The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

A Prelude to Social Destruction

Posted on | June 27, 2015 | 129 Comments

“Politics is downstream from culture,” Andrew Breitbart often said. This was why I spent Thursday writing 4,000 words — “Let’s Bring Back Guilt and Shame” — in preparation for the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage which, as anyone who had been paying attention could have predicted, was a 5-4 decision with Justice Kennedy as the decisive vote. What we may discern from reading Justice Kennedy’s ruling is the same thing we discern from reading vulgar expressions of “gay pride” on Tumblr blogs. In both instances, we are confronted by irrational sentiment that not only refuses to recognize the potential for harmful social consequences, but which further insists that opponents are motivated by ignorance and prejudice. The Obergefell decision is not so much a legal argument as it is an accusation of bigotry against American society, an indictment of a nation that imposed a “demeaning” stigma on homosexuals. The decision declares that “marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order” (p. 4) before proceeding to declare that this social order must be destroyed because . . . well, why exactly?

There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle . . .

(What principle? Never mind. Justice Kennedy’s on a roll now.)

. . . yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage . . .

(You see that, in Justice Kennedy’s enlightened mind, the “benefits” of marriage are supplied by government, rather than being intrinsic to the nature of marriage.)

. . . and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. . . .

(How dare you “consign” them to “instability,” you haters!)

It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society . . .

(They’re locked out of the institution — by haters!)

. . . for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.

(My wife has “transcendent purposes” for me to take out the garbage.)

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.

What can anyone say in reply to such a lecture, except to wonder how or why this alleged “inconsistency . . . is now manifest” in a way it was not manifest at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted and ratified by legislators who never so much as hinted any intention to alter the definition of marriage? Quite obviously, what is at the heart of this specious reasoning is a determination that gay people must be granted access, via marriage, to that “constellation of benefits” of which Justice Kennedy spoke. That is to say, insofar as the Welfare State doles out taxpayer dollars to straight people because of marriage, gay people must also be cut in for their share of the government-provided loot, and who cares what the larger consequences may be? We may expect, for example, that this will hasten the bankruptcy of Social Security as gay “widows” qualify for survivors benefits, but it is clear that Justice Kennedy would never pay heed to any such practical concern.

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. . . . The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting

Equality with a capital E and Progress with a capital P are the inspirational touchstones of Obergefell. The past is a museum full of obsolete prejudices, where ideas that “may long have seemed natural and just” are dismissed as inferior to the ideas of our Enlightened Arbiters of Social Justice, these robed judicial eminences who are authorized to lecture us about the central meaning of fundamental rights. We can read the Constitution the same as they can, but only they are endowed with the extraordinary insight necessary to find “manifest” there a “principle” which had hitherto escaped our feeble perception.

The quasi-religious devotion to Equality and Progress that animates Obergefell moved Justice Kennedy to a mood of poetic rapture that reaches its ecstatic climax in his conclusion:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

One imagines the pages being stained and stuck together after Justice Kennedy finished writing that paragraph. Then he smoked a cigarette, got dressed in a hurry, put a $100 bill on the night stand and left quietly, while the Constitution cried herself to sleep.

About 20 years ago, when liberals began their push for gay marriage, it struck me as an absurd idea. I’m sure most other Americans felt the same way about it, and the social conservatives who took it seriously at the time seemed like hysterical alarmists. Certainly if anyone had told me, circa 1995, that we would reach this point so quickly, I would not have believed them, for I simply could not imagine that we would ever reach this point at all. Trusting in the basic common sense of the American people, I underestimated the persuasive power of the media and the entertainment industry, which have been playing the role of cheerleaders at the LGBT pep rally for so long. Also, I underestimated the extent to which the liberal gospel of Progress and Equality had taken root in the minds of people who, wishing to avoid serious thought about politics and social order, were content to go along with the crowd.

Conscientious people did not want to make themselves unpopular by resisting too loudly this lemming-herd stampede toward the cliff. If you do not wish gay people to be “condemned to live in loneliness” — note well Justice Kennedy’s accusatory implication that opponents are engaged in wanton cruelty — then you must Do Exactly What They Say and Give Them Exactly What They Demand. Thus we arrived at a 21st-century cultural Munich, where marriage was the Sudetenland.

