Gay marriage represents cultural switch

By Rod Dreher

Once again, state voters — this time in Maine, hardly a conservative stronghold — have voted down same-sex marriage. Leaving what she thought would be a victory party after last week’s balloting, an emotional Cecelia Burnett said, “I don’t understand what the fear is, why people are so afraid of this change.”

That’s a big part of the gay marriage side’s problem: They cannot imagine why, aside from bigotry, anyone would disagree with them. To be sure, anyone on the traditional marriage side who doesn’t understand that denying marriage to same-sex couples imposes a serious burden on them is either willfully ignorant or hard-hearted. The thing is, empathy should go both ways.

Leaving aside that there is undoubtedly a significant number of people who vote against gay marriage because they flat-out don’t like gay people, there are serious and important reasons to vote against same-sex marriage — and these deserve to be taken seriously.

For starters, gay marriage represents a cultural revolution, a fundamental redefinition of what marriage means. Until the past 10 or 20 years, no society had ever sanctioned marriage between same-sex partners. It was unthinkable outside of a small radical fringe. Now, in the twinkling of an eye, it’s coming to pass in a few countries, though the vast majority of humankind still finds it unthinkable.

That’s not an argument against gay marriage, but it is an explanation for why gay marriage remains unpopular in this country. Culture precedes politics. If you cannot change culture, you’re reduced to arguing, as same-sex marriage supporter Linda Hirshman did in the wake of the Maine defeat, that people shouldn’t have the right to vote on the definition of marriage.

Civil rights

Along those lines, gay marriage backers often say that civil rights shouldn’t be submitted to a popular vote. If blacks in the Jim Crow South had depended on a majority vote to gain their civil rights, justice would have been a long time coming. That makes sense to people who see no moral or philosophical difference between race and homosexuality. But it is by no means clear that the two categories are interchangeable. For traditionalists, it’s a category mistake to say that they are.

Which brings us to another reason majorities oppose gay marriage: the belief that its supporters are all too willing to force their own particular view of marriage and its meaning on an unwilling society. Their viewpoint is not neutral. To believe that same-sex marriage is the equivalent of heterosexual marriage is to accept that the essence of marriage is fundamentally different from what it has always been.

Perhaps society will embrace that new understanding — but that’s exactly what it is, and traditionalists should not be faulted for intuiting that the moral and cultural implications of this shift are likely to be far-reaching and imperfectly understood. At a time in which the traditional understanding of marriage, its duties and its obligations, has been breaking down under a variety of cultural assaults, it should surprise no one that most voters are afraid of radical change.

You can’t expect gay folks to privilege religious liberties over their own interests, but likewise, why is it bigoted for religious traditionalists to stand up for what they believe to be bedrock rights — rights that would be curtailed by same-sex marriage?

None of this is a case per se against gay marriage, for which a strong moral argument certainly can be made. It is rather to say that with gay marriage proponents racking up loss after loss in state balloting, they would do well to quit falling back on the self-serving “bigotry” excuse and do what they (quite justifiably) ask of their opponents: imagine what this issue looks like through the eyes of people not like themselves.

X Rod Dreher is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.