“Fighting for life [against abortion] is easy,” Maggie Gallagher told me. “It’s fighting for marriage that is difficult.”
Gallagher is the founding president of the National Organization for Marriage. Her organization has been instrumental in accomplishing legislative victories across the states, such as Prop 8 in California, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Citizens in 30 states have overwhelmingly voted to protect this traditional definition of marriage, showing, she said, that the public is largely in agreement with her organization.
She visited Hillsdale briefly as part of a bus tour and, during our conversation, she told me about the many death threats she has received because of her involvement in this, an issue even more divisive than abortion. She told me she has had her own security detail because of death threats. U.S. Rep. Musgrave, who was also on the bus, confirmed that not only was she threatened, but so were the lives of her grandchildren by name. It seems nothing appears off limits for many homosexual activist groups, they said.
Why the threats? In order to advance their agenda, homosexual activists need to keep supporters of traditional marriage on the defensive, because those who uphold marriage between one man and one woman have the winning argument. A lack of scrutiny on the war being waged on traditional marriage is absolutely essential to homosexual activists’ strategy. The eight states that have legalized same-sex “marriage” have all done so through the ruling elite: the courts or the legislature, not through popular vote.
Ironically, many homosexual advocacy groups issuing deaths threats turn around and call Maggie Gallagher, and groups like hers, haters. Their strategy is really quite brilliant: re-define the marriage issue as one of civil rights and declare the debate already settled. No one wants to go back to Jim Crow laws, right? Then, they paint anyone who actually wants to hold a reasoned debate a “hater” while simultaneously targeting them with threats to bully them into silence and keep others from joining the debate.
Even if the bullying isn’t physical, they threaten businesses with lawsuits and assault their opponent’s reputation. Santorum’s google problem comes to mind. Unfortunately, these tactics have kept many conservatives from fighting what the homosexuals claim is the inevitable spirit of the age.
But are the civil rights of homosexuals violated? Is it an act of discrimination for the government to issue a marriage license to Bob and Mary, but not Bob and Harry?
According to the dictionary, civil rights are “rights belonging to a person by virtue of his status as a citizen or member of civil society.” The Bill of Rights delineates these rights of American citizens. While that they have, in the past, been denied to an entire class of people, black Americans, they have never been denied to homosexuals. It is untrue for them to assert that their rights are being violated the same way black Americans’ rights were violated, and this claim is a gross dismissal of the actual injury black Americans faced.
Homosexuals are not seeking the right to marry. They already have it, provided they abide by its definition. What they want to radically change the definition.
Government regulations of marriage, such as the prohibition of marrying a sister, child, animal, or someone of the same sex, are in place to reinforce the public purpose of marriage.
That public purpose of marriage is not only to continue the human race, but also to nurture and educate of our next generation. Our founders believed this public union of a man and a woman is essential to the endurance of our society and should be encouraged through the sanction of law.
When we step back and actually have the courage to start debating the issue, it is clear that marriage does not violate anyone’s civil rights. Rather, it supports the building block necessary for our society to endure and prosper. Thought warriors like Maggie Gallagher understand this and continue to fight for marriage despite threats. The majority of citizens are on the winning side of this argument, and more importantly, so is the truth.
The question is whether or not conservatives will surrender because fighting for marriage is hard.