Rod Dreher from The American Conservative has a great response to DOMA's repeal delving into the cultural shift from sex(ual preference) being an aspect of a person to being their lodestar in much the same way religion is for others.
Frightening the horses
In this article Rod expands on an excellent article from Ben Domenech of The Transom. They discuss how the arguments surrounding SSM aren't really about SSM but about the culmination of the sexual revolution.
The inertia of a cultural shift like this unstoppable, and that doesn't bother me as much as it does both Rod and Ben (although I understand why it bothers them to the extent it does).So the real issue here is not about gay marriage at all, but the sexual revolution’s consequences, witnessed in the shift toward prioritization of sexual identity, and the concurrent rise of the nones and the decline of the traditional family. The real reason Obama’s freedom to worship limitation can take hold is that we are now a country where the average person prioritizes sex far more than religion.
Where I begin to get worried is where Rod explains the narrative frame used by cultural elites (in this instance the some of the MSM and our urban elites).
You can replace religious liberty and gay civil rights in that statement with several things. Being for and against immigration for one. Being for and against the EPA regs Obama articulated recently.One of the underestimated aspects of the one out of five Americans (and one out of three Millennials) who are now thoroughly religiously unaffiliated is that, according to Barna’s research, they aren’t actually seekers. They’re not looking or thinking about being part of a community focused on spirituality, in prayer, fellowship, worship, or anything else. Their exposure to faith is diminished because they want it to be.
In a nation where fewer people truly practice religion, fewer people external to those communities will see any practical reason to protect the liberty of those who do.
The Law Of Merited Impossibility is an epistemological construct governing the paradoxical way overclass opinion makers frame the discourse about the clash between religious liberty and gay civil rights. It is best summed up by the phrase, “It’s a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.”This is perhaps the most remarkable thing about this entire debate: how so many who favor gay marriage — including, apparently, five members of the US Supreme Court — see absolutely no reason why anybody could oppose it in good conscience. We trads are not just wrong, but wicked. We are entering a dangerous world for believers. Expect to see the Law of Merited Impossibility fulfilled a lot more in the years to come. I defined it once as:
Now I would be intellectually dishonest if I didn't mention that we did this during the first days of the war in Iraq, by casting those against the conflict as not patriotic.
However, that use was extremely limited compared to the shaming of all that disagree with the New York Times editorial board these days. In fact it seems the preferred method of argument from the left these days.
To engage us substantively legitimizes our position. Why do that when you can just demonize us as moral failures and let the MSM run with that.
This way, you've completely deligitimized all dissenting opinions, and you get to skip merrily into the group think hall of fame.
I'm curious to see if this type of narrative frame will run out of gas with the populace. So far, with the media playing its role so well, that hasn't happened.