Rod Dreher

Conversation With The Haitian Driver

The Never-Ending Journey

By Rod Dreher • January 28, 2013, 1:00 PM

Gay marriage is only the beginning, says gay campaigner Chris Ashford. Excerpt:

What then does this apparent victory look like? It looks like being ‘normal’, being the ‘same’ as the dominant heterosexual majority, or at least, a fantasy image of that majority.

We will aspire to a monogamous, state-sanctioned relationship. We’ll aspire to have children, raising them (presumably somewhere in Islington or possibly Shoreditch) and lead a productive civilised existence. Rip up the Chariots membership card, stop those group-sex shenanigans and embrace normality.

Legislative victory should not mean identity erasure. There remain numerous sexual freedoms to campaign on – yes sexual – that’s what gay rights is about, not merely a civil rights campaign – and there are battles still to be won. Battles relating to pornography, the continued criminalisation of consensual sexual acts, re-constructing our ideas of relationships in relation to sex, monogamy and the illusion that only ‘couples’ might want to enter into a state-sanctioned partnership, are just a handful which spring to mind.

The marriage Bill should be welcomed, but it is not the end of the journey, or the final piece in a jigsaw. It is just another step – albeit a significant one- on a never-ending journey.

What, you thought they meant it when they said all they wanted was to be married?

Posted in Gay Marriage, Sex and Sexuality. Tagged Chris Ashford, gay marriage.

83 Responses to The Never-Ending Journey

Newer Comments →

Turmarion says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:05 pm

All of this is insidiously leading our society towards Big Gay Ice Cream….
Helen says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:06 pm

Sigh. I wish another Dutch travel would wander through your hometown, so you could write about that.

I know this stuff is important, to both sides. It’s just so wearying. And nothing new is ever said, by anyone. I feel like I could write out all the comments right here, attributed to the appropriate writers, and save everyone the trouble.
Helen says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:07 pm

Wait, I was wrong! Tumarion said something new, LOL.
Gretchen says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:09 pm

How horrifying! They want to be normal and live a normal life like everyone else! I can see that this threatens the very foundation of Western Civilization!
tmatt says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:12 pm

“… re-constructing our ideas of relationships in relation to sex, monogamy and the illusion that only ‘couples’ might want to enter into a state-sanctioned partnership …”

Uh………

Sounds like?

http://www.tmatt.net/2000/07/19/charting-the-sex-wars-pt-ii/

“Monogamy” isn’t such a scary word, once people get the hang of redefining it to fit the realities of modern life, according to gay provocateur Dan Savage.

“The sexual model that straight people have created really doesn’t work,” said the nationally syndicated columnist, in a New York Times Magazine piece on post-modern sex. “All it does is force people to lie. … In this society, we view monogamy like we view virginity, one incident and it’s over, the relationship is over.”

Heterosexual couples, he said, should relax and learn from homosexuals. Relationships must grow and evolve. “I know gay couples who have been together for 35 years. They have separate bedrooms. Sometimes they sleep together and sometimes they sleep with other people, but they’re a great couple,” he said.
thomas tucker says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:13 pm

If normalcy is the goal, he is right: it will be never ending.
Matt in TX says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:22 pm

If every single radical on the opposing side can be picked out as truly representative of that side, then every single radical on your side can be, as well.

I remember when you said “no serious conservative” holds opinions on gays that, in fact, your own Erin Manning — who you named an award for excellence in writing after! — holds. You changed the entry to say “no conservative with serious standing in the movement.”
grendel says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:24 pm

The article you linked to is the opinion of one student at a minor British university — what makes you think he speaks for the entire marriage equality movement?
Noah G. says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm

I love that, “just a handful which spring to mind…”

Please, Obama, let us keep our guns. (Pretty please?)

(Channeling Lord Karth, and the like.)
GgL says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:30 pm

“What, you thought they meant it when they said all they wanted was to be married?”

“They”? Or Chris Ashford?
This is like me writing about some nonsense from Bryan Fisher that it is something “Fisher and Dreher mean”, since you are both conservative Christians. You should eat more gay ice cream and relax a little.
Noah G. says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:34 pm

These types (did I just say “these types”?) bring the right-winger out in me…

Not to mention provoking my use of the phrase “these types.”

Gee whiz. Thanks a lot, freaks. (whoa, calm down.)
Adam says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:38 pm

Clearly this person’s frothy proselytizing has uncovered the truth about homosexuals not really wishing to have equal protection under the law. Let me queue the ridiculously sarcastic eye roll….now.

