Try this: for every reasonable-sounding, agonised religious objection to same-sex marriage, substitute “interracial marriage”. Mr George insists that this is a false comparison, because “antimiscegenation was about whom to allow to marry, not what marriage was essentially about”. That is a retrospective and essentially meaningless distinction. It’s true anti-miscegenation laws rested on race rather than gender, but so what? Such laws expressed moral disapproval of a loving relationship between two consenting adults.
In any event, there were, in fact, strong religious objections to “miscegenation”, as it used to be called, and in some dank, sweaty corners of the internet, those objections live on. But over time they faded, because people came to see—or, if you prefer, came to believe—that they were indefensible, and rested on bigotry. There is every reason to suppose that is what will happen to religious objections to same-sex marriage, support for which has grown not because courts or jackbooted government thugs have mandated it, but because arguments in favour of same-sex marriage are superior to arguments against it. Religious objections to it will surely fade in frequency and intensity just as religious objections to interracial marriage have, even if they will not disappear (in either case). People may even remember that Christianity is built on love—on Christ’s commandment that we love our neighbours as ourselves—not on condemnation of “sodomites”. And that is a reason, as much as some gay-marriage supporters may not like it, to cheer the slow, federalist path to gay marriage, as opposed to an imposed, Roe-style finding of a constitutional right to it.
BOOM!!! headshot! – and the conservative eunuchs of the “religious right” go down. Putting aside the twisting of the Christian principle of love to mean the exact opposite of what the Bible says it does, this Economist article is absolutely correct in its comparison of homosexual and interracial marriage. As I have pointed out before, it is simply impossible to take a consistent stand against homosexual marriage while embracing interracial marriage because the arguments for and against each are identical. The stupid, weak-kneed conservatives of the past several decades thought that if they simply adopted the unbiblical standards of “equality” and “freedom” and embraced miscegenation, then it would end there and the Marxists would stop calling them mean names like “racist.” But as could have easily been predicted, the Left simply moved the goal posts and started calling them bigots for not supporting sodomite marriages. Only now, the “conservative Christians” have accepted the standards of equality and freedom as legitimate. leaving no principles or ground left to stand on. And while we’re at it, they will have no ground to stand on when bestiality, pedophilia, or whatever other perversion the Left decides to champion next comes to the forefront in their quest to destroy Western Civilization and Christianity.
This [modern conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution to be denounced and adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves towards perdition. . . . It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle.
You know, it must be very difficult to be a conservative these days and have to change your principles and morality every few years to keep up with the Leftist march towards perdition. I wonder how long it will take before conservatives come out as the “true champions” of sodomite marriage?
Well, that didn’t take long.
The tone of the Economist article is one of smug gloating, but this makes as much sense as a driver of an out-of-control car headed towards a cliff being happy about the fact that some of the passengers have failed to get the brakes on the car working again. Regardless, I would like to exit the vehicle now, please.