Easter is the reversal of the permanent and the impermanent;  The triumph in eternity of flesh over stone.  The stone is rolled away while the pierced lamb, son of man, lives again.  The monumental altars of pagan gods will with the epochs turn to sand, but the victims sacrificed there will be restored to life.  The Pyramids of Giza will in tens of millenia succumb to the river or the dunes, but forgotten brick-makers and stone-layers in the dust will breathe again.  Even the great cathedrals will crumble, but the unbaptized child buried outside the consecrated ground - will consecrate the ground from which she arises.

(I know I have some readers who are very strongly in favor of gay marriage, and some who are very strongly opposed.  I fear in this post there is enough to offend both groups, but I find these ideas important, so please read it if you can and not be too much offended, and I'd be interested to hear what you think.)


Politics has been called "the art of the possible."  
at it's best it is able to arrive at compromise and consensus. this is not easy. it takes the consideration of the interests and opinions of different factions. and it takes time. 
                                                   
which is why in the urgency of the cause, "political" activists often circumvent the political process by appeal to oligarchical authority.  they seek to change the law, but not through legislation.  the cause is too crucial to be bothered by the integrity of our republic's separation of powers.  they win their legal battles in the courts, but at the cost of stoking the flames of what we have come to call "the culture wars." 
                                              
such judicial action is indeed warranted sometimes in order to secure real liberties from real threats.  but the trend has been to approach the courts in order to declare abstract statements in favor of aggrieved factions, and then insist the courts make radical social changes based upon those abstract liberties. 

it does not resolve the issue in the mind of the public, but at least it provides a temporary morale victory.  conservative and reactionary factions may retaliate in the form of constitutional amendments that are just as uncompromising as the demands of the activists and the courts.  but no matter, since absolutist activists do not concern themselves with unintended consequences.

we have seen this dynamic play out with busing, church and state, abortion, racial quotas - and now with same-sex marriage.  the message seems clear to all those concerned: thoughtful moderation and the attempt to mediate competing concerns is distraction from the inevitable, constant state of total war between activists and reactionaries.

i want my friends who identify as gay or lesbian to be able to pursue the Good.  that pursuit may lead them to a life partner of the same sex. whether to call such a relationship a "marriage" i do not know.  it would not seem to be a part of the divinely created order of Eden - but then again neither are contraceptives or  eating meat.  there are certainly worse things than for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be devoted to each other in a lifetime of love, and it seems both prudent and compassionate to endow such relationships with meaningful legal protection.

meanwhile, it is right to respect the beliefs and institutions of those who differ.  it is against the spirit of liberty of association to demand that churches, adoption agencies and private organizations fall in line.  the activists and their courts, however, have their own Eden in mind - not one ancient divine creation, but one constructed out of struggle and progress.  in this Eden, equality is enforced in every sphere of life through the backing of  the State.  legal protection is not enough for many activists and courts. what they seek is a complete revolution of society in order to legitimate their egalitarian sexual ideals.

what will happen as America becomes an uneasy patchwork of pro-gay marriage judicial rulings and anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments?  will the national government decide to step in and dictate policy? or perhaps there is hope that we will find the strength to mobilize consensus as the insufficiency of absolutist approaches becomes manifest.

in any case, we might do better not to look so much to the power of courts and government to enact our visions of Eden.