My Turn: 'Inevitability' and other myths
Published 12:00 am Sunday, May 13, 2012
By Kevin L. Wilson
Although ostensibly in response to the “Constitutions and Cultural Divides” piece that recently appeared in this paper a few days ago, this article could just as well address a plethora of similar screeds relating the issue of “gay marriage.”
“How?” you ask. Because ad nauseam, they all echo the same basic talking points that those who control both the state and national media wish to convey, namely, that unions between homosexuals are inevitable and that those who oppose them are misguided at best and knuckle-dragging bigots at worst. I waited until all the votes were in to pull the trigger on this response, and now that President Obama has come out squarely in favor of gay marriage, I now have the unique opportunity to hit two birds with a single stone.
Timing, they say, is everything.
First, I must admit that the “Constitutions” article by David Post was a remarkable piece of work, not least because it accomplished the rare feat of achieving poetic eloquence and driving mendacity in the space of just a few short paragraphs. While it is impossible for me to address the many self-evident fallacies uttered by this writer within so small an allotment of space, I will instead focus on his most curious assertion, namely, that the Marriage Amendment ballot initiative somehow represented an attempt to restrict human and individual rights by imposing a moral, religious doctrine on all North Carolina citizens.
In order to lend any credence to this claim, it is first necessary to accept the premise that homosexual marriage is somehow a human right. Now, without putting too fine a point on it, this is a premise that no civilization in the history of the entire world has ever accepted. In fact, and with only a few notable exceptions, most civilizations have consistently regarded homosexuality as deviancy at best — and degradation at worst. Incidentally, this opinion has been widespread among both secular and religious societies, rendering Mr. Post’s claim both absurd and laughable.
So much, then, for premises.
In his perfunctory breakdown of constitutions, Mr. Post appears to neglect a central tenet of organized human society, namely, the primacy of institutions and the critical importance of maintaining them: both in the face of apparent need and, per the current age, capricious fancy. A notable non-Christian named Plato put it best when he stated, “Goodness and integrity, institutions and laws, are the most precious possessions of mankind.” Today, two and a half millennia later, these same essential truths remain etched in stone.
To redefine institutions is to undermine them: a situation that always presages civilizational decline. On 8 May, 2012, a vast majority of North Carolinians voted to protect the institution of marriage. President Obama should have considered this fact before “redefining” his views. Come November, many of those same voters may opt to redefine him. He will have brought this situation on himself.
Finally, a word or two about history. Here lately, it has become de rigueur for television and newspaper pundits to make sweeping claims about how inevitable homosexual marriage is, and that to stand in opposition to it puts one “on the wrong side of history.” Leftists and particularly Marxists have long used this tactic to marginalize and discourage opposition, so it is of little surprise that those on the leftward side of this debate would adapt it to their particular ends. I would point out to them, however, that where history is concerned, nothing is inevitable, and how a special name often attaches to people who think they can predict the future: charlatan. Moreover, I would point them to the Cold War and the demise of global communism, which, according to so many of our own “elite” thinkers, was to be the shared and benevolent destiny of the entire planet. How did that work out?