When You Say ‘Gay Marriage is Inevitable,’ Do You Mean Rich People Want It?

You have no doubt heard the news that gay marriage is inevitable. The New York state legislature redefined marriage in 2011. Rhode Island redefined marriage earlier this week. Delaware just removed the gender requirement from marriage. Minnesota is poised to vote on the issue this week. This steady drumbeat of state legislatures changing the definition of marriage as it has been known for millennia surely must show that so-called gay marriage is inevitable.

But have you ever stopped to ask yourself what exactly people mean when they say this? Here is what I think:

“Gay marriage is inevitable” means that the rich people of both parties have decided that we are going to have genderless marriage.

Back in 2008, during the Prop 8 campaign, the two sides spent roughly equal amounts: about $40 million on each side. The Yes on 8 campaign had 100,000 volunteers, people of modest means from both parties. The opponents of Prop 8 simply couldn’t match the volunteer effort. In that roughly fair fight, the people won.

The Gay Lobby immediately brought suit, paid for by Hollywood elitist “Meathead” Rob Reiner. Reiner generally finances Leftwing causes, so no real surprise there.

Paul E. SingerBut as races developed in state legislatures, the Gay Lobby got reinforcements from not just Hollywood millionaires, but Republican billionaires. In New York State, Republican hedge-fund manager Paul E. Singer pumped money into the campaign coffers of pro-gay marriage Republicans. In the words of the Washington Post, “He coaxed Republican state senators in New York to back a same-sex marriage law in 2011, offering financial cover against backlash stemming from their votes, helping raise six figures for each of them.” You would think they would show some shame over such blatant quid pro quo corruption. But hey, he’s rich. He supports Republican candidates and Democratic causes, so who is going to confront him?

Just last week, Rhode Island voted to dismantle the only social institution we have that connects children with their parents.  I saw another version of the same story, when I testified there in January.  (I gave them a piece of my mind, too, as you can see here.)

When I arrived at the state house in Providence, I was stunned by the size of the crowds.  The place was packed with African-American and Hispanic Evangelicals who opposed the marriage redefinition bill.  I took some (very amateur) photos and videos. I had a feeling no one in the Mainstream Media would show those images.  But about one thousand people supported natural marriage.

There were so few people advocating gay marriage that the media literally could barely find anyone to interview.  (Full disclosure: this little story, published by the Ruth Institute, was written by a student of mine who showed up for the hearings.)

How did the marriage redefinition bill pass, given the opposition from traditionally Democratic constituents? Look at the professional side of the equation.  One can track the number of lobbyists registered for each side of each bill on this page,  from the Rhode Island Secretary of State.  The House version of the marriage redefinition bill, H5015A has one lobbyist opposed: my buddy Chris Plante of NOM Rhode Island. The other side has 12 registered lobbyists.  On the Senate side, the proponents of the marriage redefinition bill, S0038, have 18 lobbyists.  Opposed?  You guessed it.  Chris Plante, all by his lonesome.

On one side, one thousand people of modest means and one registered lobbyist.  One the other side, a comparative handful of people and 18 professional lobbyists.

Somebody must really hate the idea of gender, that they are paying that kind of money to remove all traces of gender from the law in a little state like Rhode Island.

Same story in Minnesota, where a vote on the marriage bill is expected this week.  Minnesota for Marriage has one registered lobbyist.  According to John Helmberger, Chairman of the Minnesota for Marriage, the other side has 12 lobbyists.  Paul Singer’s organization pumped a quarter million dollars to lobby Republicans to redefine marriage in Minnesota.

In Illinois, home of Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel, the sledding has been surprisingly tough for the Kids Don’t Really Need a Mom and a Dad Crowd.  The reason? The African-American pastorate, traditionally loyal Democrats, are not buying what the rich folk are selling.  Check out this video of a press conference, where the pastors of many denominations express their opposition to redefining marriage.  Beginning around seven minutes, Bishop Lance Davis of the New Zion Christian Fellowship decries the large amounts of money being thrown around to “undo the Bible and shove it down our throats.”

