Critics of homosexual “marriage” (and abortion, for that matter) warned this would happen all along. We said it was only a matter of time before defenders of traditional matrimony and the sanctity of life came to be seen as anti-social deviants. And the Swedish PM’s offhanded reference to abortion – as though it’s something every well-adjusted person accepts, like a woman’s right to vote or divorce her husband and run off with the personal trainer – shows that Sweden’s already arrived.
This comes back to the case of Tim Farron, the leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrats who was forced to resign because he – a devout Evangelical – refused to say whether or not homosexuality is a sin. (He eventually broke down and said it wasn’t, but by then the damage was done.) Farron lamented that Britain had yet to truly achieve a “tolerant, liberal society” because his private Christian faith wasn’t allowed to remain just that: private.
But of course, it wasn’t. A society that holds the right of same-sex couples to “marry” on par with that of opposite-sex couples cannot tolerate the presence of those who defend the traditional definition of marriage exclusively. It simply isn’t possible. Whenever we deal with “rights” in this way, we imply that there’s something intrinsic to our humanity at stake. Our rights are, after all, “inalienable” and “endowed by our Creator”. If someone denies one of those “rights” – however trivial it may seem – it inevitably appears grossly offensive. It denies part of our humanity. It makes us feel less whole as a species. That’s why we as Catholics don’t just mourn the death of millions of children lost to abortion: we mourn the men and women of West who degrade themselves metaphysically by tolerating this ongoing genocide. Even those of us who stand firmly in defence of the innocent feel soiled by this travesty. And we are.
Perhaps, when homosexual “marriage” was still a novelty, liberals could delude Christians – and even themselves – into believing that we could constitute that “right” while tolerating those who fundamentally opposite it. Maybe, once upon a time, some of us actually believed that traditionalists wouldn’t come to be seen as morally defective, like the anti-miscegenationists of yore. How utterly foolish.
Liberals were always perfectly clear about what was at stake. They never cared about the institution of marriage at all. Remember: these are the partisans of pornography, Tinder, and no-fault divorce. What they were fighting for was the status of homosexuality itself. It was always about achieving some legal acknowledgement of their “equality” with opposite-sex couples. Once they got it, it was only a matter of time before those who denied that “equality” came to be seen as pariahs – no better than Klansmen or neo-Nazis.
Traditionalists, to our shame, never took them at their word. Our society was given the choice between procreation and fornication, and we refused to make the case for the former. We were too afraid of appearing stuffy and po-faced. And we’re already paying the price.