Heather Has Two Mommies goes commercial—in France


(“As my two mommies say, the family is sacred.”)

Tiberge at Galliawatch writes:

Eram, a French shoe manufacturer, has launched a highly provocative and altogether ludicrous campaign promoting the joys of the “modern” family. This means homosexual marriage and adoption, changing partners, mixed races, undetermined genders, etc… The whole panoply of destructive behaviors vaunted by the Left and its “progressive” allies. At first I thought Eram was parodying this type of behavior, but no, apparently it’s not a parody, it’s for real. And the goal is to make money. Let’s hope they go broke.

Tiberge then quotes French blogger Yves Daoudal’s commentary on the ads and the controversy surrounding them, including Eram’s explanation for the ads:

At a time when there are more and more divorces in France, when homosexual marriage has just been legalized in New York, Eram is getting into the act and showing, both in billboards and in magazines, family portraits of a type never shown in the advertising world: unstructured, recomposed, shattered, deconstructed. Children who have two moms, others with one father, one mother, and three step mothers, still others where the step father has the same age as the older brother. Hey, this is “real” life. But if families explode, the spirit of the family remains. For, no matter what, the family is sacred.

How perfectly leftist: even as they shatter the family and deliberately raise children in more and more chaotic and perverse conditions, they proclaim the “sacredness” of the family—a note they never struck before the age of homosexual “marriage.”

It reminds me of how David Brooks, who in his book Bobos in Paradise had celebrated “bourgeois bohemians” who work hard at day and go to S&M clubs at night,—who in his previous writing career had never struck the slightest spiritual or moral note—suddenly waxed spiritual in his 2003 column endorsing homosexual “marriage”:

Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond…. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution…. we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We’re moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants … It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.

While I’ve mentioned Brooks’s pro-same-sex-marriage column several times over the years, I had never before noticed his use of the word “abomination.” It is of course a reference to God’s pronouncement in the Bible that same-sex relations are an “abomination.” Brooks is mischievously turning that around and saying that it is an “abomination” to prohibit people of the same sex from marrying each other. But of course the biblical, extremely judgmental idea of anything being an “abomination” presupposes that there is a divine or natural order that is being transgressed. Since liberals such as Brooks don’t believe in a divine/natural order or in an objective morality that proceeds from it, where does Brooks get the idea of an abomination? And where do liberals in general get the idea that anything (such as “racism” or “homophobia”) is morally wrong? The answer is that they are doing what liberals always do, which is to appeal to transcendent and traditional concepts which they themselves no longer believe in, in order to advance liberal goals. Liberalism is parasitical on the traditional Western and Christian culture which it seeks to destroy—and which it has already largely destroyed.

- end of initial entry -

October 16

Alissa writes:

You wrote:

How perfectly leftist: even as they shatter the family and deliberately raise children in more and more chaotic and perverse conditions, they proclaim the “sacredness” of the family—a note they never struck before the age of homosexual “marriage.”

I think leftists would be outraged if they simply left the family alone after its initial destruction. Why? After the family has been shattered to pieces then all would be left logically would be to build up and put the pieces together. But leftists will not and cannot have that. The whole idea makes them squirm. So they deliberately build up even more perversions in its place so that normalcy can’t return. In scenario one the family has been destroyed and after some generations the atmosphere returns to normal (e.g. from adultery, divorce, feminism, sexual liberation to nuclear family, patriarchy, chastity). In scenario two the family has been destroyed and leftists, after riding themselves of “regression, oppression, theocracy,” build up the “enlightened,” modern “family” so that the previous “ignorance” doesn’t have a chance to return and has been banished to the dungeon (e.g. from adultery, divorce, feminism, sexual liberation to in-vitrio fertilization, homosexual parenting, single parenting). It’s the way that leftists “progress” and move forward while stopping anything that may steer society away from this course.

LA replies:

Terrific insight.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 15, 2011 12:08 PM | Send