Why Gay Marriage Opponents Lost

I have previously noted in a post the beat down that hate merchant Tony Perkins received from Ted Olson when the two of them appeared on Fox News recently.  Now, conservative columnist uses that confrontation as a lead into explaining why the Christofascists lost the war against gay marriage.  In a nutshell, their ONLY real reason for opposing same sex marriage is the desire to impose their religious beliefs on all.  They had no concrete reasons or justifications otherwise despite trying to use discredited research and bogus "experts" to create a smoke screen to hide their religious based agenda.  Here are highlights from her column in the Washington Post:

The face-off on “Fox News Sunday” between Tony Perkins, the leader of the Family Research Council, and former solicitor general Ted Olson on gay marriage was illuminating. One could see precisely why gay marriage opponents are losing the national debate.

Perkins was asked how he would draw the line between a ban on  interracial marriage and one on same-sex marriage. He came up with two answers: Marriage is about children and gays cannot procreate, and gay marriage will lead to polygamy. . . .  Olson demolished both arguments . . 

The religious right as an article of faith believes homosexual unions are not “normal,” and it therefore wants the state to enforce that belief. But that, of course, is imposing religious creed by state action. As much as the religious right might believe it is not “normal,” that belief is a function of religious faith; it is not an argument that is going to find resonance with a court applying secular constitutional standards.

What the anti-gay marriage forces are lacking is a compelling argument that homosexual marriage harms heterosexual marriage  . . . In sum, gay marriage opponents have lost the argument with the public and the courts because what was once a matter of defending social consensus has evolved into a plea for enforcement of one set of religious norms in a diverse society. Without evidence of harm to others, there is no constitutionally acceptable reason to preserve the distinction.

Believers have every right to set parameters on their own religious ceremonies and conceptions of marriage; but they cannot impose them on others — absent any evidence that they are being harmed by others’ marriage practices. In short, it is the essence of tolerance in our society that people of faith can abide by their own religious definition of marriage while tolerating others’ practices with which they strongly disagree. Whether they agree with that or not, that is the legal reality going forward. They will need to come to terms with it.

 The Christofascists face a similar dilemma when it comes to contraception.  Just because they oppose it doesn't mean that they get to impose their beliefs on the rest of America.