NY Post continues to fall in line on homosexual “marriage”

One week after New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin switched sides on the issue, another mindless, morally empty Post columnist, Andrea Peyser, who like Goodwin had previously opposed homosexual “marriage,” now says it’s fine by her. Why? Don’t ask. Mindless, morally empty people don’t have reasons. They just conform to their environment, or what they perceive to be their environment.

Gay nuptials—this time, it’s personal
By ANDREA PEYSER
June 20, 2011

I give in. To my dear niece and her lovely wife—mazel tov.

On the day of her big, fat gay wedding, the bride wore a flowing, white dress.

The other bride walked down the aisle in a white tuxedo.

More than 100 friends and family members, some bursting with joy, others silently disgruntled, gathered in a country club in Massachusetts to watch an act that was at once bold and profound. And as normal as the wind.

In this over-the-top shindig, planned for a year like a small military incursion (open bar, hers-and-hers gift registry, choice of vegetarian entree), the pair looked into each other’s eyes.

And they said, “I do.” Forever.

As New York’s state senators sumo-wrestled last week—without coming to a decision—over the historic idea of becoming the sixth state in the nation, and the biggest, to legalize marriage between people of the same sex, in places like Massachusetts and Connecticut, gay weddings have become as common as rain.

So when my proud, defiant niece took the plunge Saturday, she chose to wear pants not because of any role she plays. To her, wearing slacks is as natural as breathing.

As effortless as love.

All across America, people like me, who’ve been on the fence as to whether Adam and Steve or Beth and Susan should have the right to walk down the aisle legally, are being forced to confront their deepest reservations.

Would gay marriage cheapen the heterosexual kind? Render it meaningless? The truth is that many of us who once felt this way are wavering on the side of the guys and the girls.

For the first time this spring, polls determined that a majority of Americans, however slim, favors gay nuptials (although the polls didn’t touch controversial gay adoption, treated equally with straight in New York). An ABC/Washington Post poll determined that 53 percent of us approved of gay marriage, up from 36 percent five years ago.

The reason is plain: This is personal.

Despite abstract discomfort over normalizing gay unions, I don’t know a soul who would discriminate against the nice guys next door. Nor would I deny my niece happiness that is evident in the size of her smile.

The vast majority of opponents of gay marriage are not rank bigots. We’re pleased that in New York City, gays who register as domestic partners are afforded most protections and benefits of straights—including the right to visit partners in jail or the hospital. Many private businesses provide the same benefits to gay couples as they do marrieds. A good thing.

“This is one instance where business has been ahead of the government,” said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry, an activist group. But as I’ve learned, this doesn’t guarantee equality in, say, Elmira.

“Marriage brings that statement of clarity, dignity and connectedness to another person that is immediately understood and powerful,” Wolfson said.

My family always believed my niece was a confirmed bachelorette. But when her little sister married (a guy), she arrived at the wedding not with a conventional date, but with her “roommate.” Some of us suspected the truth.

Still, denial rendered her religious Christian grandparents and assorted kin blind. That is, until she matter-of-factly announced her secret love. Ironically, I won’t name the couple here, because they fear job discrimination. This is wrong.

My niece first realized how huge an act her wedding was to be not at the altar, but staring at a piece of paper a few days ago. She went to a local City Hall to sign a marriage license. It blew her away.

“It was powerful,” she said. “I had to check a box. There was male and male, female and female. It’s completely normal!” she told me.

“I cried.”

This is how the world changes. Not with government dictums or activists’ chants. But with a single act of love.

I’ve confronted gay marriage through the eyes of a member of my family who had the guts to be herself. It makes her relatives love her no less. Perhaps even more.

In the run-up to the wedding, I’ve seen that devotion trumps politics.

May it last a lifetime.

- end of initial entry -

Alexis Zarkov writes:

The gay steamroller proceeds, crushing everything in its path into a pancake of conformity. I am amazed that a mere three percent of the population [sic] can be so influential. Actually not all homosexuals want to marry, so I’ll guess that the actual number of gay people who desire marriage comes in at less than two percent. Why are so many heterosexuals so anxious to please such a tiny fraction of the population? What do they think is the benefit to them? I ask the gay marriage supporters, and they can’t give me an answer other than something along the lines of “basic fairness.” In other words, if some group can be pleased, then it must be pleased absent some absolutely compelling reason to the contrary. I’m afraid that gay marriage is a done deal. If not now, then in the near future. As you know in California we voted down gay marriage with Proposition 8 only to have the vote of the people overturned by a homosexual judge. Of course he had a conflict of interest, yet he refused to recuse himself with at least the passive approval of the legal community. I’m afraid opposition to gay marriage is quickly becoming hopeless. This is why you see columnists switching sides. They see the steamroller coming and want to get out of the way.

Laura Wood writes:

Peyser writes:

“This is how the world changes. Not with government dictums or activists’ chants. But with a single act of love.”

But Peyser, as she herself insists, is not really concerned with the world. She is concerned with her niece. She is willing to see a radical social experiment enacted to keep her niece happy. Why?

I suspect her niece is something of a social misfit and her family is latching onto homosexuality as an explanation and a cure. Homosexuality can explain everything, even the awkwardness of a shy or socially inept person, perhaps someone who had a chaotic childhood. And so everyone shows up at the wedding.

Many homosexuals, it seems, are people who retreat into the safety of their own sex. Unfortunately, this sort of wedding can only make things worse. It’s as if the family gathered around a confirmed alcoholic to play drinking games. They are exacerbating this woman’s alienation. They may be well-intentioned, but they are not kind.

LA replies:

“It’s as if the family gathered around a confirmed alcoholic to play drinking games. They are exacerbating this woman’s alienation. They may be well-intentioned, but they are not kind.”

Peyser’s ethos, the standard ethos of nice American liberals, is: “I just want my [son / daughter / niece] to be happy.” Personal “happiness,” divorced from any standard of goodness, is their standard. But this is just another way of saying that whatever people desire, no matter how deluded and destructive it may be, is good.

Laura replies:

The more they focus on happiness, the more unhappy they are.

Alexis Zarkov writes:

I noticed that you put a “[sic]” after my “a mere three percent of the population.” Let my tell you how I got that figure. An authoritative source for homosexuality is The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States, Laumann et al. Table 8.3B (page 311) which enumerates sexual identity. This book is online at Google Books here. Note that 96.9 percent of men identify as heterosexual and 98.6 percent of women. Subtract each number from 100 and average to get 2.25 percent as the proportion of the U.S. population that identified as not exclusively heterosexual. This reference is from 1994, so I bumped that up to three percent. Other sources indicate an increase in the number of people identifying as homosexual. I think three percent is a pretty good estimate for the maximum number of people who would identify as homosexual to a degree where they might be interested in a same sex marriage. Looking around the Internet, I see that these numbers bounce all over the place.

Many journalists use the 10 percent number for men from Alfred Kinsley he published in 1948. Back then statisticians were extremely critical of his methodology. Nevertheless the press does not seem to want to let go of 10 percent. The homosexual community likes this obvious over-estimate because they can use it to scare politicians who might worry about the homosexual vote. Gallup says his polls find that the average American thinks something like 20% of the population is homosexual. Perhaps if the general public realized just how small the number of homosexuals really is, they would be less inclined to support gay marriage. After all, why cause a fuss over one or two percent of the population.

LA replies:

Actually, I questioned your three percent figure because I had thought (evidently mistakenly) that the correct figure was in the range of one or two percent.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 21, 2011 03:30 PM | Send