I came to this blog to try and appreciate “the other”, however much it irritates me. Perhaps I haven’t been around long enough to appreciate the difference between your sarcasm or genuine pearl clutching. Mostly I just come away thing your arguments are weak sauce.
Larry says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:45 pm

I’m also calling you out on “they,” Rod. Ashford does not speak for all gay people, and it’s an asshole move to imply otherwise.
reflectionephemeral says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:48 pm

What Matt in TX and GgL said.

Another way to put it: these MBD tweets weren’t supposed to be a “how to” guide to argumentation.
Ampersand says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:50 pm

I think that individual is pointing out the obvious, as opposed to listing an agenda. Monogamy started failing long before gay people came into the light. We’ve gone from lifelong monogamy to serialized monogamy to an alternating series of hedonistic periods and monogamous periods. He’s right, the setup that straight people invented doesn’t really work.
Gromitt Gunn says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:55 pm

I’m just curious as to whether I am part of the “they.” I don’t recall Mr. Ashford asking me my opinion on his essay prior to publishing it. Frankly, I’m too busy between my day job, my night job, the class that I am taking, and taking care of my pets and my mom to worry too much about what happens after marriage equality.

The main stuff I care about is being able to have the legal recognition for me and my partner, not having my lease terminated, and not getting fired from my job. I honestly have no idea if that makes me one of those sneaky gays or not.
J says:

January 28, 2013 at 1:55 pm

Oh, the Horror. I don’t know the British laws but the U.S. ones in those areas are dated and could definitely be improved upon. At no cost to anyone decent.

Paranoia and hatred both involve bypassing a basic intelligence filter that says “this is too stupid to give residence for free in my brain”.
Thomas Andrews says:

January 28, 2013 at 2:01 pm

Rod,
You frequently become quite (justifiably) angry at people such as that Kansas group or the actions of evangelicals such as the particular conservative Christian who gave the Ugandan ‘kill-the-gays’ bill it’s start.

I am glad you do so.

Perhaps you should also grant the same fair play to our gay brothers and sisters and not list the words of extreme children as being the goal of their equal rights movement?
MBrown says:

January 28, 2013 at 2:04 pm

“Never ending journey”… interesting. This implies that there can be no end point – the only ultimate goal is to constantly disrupt and undermine cultural assumptions and norms.

Sounds reasonable.
Lord Karth says:

January 28, 2013 at 2:24 pm

This does not just involve the approval of, but the outright ennoblement of the socially sick.

If this keeps up, I may actually start encouraging the hastening of the advent of the Meltdown.

Your servant,

Lord Karth
Carlo says:

January 28, 2013 at 2:25 pm

The problem is the assumption that “where it will stop” depends on the “degree of moderation” of the people involved.

The correct methodology, instead, is to reflect systematically about the philosophical premises of this movement, and then draw logical conclusions. because the whole strategy of modern ‘gnosticism’ is always to sell consequences using manipulation (propaganda) but never revealing the philosophical premises (because people would rebel).
Floridan says:

January 28, 2013 at 2:26 pm

OK, I get it.

Now it’s my turn, and I choose Pastor Kevin Swanson as the representative of the social conservaties.
Steph says:

January 28, 2013 at 2:33 pm

I agree with grendel and others.

In addition, what difference does it make whether some people who want gay marriage also want other things that many of us who support gay marriage do not? One of the most troubling arguments these days — based on demonizing the opposition — is that we can never agree on something basically non-controversial because those who want it have more radical goals. It’s intended to scare away people from any reasonable compromise. Proposals should be judged on their merits, not because some of their supporters might go way too far. Similarly, people can be for various regulations on abortion without agreeing that we should pass a personhood amendment, can want to support recycling without agreeing that the automobile must be abolished, support calorie labelling laws without deciding fat people must be fined or McDonald’s outlawed, can have issues with the HHS regs without wanting to ban the Pill, and on and on.
Heather says:

January 28, 2013 at 2:36 pm

Ah, Putin isn’t stupid. And he ain’t blind, most of all!

“opinion of one student at a minor British university ”

He’s not a student, he’s a professor.

I’m surprised Ashford didn’t equate people who questioned his views to racists, you know the standard insult.

Obviously he’s allowed to promote all the dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors his little mind is capable of, but the Johns, for example, wonderful Christian couple in the UK, were told they were unfit to be parents because they have a wholesome view of sexuality.

