One of the things that has become increasingly clear in the debate about gay marriage in this country is that proponents do not really want to have a debate. They have already decided that traditional marriage supporters are ignorant rubes at best or bigots at worst. In either case, there is no reason to take traditional marriage supporters seriously, and they can be safely dismissed as a part of a dying minority.
Exhibit A: Tonight’s episode of Piers Morgan’s program on CNN. He had two guests on to talk about gay marriage, Suze Orman and Ryan Anderson. Piers and Orman were for gay marriage, and Anderson was against.
From the outset, it was clear that this wasn’t really going to be a debate. Anderson did a fantastic job representing traditional marriage, but the whole thing was staged to keep him in his place. Anderson was not even allowed to sit at the table during the discussion but was relegated to making his comments from a seat within the studio audience.
Both Piers and Orman were rude to Anderson, but the most patronizing thing happened at the very beginning of Orman’s remarks. After Anderson shared his views, Orman gave him a rhetorical pat on the head. She told him that he was obviously “uneducated in how it really, really works.”
Ryan Anderson graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude from Princeton University and he’s a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Notre Dame. He just co-authored a book that is probably the definitive case for traditional marriage. He’s a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an all-around brilliant guy. Whatever you want to think about Ryan Anderson, “uneducated” hits ridiculously wide of the mark.
So why was Orman able to get away with this? Because in the brave new world that we are living in, you don’t have to be fair to someone who supports traditional marriage. Why? Because traditional marriage supporters are bigots. Once a person declares support for one man and one woman as the norm for marriage, he is by definition backward and ignorant no matter how many degrees he has. It is not necessary to afford that person respect or understanding. They just need to be dismissed and their argument ruled out of order.
Piers and Orman were quick to point out that Anderson is in the minority on gay marriage. And they are right about that. But is that really a reason for treating him (and the rest of us) like dirt? Can minority opinions be safely dismissed simply because they are the minority? Haven’t gay activists been complaining about this kind of treatment to their views over the years? This is the worst kind of hypocrisy, and it is exactly the kind of attitude that will overthrow religious liberty if it is not kept in check.
Unfortunately, the attitude seems to be pervasive in our culture these days. And it needs to be called out for the sham that it is.