There is a clear connection between the current campaign for equal rights for homosexuals and the great campaign for equal rights for women. That movement had started with equal voting rights for women, and then moved on to fight for equal access to education, to jobs and careers, and equal pay for women who were doing the same work as men.
There were a number of good things that came from the women’s movement, but there was also a fundamental flaw. The flaw was that the women’s movement tended to see women in competition to men, rather then seeing men and women as working together in society.
I never had a reason to doubt the righteousness of the campaign for women’s suffrage until an old Monsignor pointed something out. He said that when women got the right to vote somewhere in Europe, they were interviewing a woman who did not feel that she had gained anything: “I never felt that I did not have a voice. My husband and I used to discuss the issues, and then he would go down and cast our vote for us.” It had never occurred to me that women had lost something when they won the right to vote. The men were not just voting for themselves, but for their wives and children as well.
Of course, not every woman has a man to vote for her, and men also failed to keep their side of the bargain, so obviously there were flaws in this system and people fell through the cracks. However, by insiting on the right to vote, women were saying by their actions that either they did not trust men to take care of them, or they wanted to look out for their own interests: this might not have been the best direction to go for long-term results.
Feminism was very correct in saying that the business world was a man’s world and women were not given an equal share. Feminism missed the point that this arrangement was not forced on women, it was something men and women had mutually agreed on. Society as a whole expected the men to hold down jobs and pursue careers because this was the flip-side of demanding that a man support his wife and children financially. Men were paid more because that money was for their wife and children: women were paid less because they were not expected to support a family on their salary. The arrangement was certainly unequal, and there were a lot of women in marginal situations that this arrangement did not serve very well, but this inequality was there for a reason.
We could debate about whether the men or the women benefited the most from this inequality, but I would like to propose a different way of thinking about it: the children were the ones who benefited most. The children were the ones who wanted their mother to stay close to them, and so society had arranged things the way they were because this was better for the children. Society was unequal because children had unbalanced the relationship between men and women. “Equal rights for women” meant trying to re-balance the relationship that children had unbalanced, and so it was children who got short-changed by job-equality efforts.
The feminist efforts did not stop there, because the radical wing of the feminist movement did not just want political equality and job equality, it wanted “gender equality.” These campaigners believed that discrimination against women would not stop until gender had been abolished, and while it turned out that they were powerless to abolish gender, they did pretty well against gender stereotypes. The problem is, feminism was not proposing a meaningful and attractive model of what it meant to be male or female, and so the campaign against gender stereotypes basically told women to act more like men, and it made men feel guilty for being male. I am NOT blaming feminism for everything, but it was a significant part of the cultural upheaval that disturbed the relationship between men and women. The cumulative result was that fatherhood got up in the middle of the night and left, and motherhood has been struggling ever since.
Which is where we get to Hunger Games. It is not a coincidence that the movie “Hunger Games” has been extremely popular: its story resonates with my generation and those who are younger. I believe that there is a very strong connection between an overbearing government and a lack of functional mothers and fathers. Did anyone notice that in this story there are no mothers and there are no fathers? The teenage girl must care for her little sister as best she can because their father is not in the picture and their mother is not capable of being a mother when she is needed most. The girl finds support where she can get it, but the men she finds are bachelor uncles: they are not fathers.
Our campaigners for an equal society have discovered that there is another fundamental inequality in society. We tried to give up the “stereotypical” roles for husbands and wives and for mothers and fathers, to build a society free of gender discrimination. In this world where fathers and mothers are few and hard to find, young people find support anywhere they can, in any kind of relationship, including with someone of the same sex. Now we are told that we are still guilty of discrimination against lesbians and homosexuals, and in order to have truly equal rights for them, we must allow same-sex marriage.
Approving same-sex ‘marriage’ would officially accept the “Hunger Games” situation that we are in right now, a world without fathers and mothers. This is because accepting same-sex unions would make two huge statements:
1) we officially declare that the absence of fathers and mothers is not a problem, because we do not endorse the idea that children need a father and a mother, but that any two adults will be sufficient.
2) we declare that whatever sort of relationship is giving you support is officially acceptable and we bless this relationship with tax benefits. No one may say this is a bad relationship.
If you love where society has been going, “same sex marriage” might be the best idea yet. If you feel like we have been slowly digging our own grave, then “same sex marriage” looks like the nail in the coffin.
After all, the cemetery is the only place where everyone is equal +