“Lesbian Activist’s Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a ‘Lie’ to Destroy Marriage”
May as well tell the truth now. I mean, the argument is over and the pro-traditional marriage “folks” have lost: being the Bible-thumping prigs they are, tormented by paranoid fantasies of legal slippery slopes, they lack the intellectual chops to muster a defense of their position that doesn’t fall back on disgusting and unhelpful moral certitude, and so the force of history, inexorably moving forward as if it with a material and teleological will, will run them down, trampling their quaint conservatism under the stampeding hooves of progress.
I know this because a guy involved in a loofah scandal told me so. And he’s looking out for me. So how can he be wrong?
Look, I’m not going to argue same sex marriage as policy here yet again: unlike many SSM activists, I have supported the rights of states like New York, Massachusetts, and California, eg., to decide for themselves how they wish to define marriage for the purposes of their own state’s legal decision making. I’ve also been willing to support civil unions, properly drawn.
But I’ve also pointed out for years that the true objective of the movement — as it has been repeatedly laid out by queer theorists and activists, back before they believed anyone was listening, and back before they changed their tactics of denouncing traditional marriage — is to deconstruct the institution of marriage by pretending to embrace it as a “civil right,” then opening it up until it becomes legally non-exclusionary. At which point our social desire to differentiate will be trumped by the legal prohibition to do so — a move that portends widespread legal changes. Fundamental transformation, if you will.
And I know this because they’ve told me that’s what the plan is — even though many of them have since tried to walk that back now that they’ve achieved the kinds of mainstream gains they couldn’t foresee in the heady days of angry queer theory and in-your-face existential protest.
— Much like Obama spoke openly about his socialist / Communist leanings back before he burst onto the national scene, which so many not only ignored but insisted we must bracket for the historic good man.
— Much like Islamists have always made their intentions clear, even before they turned from terrorists to criminals to a protected class against who one must not speak ill, their having cornered the market on peaceful religiosity, and besides, why do you hate brown people?
Which is why I find it astounding that there continues to exist, even among many constitutionalists, this almost determined blind spot, this desire to be thought more nuanced in one’s thinking should they resist what at face value they refuse stubbornly to acknowledge.
Without being all judgey, let me just end with an observation: sanctimony is itself a form of vanity.