I’ve been saying, we’re going through a Homosexuality Animal Farm take-over.
Chris says:

January 28, 2013 at 2:36 pm

Rod

I feel constrained to point out that this is one editorial written by an individual student at a 4th rate British University …. formerly a polytechnic. I am not entirely sure which or what “they” this woman is babbling on about. But she can hardly be construed as the representative voice of the SSM movement or the voice or representative of anything for that matter. People who live on the margins of society will always babble on about breaking down various barriers, challenging authority and tradition etc ….
Jeff says:

January 28, 2013 at 2:36 pm

He wants to “embrace normality” while also “re-constructing our ideas of relationships?” It sounds like he wants to feel normal, but also redefine what it means to be normal to fit his personal tastes. Which is kind of a contradiction, no? Like how Donald Rumsfeld had to destroy Iraq in order to save it or something?
Raskolnik says:

January 28, 2013 at 2:56 pm

I love the part where he says homosexuals should “stop those group-sex shenanigans” and then immediately turns around to decry the “illusion that only ‘couples’ might want to enter into a state-sanctioned partnership.” Because polyamory is only “shenanigans” if you’re not group-married, amirite?
Sean says:

January 28, 2013 at 3:03 pm

Someone should inform Chris Ashford that he’s been appointed Grand Poobah of Marriage Equality, since he apparently speaks for a huge, diverse political bloc.
Glaivester says:

January 28, 2013 at 3:13 pm

Raskolnik:

The whole paragraph that included “stopping group-sex shenanigans” was meant to describe a way of thinking that Ashford thought the mainstream gay movement was professing, and that he was rejecting. So he was never being serious about that anyway.
Andrea says:

January 28, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Nothing that surprising there. Yes, they want individual rights and to be seen as normal under the law. Legalization of gay marriage may lead to legalization of other types of formal relationships, too.

Actually, I would not have a problem with some type of legally sanctioned plural marriage, like those practiced by some Muslims and FLDS. Since it’s required by their religion, I think forbidding it is probably unconstitutional. It would probably be a tax and family law nightmare if it were ever implemented, which may be why it will be unlikely to come to pass. I also don’t think the state needs to legislate the sexual activities of people who are of the age of consent.

I see a clear line between religious and civil law and I don’t think what is sanctioned by civil law necessarily needs to be accepted by the religious. I do think appropriate protections can be put in place for religious people who object to some of these societal changes but religious objections should not prevent their legalization.
BCaldwell says:

January 28, 2013 at 3:58 pm

Lord Karth,
I have been searching for the correct word for a while and ennoblement fits it perfectly. In the future it will no longer be enough to just accept same sex marriage, we will have to celebrate it but in doing so we must also be “forced” to admit as some in this blog have so enlightened us that the heterosexual model just does not work and that it would be more preferable and healthy for us to adopt a more libertine approach to sexuality and sexual mores in which anything pretty much goes.

I can see it now ….. Isn’t it great, Joe’s in a committed loving relationship with his partner Bob for 15 years now and they’ve adopted and raised 2 wonderful children , but he also likes to go to the straight bars from time to time a pick up on some the straight girls and from time to time bring them home for a rollicking night… and that’s OK with Bob. They want to be free and open with each other and they do’t want to feel “constrained” by silly quaint notions of sexual propriety or even monogamy, that’s so…so hetero-Christian and we’re sooooo past that world now. But don’t feel bad for Bob, from time to time Bob likes to push the cotton ceiling because sometimes Bob likes to fantasize that he’s really a transgeneder person and would like to be female but at the same time feels as though he’s really a lesbian trapped inside of a homosexual man’s body and as such likes to attend lesbian sex parties . But none of this seems odd to them or their friends…in fact they see it all as a very healthy and modern view on sex, mongamy and commitment.
M.B. says:

January 28, 2013 at 4:04 pm

Rod: when you use the word “they” in this context, do you include in that number to all these wonderful gay friends you supposedly have?

