In Susan Rushton’s recent piece, “Rufus takes issue with Supreme Court” (Journal, March 3), Rufus is the perfect foil for the progressive, prescient columnist. In response to Rufus’s desperate cry, “If these walls (of traditional marriage) are torn down,” Susan interrupts: “They’re already coming down … and it’s a good thing … because if one group’s rights are protected, that means yours are, too. Rejoice!”
The implication that same-sex rights protect others’ rights caught my attention, because my experience has been quite the opposite. At the university where I taught marriage and family, the gay agenda, over time, ramified into all sectors.
If an instructor, hoping for tenure down the road, happened to opine that marriage was a unique love-giving and life-giving bond between one man and one woman, said instructor would not make the first cut.
The agenda was (and is) simple and clear: “You can be of any sexual persuasion/orientation whatsoever, however, you must not stand in the way of how we same-sex marriage proponents see reality. You must agree that marriage, by definition, is inclusive; you must hold that same-sex ‘marriage’ is as natural (and God-blessed) as traditional marriage.”
If the Defense of Marriage Act or Prop. 8 is scuttled by the Supreme Court, what I continue to teach about marriage and family will, in short order, become “hate speech.”
The same-sex marriage goals, in which Susan seems to have boundless faith, include the automatic transfer of my First Amendment rights to those who “know better than I.”
John Hamlon, Lincoln