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.





 

Category: Gays, Marriage, Supreme Court

Comments

129 Responses to “A Prelude to Social Destruction”

  1. Patrick Carroll
    June 27th, 2015 @ 2:47 pm

    Anybody want to make book on when Christians will be martyred in public squares across America?

  2. Lulu
    June 27th, 2015 @ 3:11 pm

    that day will come the question is by tolerant progressives or the ISIS terrorists they are mass importing under the refugee resettlement program and conveniently distributing them to 500 cities nationwide

  3. Lulu
    June 27th, 2015 @ 3:13 pm

    it’s going to get ugly fast — kids in public school will be taught from kindergarten on that homosexual marriage is normal and ok along with gender fluidity and parents will not be able to opt them out as it will be included in all text books and all subjects — anyone who complains will be shouted down as a bigot

  4. Lulu
    June 27th, 2015 @ 3:14 pm

    churches that won’t marry homosexuals will lose tax-exempt status and people where it is known they are say Mormon or Baptist or Catholic will not be hired into any government job because they are known bigots

  5. Lulu
    June 27th, 2015 @ 3:16 pm

    in the private sector you will be forced to actively affirm and promote this or you will lose your job for cause because you are a bigot — whereas right now you just have to keep quiet in corporate America to keep your job

  6. Measure for Measure
    June 27th, 2015 @ 3:21 pm

    Wow; I can’t believe how unbelievably tacky the light display on the WH looks; Guess the Obama administration got a heads up on how their pet judges would rule and Obama wanted to rub the rainbow flag on “his house” on all the bitter clingers.

    The upside-. The Black churches know how exactly how “President Hope and Change” feels about gay marriage, and no they’re not happy. Some are threatening marches on Washington. I hope they do that. Other ethnic churches will join them and so will I, not because I think gays are incapable of long term commitment and devoted love, but because I still think words mean something and because I do this is the first step towards Christians. President Obama is slightly more Christian than my cat. Otherwise he would not denigrate Christianity at every opportunity at the prayer breakfasts.

  7. Measure For Measure
    June 27th, 2015 @ 3:23 pm

    Whoops; Meant-“This is the first step towards increased harassment of Christians.”

  8. NeoWayland
    June 27th, 2015 @ 3:26 pm

    Fun fact. Marriages used to be registered, not licensed. In 1923, Congress passed the “Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act.” By 1929, every state had passed laws requiring marriage licenses.

    Like it or not, that handed the definition of marriage over to the state and Federal governments. Which means that control of a mostly religious institution moved to government.

    That’s never a good idea.

    I disagree with most folks here about if alternative marriage is a Good Thing™ or not.

    But I agree that having a One Size Fits All solution rammed down our throats by judicial fiat is a terrible idea that destroys liberty.

  9. Measure For Measure
    June 27th, 2015 @ 3:27 pm

    One more thing. If they wanted to celebrate gay marriage couldn’t they have chosen something that didn’t look like a light display from a particularly tacky Las Vegas casino?

  10. Matt_SE
    June 27th, 2015 @ 3:49 pm

    I think it looked fabulous. FABULOUS!

  11. Measure For Measure
    June 27th, 2015 @ 3:53 pm

    Only thing we needed to make it more FABULOUS was a huge release of rainbow colored glitter lit by a spotlight.

    And what will be on the WH for the 4th of July?-zip, nada

  12. Matt_SE
    June 27th, 2015 @ 3:54 pm

    Nah, they’ll have a gay pride parade on top of the White House, complete with roman candles shoved up the nethers.

  13. Albert Pike
    June 27th, 2015 @ 3:58 pm

    now the federal government is in the business of sanctioning perversion… only fitting, i suppose

  14. This gay stuff is going to get mighty complicated: Barack Obama then and now, ISIS now… | Batshit Crazy News
    June 27th, 2015 @ 4:55 pm

    […] Steyn: White House in Rainbow Colors for SCOTUS ruling making universal gay marriage TOM: A Prelude To Social Destruction Gateway Pundit: ISIS celebrates gay love by tossing four gays off building… Advocate: Iran […]

  15. MrPaulRevere
    June 27th, 2015 @ 4:56 pm

    Setting substance of the ruling aside for a moment ( I emphatically agree with what Stacy wrote) what appalled me is that is that the ruling is nothing but a massive jobs program for ‘discrimination’ lawyers who will sue sue sue until the cows come home. The legal profession seems utterly unconcerned about the law per se, they only seem interested in throwing work and of course money to other lawyers. Dick the Butcher knew the deal.

