We all know what this month means: Pride. But Pride in what? Well, in pride. If you had successfully reversed several millennia of religious teaching that sodomy is a moral abomination in a mere 50 years, you’d be proud too….

The Wall Street Journal has reminded us that “Same-Sex Marriage [why didn’t a proofreader catch this oxymoron?] Marks a Big Anniversary.” Yes, indeed, 20 years is a big one. The article’s subtitle reads: “After 20 years, study finds largely positive effects, defying the ‘dire’ predictions.” In fact, the Rand organization study, according to the Journal, “finds that the consequences of two decades of legal same-sex marriage [there’s that oxymoron again] have been broadly positive for gay and straight Americans alike.” Hmm, doesn’t that require overlooking some things?

Accompanying the celebratory story are three color photographs of happy homosexual or lesbian couples illustrating the positivity of it all. There go Robert and David walking along the beach, hand in hand. Both retired, they spend time “visiting with their grandchildren.” Somehow, I don’t think so. They can’t be “their” grandchildren. Where, for instance, is grandma, or for that matter where is the mother of these grandchildren? Where is the positivity in all this for the missing moms?

Then there is the picture of homosexuals Danny and Eric, one of whom appears to be lying upside down to the other (probably both lying on the ground) with the absolutely cutest dog between their two smiling faces. At least there are no grandchildren.

That’s nothing compared to the picture of lesbians Dawn and Jen seated on an outdoor bench “with their children and dogs.” (If lesbians or gays have dogs, then everything must be alright.) In the immediate background is an evergreen forest, which helps make the whole thing appear as normal and wholesome as can be. Everyone is smiling except the dogs. I hate to be a killjoy, but the same problem as with Robert and David’s “grandchildren” obtains here. I don’t dispute that the dogs are “theirs.” But the two children who are standing behind them can’t possibly be theirs. Where’s dad? Has his positivity been canceled?

The Wall Street Journal outdid itself by giving a huge spread, starting on the front page of its Friday “Mansion” section and taking another two half pages on the inside, to the striking California abode of David, an architect, and Peter. David apparently considers himself the “wife” in this arrangement with his “husband” Peter, who grew up Catholic and works as risk manager for the nonprofit Ministry Services of the Daughters of Charity. It shows that you can lose your faith but still make a living from it.

Sprinkled throughout the house are objects that are meant to provoke and start conversations. It sounds like a fun party game. Peter chose the statue of a nun, holding an antique crucifix that David “put there as a provocation.” Apparently, David was not raised Catholic. Otherwise, he would have known that the only people who could possibly be provoked by the image of a nun holding a crucifix are the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

The Journal reports that, “One of the most notable collections is a basket of decapitated doll heads in the living room, which he [David] says is a good way to start conversations.” I suppose it is so long as your guests are members of Planned Parenthood. Someone might be “provoked” to ask them, “What do you do with your baby heads? Are they available for dinner parties?”

In the 3,600 square-foot home, there is a huge room with a 26-foot-high ceiling, supported by wood pillars and beams. It contains a kitchen, dining area, and living room. A loft above it, reports the Journal, has an office and to “one side a bedroom and bathroom where [David’s] mother lives.” Mom lives in the bathroom? Well, at a certain age that might be convenient, or maybe she whispered to her son, “Dear, you can’t be that nice man’s wife because you’re not a girl. Didn’t your father teach you anything?” Off to the bathroom on that remark.

Over the fireplace in the living room area hangs a large painting depicting a nude boy or girl against a black background (the genitalia are indistinct—though there appear to be budding breasts). In any case, the person is looking downward with a worried expression, perhaps concerned as to why his or her body looks as if it has been through an Osterizer….

By Robert R. Reilly writing in Crisis Magazine. Reilly has written for the Wall Street Journal among other publications