Lord Karth: does the advent of the “Meltdown” have anything to do with the already-existing “Big Gay Ice Cream”? So scary…and sweet…
Jack Swan says:

January 28, 2013 at 4:13 pm

The “Who, us? That’s not a mainstream gay view” theme would be more convincing if it weren’t for the Beyond Marriage statement, which is signed by numerous leading lights of the sexual liberation movement.
Jason C. says:

January 28, 2013 at 4:16 pm

Rod, visiting your comment box less is so much less interesting when it comes to posts actually discussing homosexuals’ equality arguments or, like this one, the implications of those arguments. Why so many of them follow you around and hang on your words and feign disappointment on this one issue I will never know. It’s not exactly trolling, but it kind of is. I don’t follow every one of Andrew Sullivan’s posts about any subject but make a point to say how disappointed I am with him every time he talks about gay rights. You just kind of realize you’re getting a package deal with certain authors, and you may or may not agree with them on every issue. Rod’s a traditional conservative, and he’s been pretty on the record about where he stands on these issues and why. And if you’re just here to figure out the “other side” or whatever, please lurk more.

I just don’t understand the pretend pity every time he re-states his views. “Oh, Roddy-Poo, you’re better than this, honey!”
James C. says:

January 28, 2013 at 4:24 pm

I call B.S. on those here who claim that the professor who wrote this piece is part of some radical fringe. For God’s sake, the NY Times has been reporting for years on the new “horizons” and “expanded” understanding that SSM will bring to the stodgy institution of marriage.

Anyone around long enough knows the longstanding goals of the gay rights movement before their change of political tactics in the 1990s. The “heteronormative”, white-picket-fence, monogamous-dad-and-dad-and-kids ideal is decidedly not what the broader movement has ultimately been aiming at. For a great portion of the movement, it’s a means to an end.

Hardly anyone gets gay-married in Massachusetts these days, and the UK’s Civil Partnerships law (enacted at the same time as SSM in Mass., and which gives the same benefits as civil marriage) has not been taken advantage of by many homosexuals.

And the UK Government has been forced to define the new marriage law differently for same-sex marriages in the bill unveiled last week. It seems experts couldn’t decide what sex act or acts constituted “consummation” of these new so-called marriages, so gay couples will not be able to annul a union for not being consummated. Secondly, gay couples will not be able to divorce on the grounds of adultery—under the new law, adultery won’t exist with same-sex unions unless one partner cheats on the other partner with a person of the opposite sex!

That sounds just fine when you consider the studies (and plentiful anecdotal evidence from anyone well acquainted with the “LGBT community”) showing that a large proportion of long-term same-sex relationships are non-monogamous by mutual consent. So then, what’s the point of this “same-sex marriage” business in the UK? Do not civil partnerships (which are barred to opposite-sex couples) provide all the legal benefits gay couples desire—and like these new “marriages”, do not require consummation or have grounds for adultery? What’s the difference except in the name? Then why this battle?

Because it’s about more than marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0
Glaivester says:

January 28, 2013 at 4:32 pm

Thoughts on Ampersand’s comments:

The fact that people are deciding not to follow monogamy does not mean that it does not work. It means that our current methods of (socially) enforcing monogamy are not working. I think that we ought to think of new ways to encourage people to seek stability, rather than lower our standards until everyone already meets them.
MBrown says:

January 28, 2013 at 4:40 pm

I’m interested in the idea that “monogamy doesn’t work”.

In what senses was society broken when monogamy was the organizing principle and default assumption (even if imperfectly practiced) that has now been fixed by casting aside monogamy as the ideal? When addressing this question, please address monogamy generally, rather than heterosexual monogamy specifically.

Because I can think of a whole bunch of ways in which society is now broken as a result of that transition.

Honest question. I’m really interested in considering ways in which society is better-off without monogamy as an organizing principle.
k says:

January 28, 2013 at 5:08 pm

I’m a religious person, and I do look forward to the day when “they” are absolutely as boring as the rest of us, when we can be finished either “celebrating” their “pride” or hating on them, when it will no longer be trendy and stylish to talk about how we support the movement, when it will no longer seem modern and progressive for young people to support the behavior of this population by default, but rather they will be able to open again in objective and critical examination of the topic like young people always do from whatever is the established cultural tradition, and all those kinds of things the other way around from the religious perspective as well, where so many believers talk more about this than they do other marriage issues and other sins or about the Bible itself. One day ‘they’ will no longer be viewed as this special and protected activist class and then we can just be one society of people.
Liam says:

January 28, 2013 at 5:11 pm

Yes, Ashford is actually castigating the pro-SSM side for failing to think bigger, as it were. He can see the rolling eyes from the rank-and-file directed at him (if he’s even given any attention), and he is not amused. If Massachusetts is any guide, he will likely remain stationed on the Island of Misfit Academics.
David J. White says:

January 28, 2013 at 5:42 pm

One day ‘they’ will no longer be viewed as this special and protected activist class and then we can just be one society of people.

