CONSIDERING yesterday’s defeat of same-sex marriage in Maine, and the overwhelming tide of resistance by voters in states across the nation, could it be that this insidious campaign, this most quixotic of all domestic revolutions, has lost its momentum? Is it possible defenders of marriage have new reason to be buoyant and hopeful?

Rose, a lesbian who is politically conservative, says the fight has only begun:

I wish I was as optimistic as you are, but unfortunately, I have to say, “No.” Many on the losing side are comforting each other with the fact that it was nearly a fifty-fifty split, something that would have been impossible ten years ago. Things are rapidly changing and traditionalists will pass away as more children who read Hello Sailor in elementary school reach voting age. Hollywood and the elite on their side.

To go off on a tangent, I’ve been thinking recently that the fight against homosexual marriage is inseparable from your crusade for women to return home. Most modern marriages are already ‘gay’ in the sense that they are unions of two genderless ‘persons’ who are socially indistinguishable, performing the same jobs and wearing the same clothes. Traditionally, male friendship was distinguished from (and by many thought to be superior to) marriage by the equality of the partners. (Though in the past homosexually was thought to be inferior for having the same inequalities as male/female relationships.) Anyway, the notion of an active, dominant partner contrasting with a submissive, passive one, King and Subject, Christ and his Church, was just as important to, and indeed inseparable from, the idea of marriage as was the union of man and woman. People of former times would likely make the argument that same-sex marriage is unseemly not just because it is barren but because marriage presupposes a provider and a provided for, and that women are ill-suited to the first role and men to the second. But many modern conservatives (like my new governor) are too cowardly to say this.

Laura writes:

Governor of New Jersey?

Rose writes:

Virginia. The “sort of bootless, onion-eyed, flap-mouthed, milk-livered man who leads America today.” At least all those feminist-pandering campaign ads filled with working women for Bob will stop! 

Laura writes:

I am much more hopeful. The morale of same-sex marriage proponents cannot help but be weakened, and the resolve of opponents strengthened, by the outcome of these voter initiatives. Candidates for office must see, if they have any sense, that this is a losing cause.

Furthermore, it is not the traditionalists who will pass away, but those who leave few children. The very fact that homosexuality is being promoted by public schools makes it likely to become a matter of derision and scorn by the nation’s young. Anti-drug education actually increases drug use. Pro-homosexual propaganda in the schools will increase hostility to homosexuals. Children and teens see much of what they are taught in our schools as laughable propaganda.

Also, in the years ahead, we will hear a growing chorus of revelations from those who were raised by homosexuals as children, such as the woman who recently wrote an article in the journal of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists describing her homosexual father’s sordid exploits as she was growing up. It’s true the article was deleted from the journal, but in time these accounts will get through to the public and a new outspoken minority with its own grievances will emerge.

Another significant factor will be the aging of the homosexual population. Young and attractive lesbian couples are great for the cause. Old, embittered ones are not. The lesbian utopia is still relatively young. It has not yet revealed its greatest weaknesses. Will the truth ultimately be told about the enormous health problems, in addition to AIDS, experienced by male homosexuals? I believe it will. Men who find their lives significantly shortened will speak up. What will they have to lose?

Karen W. writes from England:

Whilst the defeat of same-sex marriage in Maine may be a cause for celebration, it is most likely to be a temporary defeat against a highly organised insidious campaign. Homosexuals and their backers will simply pick themselves up and continue as they have done in the past with all their other defeats which have turned out to be hiccups along the way to achieving their aims. In the USA particularly and in much of Western society the whole concept of marriage has changed making the resistance to homosexual marriage and other forms of relationship difficult if not impossible.

Let’s look at Rose’s comments: 

To go off on a tangent, I’ve been thinking recently that the fight against homosexual marriage is inseparable from your crusade for women to return home. Most modern marriages are already ‘gay’ in the sense that they are unions of two genderless ‘persons’ who are socially indistinguishable, performing the same jobs and wearing the same clothes. Traditionally, male friendship was distinguished from (and by many thought to be superior to) marriage by the equality of the partners. (Though in the past homosexually was thought to be inferior for having the same inequalities as male/female relationships.) Anyway, the notion of an active, dominant partner contrasting with a submissive, passive one, King and Subject, Christ and his Church, was just as important to, and indeed inseparable from, the idea of marriage as was the union of man and woman. People of former times would likely make the argument that same-sex marriage is unseemly not just because it is barren but because marriage presupposes a provider and a provided for, and that women are ill-suited to the first role and men to the second. But many modern conservatives (like my new governor) are too cowardly to say this.

This shows a profound misunderstanding of traditional religious marriage. The Judeo Christian marriage, as in all other societies, is a covenantal relationship between man and woman for the formation of a family which forms the basis of society, maintains its culture and traditions and provides the optimal setting for raising children in the continuation of that culture. It is not simply a social construct for the pairing off of active and passive peoples or a provider and provided for.