  16. Jim R
    June 27th, 2015 @ 5:04 pm

    Ditto. If two adults want to be “married”, it’s their business.

    When the SCOTUS tells us that it is, despite all the votes and laws to the contrary, the law of the land because FAAAAIR and “love”, I’ve got a problem with it.

    Irony: SCOTUS upheld ObamaCare because they “knew what the Congress meant”.

    Then, they deep-sixed DOMA and every other law against gay marriage on the books DESPITE the crystal-clear intent of the Congress and the legislatures of most of the states.

    What utter bullshite.

  17. MrPaulRevere
    June 27th, 2015 @ 5:05 pm

    Yes, its going to get ugly very very fast. An army of verminous lawyers have been waiting for this for years.

  18. RKae
    June 27th, 2015 @ 5:24 pm

    This is from wikipedia regarding “Damnatio ad bestias”:

    According to Roman laws, Christians were:

    Guilty of high treason (majestatis rei)

    For their worship Christians gathered in secret and at night, making unlawful assembly, and participation in such collegium illicitum or coetus nocturni was equated with a riot.

    For their refusal to honor images of the emperor by libations and incense

    Dissenters from the state gods (sacrilegi)

    Followers of magic prohibited by law (magi, malefici)

    Confessors of a religion unauthorized by the law (religio nova, peregrina et illicita), according to the Twelve Tables).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_ad_bestias

  19. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    June 27th, 2015 @ 5:25 pm

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y8UlhSFlcwk/VY8fpznS-MI/AAAAAAAAwYg/ehDoRStaZ7Q/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-06-27%2Bat%2B3.10.57%2BPM.png

    Less than 15 years from now?

  20. giantslor
    June 27th, 2015 @ 5:51 pm

    The schadenfreude is delicious. You hateful, ignorant cretins lost. You will continue to lose. And your ilk will fade into the pages of history. But until then, I will enjoy your flailing and wailing immensely.

  21. Measure For Measure
    June 27th, 2015 @ 6:09 pm

    Fortunately,I don’t put a lot of stock in the views people who call others hateful and bigoted when they don’t know them personally or the range of their views. Just for the record, the sponsor of my son for baptism is a gay clergyman-one of the dearest Christians I know. I have other several friends who happen to be gay clergy, I am still opposed to changing the meaning of words that have had the same meaning for millennia. You see I used to be in support of gay marriage. Then I saw the actions of the extreme gay left which endorsed suing people.forcing them out of jobs and issuing death threats and my views started to change. It was the actions of the gay left which made me come to the conclusion that the government belongs out of the marriage business entirely. and that only civil unions should be issued and marriage left to churches. because of course there are many churches which will perform what they regard as marriages for gays ( UCC, Unitarian Universalist, Presbyterian) without forcing other churches to do it. Perhaps it that it’s not really about marriage for the extreme left; It’s about forcing people whose conscience leads them to feel differently to bow to the authoritarian tendencies of the left.

    I won’t lose. I might go to jail because I don’t want the government telling me whom I shall perform marriages for-gay or straight-but I will still win because I know who I belong to and who has promised to be with me until the end of the age. His kingdom is eternal.

    I wish you well.

  22. NeoWayland
    June 27th, 2015 @ 6:10 pm

    And by attacking these people here, you prove yourself better how?

    This ruling was wrong. Not because gays should be allowed to marry, but because states were working it out for themselves.

    It’s not about fairness. It’s not even about the “Christian” definition of marriage. It’s about control. Today “your side” may have won. But what happens when the other side takes control? And STILL no one has said why government has to be involved in marriage.

    If can’t convince people without force, you’re doing it wrong.

  23. Lamprotatia
    June 27th, 2015 @ 6:12 pm

    I have seen this comment, almost to the word, on many different blogs now. Not just conservative ones.

    Is this one exceptionally angry guy with multiple usernames, or is someone with Arcus Foundation distributing a boilerplate text for the minions to cut and paste everywhere?

  24. Lamprotatia
    June 27th, 2015 @ 6:14 pm

    Homeschool and even if you can’t homeschool join the homeschool legal defense coop to support their work. They will be shouldering a lot of this load of crap.

  25. Isa
    June 27th, 2015 @ 6:17 pm

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    you think you’re the first to make such a boast? you think you’re important?

    you. are. NOTHING.

