Ryan Anderson thinks that traditionalists can keep from being pushed out of civic life as bigots if we continue to engage civilly on behalf of marriage, thinking that the slow progress (or at least, holding pattern), we've achieved with regard to abortion by means of moral arguments and social science can be recreated.
He's right that this is a necessary part of the tactic of keeping from being pushed out of the public square entirely, though, absent major changes in trajectory it's hard to see it actually succeeding in reversing this thing (but maybe delusional optimism is a necessary component of staying engaged).
It's hard for me to imagine we'll really have much success in keeping the left from dismissing us as bigots. They're already doing so, and as they run the government, the education system, the communications system and the corporations, it's hard to see how that won't be the official view that people have to at least outwardly conform to. It might enough, however, to keep us from getting pushed out of the GOP and the "right-wing noise machine", which are key components in keeping before the public the fact that there are still two sides to be heard on this issue.
So, this strategy has its place. I don't think, however, that it's enough. We cannot keep pretending that the entire system is not already rigged against us; that the logic of liberalism that leads to gay marriage doesn't run deeper than we'd like to admit, and that engaging in battle on the terms set by classical liberalism, while the progressive liberals are bound by no such terms is a fool's battle. While there's something honorable in originalist principles that motivate Justice Scalia to say that he doesn't care how marriage is defined, that is, frankly, an insane statement. The constitutionalism of classical liberalism presupposes a sane society that doesn't do things like redefine marriage for political purposes. When society does that (even if it did so according to the rules of the originalist game), the game is over.
I don't know if we win by escalating the battle. There may not actually be much hope of winning, but at this point we are only fighting for the terms of our surrender. Constitutionalist principles and being nice aren't enough for this. Only power is enough. If playing by the rules and being civil serve the ends of access to power necessary for preserving our rights, then let's use them. But let's not forego other means available to us.
I'm not advocating violence (though I think we should be ready to take up arms to defend our family, property and churches if they come for them), but it seems like a certain form a fearless lawlesness is needed to stand up to tyrants and make their unjust laws unenforceable. We need to stop being cowed by PC or laws or social conventions that don't actually serve our communities or what's left of the common good. In public engagement, we need to top feeding the victim industry with apologies, stop avoiding uncomfortable topics for the sake of preserving coalitions. (For instance, we're not going to win the marriage debate while pretending that what we're saying has no bearing on the morality of gay sex.)
This might mean a division of labor--fearless extremists and trolls creating room on the right for the mainstream guys to carve out more respectable opinions: basically, using any and all means to break the conformist orthodoxy that the left is trying to smother the country with by making people aware that there is still a significant community of dissenters and we're not going anywhere.
Note: I'm personally preoccupied with political questions, but it's important to remember that we can't confuse means with ends. I'm mostly on the same page as Rod Dreher here. The purpose has to be, first of all, preservation of our way of life and extension primarily through personal evangelization. The political theory, coalition and strategy serves the shared way of life and not vice versa. If we're failing at actually living it out and passing it on to our
children, the fight is completely purposeless and hypocritical. The fearless lawlessness and realization that things like constitutionalism are losing games are part of recognizing that the classical American political order that conservatives think they are defending no longer exists and is no longer possible given the disagreement over the proper meaning and end of human life. That regime has become something else and while advocates of the old order are still present in some parts of it and are still capable of exercising some good, it is fundamentally devoted to a way of life that is inimical to our own. It is a machine built by and for leftists and we look silly when we try to pretend we can operate and use it profitably for our own ends.
