Conservatives and the Marriage Debate

Catholic Citizens of Illinois ^ | June 21, 2015 | J.R. Dunn

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The same-sex “marriage” vote in Ireland marks the largest victory for the LGBT movement thus far. It’s quite a feather in the gay boa – an apparent success in yanking one of the most heterosexual cultures on Earth out of the closet.

In truth, the vote was very likely a rebuke to the Catholic Church, which in Ireland, as everywhere else in the industrialized West, hired a lot of gays to act as priests, who exploited numberless teenage boys for sexual purposes, and then did nothing about it. The Irish Church tried to coast through the crisis, and this is its reward – a fitting one.

We can add the fact the Irish Church did nothing to defend marriage from the current assault. I know that without even researching it, because the American Church is effectively an extension of the Irish Church, and the American Church has done nothing to protect marriage during the current debate. A serious, well-organized, and well-funded response to the gay campaign among Catholics simply has not occurred in any meaningful sense.

This is also true of the rest of this country’s institutions, conservatism prominent among them.

We’re told that when the matter came up, establishment conservatives effectively laughed the whole thing off with the line, “Does this mean I can marry my cat?” Conservatives did not take the matter seriously, and they are now caught with little to say. Some did worse, such as the odious Robert Gates, whose speech to the Boy Scouts reveals his historical role to be a kind of Jack Ketch who handles the dirty work that liberals don’t want to touch.

The institutions wouldn’t fight, and we are now paying the price.

The first point to be made is that marriage was worth fighting for. We’re now hearing that gay marriage was “inevitable,” the “wave of history,” that “nothing could have been done.” This is nonsense. If marriage could not be fought for, nothing can be. Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with “affection,” “love,” “equal rights,” or any of the other slogans. It has to do with destroying the established institutions of Western society: marriage, the family, the status of males, religion, what have you. These are the actual targets of the “gay marriage” movement, as has become quite clear in the nationwide attacks against Christian-owned small businesses that refuse to play along with historical inevitability. These are not accidents or examples of overzealous activism. They are the point, the core of the movement, and always have been. The entire idea is to punish Christians, and beyond them the despised straight world. (We should add here that not a single one of these victims has received meaningful support from their church establishments, whether Catholic or Protestant.)

This seems to be an easy point to make. But the argument has never been made. Many of you will be seeing it here for the first time. Nobody in the conservative establishment ever got around to pointing out that gays had an agenda, one that they did very little to hide. Instead, they fell all over themselves to assure people that they weren’t bigots, that they had nothing against love, marriage, or pastel unicorns. Anything at all to appear inoffensive and not to make themselves a target. Whatever arguments they had soon drifted off into a Twilight Zone of abstraction. In doing this, they allowed the terms of debate to be set by the howling gay wild men of the Dan Savage type. They effectively guaranteed their own defeat.

A major part of the problem lies in philosophy. Establishment conservatism has constructed an intricate worldview, based on a concept formulated by Albert Jay Nock, a libertarian writer of the early 20th century, called the “Isaiahan remnant.” Rather than fight losing battles, conservatives instead should preserve the virtues and achievements of the West, until a better day arrives when the masses will come begging for enlightenment. Establishment conservatives (by which I mean the northeastern branch) will then evidently act as benevolent philosopher-kings, doling out the intellectual treasures of Western thought to an appreciative populace.

What this translates into in real terms is the contention that the conservative role doesn’t begin until the game is over. After civilization collapses, the “remnant,” we’re given to understand, will then emerge from its monasteries (the think-tanks) in its chinos and blue blazers, and commence to rebuild civilization.

Note that this thesis not only excuses inaction, but encourages it, to assure that the “remnant” remains pure and untouched.

I’m a bit skeptical. (So were many conservatives, including William F. Buckley, who rejected the thesis in favor of direct and tireless engagement. Unfortunately, many of his heirs have bought the remnant thesis – a self-image as a member of a hidden elite is difficult to resist.) Throw in the lifestyle of the WASP ascendancy – the basis of conservative culture – which holds that gentlemen should not engage in conflict and that excess enthusiasm about anything is degrading, and that explains the modern conservative establishment in a nutshell – their refusal to engage, their tendency to drift off to discuss what Tocqueville and Madison would think of things, and why they’re never around in a street fight.

