I think that most mental health professionals would disagree, if your claim is that sexual orientation is not a deeply rooted aspect of one’s personality. I am not sure what you mean by “inherent”, but sexuality is far more to a personality and a mere “behavior”. Such a dismissive attitude does not help anyone to reach any harmony in this debate, and is seen as a means of trying to dehumanize others, which in turn makes bigotry an easier practice.
When I first read “protected political class”, I was wondering if you were alluding to the fact that homosexuals are sometimes thought of in the courts as a “suspect class” which enjoys heightened legal protection, as a result of the historic prejudice which is well documented. Many jurisdictions apply a higher standard of scrutiny to claims in this area, because of the historic record.
If by “protected political class”, you mean that gays have been successful in influencing politicians by direct lobbying, media manipulation, voting, demonstrating, contributing money, and so on… then yes. They have been very effective in influencing public opinion and politics. I would also point out, that there are many other special interest groups which have also had great success in this way, too. With its deep pockets, prominent leaders, ubiquity of membership, willing audience during sermons, etc., the Church has had a fair shot at influencing public debate over the centuries. I think that some church members could adopt some of the tactics of the gay lobby effectively, but have not done so. Obviously, it would be illegal for the Church to engage in direct political machinations.
But certainly, gays have not had more access to politics or media than any other groups might, if they chose to. The relatively recent success is breathtaking. But, I don’t think that it is entirely a result of the gay liberation movement, and related efforts. It is, as I have stated before, more a predictable outcome of the changing values which started with the women’s movement, and the liberalization of sexual and marriage standards among heterosexuals. Without those changes first occurring, nobody would have seriously contemplated the idea of gay marriage.
This cat is out of the bag. There is no going back. To do so, would mean also to change marriage an divorce law for heterosexuals, and to roll back sexual laws in general. For that to happen, the entire moral outlook of the majority of the populace would have to change regarding sexual behavior and marriage, and perhaps even gender roles and duties. That is not going to happen.
I don’t think that it is accurate to characterize the gay marriage debate as being about the sexual behavior of a small minority. Rather it is a natural outcome of other larger changes which have been rolling along as “social progress” for many decades. Focusing on the smallest of the issues, and really the lease significant aspects, won’t yield much success or understanding of what is going on.