From the late 19th century, the covenantal love of traditional marriage was diminished and its social and cultural roles marginalised. Marriage became a romantic adventure between “two people who loved each other.” If Western people want to reject homosexual marriage they need to return to the values of old and recreate marriage as the biblical covenantal relationship. If they fail to do this, they will be swept away by the liberal tide which is powerful and unremitting in its destruction of the social and cultural order.

Laura says, “Candidates for office must see, if they have any sense, that this is a losing cause.”

Liberal politicians don’t care what voters think or want. Like the Lisbon Treaty, voters will be made to vote again and again until they get the right result.

Laura also says: “The very fact that homosexuality is being promoted by public schools makes it likely to become a matter of derision and scorn by the nation’s young. Anti-drug education actually increases drug use. Pro-homosexual propaganda in the schools will increase hostility to homosexuals. Children and teens see much of what they are taught in our schools as laughable propaganda.”

Most of the Western people do not see through propaganda. Liberalism has succeeded thus far because people have gone along with it easily and have been fooled by its claims. Look how easily the people accepted the sexual revolution and believed it would bring them happiness. Anti-drug education increases drug use because that is its aim. The overt message for the benefit of parents is “anti drugs” but the subliminal messages of campaigns of drug and sex education presented to children are to present these activities as harmless fun which can be experienced safely with “harm reduction strategies”. Subliminal messages are the most powerful form of advertising and are more effective in influencing thought and action. Hence these propaganda campaigns are actually highly effective in inducing children to have sex and take drugs, which is their unstated aim. The subliminal will be used for homosexuality.

AIDS has not been the health problem it was expected to be and the newer drugs used to treat it are allowing affected people to live healthy lives for quite a long time. The numbers of homosexuals are increasing as it is tolerated more and they are gaining more powerful positions in society. It will take many years and perhaps 2 generations before psychosocial disorders associated with homosexual adoptions are recognised and exposed and by this time huge damage will have been done.

I say again that only a full scale rejection of liberalism in its entirety can block homosexual marriage and there seems to be little effort to do that in Western society.

Rose writes:

Karen wrote: “The Judeo Christian marriage, as in all other societies, is a covenantal relationship between man and woman for the formation of a family which forms the basis of society, maintains its culture and traditions and provides the optimal setting for raising children in the continuation of that culture.”

I never said marriage wasn’t this also! What I wrote is not inconsistent with her conception. I just think we have come to think of married couples as matched sets when ideally men and women are ball and powder, hammer and anvil, yin and yang. Wives and husbands have very different natures and roles that nevertheless complement each other.

Laura writes in response to Karen:

The United States has a strong emerging subculture of people who reject liberalism in its entirety. This movement is most significantly represented by homeschoolers, vast numbers of whom explicitly deny the world view preached in the public schools. There are more than two million homeschooled children now and there were virtually none 30 years ago. Of these, roughly 70 percent are likely to homeschool their own children. They tend to be Christian and to have large families. 

This is one hopeful sign. The decline in divorce among the college-educated since the 1980s is another. I do not accept the view that liberalism is locked in place and that the sheep-like propensities of the people are so strong that it cannot be overturned. Mass schooling is a major obstacle. In my opinion, it is the single most formidable force in holding liberalism in place. But, if you talk to halfway intelligent high school students, you will find their contempt for much of what they learn in school – and for the institution itself – is cause for optimism. The idea that families must turn over their offspring to government-subsidized strangers for 20 years of indoctrination will encounter even greater resistance and will one day implode. The Berlin Wall was destined to fall; so too our entire way of raising the young is headed for revolution.

Karen writes:

Whilst I understand that a subculture of people rejecting liberalism is encouraging, this subculture is not making a major impact on overthrowing liberalism. Two million home schooled children is a small number and how will these children make an impact in a society which is run by a small power elite who have attended the same schools and education institutes and largely exclude those who have not from positions of power? Western societies are becoming more elitist and most people of influence owe their positions to nepotism. Communism fell because it went bankrupt. Liberalism will also fail but by the time it collapses, Western states will have also collapsed. Russia and its satellites have never recovered and communism was less destructive than liberalism. The USA is a debtor nation which is dependent upon foreign creditors to pay its bills. The main creditors are the Chinese, Japanese and Saudis. In order to survive the USA will have to adopt some of the economic and social policies of these countries. I see no evidence of that. There is no going back to the past because world conditions have changed. Aside from resisting some aspects of liberalism, there does not appear to be any movement to replace it with a new order.

Laura responds:

By the same logic, Christianity, given its initial infinitesimal numbers, could never have become the powerful force it is. 

By the way, that’s two million children who are being homeschooled now. There are now many more millions who have already been homeschooled. Ten million (a ball park estimate) may not seem like much. But ten million articulate and confident adults who are capable of thought and have been raised in Christian homes without incessant indoctrination in secularism represent an important development. Ten million who go on to have large families may raise 30 million children who are articulate, confident and capable of thought. That’s a significant force for change. 

Furthermore, successful resistance to liberalism does not require a fully detailed plan for a new world order. Resistance proceeds step-by-step just as the foundations of Christian society were built two thousand years ago. Even if we devolve into a state of chaos or tyranny, new foundations will be laid and the best of our civilization will live on in a new form.

Please follow and like us: