As recently as five years ago, even gay marriage advocates didn’t think it possible to move legislation recognizing same-sex marriages through elected legislatures. Knowing that polls were against them, their preferred route was through courts.
While they won in the Hawai’i Supreme Court in 1993 and 1997, they lost at the ballot box in the Aloha State in 1998 and would lose all but one referendum and initiative in the following decade And that one victory, Arizona in 2006, would turn into a defeat two years later when citizens in the Grand Canyon State voted on a proposition would allow the state only to recognize traditional marriage, but not bar same-sex civil unions (as had the earlier initiative).
Given the popularity of initiatives defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and given the fact that until very recently, sexual difference has been central to nearly everyone’s understanding of marriage, you’d think those trying to expand the definition to include same-sex couples might have a little respect for those who favor the longstanding status quo.
And yet, when a politically incorrect person (as opposed to a politician with the appropriate partisan immunity) states her support of that traditional definition, she faces the wrath of the left. Witness the reaction of the director of the Miss California pageant, Keith Lewis, to Carrie Prejean’s affiliation with Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage (NOM):
(H/t Townhall via reader Peter Hughes.)
Why must he so attack Maggie Gallagher? And why do so many gay lefties use the word “shame” to describe the actions of their ideological adversaries? His tone was harsh the opposite of the women he’s attacking. He would have better better served to follow my advice.
Why can’t these people show some class, some grace, in confronting their adversaries? Why must they adopt so harsh a tone and so vitriolic a vocabulary?
They need to learn from others who have pushed so massive a social change, focusing on the virtues of that change and not the deficiencies of those who defend the status quo.