Well, that hasn’t happened yet for African-Americans, and they’ve been at this a lot longer. I remarked to a friend once that we will know that racial issues in this country are truly a thing of the past when the NAACP is regarded as purely a fraternal and cultural organization, sort of the black equivalent to the Hibernians or the Sons of Italy.

I’m interested in the idea that “monogamy doesn’t work”.

As Chesterton is often quoted as having remarked about Christianity: it hasn’t been tried and found wanting; rather it has been found difficult and left untried.
Consequences1 says:

January 28, 2013 at 5:52 pm

If I’m not mistaken, a “reader” at a British university is what we would call a grad student.

Anyway, it’s sort of sad that the Tories didn’t take this opportunity to rid marriage law of some of its anachronistic views, for example on consummation, but it’s even more sad that they couldn’t bring themselves to actually institute EQUAL marriage rights. I’m not talking about the exemptions allowed for the Church of England, I mean the niggling details — like “married” must mean “opposite-sex married” in wills predating the legislation.

Anything beyond a dozen pages must be filled with loopholes.

On the other hand, as much as Rod fears the “never-ending journey” of teh gheys, perhaps he should be more worried about Wyoming taking the first steps toward marriage-lite for heterosexuals.
Bryan says:

January 28, 2013 at 5:56 pm

There’s (at least) one major problem with this. Homosexuality will never increase in proportion to the general population.

Current ethnic minorities can–and quite possibly WILL–be majorities at some point. Their numbers grow. It is entirely conceivable that eventually even one single minority group, and not just a combination of every minority group, could someday supplant whites as a majority in America.

So even if you remove all moral dimensions from the equation (which can’t and won’t ever happen), from a purely PRACTICAL, utilitarian standpoint, civil rights for ethnic minorities are pretty much essential to a stable, peaceful society.

Homosexuality is not in the same category. The unwashed masses will always view homosexuality as “not quite normal” and most people will never have any serious reason to drastically change that view, even if they “tolerate” it from a safe distance. The sight of two men kissing in public will ALWAYS evoke a very different visceral reaction than seeing black kids on a school bus in a white neighborhood. There is no getting around that.
Church Lady says:

January 28, 2013 at 5:59 pm

And while you’re focused on this guy, Scientology is slowing taking over the world…
M_Young says:

January 28, 2013 at 6:03 pm

“One day ‘they’ will no longer be viewed as this special and protected activist class and then we can just be one society of people.”

That hasn’t happened with blacks in US society, why should it happen with homosexuals?
J.J. Gonzalez Gonzalez says:

January 28, 2013 at 6:11 pm

It’s not the destination that counts, it’s how much weird sex you get to have on the journey.

But honestly, I don’t think the journey for gay advocates will go on much longer after marriage equality is enshrined into constitutions and such. Once the battle in the courts is won, the frontlines will shift to the schools. This is where the real damage will be done and the revolution completed.

With the law behind them, the advocates will educate the young that gay sex is equal sex. School boards, PTAs and parents will have no power to oppose them. Dissent will not be tolerated.

SSM might pave the way for polygamy — why wouldn’t it? That would be a step up arguably. It might pave the way for something else — but it won’t really matter anymore. There won’t be anything left to preserve.

So gay marriage may not be the final destination, but that’s when it’ll all be over.
Geoff Guth says:

January 28, 2013 at 6:38 pm

From time to time, we see a fairly naked display of what it means to be a social conservative.

Here we have a pretty conciliatory statement that talks about how we gay people must change in order to earn our place on society as equals. We hear about monogamy. We hear about a rejection of promiscuity. We hear about leaving behind the definition of what it means to be gay based on sexual activity alone.

Yes, there is some redefinition at work here too, but frankly, every marriage of any length will have its deviations from the Christian ideal. I dare say that very few evangelicals live up to Paul’s ideals of sexual behavior, let alone those of Jesus (the one who taught you to hate your family and leave absolutely everything to follow Him).

But all of this is beside the point. One might be tempted to think that objections to same-sex marriage are rooted in Christian tradition. One would be misled.

As this post makes clear, it’s the horror of treating gay people like myself as a normal and equal part of society that drives conservatism. The idea that I might occupy the same social position that is anathema. That’s the religious liberty that must be defended: the right to humiliate me and put me in my place.