Do you suspect that this will not be the totalitarians’ Final Demand? Well, you’re just a hateful homophobe, aren’t you?

What next? Ace of Spades ponders this briefly:

Now come the knock-on cases, where they ban federal funding of religious schools that don’t recognize gay marriage.

This is obvious enough, and there are many more equally obvious ramifications of Obergefell. The angry LGBT mob, full of destructive rage, will seize the whip they’ve been handed by the Supreme Court and employ it to inflict their sadistic revenge on America.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.





 

Comments

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    As I said earlier, the whole point of licenses existing is so they can be denied. The argument didn’t originate with me, but it makes sense.

    It’s not about same sex marriage, just as it wasn’t about mixed “race” marriage in the ‘Forties.

    It’s about denying privilege to people you find undesirable.

    Look, I don’t like the way the SCOTUS decision was rammed through. But I don’t think government should be licensing marriage either. I also don’t think government should be licensing your grocery shopping either, but they sure want to do that.

  • NoPasaran

    So your view is that of class war. That’s sure to end well.

  • Saltyron1977

    Its not “undesirable”. It’s “not qualifed for”. A plumber can’t identify as a doctor MD and get a license to practice from the state just because he wants the title. He’s not qualifed for it. He could become qualifed but he doesn’t wanna. He just wants the title redefined to include his skill, and benefits and social standing. According to you he’s entitled to it.

    You keep avoiding any point I make and speak in circles. Thus you are incapable of understanding me because you are incapable of making distinctions. You are a waste of time.

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    You can use all the euphemisms you want, but it still comes down to you saying you don’t want them married because they are “icky.”

    Do you really want to take the tack that marriage licenses were issued to those who were qualified?

    Does that mean that all those interracial couples in the first half of the 20th weren’t qualified?

  • Saltyron1977

    So a the state denying a plumber an MD or JD license is because he’s icky?

    Again, you repeatedly demonstrate that you are incapable of making ANY distinctions. Race is a proven immutable characteristic caused by birth, and sexual orientation is not. At best it is a behavior caused by one of several different factors. The state’s interest in marriage stemmed from concern over children. There is no interest in supporting dating couples or best friend forevers. Mixed race couples can procreate and same sex cannot. Besides, if your argument boils down to “who am I to say…” then you have no say. You can’t assert my position is wrong, because “who are you to say”. Your rationale undermines your position.

    And yout antibicky argument also supports incest, pedo, beastialty and polygamy, by the way.

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    Hey,you introduced the MD and JD as strawmen. And if you really think that the only purpose of marriage is procreation, well, there are many happily married couples who would disagree.

    If you will check, I specifically mentioned “between consenting adults.” That eliminates anything with underage kids, animals, or plants.

    I’m not comfortable with incest, but I am not comfortable with May-December romances either. There’s a difference between acknowledgement and celebration.

    There have been some animal studies that strongly suggest sexual orientation is predetermined.

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    One more thing and I have to do other things today.

    ?Does that person threaten you or yours?

    Does that person take or damage your property?

    Then why are you trying to control them??

    That’s one of mine.

  • Saltyron1977

    MD and JD are licenses just like marriage licenses. They each have requirements, are each issued by the state and each cost money. And not every one can get one.

    Again, the state took and interest in marriage for purposes of children. You can be married without kids but in that case the state should have no interest in you. So no recognition.

    So you DO find some things icky. But not really because you have no problem with them. So stop disapproving of them. You can’t just acknowledge these days, you must approve or face thr punishment for your disapproval.

    And like, shouldn’t we PROVE sexual orientation is a born immutable trait BEFORE we give legal protection to it? “Suggest” in animals is not proofbin humans. And there is plenty of proof that it is fluid, and thus not akin to race or worthy of the same protections.

    The only solution forward is to seperate state from marriage in total. And if businesses, churchs or individuals refuse to honor them, they should be permitted to do so without consequence.

    But that won’t happen because gay marriage wss never about marriage, it was always about social approval.

