A few days ago, I was planning a post on how, even under new leadership, Log Cabin seems to follow in lock-step to the lead of left-leaning gay organizations. Its leaders lack imagination and support the exact same policies on gay issues as do those groups who have shown a penchant for backing Democratic politicians and left-wing policies. Instead of seeking small government solutions to gay issues, Log Cabin supports legislation which expand the size and scope of the federal government.
And today, we see Log Cabin once again echoing the attitudes of the gay left leadership. No sooner do I receive a press release from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) heralding the defeat of a measure which would have allowed a popular vote on a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage in the Bay State, overturning the state Supreme Judicial Court’s 2003 Goodridge decision mandating that institution than I receive a similar release from Log Cabin, with a most disingenuous headline, praising the “Defeat of Marriage Ban in Massachusetts.” (Will provide link when available.)
Once again, in both the releases of HRC and Log Cabin, we have the same overblown rhetoric about the victory of equality and fairness and the defeat of attempts to “write discrimination into the constitution.” This time, what was defeated was not a ban on gay marriage, but a chance for the citizens of the Bay State to vote on the issue.
And given that gay groups repeatedly tout polls showing that those citizens favor gay marriage, I wonder why gay activists are so afraid of a vote. Perhaps, it’s their unwillingness to argue this issue on the merits for it seems they would rather demonize the opponents of gay marriage than engage them in a serious discussion of the meaning of this ancient institution — and why they believe the state should extend its privileges to same-sex couples.
It’s unfortunate that Log Cabin has joined the other gay groups in trotting out the same tired tropes when discussing gay marriage.
For my part, I think it’s unfortunate that Massachusetts voters won’t get a chance to consider this proposal. It would not necessarily have meant a marriage ban (as Log Cabin’s headline suggests). Instead, it would have provided an opportunity to open a public dialogue on the meaning — and importance — of marriage. And how it could benefit gay people.
The defeat of the referendum at the ballot box would not only show how people’s opinions are shifting on gay marriage issue, but could have added legitimacy to the Bay State’s policy. And perhaps offered momentum for other states to consider extending the privileges of marriage to same-sex couples.
Once again, we see gay groups eager to dodge a debate which could promote better understanding of the real lives of gay people. And we see Log Cabin unwilling to offer a conservative — or even a moderately different perspective — on gay issues, ever eager to repeat HRC’s talking points.
It would be nice if we could have a real conversation on the meaning of gay marriage. But, these latest releases show that gay groups are all too eager to dodge that debate. And instead of adapting conservative ideas on the value of traditional marriage to the discussion of gay marriage, Log Cabin would rather ape the rhetoric of those who see marriage as just another right, rather than a responsibility — as well as an ancient and honorable institution, worth preserving and modifying.