The tools may vary. Some use coarse threats and violence. Others, like Mr. Dreher, use humor. But the motive behind both is the shame. Keep those uppity gays (like those uppity blacks, before them) firmly in their place.

There’s something in Southern culture in particular that has never quite been comfortable with the egalitarianism the country was founded on. You see it in everything from the politics of the Federalists on down to the present day. Perhaps that’s why this blog has such nostalgia for agrarianism (agricultural societies being inherently stratified) and such love for aristocratic holdovers in Europe. Certainly much of the readership either explicitly or implicitly see themselves as a natural aristocracy and can react in rather ugly ways if they perceive that social order as disturbed.

The truly amusing thing is how pathetic and desperate these pretentions generally come across. The sad thing is how little these social climbers and parvenus have absorbed any sense of noblesse oblige. They demand the perks of social position but shrug off any sense of responsibility that goes with it. It’s a particularly ugly bastardization of European aristocracy.
J.J. Gonzalez Gonzalez says:

January 28, 2013 at 6:38 pm

James C.

“It seems experts couldn’t decide what sex act or acts constituted “consummation” of these new so-called marriages, so gay couples will not be able to annul a union for not being consummated.”

I hadn’t thought about! That’s good. I guess the movement must go on. Until we have “annulment equality” not all will be equal.
k says:

January 28, 2013 at 6:45 pm

Black civil rights is still a recent enough thing and I believe we will still make progress racially. Even so, it is still totally possible for us to isolate ourselves in our racial groups and for many people go years and lifetimes with having very, very little interaction or relations with people outside their own race.
Gay people, however, come up out of every race and group of people. Even if being a much smaller or nongrowing rate of the population, it is becoming impossible (with the increasing acceptability of living out as gay) for many of us to not know gay people, have them in our own communities and amongst our own family members.
Ampersand says:

January 28, 2013 at 6:51 pm

“The fact that people are deciding not to follow monogamy does not mean that it does not work. It means that our current methods of (socially) enforcing monogamy are not working.”

Social enforcement doesn’t mean much, anymore. We’re past the “America gives you a lot of freedom, but conformity keeps people from doing much with it” stage. We’re now to the “Hey, we don’t have a universal belief system, and the only thing limiting us is the Constitution, so we can do whatever we can think of!” stage. To paraphase Charles Cosimano, I don’t think you can enforce social mores in an era when the public can put you on mute or change the channel.

I tried monogamy and didn’t like it. It’s not some major philosophical thing, for me, I just didn’t enjoy it. Most of the traditional ways of “socially enforcing” me to do it are illegal, now. What, I wouldn’t get hired because of it? Discrimination lawsuit. Cultural pressure? If you want to apply cultural pressure to me, please, get in line and bring something to read, because any number of commercial, religious, and political groups are trying to shape me. This is a global ideological market; you’re going to have a lot of competition. Family pressure? Fewer and fewer people live near their families, and those families tend to be distracted by other issues.
Glaivester says:

January 28, 2013 at 7:09 pm

Here we have a pretty conciliatory statement that talks about how we gay people must change in order to earn our place on society as equals. We hear about monogamy. We hear about a rejection of promiscuity. We hear about leaving behind the definition of what it means to be gay based on sexual activity alone.

No it isn’t. It is a statement of derision for the idea of such conciliation.

What then does this apparent victory look like? It looks like being ‘normal’, being the ‘same’ as the dominant heterosexual majority, or at least, a fantasy image of that majority.

The very fact that this is called an “apparent victory” means that he doesn’t consider it a victory but a compromise with straight society.

We will aspire to a monogamous, state-sanctioned relationship. We’ll aspire to have children, raising them (presumably somewhere in Islington or possibly Shoreditch) and lead a productive civilised existence. Rip up the Chariots membership card, stop those group-sex shenanigans and embrace normality.

This is obviously his statement on what gay marriage supposedly means to the general public, not on what he thinks it should mean. As Liam says, “Ashford is actually castigating the pro-SSM side for failing to think bigger, as it were.”

As for those acting like this guy is the Fred Phelps of the gay rights movement, given how quickly same-sex “marriage” has gone from being an absurd idea to being a litmus test for being acceptable to polite society, why shouldn’t the radicals be seen as indicative of the long-term goals of the movement? It’s not as if we are not moving in that direction, and it’s not as if folks like Dan Savage are not considered much more acceptable in the culture than, say, Fred Phelps.