Take a look at John McCain’s face during his interview with Ellen DeGeneres today. She confronts him about his view on her right to marry the woman she loves. His answer, fresh from a can, is that they have a respectful disagreement about whether gay people should be allowed to marry. Except that when you watch him you can see he’s squirming. But why is he squirming? Would Pat Buchanan or Mike Huckabee squirm? No – because they feel good about their view on this issue. Not only does McCain appear to realize that his comments diminish Ellen’s humanity; it strikes me that he doesn’t even seem to believe them. And if he loses in November, I won’t be at all suprised if he changes his position. Who’d have thunk he’d later call his Confederate Flag flip-flop an “act of cowardice”?
I do know this. McCain’s presence on Ellen’s show was designed to telegraph something. Possible somethings include: a) I’m not so doctrinaire that I can’t sit next to a lesbian who plans to get married and wish her well; b) I’m actually a liberal on this issue, but I can’t admit it in words so I’ll telegraph it through my actions; c) I’m going to show my conservative base that I can appear in Ellen’s lair and stand up to her demand that I support gay marriage. I frankly doubt (c); I think that McCain risks appearing like he is appeasing gay rights activists by even speaking with Ellen.
I can’t imagine that Obama wants any part of this conversation either because many of his supporters would gag at the sight of him parotting McCain – which is what he’d presumably be forced to do. Or he’d say: “I think it’s wonderful that you’ve chosen to live in a state that shares your view of marriage. I respect California’s decision.” And many of his supporters would think: “Dammit, Barack, can’t you just say gay people should be allowed to get married?”
Alas, the Kabuki Theater which we all accept (because, really, there is no option) requires this expedience. But for social conservatives, a chill wind blows. A couple of years ago, I thought widespread gay marriage was still a generation into the future. With California’s Republican governor backing it, and McCain barely able to utter his opposition, I’m now betting that a bundle of large states will authorize it within a decade. My hope, however, is that it will be legislators – not courts – that usher in this new era.
My question is this: Where does this end? Will the fanatical gay rights promoters be satisfied with legalized gay marriage? History shows they won't be.
What happens when a parent objects to gay marriage being taught in class? You can't tell me this isn't already happening. Is the parent labeled a bigot and their children taken away for them so they won't be raised bigoted? After all, any parent who disagrees with gay marriage is not tolerant, politically correct, and probably not suitable for raising kids, right?
What happens when some church doesn't follow suit and refuses to marry gays? Of course, freedom of religion and all, but certainly government shouldn't allow such a bigoted organization to get tax breaks, so any and all deductions to religious organizations, plus tax exemptions on income received by said churches, won't pass any strict scrutiny, right? After all, how can tax breaks for organizations that deliberately discriminate against gays pass strict scrutiny, which is the new standard for any law impacting sexual orientation according to California? No law passes strict scrutiny anymore, right?
Slippery slope? Well, I note the author of this post is glad that it's not a generation into the future for gay marriage. Why won't my scenarios take place?
How long before it's a mental disorder to not fully support gay rights as THEY define it?
And when will pedophile rights be legalized, too?
Ask me no questions and I will tell you no lies.