  26. Measure for Measure
    June 27th, 2015 @ 6:25 pm

    if they wanted to try to convince people of the error of their views then perhaps a better way would be to say, “I’m so happy about gay marriage and I hope that you will be able to rejoice with me and that your views might change someday” because being called a “hateful bigot” does not
    make me want to embrace their views.
    I know I’m not a hateful bigot; i know that gays are capable of lifelong commitments and love. Having seen the whole “Gaystopo” movement and then read a lot of the theology of Christian marriage in the Roman Catholic Church the RCC view makes a lot of sense to me.

  27. DeadMessenger
    June 27th, 2015 @ 6:35 pm

    Sounds like what Christians in the ME and Asia are already going through. Not that I’m looking forward to it or anything, but we can’t really expect to be exempt. It’ll sure separate the wheat from the tares, though. Matthew 13:24-30.

  28. DeadMessenger
    June 27th, 2015 @ 6:36 pm

    Indeed.

  29. DeadMessenger
    June 27th, 2015 @ 6:38 pm

    They’ll outlaw homeschooling; the NEA has wanted that for years.

  30. DeadMessenger
    June 27th, 2015 @ 6:40 pm

    At least your cat is doing what God gave him to do. Unlike the Occupant.

  31. Charles G. Hill
    June 27th, 2015 @ 6:42 pm

    This is “diversity”: none of them look alike, but all of them sound alike.

  32. From Around the Blogroll | The First Street Journal.
    June 27th, 2015 @ 6:59 pm

    […] Robert Stacey Stacy McCain on the Other McCain: A Prelude to Social Destruction […]

  33. gaylib
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:06 pm

    You mad bro?

  34. Daniel Freeman
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:06 pm

    Gee, thanks for making me wonder what that narcissist would do if he could lick himself like a cat. Now I’m never getting that image out of my head, and misery loves company so hahaha. :p

  35. Stacy McCain discusses the Faggot Frenzy over the SCOTUS Decision | Zions Trumpet
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:08 pm

    […] A Prelude to Social Destruction […]

  36. Jeanette Victoria
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:10 pm

    ACLU is already gearing up

    http://goo.gl/zRPBrJ

  37. Jeanette Victoria
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:12 pm

    Ah I can just feel the tolerance

  38. Daniel Freeman
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:25 pm

    You’re not my bro, glib, and when I’m mad you won’t have to ask.

  39. Jeanette Victoria
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:28 pm

    It was never really about marriage, two people of the samesex could spent 30 mins with a lawyer draw up a contract and have the same rights as a married couple. Same sex marriage is about the marginalization and destruction of Christianity because no true Christian would recognize such a union

  40. Mike G.
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:29 pm

    You should self denounce yourself because now we have an imagine in our heads that Ajax can’t clean out.

  41. Mike G.
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:32 pm

    Reminds me of a joke…stop me if you’ve heard it before:

    Two queers are walking down the street when they see a Rottweiler licking it’s nuts.

    One says to the other…man, I wish I could do that.

    The other says…no you don’t, that dog would bite your head off.

    Okay, I denounce myself.

  42. Daniel Freeman
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:35 pm

    Oh right, almost forgot: I denounce myself.

  43. DeadMessenger
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:38 pm

    What, you mean groom himself? I think he pays somebody to do that for him these days.

    Suffice it to say that I already had much worse images of him in my head. I really don’t think he’ll be The Antichrist (though he is unmistakably an antichrist), but I know there are lots of people who do believe he is, and I can see why they would think that. I mean, the more time that passes, the more I start to question myself in that regard.

  44. DeadMessenger
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:42 pm

    Oh come now. You are too nice a guy to need denouncement. If anyone needs to be denounced, it’s me, but that won’t work because I don’t care. : )

  45. Jeanette Victoria
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:44 pm

    Waving the flag of perversion

  46. DeadMessenger
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:45 pm

    BWAHAHAHA!

  47. Adobe_Walls
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:58 pm

    There will be many separations in the next few years.

  48. Adobe_Walls
    June 27th, 2015 @ 7:59 pm

    Well it isn’t as if we didn’t already know we needed to abolish lawyers.

  49. Adobe_Walls
    June 27th, 2015 @ 8:02 pm

    These are all straws stacking on our backs. This process has been ongoing for years but is increasing exponentially. Sooner or later the plates must shift.

  50. Adobe_Walls
    June 27th, 2015 @ 8:06 pm

    Well it isn’t as if we didn’t already know we needed to abolish several supreme court justices.