The March for Marriage in Washington DC provided another setting where the economic contrast between the two sides jumped out at any honest observer.   We came to rally for natural marriage on the day that the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Prop 8 case.  There were 10,000 people on the side of natural marriage:  busloads of Hispanic Pentecostals from the Bronx, Catholics from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia,  a Catholic boys school with a band and banners,  Chinese Evangelicals bused in from Delaware. And the Coalition of African American pastors sent pastors and people  from all over the place.  For some of these people, the bus fare was a financial hardship.

On the other side, a few hundred white people.  These oh-so-politically correct folk were quite shocked to see the real Rainbow Coalition, our majority minority crowd, as we rounded the corner to march past the Supreme Court.

So when the Gay Lobby says “gay marriage is inevitable,” what they really mean to say is this:

We have the money and the power to get what we want.

The ordinary people of both parties are resisting.  We plan not to go along quietly, with the “inevitable” march of history.


This article was published at the Ruth Institute.

Jennifer Morse


Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the Founding President of the Ruth Institute, an educational organization promoting lifelong married love to college students and young adults. She thanks Mr. Austin Muck, her 2011 Blackstone Legal Fellowship intern, for his assistance with the legal research on "In re M.C."

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Marion (mm)

    So-called gay marriage may be said to be inevitable as the future anthropogenic destruction of our natural environment is “inevitable.” A desolate moonscape of poisonous water, a toxic atmosphere, no food, no shelter . . .

    There is an *unless . . .!* in there, too. Unless we wake up. Unless we pray harder. Unless reform our own lives. Unless we evangelize. Unless we speak out. Unless we roll up our sleeves. Unless we do what God asks of us in every area of our lives, . . . then, yes, the Culture of Death, in its many manifestations will more and more triumph over many souls, including the continuing deformation of the pre-political institution of marriage between one man and woman unto its ultimate demise. Including the increasing destruction of our planet’s natural resources, and lots of other deaths.

    Is that what we want? Jesus said, “Apart from Me, you can do nothing.” Does this mean simply “give up – it’s hopeless”? No, it means, with Him, even the seemingly inevitable triumph of evil and death may be overcome through the power of the Most High.

    Believe it. Count on it. We can accomplish all things in Christ, who strengthens us.

    Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

  • andrea gregorio

    Oh dear…… Rather than ‘King’, we have the authoress as ‘Queen’ Canute! For Heaven’s sake – equal marriage is now not a concept, it is a reality that, in the manner of progress and the advance of (Western) Civilization, is incrementally advancing. We will not have ‘genderless’ marriage – what a sloppy phrase. We will have two people of the same gender formally committing in a legal union that is recognized by the State – or in her country, the States (soon). Let Catholic marriages continue. We are talking State marriages here. Catholics, with the same access to exclusively opposite gender marriage, should therefore mind their own business when it comes to State business. The days of Church-State are gone. Separate. Never to return by all probabilities. Catholics stick to Cathiolic marriage and the State will provide for other more – or rather completely – equally. Get over it!

  • Marion (mm)

    Translation: Catholic Americans alone, among all other classes of Americans, are to continue to pay their taxes, obey the laws, and lay down their lives for our country, but their views on certain topics of concern to the general voting population are intrinsically and fundamentally disordered and illegitimate.

    Therefore, Catholics, unlike all other Americans may speak and work for social and political change, subject only to the approval of those who support so-called same-sex marriage.

    So let it be written. So let it be done.

    End translation.

  • catholicexchange

    I think that’s about right, Marion (mm). And, also, Andrea, there is simply no way that you read this article, since it has nothing to do with religious reasons for preserving traditional marriage–Dr. Morse, in fact, has made it a point to argue against redefining marriage using non-religious reasons. I encourage you to do some research–at the Ruth Institute site, for instance.–you may find it enlightening.

