Mohler on Gay Marriage

"Is the battle against same-sex marriage already lost?" That's the first line in an interesting Albert Mohler editorial over at Crosswalk.com. He's not one to compromise on this issue, but his remarks raise the idea that with Massachussetts having crossed the line, the "battle" may be effectively over. [The only remaining roadblock I see is a long and ugly Constitutional amendment campaign which offers no guarantee of being ratified and adopted.] It's odd how muted the general social response has been, isn't it? Mohler discusses a looming split in conservative politics between those who will (albeit reluctantly) throw in the towel on this fight and those who will refuse to do so. I know which camp the Mormon Church will be in. Expect thirty years of rhetoric denouncing what promises to become an accepted feature of American society.

Comments

[Nathan S. Cardon]

I have to disagree with you there. I agree that it will be hard to deal with same-sex marriage, but I don't think the circumstances we're in are as dire as you portray.

Many people seem to thing that history is linear and progressive. Thus, we started out with a terribly repressive society (presumably with Adam and Eve) and we have moved to an ever more liberal and egalitarian society (though that is somewhat contradictory). This is the type of thinking that resulted in Franics Fukuyama's End of History.

I understand where the concept comes from, but I believe that history is cyclical. Chastity and fidelity go in and out of vogue. England at the time of King James (of the KJV) was quite bawdy and lustful. The king himself was openly bisexual. Then we had Puritans who wanted a more liberal state (one where they could practice their form of religion), so we have the United States. Of course, Queen Victoria came along in England and lewdness and unbridled sensuality became no-nos. Now we've gone through a century of "ideas" and "freedom," but that does mean the trajectory that was set in the sixties is still the one we're on. My generation (Generation Y, if you will) is decidedly more "conservative" than our parents. That applies in terms of drugs, sex, and a whole host of other areas. College students support President Bush more than the rest of the population. This is also a result of James Taranto's "Roe Effect," whereby the children actually born under a legal environment that is permissive of abortion are more likely to be conservative.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

[Dave]

Nathan, nice comments. I'm not sure I was really portraying the present developments as either good or bad, just pointing up the choice that conservatives seem to be facing as either throwing in the towel or digging in for a long but fruitless struggle. In some ways it resembles the choice conservatives faced when civil rights and desegregation became accepted social policy in the sixties.

I'd be hard-pressed to describe Puritans as liberal, a term which really didn't acquire its common political meaning until the 19th century. Their actions when they attained power in England or in colonies in America didn't reveal much of what we would now label as classical political liberalism. Nor, for that matter, did the Puritans exhibit any particular resemblance to the category "liberal Protestantism," which also did not really take on meaning until the second half of the 19th century.

I'm guessing the idea that Puritans were liberals has a history or a source?

[Jeff Lindsay]

I am worried about efforts to modify the Constitution to deal with this, either by amendment or much worse, by a constitutional convention. The problem is not with the Constitution, but with judges out of control. Checks and balances are already there to deal with out-of-line judges: it's much easier and safer to impeach a radical judge than to amend the Constitution.

Stanley Kurtz has a great article in National Review Online entitled "No Explanation: Gay Marriage has sent the Netherlands the way of Scandinavia."

[Dave]

I'll agree that some conservatives just toss out "pass a constitutional amendment" as if it's a cut-and-dried solution to their problem. Politics is never so simple. With highly political and divisive issues, an amendment might inflame rather than settle the debate. Speaking loosely, constitutional amendments aren't all they're cracked up to be.

The Civil War amendments ended legal slavery but were not effective in curtailing a century of discrimination punctuated by organized violence, and it was a statute (the Civil Rights Act of 1964) that finally got the ball rolling. Conversely, the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was not popular and was later repealed.

[lyle]

Dave: I think the guy is jumping the gun. At the worst, SSM becomes the next Roe v. Wade & it cements the conservative/GOP bent of LDS voters for another decade or two.

And, as has become apparent lately...the war against legal murder, i.e. abortion on demand, is winning important battles...even if it has taken 20 plus years.

we will prevail (or Christ will come...)