It also explains why they were utterly useless in the marriage debate. They don’t promise to be any better as involves immigration, abortion, biotech, health care, or anything else.

I’m not worried about the churches – Christianity is always at its best when under fire from the Romans, the Cathars, the Nazis, the communists, or whomever. But conservatism is not a church. It needs people who will fight. The current culture of American conservatism does not encourage this quality – it tends to excuse, and even reward, the Robert Gates types.

We need to recruit fighters, encourage them, and cultivate them. The establishment has no interest in this. The Tea Party movement had promise, before losing its way in support of oddballs with weird agendas. I assume they’ll be back – the problems that brought the movement into existence certainly haven’t gone anywhere.

When we look at 2016 from this viewpoint, we see exactly two candidates worthy of support: Scott Walker and Ted Cruz. All the rest – including such favorites as Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and, God knows, Jeb Bush, are compromisers and trimmers at best. (Walker has proven that he can fight and win. Ted Cruz has not quite demonstrated that yet.)

The marriage debate will not be over even when it’s over. Marriage is an aspect of human nature as it exists, and it won’t be changed simply because some demand it. We saw this with abortion and radical feminism. Abortion is a crime against nature and can’t be made to be anything else. Despite virtually the entire culture bending itself into pretzels to deny that fact, it still remains the central truth about abortion – a truth that, properly exploited by people who were willing to fight, has cut the abortion rate to its lowest level since 1973.

Feminism denies any reality to sex roles. Despite support from the general culture, radical feminism has repeatedly wrecked itself on reefs of its own making. Today we see feminists (such as Sheryl Sandberg with her “Lean In” program) making the same exact arguments that were made forty years ago, with the same level of hysteria and self-delusion. They will achieve the same result.

The marriage argument will develop in similar fashion. The facts stand for themselves and will not be changed. As time passes and the actual anti-family, anti-religious, and anti-straight agenda of the gays is revealed, it will no longer be taken as a greeting-card issue. Then the real debate will begin.

All that we need are fighters. The rest can go marry their cats.

Originally posted at American Thinker June 10, 2015 [599 comments]

[stanne]

There’s no debate

Justice Kennedy will tell us, and thus, the western world, how we are to treat an institution designed by God, sanctified by Jesus, see ‘Wedding at Cana’

There is no debate

And if one could debate any idea put forth by today’s liberals, who would debate?

Liberals?

Liberals do not debate. The do not change their minds, not even to allow for Gods own rules to live by
Conservatives and also Catholics, as the author of this silly piece, will do well to be bold and to also quit pretending minds will change, or that minds must change before getting the culture back to health

Or the liberals will simply take everything over before destruction

[Westbrook]

> There’s no debate

The very first words that came to my mind!

And EXACTLY so!

It’s like debating whether water is really wet.

[stanne]

Liberals scream Not just on tv but on the phone. At thanksgiving dinner

And they mock. They stereotype

Conservatives are so chicken about getting ridiculed and yelled at and disrespected that they give up

And liberals win the culture. It’s not as if there is leadership for conservatives to win the culture

Fear of anger though is no reason to not speak the truth

I’ve lost friends. I’ve lost a former college roommate s friendship a woman with a masters degree in science, with whom I used to go to mass in college, over what do you think? My treatment of plastic bags from the supermarket. I was supposed to be doing the current politically correct thing and I wasn’t keeping up

She said we have to save the earth

I quoted that to a nice catholic friend/gent. USAF pilot

He asked, ‘we have to save the earth? For what?’

Good one

[Yardstick]

Being bold is exactly what the author of this piece is advocating.

[stanne]

See here’s an example.