  • Gay marriage isn’t about gay couples, it’s about what straight people think about marriage. People talking about Sodom and Gomorrah and quoting Leviticus and Romans are missing what’s really going on here.

    Legally, I have no problem with civil unions and see the difference between “civil unions” and “civil marriage” as a matter of semantics. But then again, I have never thought of civil marriage as being any more than a civil union no matter who is or is not allowed to enter into one.

    But when it comes to the social meaning of “marriage”, what we are seeing is a “gentrification of marriage”. Marriage is no longer a foundation of a couple’s new life together, but a capstone of a relationship that “made it”. It is no longer a simple union of a man and a woman committed to each other for life for the purposes of forming a new family, but a romanticized partnership for the mutual enjoyment of two mature adults.

    For a wealthy couple with high levels of education, good interpersonal skills, a strong socioeconomic safety net, and strong social reinforcements for marriage and family stability, this change is simply enshrining what they already believe about marriage. For the working class couple who may not have these advantages, it makes marriage seemingly unattainable. Although they may be perfectly capable of marriage, they rule it out for themselves because their relationships do not meet this elite standard.

    (My own view of civil marriage as no more than a civil union probably shows elements of my own educated, middle class background.)

    This change has been going on since at least the invention of reliable contraception and the advent of no-fault divorce in the 1970s. The generation currently marrying has no idea of any different meaning of marriage.

    The social effects have been devastating, especially to those of modest means.

  • Chip70

    I got what you were saying, Andrea – and see you used “genderless” just like the author did… And that’s what your talked about. Well done!

  • Marion (MM)

    “Well done”, as in “Tax-paying Americans who adhere to traditional Catholic teaching, must learn that so long as they insist upon holding views which are at variance with those of the elite minority, on any or any topic that the general American voter is concerned with, that our command, as their elite betters, is that they are to stifle themselves.”

    Got that?

  • Marion (MM)

    P.S. Never have the U.S. Catholic faithful insinuated or suggested that homosexual persons, simply because they are homosexual, ought to be precluded entirely or in part from participating in our nation’s political system, from voting, from lobbying, from writing letters, from supporting candidates, for boots on the ground, door-to-door campaigning, etc.

    Never. Catholics would agree that homosexual Americans ought to and do posess the same rights to make their voices heard in the public sphere that all Americans sphere.

    It is activists on behalf of so-called homosexual marriage, and their supporters among the progressive elite, however, who have the outrageous chutzpah to dare to insist that Catholics ought to count themselves dispossed of these rights, simply on the basis of their Catholic faith.

    This demand bespeaks an arrogance of the highest order, and one which ought to be and is repugnant to any decent-minded American.

  • Richard III

    Yes, exactly. People with SSA have the same constitutional rights as any other American citizens, and the Catholic Church teaches and her faithful children believe that those with SSA should be loved, which is why we Catholics oppose same-sex marriage. Condoning and encouraging sin is not love, and marriage in any form is not a right. Traditional, monogamous, heterosexual marriage is the world’s oldest and surest institution, and Catholic marriage is a sacrament and an unbelievably beautiful gift. Any form of marriage other than those mentioned above is not a marriage. It is a dangerous and horrifying lie.

  • Zoe Marcus

    But why, then, have homosexal activists moved from seeking tolerance of their actions, to seeking approval for them?
    The man’s body doesn’t make sense without a women’s and vice versa. If gay sex was meant to produce children and continue society in a valid, non destructible way, there would only be one gender, correct?

    Why does the state have to control marriage, all of a sudden? Why is this so closely resembling the civil right’s movement? It’s NOT. Gay people are not ‘oppressed.’ For some amazing reason that has yet to be discovered, society has miraculously survived without homosexual unions for eons! Why, then, is the notion of gay marriage suddenly vital to society’s continuation?

  • James H, London

    We’re in the final throes of our own destruction, indeed. No successful society has ever lasted for more than 2 generations with widespread promiscuity.
    Gay marriage is the final senile babbling of a civilisation in its final moments.