The Strategy Behind Same-Sex Marriage

December 16, 2009


same_sex_marriage.jpgby Rollin Stearns

(for henrymakow.com)


Traditional marriage has been under attack for a long time. In the past decade, the main battleground has been same-sex marriage.

My state, Maine, was one of of the six states where it was legal. But then, in a referendum last month, a majority of voters overturned the law. Now it's only five states.
 
Does this mean same-sex marriage can be stopped ?I hope so, but I think it's doubtful. The recent victory had a defensive quality, like a goal-line stand. This is because the battle was lost 30 years ago.

He Who Says "A"

Lenin formulated the principle: "He who says A must say B."

This means, if you want your opinion to prevail, don't attack the issue directly. Instead get your opponents to concede another issue, one that seems unrelated, but which is vital to the real issue.

It's like a chess player whose seemingly innocuous moves lay the groundwork for the ultimate checkmate. People who plan social revolution think ahead, far ahead.

To apply Lenin's dictum to the issue of same-sex marriage, let's make it even more forceful. Let's say: "He who says A and B must say C." Here, "C" stands for same-sex marriage.

What are "A" and "B"? "A" is contraception on demand. "B" is divorce on demand.

Contraception on Demand

Contraception was once seen as a moral issue. All Christian denominations were opposed to it. That didn't change until 1920, when the Anglican church gave its qualified approval. Once that happened, the qualifications soon got swept away and other denominations joined in. The Roman Catholic Church, which didn't cave, was left holding the bag.

The Catholic Church almost caved too. There was lots of pressure to do so, especially after the invention of the Pill and the changes brought about by Vatican II. But in 1968 Pope Paul VI surprised many by publishing Humanae Vitae, which forcefully defended the Church's traditional teaching. He was heavily criticized, even within the Church hierarchy.

In the culture as a whole, the battle over contraception was over by the end of the 1960s. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the US Supreme Court discovered a new constitutional "right to privacy" and swept away laws restricting contraception. (This was a decision and a rationale that would soon lead, by design, to Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion on demand  -- abortion being the logical "back-up" for any contraceptive failure.)

I don't want to debate contraception here (I'm aware that it may be used beneficially and that there are good arguments both pro and con with regard to liberalizing the law). Nor do I bring this up because I'm a Catholic. I'm not. I'm saying we now live in an age where virtually anyone can obtain contraception. And this has at least two major consequences.

We now have a culture of sexual vagrancy. We're all aware of the "hookup", along with the devastating impact this has on the lives of young women (and in truth on all of us).

The second consequence is that contraception has fundamentally changed the meaning of marriage. Most married couples still have one or two children. But big families are now rare, and many couples are childless.

There was a name for them in the 80s: Dinks (i.e., "dual income, no kids.") It now became widely acceptable --  "normal" -- not to have kids. In other words, even though in practice most couples still had children, in principle the link between marriage and children had been severed.

Divorce on Demand

In the 1970s, Lenin's friends instituted "no-fault divorce," i.e., divorce on demand. Now either party could get a divorce for any reason or no reason, no matter what the other one wanted. The issue of morality was now irrelevant.

The first state to legalize no-fault divorce was California.  Ronald Reagan (who himself had been divorced) signed it into law. By the end of the 1970s, it had swept the nation.

Wasn't this a good thing? Certainly there were people who felt trapped in a loveless or unjust relationship.  But the consequences today are tremendous, especially for the children of divorce.

Marriage vows had always emphasized "till death do us part." Monogamy didn't just mean one partner at a time, it meant one partner for life. And while many people still remain married for life, we now have a culture where multiple marriages are normal.

In other words, since marriage can now easily be dissolved, in principle the link between marriage and permanence has been severed.


"Same-Sex Marriage"

It wasn't until the changes wrought by "A" and "B" had time to permeate our culture, both practically and psychologically, that the campaign for "C" got underway.

But when it did, opponents of same-sex marriage had already all but lost the battle. They had surrendered the ground on which they could have fought. They had accepted a redefinition of "normal" marriage that made it virtually indistinguishable from homosexual liaisons.

Homosexuals live together. They don't (for the most part) have children, but neither do many heterosexual couples.

Most of them are not faithful to their partners, and they change partners often. There's little permanence. But that's now acceptable among heterosexuals. And since homosexual "marriages" and heterosexual marriages have come to resemble each other, how can we accept one and reject the other?

And just to make it doubly hard to object, homosexual activists launched a campaign for homosexual adoption. See? They're just like us, raising a family.

So having homo-sexualized traditional marriage by severing its links to children and permanence, they now supplement that strategy by presenting a grotesque counterfeit of traditional marriage: the happy homosexual couple, faithful for life and raising a family. How could you deny them the right to marry? They're more traditional than you!

Who's to Blame?
 
Through their control of education and the mass media, the central banking cartel has engineered a worldwide social revolution designed to annihilate traditional culture. One of their chief weapons in this has been feminism. Contraception was sold to women, not as a way of destroying the family but of enhancing it, by allowing them to plan and prepare for children who were wanted. More liberal divorce laws were also promoted as a benefit to women, as a way out of an abusive or loveless marriage.
 