I’ll argue that the piece is rambling. It finds no role model. Puts down the tea party red herring and argues that debating is worth having and being bold in the debate is good so my point was moot

And you’ll say I’m wrong for some inane reason

But let me save you some typing, I will not respond

Here is the point I have already made

There is no debate

When I have a point to make to a liberal I do what I am doing to this stupid argument

I state the truth and I am done

Boldly

I do not fight with illogical people and tgeir ad hominem points

There is no debate. Minds will not be changed. Either Kennedy legalizes gay marriage or he doesn’t

The pro homosexual marriage culture will not let it go and they will not debate and change their minds

[Yardstick]

You know, with this political stuff there are two basic ways you can blow it — either by being a squish or by being brittle. Both result in a failure to effectively engage. The first by having no convictions, the second by being unwilling to accept incremental progress and temporary setbacks. What’s required is something in between, which is conviction along with toughness and tenacity. The author specifically mentions William Buckley who favored “direct and tireless engagement”. Buckley spent his whole life making the case for conservatism, and he made a difference. I think that’s the sort of thing the author is getting at.

[stanne]

I don’t. And maybe you could try to point to what incremental progress has been made for conservatives

[Yardstick]

Incremental progress or setbacks. There are times when the best we can do is slow things down or mitigate damage. The fact that this is so doesn’t mean we should give up and say to hell with it all and disengage.

[stanne]

I think pretending dialogue ad debate are useful is giving up

[Yardstick]

I will add that Buckley provided intellectual ammo and a morale boost to two generations of conservatives and probably helped set the stage for Reagan.

[Yardstick]

Have you ever won an argument with a liberal before? I have. It’s possible.

[stanne]

I watched bill Buckley when I was in college I liked him bc he was logical

I’ve never met a liberal a true liberal who was logical so no I’ve ever won an argument with a liberal

I don’t waste my time and effort any more

I do what at Francis advised a la the bible with conservatism

‘Preach the Gospel. And if necessary, use words’

[Yardstick]

Well, I think sometimes it’s good to speak the truth out loud just as a matter of principle and even if it doesn’t prevail at a given moment. As a practical matter I think there’s value in showing that someone sees things from a conservative POV and is willing to make the case. If no one pipes up, it may just be assumed that no one holds those views. Also sometimes you can plant a seed in someone’s mind that doesn’t grab them until later. And sometimes you’re not arguing for the sake of the person you’e arguing with but for the people who are watching. So even if it seems useless to argue your case there can be second-order reasons why it’s not.

[stanne]

That’s how I see it

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Nice discussion. Thank you both.

I see it as, we DO engage. If we don’t the Left wins by default.

True they’ve made gains - incrementally (as the Left always proceeds until they can strike). Now that there is a liar, a “do what ever it takes” socialist on a mission to dismantle our Republic, we cannot concede but unite and stand together.

Since I have been following Gov. Walker, I see how he works the “incremental.” He pushes back and makes inroads (and the support for him builds as people see he will not back down). It reminds me of ISIS gaining ground because the people of the area cannot count on any leadership to back them up if they resist. They see no reason to literally put their heads on the chopping block if there is no visible viable way to overcome the enemy.

Since he works with the state legislature he has to get his ideas past them but much of it does get through. He also has joined other states in holding against the healthcare assault of Obamacare, voter ID, marriage, etc. He is moving against the entrenched liberal cabal at the UW - moving some power out of their hands and it has them rabid foaming at the mouth mad.

It’s knowing where and when to strike and then taking a stand - but you need a leader to unite and to act.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/21/exclusive-bolton-everyones-underestimating-walker-and-heres-where-hell-hit-hillary/

Just read that piece about Gov. Walker (by John Bolton) - he sees the leadership qualities of Walker.

[stanne]

I’m just saying the left simply does not discuss. Their views lack logic so tgeir is no discussion. Tgeycome upon their views emotionally. They persuade others through emotion they do not discuss

[Cincinatus' Wife]

You are exactly right.

But the people/voters watch how this plays out.

Just like environmentalism, the leftist cabal declares that there is consensus, that debate is closed and that deniers will be shunned and worse (for the good of all).

If you take them on using a frontal assault, but don’t have the power, they assemble en masse and overwhelm you.

J. R. Dunn saw this in 2011 but didn’t believe that it was possible for Obama to win a 2nd term. If you haven’t yet, please take a few minutes and read this.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/07/democrats_unveil_the_weapon_of_the_future.html

[Old Sarge]

This Entire Post