  • Pingback: The Daley Gator | Sunday Links()

  • Prime Director

    Straw men/Lame jokes are just a way to deflect

    ISIS doesn’t like how she exercises her right to free expression. She is their target right now. She isn’t the lynchpin or anything, she’s just first.

    You won’t support her right to free expression because of politics, or because you disagree with the content of her speech or whatever. Her intended death is advertisement for their cause but you still don’t care.

    That isn’t a liberal position. Your side doesn’t give a shit about tolerance or defending unpopular speech. You don’t even believe our side deserves full participation in civil society? You give your blessing to illiberal means to achieve supposedly liberal ends? Fine. Then fuck it. Let it ALL burn.

    How do you think ISIS appreciates gay pride parades? What makes you think they won’t do to your gay exhibitionist parades the same as they did to the Boston Marathon?

    Why should we care if and when ISIS employs their veto at one of your events?

    It looks like the age of Live and Let Live is over.

  • giantslor

    Who says I won’t support her right to free expression? I certainly do, and I think most people who disagree with her still support her right to free expression. Actually I support her Draw Mohammed contest, that’s something that should be replicated everywhere. On the balance, though, her views are wrong and odious.

    I’m surprised there hasn’t been a major attack on a gay pride parade yet in this country. If and when it happens, the vast majority of Americans will rally to the side of gay people. I’m sure you and your ilk won’t, because you’re horrible, dogmatically anti-gay people, which is why I trolled this place instead of opening dialogue which would go nowhere. Trolling is more fun anyway.

  • Patrick Carroll

    I’m inclined to say two generations.

    So, I expect the martyrdoms in about 60 years. 400 years after that, the Roman Catholic Church will be picking up the pieces of a fallen civilization, and 1000 years later, we’ll be doing another Peace of Westphalia.

    For the operators manual, please see “A Canticle for Leibowitz.”

  • Prime Director

    You are a waste of good weed.

  • Daniel Freeman

    It is greatly appreciated, and I regularly show my appreciation in a very concrete fashion, by hitting the freaking tip jar. Hint hint. 😉

  • Prime Director

    The union of a man and a woman is unique and deserving of recognition in the form of its own institution. Marriage always has been about the love between a man and woman.

    You and your ilk disagree and try to hijack the institution in order to obtain some semblance of validation.

    You’re like Dan Aykroyd’s character Ray Zelinsky in Tommy Boy. You just care about the name on the box. You need the name on the box to sell your pile of shit.

  • Prime Director

    If and when it happens, the vast majority of Americans will rally to the side of gay people.

    Maybe.

    Or maybe their support of lgtb exhibitionism is only an artifact of polling process.

    At the moment of truth, maybe they’ll remember your hatred. Maybe they’ll echo your ilk and say “stop provoking them. Stop doing things that you know makes them mad.” Maybe your ruthlessness will be repaid.

    Maybe the next crisis won’t go to waste.

  • Gunga

    Thank-you for the rather elegant proof of who it is that is motivated by ill will.

  • Gunga

    Hey, did you ever set off random bombs in Speedway, Indiana to divert police attention from some rather unsavory activities? Just wondering…

  • Gunga

    Sooooooooo….nine eccentric, geriatric law nerds get to decide what words mean. Their grasp of such words as: “life”…”tax”…”marriage”… have me questioning their planet of origin…

  • giantslor

    Who, me? I just give as good as I get. Now, if you’re saying that my comments are proof of others’ views, then you need to learn what a proof is.

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    Imagine for a minute that you believe New York pizza is the only True Pizza. Not New York style, but actual New York pizza. When you’re feeling fine, you might concede that Chicago is pizza of a sort, but New York is the only True Pizza.

    And you can’t stand Hawaiian style. Ham & pineapple? Worse still, Spam & pineapple. Totally unacceptable.

    Now the answer is to order the pizza you want and not mess with the other guy ordering the pizza he wants. As long as he doesn’t mess with you and you don’t mess with him, everyone can live happily ever after, even if they don’t have True Pizza.

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    Under those circumstances, do you need a license for pizza?

    Even if it’s not the True Pizza?

