• Home
• Opinion
• Commentary

Once again, state voters - this time in Maine, hardly a conservative stronghold - have voted down same-sex marriage. Leaving what she thought would be a victory party after the balloting, an emotional Cecelia Burnett said, "I don't understand what the fear is, why people are so afraid of this change."

That's a big part of the gay marriage side's problem: They cannot imagine why, aside from bigotry, anyone would disagree with them. To be sure, anyone on the traditional marriage side who doesn't understand that denying marriage to same-sex couples imposes a serious burden on them is either willfully ignorant or hard-hearted. The thing is, empathy should go both ways.

Leaving aside that there is undoubtedly a significant number of people who vote against gay marriage because they flat-out don't like gay people, there are serious and important reasons to vote against same-sex marriage - and these deserve to be taken seriously.

For starters, gay marriage represents a cultural revolution, a fundamental redefinition of what marriage means. Until the past 10 or 20 years, no society had ever sanctioned marriage between same-sex partners. It was unthinkable outside of a small radical fringe. Now, in the twinkling of an eye, it's coming to pass in a few countries, though the vast majority of humankind still finds it unthinkable.

That's not an argument against gay marriage, but it is an explanation for why gay marriage remains unpopular in this country. Culture precedes politics. If you cannot change culture, you're reduced to arguing, as same-sex marriage supporter Linda Hirshman did in the wake of the Maine defeat, that people shouldn't have the right to vote on the definition of marriage.

Along those lines, gay marriage backers often say that civil rights shouldn't be submitted to a popular vote. If blacks in the Jim Crow South had depended on a majority vote to gain their civil rights, justice would have been a long time coming. That makes sense to people who see no moral or philosophical difference between race and homosexuality. But it is by no means clear that the two categories are interchangeable. For traditionalists, it's a category mistake to say that they are.

Which brings us to another reason majorities oppose gay marriage: the belief that its supporters are all too willing to force their own particular view of marriage and its meaning on an unwilling society. It's simply not true that their viewpoint is neutral. To believe that same-sex marriage is the equivalent of heterosexual marriage is to accept that the essence of marriage is fundamentally different from what it has always been.

Perhaps society will embrace that new understanding - but that's exactly what it is, and traditionalists should not be faulted for intuiting that the moral and cultural implications of this shift are likely to be far-reaching and imperfectly understood.

And thoughtful traditionalists understand that legalizing same-sex marriage almost certainly would bring about serious restrictions on freedom of speech and association, particularly for churches and religious organizations. Nobody is going to force pastors to marry same-sex couples, but legal scholars, including prominent gay-rights advocate and law professor Chai Feldblum, have plainly said that there is an irresolvable conflict between religious freedom and gay civil rights - and only one side can prevail.

You can't expect gay folks to put religious liberties over their own interests, but likewise, why is it bigoted for religious traditionalists to stand up for what they believe to be bedrock rights - rights that will be curtailed by same-sex marriage?

Gay marriage proponents would do well to quit falling back on the self-serving "bigotry" excuse and do what they (quite justifiably) ask of their opponents: imagine what this issue looks like through the eyes of people not like themselves.

Rod Dreher is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. E-mail: rdreher@dallasnews.com.

No comments have been posted. Be the first poster!

PressofAtlanticCity.com offers everyone the opportunity to comment on published stories. However, it is impractical for editors to screen all comments.
If you believe a comment is offensive, please click on the abuse-reporting link and your objection will be considered by an editor. We encourage participants to use their real names, but inoffensive screen names are acceptable. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them.
Please post responsibly. Do not post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy.
Be polite. Don’t hate. Users who don’t play by the rules may be blocked from participating.

View our full terms of service and privacy agreement

Click here to report a comment as abusive.

You must login to post a new comment