The author is right in the sense that gay intensity is destined to defeat diffuse resistance by the majority of Americans. But the author fails to tell us why there is a lack of intensity of resistance. He failed to tell us that for a likely for the same reason that he fails to connect gay marriage as an agent of damage to conventional marriage. The chain of causation is simply too attenuated.
By way of personal clarification, I have long been posting on these threads That the Frankfurt School has undertaken deliberately to undermine the institution which save a society from communism and primary among those institutions is the institution of marriage and the family. There is no question in my mind whatsoever that the left would like to abolish marriage, deconstruct the family, especially the role of the father as head of the household. But that does not tell me what the causal connection between homosexual marriage is and the destruction of conventional marriage. So long as this connection is murky, resistance to gay marriage will be increasingly diffuse.
Add to that the fact that many conservatives are quite willing to extend many of the benefits of marriage to gays indirectly by the option of exercising a partnership contract, and the damage to conventional marriage becomes even more attenuated.
There is a libertarian wing of the conservative movement which is very reluctant to impinge on personal liberty as an accommodation to the religious views of others. Libertarians get very antsy when social conservatives seek to use the law to impose their religious tenets on the private conduct of others. When that private conduct does not harm some innocent party, many conservatives such as myself are inclined to side with the Libertarians.
Some decades ago it was against the law in Connecticut to use contraceptives. In my view, this was a perfectly constitutional exercise of power by the state but an equally stupid exercise of power by the state. Eventually this intrusion on the rights of adults engaging in consensual private activity began to gnaw on the conscience of society. The Supreme Court disagreed with my view of the constitutionality of the law in Griswold versus Connecticut. I think the Supreme Court was wrong just as I think the state of Connecticut in enacting the law was wrong. Subsequently, the rationale of Griswold was employed to justify the ruling of Roe versus Wade. In the Roe case we have real victims, in fact, we have about 40 to 50 million dead babies. It is hard to think of how victims could be more real than that.
Recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual activity between consenting adults conducted in private may not be criminalized by the state. Shades of Griswold versus Connecticut. Here again, I don't see any causal connection between two consenting adults sodomites buggering each other in private, and harm to me or mine. Yet, I would uphold the constitutional power of the state to regulate the conduct although I do see a great deal of potential harm in an intrusive government.
I would welcome responses that deal with the issue of public harm caused by gay marriage with a careful exegesis of the architecture of the causation.