  • Lulu

    psst, unless you reproduce you disappear as you are a biological failure and as a distinct individual person completely insignificant

  • Lulu

    got news your own government doesn’t say a word about the killing of gays across the middle east and while they may give lip service after an attack in the US — they as a whole have decided to accept a certain amount of Islamic terror in the US and wholesale muslim perpetrated genocide worldwide in service to some agenda — and the American people as a whole will keep their heads down they may speak platitudes or put a banner on FB but they won’t fight for themselves why would they fight for you?

  • Saltyron1977

    Yet again, your example demonstrates that you are incapable of making distinctions between things. You apparently cannot “discriminate” based on anything. Can you tell me Burger King is better than McDonalds, or are you gonna hit me with “who am I to say?”

    We discriminate in our lives ALL THE TIME. Where to eat, what clothes to wear, where to live, who are friends are, etc. Discrimination is NOT bad, only discrimination based on “immutable” characteristics is (race/biological sex), and in certain circumstances a cases can still be made to discriminate in those areas, but it is difficult. That’s why I constantly ask “what protected class do homosexuals belong in? Sexual orientation?” That’s not immutable, and includes a lot of other groups. The courts seem to have skipped that one, or ignored the consequences of it.

    In your example, all of the pizzas are essentially the same in that they are all “pizzas” and all provide nourishment as food. You analogize “pizza” to “relationship”. But what if one pizza type did what the others didn’t? What if one type/flavor could spontaneously create new pizzas on its own, or provided a benefit to people/society beyond nourishment that the others did not (like cure a disease, etc.). But this type of pizza (and its maker) did so at considerable cost to itself. Wouldn’t there arguably be a compelling public/state interest in ensuring these specific types of pizzas get made over the others? That people went into business to make those pizzas and not others? I’m not saying the others are “bad”, I’m saying one type is factually different than the others, and is demonstrably “better”. That’s what discrimination is – choosing the better based on a characteristic. When it comes to relationships, a stable child-producing marriage is better than a one night stand or a no-strings series of booty calls, or a friendship or a childless couple, at least, for SOCIETY’S purposes.

    That is what marriage is – a social institution created by straights, not to harm gays, but because straights created kids – the next generation of society. Kids cost money and take a lot of time, and they are best raised by the two people that create them – a mother and father. Whatever can be done to encourage that is deemed a “compelling state interest”. The state licensed” (for good or ill) marriage to ensure the stability of that relationship. Any social benefit provided to marriage was for the purpose of making the raising of kids easier. Gays makes this all about them, like they always do in damn near everything – “marriage isn’t marriage, its really an attack on MMMEEEEE!!!!” [I should start a Singles/Masturbator Pride group with the slogan “give yourself a hand”. Maybe every single person can weasel marriage benefits, too].

    But if your relationship cannot or will not result in children, those reasons for govt. or society to support it vanish. Thus, when marriage is expanded beyond that definition, or children are removed as a component of marriage, then it becomes glorified best friends forever, and practically anyone and everyone can get that benefit. The purpose for the benefit disappears. So if anyone can be married and define marriage for themselves (pursuit of happiness) then no one is really “married”. It’s a personal choice, one the state has no interest in.

    Will that result in diminished generations of people (raised in single by choice households or same sex couplings without a father or mother propped up by welfare, etc.)? We’re gonna find out, aren’t we?

  • Gunga

    No, the other guy calling himself giantslor. You know, the one who started with name-calling…the one who was giving before he got anything…that giantslor.

    I think the statement “You hateful, ignorant cretins…” might reasonably lead to a conclusion that someone is demonstrating ill will. You are free to disagree.

    Were you aware that the term “cretin” comes from an ancient slur against people from Crete? Why so racist, bro? Love totes loses when you insult an entire population like that. Please care more about humans in the future.

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear.

    You’re free to discriminate. You’re free to make whatever choices you want.

    BUT…

    Your choices and your discrimination should not control others.

    You don’t like the pizza, don’t order it. BUT… you’re not allowed to ban it because you don’t like it.

  • HouseofSuffering

    The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
    All that beauty, all that wealth e’er gave,
    Await alike the inevitable hour;
    The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

  • HouseofSuffering

    Didn’t you know? The Greeks invented gayness…