William A. Donohue
The Catholic Church rightfully emphasizes that all human beings share an inherent dignity. It matters not a whit what a person’s race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or age is—all are equal before God. Because we do not choose any of these attributes, they are of no moral consequence. It’s only when we engage in making value choices that morality kicks in. For instance, having a homosexual orientation is not sinful; acting on it is.
Until recently, such an observation would be regarded as pedestrian. Always allowing for the occasional eccentric, everyone knew that homosexuality was wrong. But all this has changed.
First gays wanted tolerance. To tolerate is to put up with, and that’s what homosexuals wanted from heterosexuals—to publicly acknowledge their presence without rancor or discord. Having won that battle (deservedly so), they proceeded to reject tolerance altogether. What they did was to raise the bar: they wanted social affirmation. Nothing less than social approval of who they are—including their lifestyle—would satisfy. Now they want us to say it’s okay for a guy to marry a guy.
Americans are a tolerant people. That’s good, just so long as tolerance doesn’t slide into amorality. For example, it is one thing to put up with immoral behavior, quite another to say we no longer object. Not only is there nothing wrong with registering moral outrage at morally outrageous behavior, there is something immoral about remaining silent. And no segment of society fails this test more than white people; in particular, well-educated white people.
In a recent survey of the American people by Quinnipiac University, it found that opposition to gay marriage was running 63-31 percent. Among whites, 31 percent were pro-gay marriage, but among blacks the figure was 22 percent. Even in a place like New York City—long considered a bastion of liberalism—the sentiment was running 47-40 percent against homosexual marriage; blacks were the most opposed, with 63 percent favoring a ban.
The Pew Hispanic Center found that 72 percent of Latinos believe homosexual sex between adults is “unacceptable”; 59 percent of whites feel the same way. In New York State, in a poll of Democratic voters taken by Edison Media Research, it was determined that 27 percent of Hispanics thought gays should be able to marry; 47 percent of whites approved. In Florida, a survey by Schroth & Associates found that 20 percent of Hispanics were pro-gay marriage, compared to 29 percent of whites.
On March 22, several hundred clergymen rallied at a church in the Atlanta area to sign a declaration of opposition to gay marriage. All of them were black. One week later, on March 29, hundreds of clergymen from across New York gathered at City Hall to protest gay marriage. Almost all were African American or Hispanic (conspicuously absent were Catholic priests).
The same phenomenon exists worldwide. Virtually every nation in the world where the right of two men to marry is being seriously advanced is white: it is in Canada, the U.S. and Europe where the gay rights movement is flourishing. It is not flourishing in Asia, the Middle East, Africa or Latin America. Just in nations that are predominantly white.
This pattern is evident in the United Nations as well: non-white nations are busy resisting the tide of the gay rights movement that is being foisted upon them by rich white countries. And within North America and Europe, we find that it is the best educated white men and women (more women than men) who want to see Tom and Dick get married. Though they may balk at the prospect of Tom, Dick and Harry marrying, not one among them is able to articulate a principled reason why it’s okay for two guys to marry, but not three.
So what’s wrong with white people? To be sure, many have swallowed the moonshine—served up in copious portions by our cultural elites—that to deny homosexuals the right to marry is to discriminate against them. Lost in this logic is the fact that homosexuals can marry. And many do; some even father or give birth to children. What they can’t do is marry someone of the same sex. Neither can brothers marry their sisters; or fathers marry their daughters; or sons marry their mothers; or sisters marry their sisters; or brothers marry their brothers. But all are free to marry someone outside their family who is of the opposite sex.
It is not a good sign when a society passes laws that contravene nature’s cues. For example, nature tells us that, on average, men are stronger than women, and that young men are stronger than older men. That is why we draft young men and not old ladies. In the same way, nature, and nature’s God, allow for the unity of male-female relations and the prospect of a family. A society that does not ratify that fact of life is simply asking for trouble.
