|
On the federal marriage amendment
Here are four articles that will help you get a handle on the issue of single-sex, uh, whatever and on the only measure that can stop this horror from taking over America. The Concerned Women for America explain why they oppose the earlier version of the Federal Marriage Amendment, namely it fails to outlaw civil unions. Taking the opposite side, Maggie Gallagher at The Weekly Standard makes a strong case that the amendment should leave civil unions alone. An excellent article by Maggie Gallagher at The Weekly Standard explains what is at stake. Gallagher shows herself to be a true social or traditionalist conservative, in that she articulates the good not just in terms of individual rights, but in terms of the fundamental collective structures, in this case the family, that make society possible. It is vital that more American conservatives understand these things.
Ramesh Ponnuru discusses how the social conservatives worked together to come up with new text for the Federal Marriage Amendment that they could all agree on. The intelligence shown by the social conservative activists as recounted in this article would seem to presage well for our side. But you wouldn’t know that from the title National Review gave it: “Marriage Amendment Jitters.” Thanks, NR. However, I won’t call you-all defeatist this time, since the article is a good one. Comments
Leftist don’t think in terms of what is possible now, but rather in terms of what will become possible in the near future. In fact, it might be argued that Conservatives look backward to happier times and leftists look foreward to happier times. And since leftists spend more time looking foreward, they understand future trends much better than conservatives. These foreward looking people envision a brave new world called Mixed Reality. (This is a term invented by Marshal Mcluhan,author of War and peace in the Global Village) According to the theory of mixed reality, Sex, identity, and all human realtionships will become fluid. Each person will assume multiple identities, depending on the needs of the moment. Traditional roles such as Husband, wife, male, female, child, or adult will become meaningless. However, these roles cannot be eliminated overnight. They have to be destroyed through a series of dialectical confrontations. Homosexual/Heterosexual marriage just such a dialectic. The success of homosexual marriage itself is not important. If it fails as a legal entity, it still succeeds as part of a dialectic. So the question of saving marriage and family rests not with a conservative agenda, but rather with a clearer look at the technological trends that the left is counting on for victory. Conservatives would do well to consider how children should be raised in a world where If they don’t want this difficult job, the left will be glad to take over. In fact, it seems they already have.
That was a very insightful and powerful statement by Ron regarding the nature of our opposition. A great weakness of conservatives and traditionalists over the past several decades has been their failure to grasp the profound level of the left’s ultimate goal. Thus, most of our political energy is spent in fighting them on specific issues while leaving them control of the overall culture - of the debate itself. After Clinton’s election in 1992, I heard a retired military officer make the remark that he wished we’d directed some of the effort spent in defeating the Soviet empire towards countering the sexual revolution at home. We must counter the lies that are being told at the same time we fight the individual battles. Sex, identity, and all human realtionships will NOT become fluid. They are part of our very nature - that is the way we were created. The attempt to make or re-define them as fluid - to define ourselves as we see fit - is nothing less than an attempt declare ourselves as God. A failure to engage the left on this basic, fundamental level will render any victory on a specific issue meaningless in the long run. Posted by: Carl on December 8, 2003 12:47 PMCarl wrote: “Thus, most of our political energy is spent in fighting them on specific issues while leaving them control of the overall culture - of the debate itself.” That’s exactly right. I’m remembering our discussions here about “issues”—the way conservatives just fight on this or that issue, and each type of conservative has his own issue on which he opposes the left, but no one confronts the left as such. And the conservatives didn’t confront the left as such because they shared many of its ultimate premises, or else they just didn’t want to see where the leftism was ultimately tending. Leftism is a lie. Like all lies, it has no real existence, but it keeps up its false existence, growing more and more powerful, so long as it’s not exposed to the light of truth. But conservatives haven’t attempted to expose the lie of leftism to the light of truth, because they were pre-occupied with fighting specific issues. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 8, 2003 1:48 PMBlogger Andrew Hagen, who has posted here, has a good article on the harm that SSUs would cause. http://www.andrewhagen.com/log/00000487.html Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 8, 2003 8:31 PM |