Is “same sex marriage” inevitable?

Let’s face it: it sometimes seems as if it is—and by that, I mean it often appears that the courts and the federal governmental (not to mention the media, Hollywood, and countless ivory tower ideologues) are intent on creating this falsity called “same sex marriage” and foisting it upon the American people, regardless of whether they want it or not. In addition, it’s not always clear what the American people want, or are willing to live with, in part because they are so divided on the matter, but also because those who oppose faux marriages are relentlessly lectured about how “mean”, “narrowminded”, “hateful”, “bigoted”, and “backwards” they are. And who wants to continually hear how rotten they are, even if they are simply upholding time-tested traditon and common sense? 

But Luis Tellez, the President of the Witherspoon Institute, has a more optimistic perspective, and while I’m not completely convinced by his arguments, his observations are certainly worth pondering. Tellez writes, in a piece titled, “The Future of Marriage: Why ‘The Inevitable’ Is Not Inevitable”:

The Left now has the White House (for four more years), in addition to the universities, Hollywood, large portions of the media, and high-tech industry.

But can this reliance on the power of the elite institutions be sustained in the long run? Perhaps, if the majority of the people come to accept that to flourish one is to be allowed to do whatever one wants regarding sexual practices. I submit that the majority of people do not grasp that this is the message of the LGBT movement, and as they do grasp it, they will shift to the view that our sexuality has boundaries and is ordained toward something greater than whatever we want.

Don’t take it from me; take it from Dan Savage as quoted by Mark Oppenheimer’s New York Times article, “Married with Infidelities”:

Savage believes monogamy is right for many couples. But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy.

Social science research shows us, and a growing body of journalistic reporting reveals, that gay men are not interested in permanent monogamous relationships. Lesbians are more apt to be monogamous, but less apt to remain together long-term. One myth that LGBT activists push is that marriage is what most homosexual people want. Will the provision of marriage cause gay and lesbian Americans to enter lasting and stable relationships en masse? Unlikely. Another myth that the activists push is the “no differences” thesis: the claim that there are no differences in outcomes for children parented by heterosexual couples or homosexual couples.

The sonogram helped people see the unborn child in the womb and realize it is alive; it made a powerful case for life. Similarly, we have to expose the myths of the gay marriage movement. Several events of 2012 have brought us closer to that goal.

Read the entire piece. Here is one problem I see, among others: the push for “same sex marriage” is increasingly based on an appeal to fairness, which in turn is rooted in the widespread assumption that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality (and perhaps even more wonderful, according to some). I don’t see that widespread assumption changing; on the contrary, it seems to be almost as American as sugar-free apple pie and a fireworks-free Fourth of July. What do you think?