on the idea that "secular" is somehow neutral. This is an error that has allowed the religion of secularism ample space to establish its own orthodoxy, its own clergy, and perhaps most importantly, its own social momentum and pride of place. From there comes this power of intimidation that we witness in this particular debate.

Ironically, the separation of Church and State in practical terms is being gradually forced upon the Catholic Church while the secular "church" with all of its moral precepts is controlling the political agenda. Witness the necessary withdrawal of Catholic charities in many states because of the demands of the state to adopt children to homosexual couples. This will only escalate as the same-sex "marriage" lobby breaks down the democratic walls in most states.

Once again I am reminded of a "crowning" (marriage ceremony) that I attended in a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox parish. The signing of the legal documents was done in the vestibule prior to the ceremony and before the couple even entered the nave.

It struck me that this practice may well have been carried over from the bad old days of Soviet persecution. It was as though Caesar was rendered his due outside of the sanctity of the Church, and it gave obvious expression to the idea of separation of Church and State, so that the sacramental marriage was untouched by the world without.

We Catholics are being forcibly and inexorably separated from the State, yet there is no such separation for the secular humanist/hedonist religion.

I commend the USCCB for speaking out in the public debate for true marriage, and drawing the fire of the intimidators, exercising the right of free speech while it still exists. Under the law as it stands, Catholics, including bishops, have the right to speak their mind on any public issue regardless of the fact that their opinion is formed and informed based on religious and/or natural law ground.

The other side would have us believe that their opinion on the subject is not religiously based, but that is a lie, a deception. Again, secular is not neutral.

[Carl E. Olson]

Good thoughts, LJ. Thank you.

[James Findlayson]

Spiked! is interesting as it's leading lights are predominantly Catholics-turned-atheists. But what's more, their analysis so often comes to the defense of Catholicism against the irrationality and unreasonableness of secularism and the New Atheists.

Whilst the BBC was muck-raking over the paedophile priests in the Rosminians, Spiked produces something like this:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10661/

Bravo! Spiked!

[Nancy D.]

At the end of The Day, since it is true that our inherent, unalienable Rights have been endowed to us from God, then the purpose of our unalienable Rights is what God intended.

Many of our Civil Rights are grounded in the Government's duty to secure and protect our inherent, unalienable Rights, including the inherent, unalienable Right of every human individual to be treated with Dignity and Respect. The affirmation of engaging in or condoning of demeaning sexual acts by any State or any person is a violation of the Civil Right of all persons to have their unalienable Right to be treated with Dignity and Respect secured and protected.

[David Elton]

When the persecution of Catholics and conservative Evangelicals comes, it will be done in the name of the persecutors' exquisite compassion for the gay community. It only remains to be seen what style of martyrdom Catholics and Evangelicals will take.

[PeaceByJesus]

As in Genesis 19, those driven by homosexual lust seek to force sex into passages it does not belong in, including ones in the Bible. And as homosexual activists seem to understand more than many Christians that God's Word is the greatest threat to homosexuality, they have expended an inordinate amount of time and effort seeking to negate its injunctions against homosexual relations, and to find sanction for the same.

But which requires a hermeneutic that would negate most any moral law, and the authority of the very Book they seek to employ in their favor. An extensive examination of such attempts can be seen here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html

Yet there is room at the cross for all who will turn to Christ from sin, and believe on Him for salvation, as He died for us and rose again. Thanks be to God.