There was enough truth in this to seem plausible. Limited change may well have been beneficial. A healthy traditional society is not static; it changes and develops, but always on the basis of its foundational values and principles. But just as Vatican II was hijacked by Masonic and Marxist forces within the Church; just as the Civil Rights movement was hijacked by Communists to implement busing, affirmative action, and other forms of reverse racism, so changes in the laws governing contraception and divorce were used to create new, unlimited, and destructive rights.
 
Our mistake was initially one of trust. We took the proposed changes at face value. As I said at the beginning, our enemies plan ahead, far ahead, like a skillful chess player. Those who should have been looking ahead on our behalf -- those religious, academic and political leaders who espouse traditional values -- by and large failed us. They failed to see that the end game was the destruction of traditional marriage.
 

Conclusion

Traditional marriage is not a relationship of autonomous individuals who each seek to satisfy his or her own desires. It's a social institution designed to join a man and woman for life, so they can raise a family and transmit the culture and its values to the following generations.

This inter-generational institution forms the basis of society. It not only gives stability to society as a whole, it gives stability to those who are members of the family. And it gives more. While the autonomous individual seeks (and may even find) the satisfaction of his own desires, it's the person in a true marriage who is best able to learn the meaning of love.

We all know that in practice the traditional family is often imperfect. It can be oppressive and unjust. In a fallen world all institutions and all relationships are imperfect. The answer is not to destroy those institutions or undermine them. The answer is purify and strengthen them, so they come closer to the ideal they espouse.

In the battle against the homo-sexualization of marriage, this means to reaffirm -- morally, intellectually and legally -- the essential values of procreation and permanence.







Comments for "The Strategy Behind Same-Sex Marriage"

Don said (December 18, 2009):

Dr. Makow - Thank you for the article regarding Same-Sex marriage by Mr. Stearns but he does miss one point. Pervert marriage is not a end in itself but a key step to the greater goal of mass molestation by the pervert/homosexual community. Once pervert marriage is legalized then ALL school textbooks which do not equate all things pervert as equal to ( if not better than ) all things heterosexual will be considered discriminatory hence leading to legal mandates that ALL textbooks for ALL grades ( especially for kindergarten ) be revised to celebrate and normalize ALL forms of perversion. This includes " fisting;" a practice which led to the formation of massresistance.org to fight back against these attacks against children.

The true goal of the perverts is mass molestation and sex with any child at any time for any reason. Homosexual philosophers have already declared that their movement can NEVER be " free " until children are " free," i.e; to have sex with anyone at anytime for any reason and at ANY age. Kindergarten is a key battleground for pervert attack especially via school lessons to break down the morality of the children. Lastly the pervert community openly writes that child molesters should not be considered as scum but instead should be, for instance, given honored seats at the head of the family dinner table as they are actually courageous pioneers seeking to give children the proper type of love which their religious parents deny them.


Peter said (December 17, 2009):

Thank you for your insightful article by Rollin Stearn.

If I might posit a single simplistic theme that I feel is the genesis for the break down of civil and moral society to the neo-Marxists "Grand Plan" it would be, as you stated, feminism. However, feminism was only able to obtain political traction by giving it the right tools.

In my humble opinion, 1918 is the year of the second 'revolution' that set the stage for feminizing (socializing) the Western world by giving women the vote. If men are from Mars and women are from Venus then one might similarly state that, by nature, men are from the 'right' and women from the 'left' of the political spectrum [and brain? ed].

In conclusion, man's instinctive need for challenge has been super imposed by woman's need for security by opportunistic political forces that offer social control as a substitute for security to the detriment of personal freedom.


Troy said (December 17, 2009):

What a load of crappy reasoning..

Contraception = Gave us Personal Freedom to Choose the consequences of our actions

Abortion = Gave Women the exclusive "Personal Freedom" to ignore the consequences of her actions and to singularly make the choice to commit murder. Men could not make that "choice", for if they did force that outcome upon a pregnant woman, they would be sent to prison for murder of the unborn living-breathing fetus.

Traditional Marriage = A religious sanctioning from your Community & God. Not everyone was equal in the eyes of your church. If you were an atheist, an agnostic, a homosexual, or bisexual, you could not get married. You have religious freedom and so you are free to buy in or out of any Church of your choice.

A Government Marriage = Legislators & Judges super imposing their views on the 'rights & responsibility's" from a "lawful" marriage, and like all other government laws: One Size Fit All. All prerequisites are swept away, everyone is equal before the eyes of the Law.

No Fault Divorce= Personal freedom to break from the Government Marriage License.

So in summation. Personal freedom good, Religious freedom good, Murder of the unborn bad, Government in the Marriage License business bad. Thus if the gays, atheist, want “marriage”, they are free to start their own church. Meanwhile, it’s high time we get Government 100% out of the Marriage business.


Christine said (December 17, 2009):

This article reminds me of the famous quote by Margaret Sanger in her publication "The Woman Rebel" in 1916 "Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the Christian churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity, no less capitalism."

