Some Notes on the Morality of Gay Activism

One of the common arguments that gay activists make when defending same sex marriage (or gay marriage as they call it) is the appeal to equality based on the analogy of civil rights based on race or gender. Yet there is a significant disconnect in comparing an ideology based on sexual preference versus race or gender. The disconnect stems from the gay activist misperception of the analogy.

In a nutshell, while same sex attraction may or may not be inborn, the outward expression of sexual preference is a moral question and not a question of innate consequence, nor is it a civil right. The same is true of the outward expression of heterosexuality as well.

Here are some examples to illustrate the differences:

• Being black is not a moral question. Being a black activist is.
• Being a woman is not a moral question. Being a pro-abortion feminist is a moral decision.
• Having sexual feelings is not a moral question. The media's hypersexualization of teens is.
• Having same sex attraction is not a moral question. Preaching an ideology based on sexual preference in order to change the definition of marriage is.

Like it or not, homosexual behavior (not same-sex attraction) crosses the social boundaries of moral custom and moral behavior. To claim homosexual behavior is akin to race or gender is to propose a false analogy. There is no such thing as equality of morality. Yet gay activists will insist that their particular moral ideal must be the only valid moral standard and therefore must be protected by law.

This is not a question of fairness or equality. This is a question of moral dictatorship - the exact same problem gay activists accuse religious conservatives of having. It is a misguided ideal at best and  duplicitous power-mongering at worst.

The gay ideology of same sex marriage is ultimately not a legal question, although it is certainly expressed in the legal world through identity politics. Rather, gay ideology is a battle for the definition of what is moral within society. "Gay marriage" is merely an attempt, not at equality, fairness, or even family, but it is an attempt at establishing a political identity based on sexual preference. While the question of harm may not affect the individual per se, the aspect of harm does threaten the more nebulous realm of such basic societal elements as family or the institution of marriage.

Systems which ultimately tear at the "fabric of society" (as Edmund Burke put it about 250 years ago) all have similar features, related to the utopian systems of collectivism or progressivism. Such systems attempt to replace true moral principles with state-imposed morality. The founders of the US understood the problem of imposing moral values when they adopted the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. The founders understood the dangers of a government enforcing the ideals of religion, as well as enforcing the ideals of any particular group. Hence the 1st Amendment guarantees individual free speech and the free expression of religion. Since the founding of the US, we've seen examples of governments which impose the state's version of morality. These have inevitably turned into statist governments such as exist throughout Europe today, and sometimes turned into highly destructive political systems such as Communism and National Socialism.

Gay activists successfully argued to the Supreme Court in Lawrence v Texas in 2003 to remove government interference concerning the privacy of the bedroom. Then, gay activists turned right around and said: "Now let's make government change the public moral standard of society to protect homosexual behavior outside of the bedroom." "Let's change the public institution of the military." "Let's change the public institution of the school." "Let's change the public institution of marriage."

This is no longer a private matter of same sex attraction and private sexual preference. Gay activists have turned their ideology into a public desire to impose legally their version of morality.