As my first post here, I thought I would address a theme which I regularly consider on GayPatriot where I first started blogging. In reviewing my past posts on the topic, I found a few common themes emerged. I regularly faulted those gay marriage advocates who prefer substituting name-calling to serious discussion and urged said advocates to follow the lead of Jonathan Rauch, author of  Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, who has made careful arguments for the social change which state recognition of gay marriage represents.

It seems too many gay marriage advocates wish to shy away from talking about gay marriage as social change. But they shouldn’t. Some social changes are good things. So, we need to see what we’re changing. And we could begin by understanding why marriage has become the defining social expression of heterosexual love. That way, we could learn to articulate why it would be good thing for the institution to serve a similar role for the expression of same-sex love.

Perhaps what I call a “common themes” are little more than repetition. But, if I do repeat myself, it is because I believe I am hammering home points of paramount importance — that we as a society need to have a serious conversation about the meaning of gay marriage.

All too many, however, choose to avoid that conversation:

. . . the supposed advocates of this change would rather score points in some imaginary contest with conservatives than make a point about the social benefits of extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

It’s why I believe we need to find better spokesmen for gay marriage, replacing leaders who refrain from chastising those who paint their adversaries as hate-filled troglodytes (and who sometimes engage in such painting themselves) with individuals eager to engage those who defend traditional marriage.

That is, leaders who recognize that in pushing this social change, they’re “trying to overcome,” in Dale Carpenter’s words, “deeply embedded views about something Americans think is the foundation of responsible family life.” Respect that while some social conservatives harbor much animus against gay people, many, perhaps the great majority, are not so hateful. I believe some of them can be reached by “gentle suasion,” thoughtful arguments civilly expressed.

It’s that very belief that kept me up late one night earlier this week so I could blog on Pete Wehner’s praise for Jonathan Rauch’s essay on marriage. The words of that one-time aide to Bill Bennett showed that broad-minded social conservatives were open to serious arguments on gay marriage.

We just need to broaden the conversation. It appears that all too many leading advocates of gay marriage want to avoid that conversation at all costs. They’d prefer to hurl insults and paint all gay marriage opponents with a broad brush, as if the most hateful and vocal opponents define the entire opposition.

But, just as the most most hateful and vocal proponents of gay marriage, those who would slur anyone who expresses their support of the traditional definition of marriage, are not representative of all advocates of gay marriage, neither are those most vocal opponents of gay marriage representative of the average citizen who votes for state initiatives limiting state-sanctioned marriage to traditional (i.e, different-sex) unions.

While many leaders of the campaigns for state recognition of gay marriage show little understanding of the meaning of the institution, many (if not most) of those gay couples who do seek such recognition do understand the meaning of the institution.

They may be best suited to move the conversation we so sorely need in a more civil direction.

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: family & parenting, his & hers // Add Comment »