Backed by Rockefeller et al, Mrs. Sanger was vocal in support of child murder, the early feminist term for abortion. Her supporters advised her to tone down her child murder rhetoric until the public came to accept contraception. As Fr. Marx of Human Life International observed, cultures that adopt the practice of contraception tend to accept child murder, because it too is a form of contraception.

In the 1950s, Bella Dodd, former counsel to the Communist Party USA, testified before the US Congress that she had helped chose Communist agents to infiltrate the Catholic Church with the intent of destroying it. She said hundreds of Communists were in the Catholic hierarchy at that time, and were about to create a new Church, one that appeared Catholic, but was not in actual substance.

Then came Vatican II, and the promotion of "Natural Family Planning" which is not natural and tends to destroy the family. The Church Fathers and John Calvin said that birth control is a kind of murder because it prevents the existence of a person whom God willed to exist.

In the Old Testament, God killed Onan for practicing contraception. Manual strangulation is not a morally superior method of homicide as compared to shooting someone with a gun. Therefore, NFP is not morally superior to other forms of contraception. In fact, it was condemned by St. Augustine in his writings.

Once again, the New World Order folks are intent on destroying marriage, the family, and culture. You can't have a family without children. And without children, a culture will not perpetuate itself. US President Theordore Roosevelt said that birth control is "race suicide," and we in the human race need to stop contraception before we destroy ourselves.


William Borst said (December 17, 2009):

I was deeply impressed with the author's argument and historical reasoning. It is a real eye-opener that underscored the harm we have done to ourselves with regard to marriage and the family. As most of us know the three targets of Marxism has always been the family, Christianity and private property. During the first year of the Obama regime these targets have all come to the forefront. The siege is on big time.

As for contraception---I AM a Catholic and I was wondering if he would include the Rhythm Method of family planning, which goes by the name of Natural Family Planning in this mixture since the intention of those practicing it is to avoid conception without chemicals. Bill Borst (The Gospel Truth)


Adolpho said (December 17, 2009):

What a coincidence! This very day Mexico City local lawmakers are going to put the final nail in the coffin of marriage. Yes, they are going to legalize “Gay Marriage”. A spectacular and sensational new legal concept nobody cares, not even gays and lesbians, for the simple reason that neither gays nor lesbians want to marry. They simply don’t want to contribute to the “sanctity” of the institution because they don’t want to share the miseries we heterosexuals live.

Anyway, I read the article by Rollin Stearns and I found it completely pointless. Yes, I agree that nuclear families (that is, a father, a mother and children) are essential for the construction of a healthy and stable society. I have a strong nuclear family by my own. However, professing to take societies back to the past and vowing to regain paradises that never existed is not the way we are going to recover some sanity in our societies. Marriage as we knew it in Western countries, with all its conformism and cultural repression, was a VERY, VERY, VERY, imperfect institution. If social engineering has worked so nicely against it, it’s due to its inherent failures. Even more, marriage, as it is now, with all its social, legal, cultural and economic liabilities against men and masculine roles is done. Once our societies could get rid of the misandry that permeates our legal and social institutions, we’ll be able to create a new institution (let’s call it a “Domestic Partnership”) by which the heterosexual relationship between a male and a female to raise a family could be promoted and protected for the well being of society, but always on REAL expectations, not Disneyfied worlds.


Mary said (December 17, 2009):

I am commenting on the article The Strategy Behind Same Sex Marriage. I agree whole heartedly with the writer, but like the comment by Ken at the bottom, the bit question (apart from population control) is why. Why are they so keen to undermine humanity at every level. Maybe Alex Colliers interview in 1992 could shed some light on it all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2ubrA3X7rM


Julian Lee said (December 17, 2009):

Yes, A leads to B, leads to C. I've always sensed that the promotion of sodomatrimony (Joe Sobran's term, more fitting than "gay marriage") has children as it's final target. So-called "gay-marriage" not only trivializes procreation and the male-female match, but also trivializes the parent-child relationship. The so-called "gay family" must needs have orphans to people it. To be a child in a "gay family" you MUST be tragically separated from at least one natural parent. And yet they will certainly assert that these "parent-child" situations (the mind reels, the heart cries out for these children) are "equal" to the natural way. They'll probably outlaw that word, "natural" eventually. What better new "institution" to trivialize the natural parent-child bond? The bankers/state forces would like children to be movable quantities they can mix-and-match where they like, not receiving that pesky cultural and moral transmission from parents -- the people who will always love them best. Natures great cue that sex is for the male female, so obvious in the fact that gays are intrinsically barren, is to be ignored. Lineage, generational transmission, the strange resonance a son has with his true father, the soul-choosing of parents -- all that is to be denied as well. I write about this at length in my article, "Sodomatrimony and the Parental Substitution Game." http://celibacy.info/Sodomatrimony.html The cultural and societal stakes are grotesquely high in the "gay marriage" juggernaut.


Ken said (December 17, 2009):

About "The Strategy Behind Same-Sex Marriage" by Rollin Stearns, He might be right, but the question I would ask is not to look at "c" (i.e. same sex marriage) but at d, e, f,g,etc, because as sure as evolution made little green apple, this fight is surely about more than same sex marriage.


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at