Is Same-Sex 'Marriage' Inevitable?

February 2004

We got a phone call from a lady asking if we thought same-sex "marriage" in the U.S. will ultimately prevail. We answered with an emphatic yes. She was aghast, saying that this will be the end of civilization as we know it. We reminded her that same-sex "marriage" is nothing compared to legalized baby-killing, which we've had for over three decades. She got the picture.

Frankly, we can't get too excited about same-sex "marriage." American culture is so degenerate that it hardly makes any difference anymore. Indeed, American culture is so rotten that it makes Stalinist cultural policy -- no abortion, no contraception, no premarital sex, no pornography, no homosexuality, no divorce -- almost look like the Kingdom of God on earth.

Yes, same-sex "marriage" is the big topic these days. It's almost impossible to pick up a Catholic periodical without reading about it. We happened to pick up the December 7, 2003, Our Sunday Visitor, which devoted lots of space to the issue. That issue's four pieces opposing same-sex "marriage" were quite fine, though quite routine. But the cover story was about something else -- the Catholic view of war and peace -- with a large full-color photo on the cover showing an Iraqi man giving a flower to a female G.I. toting a machine gun. To our mind, the photo of the female G.I. bordered on the obscene.

Does same-sex "marriage" represent gender-blending and sexual confusion? Certainly. And so does a gal brandishing a machine gun. But the feminist Visitor had no sense of the incongruity here.

Look! If a female can swagger with a machine gun, then what's wrong with a male being a flower arranger? You see, women's lib (masculine women) legitimizes "gay lib" (effeminate men). Maybe the female G.I. is a lesbian and would like to "marry" and be a "husband." Can America deny her that right if she put herself in harm's way in Iraq? And maybe the male flower arranger wants to get "married" and be a "wife." If a lesbian G.I. can "marry," then it would be discriminatory to deny the flower arranger the same right. To make a long story short, if there are female G.I.s toting machine guns, then same-sex "marriage" is inevitable.


You have two options:

  1. Online subscription: Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
  2. Single article purchase: Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.

If you're already a subscriber log-in here.



New Oxford Notes: February 2004

Read our posting policy Add a comment
Holy Matrimony isn't made any more holy by virtue of those who abide in it. The institution of marriage hasn't crumbled simply because so many have failed it. Just as the Church will never be destroyed no matter how many fail it. The radical liberals try to say that heterosexuals have destroyed marriage so maybe homosexuals should be given the chance to help restore it's sanctity. How clever! Posted by: markpeters
July 22, 2006 01:57 AM EDT
I too, believe that same-sex marriage is inevitable and that's not just because I'm from Massachusetts. What needs to be recognized is the sad fact that heterosexuals have made such a mess of marriage, that the institution crumbled long ago. Consider not only the high divorce rate but also the deadbeat dad factor and the "liberation" of singlw women having children, they liberate themselves and their offspring right into poverty. Posted by: Caroline
July 21, 2006 03:16 PM EDT
Add a comment