The most reliable constituency for Big Government is single women, for whom the state is a girls best friend, the sugar daddy whose checks never bounce. A society in which a majority of births are out of wedlock cannot be other than a Big Government welfare society. Ruining a nations finances is one thing; debauching its human capital is far harder to fix.
I’m really getting discouraged.
Whenever I read or listen to Steyn I feel smarter
One reason why conservative appeals to protect the sacred procreative essence of marriage have gone nowhere is because Americans are rapidly joining the Scandinavians in doing most of their procreating without benefit of clergy. Seventy percent of black babies are born out of wedlock, so are 53 percent of Hispanics (the natural conservative constituency du jour, according to every lavishly remunerated Republican consultant), and 70 percent of the offspring of poor white women.
I happened to be in the car the other day listening to the radio when Rush Limbaugh launched into his pessimistic downer of a monologue about the inevitability of "gay marriage" becoming a reality in the U.S. As I was listening to it, two things really stuck in my mind:
1. This guy has been married four times.
2. This guy had Elton John play at his last wedding in 2010.
Item #2 should not be overlooked, because it involves two aspects: (A) Limbaugh invited him, and (B) Elton John accepted the invitation.
When I got home I did some research and found some very interesting articles linked in the Google search on "Elton John, Rush Limbaugh." Among other things, Elton John says that Rush Limbaugh is very different off the air ... and he even suggests that Limbaugh (while he will never admit it publicly) is a supporter of "gay marriage."
I think Mark Steyn is right. The institutions of this country are being run by a monolithic ruling class that has no moral foundation and is completely disconnected from the nation's historical cultural norms.
Thanks for posting this. This is brilliant.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I heard Don Imus ( on his radio program ) ask the question regarding Gay Marriage - What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives?
First, regarding What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives? Liberals make a common mistake in assuming this issue is about limiting the freedom of homosexuals.
The reality is - theres currently nothing that stops homosexuals from making lifelong commitments to each other. Gays already are allowed to make the same commitment. In fact, its done all the time. They already have the liberty to do what they want with their own lives.
The problem lies here - A marriage license, however, goes a step further than providing liberty.
It doesnt give liberty, it FORCES SOCIETYs APPROVAL of that union, which homosexuals dont presently have.
It forces people whose deeply held religious beliefs tell them that homosexual acts are sinful to give their APPROVAL to these acts.
So, gay marriage is not about what homosexuals are being forced by others not to do, but what society is being forced to do by homosexuals: APPROVE. Thats another issue entirely.
Gays can marry all they want, but why should devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and others be FORCED to violate their religious tenets in order to give approval to this lifestyle?
Second, implicit in the act of altering the definition of marriage to include homosexuals is the acknowledgment that marriage isnt anything in particular, but can be defined and redefined as society likes.
If marriage isnt any particular thing, then family isnt any particular thing either (this not only follows; its an integral part of their argument). If we then concede that family isnt anything in particular, but is simply a convention, a social construct we invented and can alter at will, then this has direct ramifications for the future of the family as we know it.
How can you say this isnt an impact?
Finally, if marriage isnt anything in particular, but is merely defined by society in a way that the definition can change to meet changing conditions, then you cannot argue that marriage between humans and animals could never take place because animals cant consent (or cant, as some people put it, enter into contracts).
Who are you to say that a marriage is based on consent? If you can change its definition once you can change it again.
For instance, a baby used to be considered human, worthy of protection under the law. Now, there are those who would allow babies born alive to be slaughtered. Once you start on that path, how does it end? What was once considered a ridiculous argument has now become REAL and something we are now grappling with.
Its also a bit stunning that liberal objections to humans marrying animals is grounded in the inability of animals to consent. Is this the best rejoinder they can offer?
Philosopher J.P. Moreland tells of a guy in Colorado, I think, who brought his horse to the courthouse to try to get a marriage license for the two of them. The clerk was flummoxed for a moment and finally turned him away because the horse wasnt 18 years old yet! I guess this was just another way of saying that the horse was under the age of consent.
My point is, I think there is a more obvious concern than mere consent. Marriage *IS* and *MEANS* something in particular, not something we can re-define and twist any way we want.
Marriage of Convenience - an adapation of a society to the pressures of political, social or economic means without any personal attachment. Do we truly believe the politicians in DC truly believe that Gay marriage is the solution.
The Family structure will be destroyed. But look at America - Single Mother Led Families are the norm.
- Political, Media, Celebrities - married multiple times after multiple divorces.
- No fault divorces
- Living together without being married norm
So America is in the process of reaping what it has sown - degradation of the family unit to that of something totally different.
Liberals will expand on the degradation - political gain. make the family mean something totally different 2 mommies 2 daddies. Partners. Look at Univ of Wisconsin Madison - faggots, queers run the university - remember the capitol protests in wisconsin. Look at John hopkins - medical students do not want Dr. Benjamin Carson to speak because of his views on the family, marriage and he does not endorse gay marriage.
celebrities - Kristen Bell mother, but refuses to marry her finance (child’s father) because her friends whom are gay and lesbians do not have marriage equality.
Elton John gay and married and has a child with his partner - but he is in the UK. US must be like Europe ( gag me)
Obamanation Counterculture File.
Is this what the moderates wanted when they voted liberal Democrat?
Steyn is right, but he fails to go into the reasons why Marriage as an institution has become increasingly devalued.
But he does catch the point that leftist Gays are simply calling the bluff and finishing off the institution in an effort to get other people to accept and respect their sodomy as being as legitimate as procreative marriage.
Dispute it being useless, sinful, and self-destructive. Ultimately of course this entire movement will collapse upon biological realities that homosexual unions are incapable of producing a future.
Thus populations that encourage the life style as normal undercut their own growth & stability potential. For the western world this devastating as our growth rates have already been undercut by the already existing debasement of marriage, family, and abortion effecting sub-replacement level birth rates.
As a population we are already in decline, and looking towards foreign replacement not just demographically but culturally as the already eminent consequence.
As conservative the only hope we have is to consolidate our numbers and look inward toward protecting ourselves and our families from this cultural corruption.
We must secure control of our local schools, commutes and States. Such will be essencle if we are to preserve something of our civilization.
The reason marriage is dying is because as Mark said its hollowed out.
To be specific the institution is an increasingly costly and perceptually pointless(due to being hollow out by redefined & striping of function) union.
Indeed the only thing that holds marriage together is millennial of cultural momentum & social pressure by folks like us. But the fact is The marriage today is not the marriage of two centuries, or even 50 years ago.
The institution has in fact been redefined to center around the parents feelings while neglecting the unions function in children. The institution was further hollowed out by the growing cultural and legal accordance of divorce thus rendering the martial union and more a partnership.
Indeed Partnership is increasingly the term used to refer to this “union” now as people recognize the reality of what it now is.
There is a third alternative........ the extermination of the queers.
After the first year, the closets will be occupied again
I call BS. The family isn’t dead, at least not mine.
These kind of articles are over the top.
“That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a meaningless piece of paper or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting its a universal human right.”
Indeed. It’s ultimately all about replacing the natural family with the intrusive and totalitarian state.
After the first few paragraphs it's more about class divisions among the general (heterosexual) population.
I wish someone could make for me one of those avatar graphic thingies that I could put on Facebook. I’d want it to say:
I’m for MARRIAGE QUALITY