"The real value of the gay marriage issue is not in the improvements it will allegedly make to homosexual people’s lives, but rather in the opportunity for moral posturing and right-on preening it affords its backers. Gay marriage isn’t a real issue; it’s a cultural signifier, which you support in order to show that you are decent, enlightened and, most importantly, not like Them, the rabble. In an era when old-style morality is on the wane, if not dead, the elites are forever feeling around for new issues through which they can communicate their moral superiority."
For "the chattering classes", O’Neill argues, gay marriage has become "the issue through which they distinguish themselves from rednecks and the religious, from bogans and the backward".
It’s a paradox, to be sure, but the advocacy of the redefinition of marriage is based on bigotry. It’s all about the desire to be a Star Bellied Sneetch, and be morally one-up on others. Because practically, the change is inconsequential. Anyone can formalise their relationship before, and they will still do it after. I freely acknowledge the world won’t end if it happens. Government will never define marriage for me personally. But it is a matter of principle to oppose it. Just because YOU think your silly inconsequential issue is important and I don’t , doesn’t mean I should just roll over and let you have your little indulgence. And I might not have cared so much, except for the vociferous nature of the advocates, and the way they are prepared to demagogue anyone who opposes them as being bigoted. Especially a certain blogger…
Government should not be the arbiter of differences in moral opinion, and I think Jim Hopkins makes that case well in this article.