A Theory about some older Shifters

This post is in reference to an earlier post on gay marriage, specifically in reference to my notion of the 10-15% of the population that will need to shift their positions in the next 10 years in order to make full enfranchisement possible.

Could it be, in some cases, that there are people not so much motivated by defending the inferiority of gay unions, but rather in forestalling their own moral inferiority?

Think, for example, about the person at the office who defends an old organizational system because his or her expertise and authority rests upon the validity of that system. (And perhaps his or her job, or his or her ability to support a loved one.)

What if you are among the group of, let's say, older boomers: people still professionally active and, indeed, at the top of their professions, but destined to pass into some version of retirement or inactivity within 20 years. Especially if you are in conservative religion or politics, it could be that your importance and notoriety rests partially on your defense of eternal values, and partially on your championship of values in the context of, say, principles adopted since the formal opening of the culture wars in the early 70s. Any change in the terms of the debate would advance the very process you are trying to slow down: your passage from greatest power into obsolescence.

In this model, "don't-ask-don't-tell" policies or hate crime policies/ anti-discrimination policies (i.e. individual freedom from being harmed for being gay, but no moral sanction of gayness as equal) might be the equivalent of newer, more affordable Lincolns and Cadillacs: luxury full-size sedans looking to be a little more affordable, a little more petite, and a little more efficient in an environment where what people want from their cars in general has already changed a lot.

We've certainly heard in the media from religious Californians who are otherwise tolerant. It was interesting to see, for example, D.L. Hugley have no qualms over gay marriage except that it might run roughshod over churches and traditional beliefs. In the video, Hugley explicity requests a ballot option that would approve gay marriage while not approving "the gay lifestyle," so that he might vote his conscience.

Could it be that both people and institutions who otherwise are tolerant of gay marriage simply don't want to be instantly rendered the bigots of history? That they act from a *motivation* of affirming their own morality rather than de-affirming the morality of gay couples or gay adopters of children or gay soldiers, etc?