Expanding the reach of the anti-discrimination law, is almost certainly a side effect of redefining marriage. The one and only argument for ssm is the equality argument. it’s crude form, which we saw during the Prop 8 campaign, is “you’re being mean to us. you’re hurting our feelings. it’s not fair.” incredibly enough, that is what we are now hearing in a federal courtroom. The legal argument is equal protection, but that’s just a dressed up version of the same thing. And, the plaintiffs have no shame about bringing sob stories into the courtroom. so, if we accept the equality argument for purposes of marriage, it will be that much easier to accept the equality argument for anti-discrimination purposes. So, contrary to some libertarians who woudl like to think that ssm represents a retreat of the state from civil society, the exact opposite is true. The state will assign itself the power to intervene in more and more areas of civil society, until it is satisfied that they have made everything equal.
Just so you know that I am not hyper-ventillating, I will post some recent examples of increasing the power and scope of the state on behalf of gay equality. Here is one in the UK,
under the (proposed Equality) Bill, which will be considered by the House of Lords on Monday, it would be illegal for a Christian charity to sack a senior manager for adultery or living an openly gay lifestyle. However, the biggest potential showdown is likely to be between the government and Britain’s 4.3 million Catholics over the church’s tradition of an all-male, celibate priesthood.
Now, look, whether you are a Catholic or not, whether you are a religious person or not, surely we can agree that religions have the right to be themselves. No one in the UK is required to be part of the Roman Catholic Church: (understatement of the millenium!) When Equality trumps religious freedom, something really really big is at stake in the organization of society. It simply won’t do for advocates of ssm to say, as Prof Nancy Cott said in the courtroom, that they don’t know what the consequences of ssm will be. It won’t do for the advocates of ssm to try to dismiss everyone who raises these concerns as irrational bigots.
We have to talk about these issues. It is irrational to enact a change of this magnitude without talking about them.