Gay Marriage and the Dog That Was a Horse

Let's suppose I want to keep a horse in my backyard. Not a big horse, but a horse nonetheless. Let's suppose it's against the rules of my Homeowner's Association. They allow dogs. They even allow big dogs like great danes and afghans, but they don't allow horses. Is this fair? After all, they're both mammals and they both have four legs. Both can be easily trained. And certain types of dogs are way more dangerous than horses. I decide I have a case. Now what tact do I take?

a) petition to get the rules changed by convincing fellow homeowners to allow a horse as long as certain requirements are met

b) move to a neighborhood where horses are allowed

c) try to get the federal definition of dog changed to also mean horse.

If you answered a or b, congratulations you are a reasonable human being who respects the democratic process and knows what it takes to love your neighbors. I you answered c, you have shown yourself to be a narrow-minded narcissist who believes everyone must conform to your view. Or you are one of the gay activists in California trying to overturn the will of the people, who despite supporting almost every leftist policy that's come down the pike, still somehow realize deep in their gut that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The truth is the battle for gay marriage in California isn't about gay rights at all. California has civil unions that treat same-sex couples under the law the same as married couples. No one in sunny California is getting kicked out of neighborhoods, losing their jobs, or discriminated against because they are in a gay relationship, and should these couples find a willing pastor or religious leader, they can even hold the necessary ceremony to call themselves "married." What they can't get is the majority of the people to recognize what they have as marriage, because that's never been the definition of marriage. And changing definitions is a lot harder and a lot more absurd than changing rules or recognizing rights.

No, the truth is the battle in California and most of the United States over gay marriage is to make the religious community accept homosexuality by force of government decree, to isolate and silence those with deeply felt religious convictions as intolerant bigots. The message from the gay activist crowd is you are either for gay marriage or you support hate, thus the campaign to call the proposition to define marriage between a man and a woman in California "Proposition Hate." In principle it is the gay left that is so intolerant that they will go so far as to sue photographers and others who refuse to work at their wedding."You must approve of our lifestyle!" they cry.

The Constitution does not give anyone the right to trample over the values of others. Ironically, that's what the gay activists are trying to do. They have been unable to convince a majority of voters in any state that their secular values are better and/or more appropriate than the traditional definition of marriage. So they sue to usurp the will of the people.

Nothing in the Constitution says your lifestyle must be affirmed or approved. For the Left to pretend it does and use this courts in this fashion is to pervert the very essence of our democracy. The effort is as futile as trying to get my horse called a dog.

Gay rights, yes! Gay marriage, no. Not unless you convince the majority of the people that it is in their best interest for the state to redefine the institution. After all, langauge is a living thing and who knows? Over time, you just might.