On the eve of the March for Marriage, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby penned an insightful piece about the marriage debate and being on "the wrong side of history." It's common, Jacoby wrote, for marriage redefiners to claim that their opponents are "bigots" who are "on the wrong side of history." Jacoby tackled these false claims against marriage defenders:
Yet until about 10 minutes ago, in historical terms, the traditional understanding of marriage as the complementary union of male and female was anything but controversial...
“Marriage has got historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time,” said Hillary Clinton in 2000, “and I think a marriage is, as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”
Gay activists see their crusade for same-sex marriage as another civil-rights battle. It’s a false analogy. Jim Crow deprived black Americans of rights they were already entitled to — rights enshrined in the 14th and 15th Amendments, then stolen away after Reconstruction. But gay marriage does not restore lost rights; it redefines “marriage” to mean something wholly unprecedented in human society.
Or maybe a great national debate about the meaning of marriage is not winding down, but just gearing up. And maybe those marchers in Washington, with their “simple and beautiful message,” will prove to be not bitter-enders who didn’t know when to quit, but defenders of a principle that history, eventually, will vindicate.
Read the rest here.