Home The Deconstruction of Marriage
Home The Deconstruction of Marriage

The Deconstruction of Marriage

The only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn't come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.

Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the
deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.

The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.

The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country-- it produces its next generation.

The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.

Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.

There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.

The left hasn't gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.

You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.

Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.

The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.

Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.

In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.

The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.

Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.

Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women's clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.

The left's deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.

Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change 'rose' to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.

The left's social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.

Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.

As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell's Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left's deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.

The left's greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.

To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.

The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part
of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.

The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.

That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.

The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of people.

And that is what we are truly fighting against.


  1. Everyone wants a wedding. No one wants a marriage.

  2. Naresh Krishnamoorti15/4/15

    This is Daniel Greenfield at his best -- superb insights structured brilliantly.

    "You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously."

    I will have to use this analogy every time someone asks me how "gay marriage" hurts the institution of marriage.

  3. Daniel, Your opening line says it all... how sad, yet something must be done. I find that knowledge leads me to be more confident in my assertiveness. Therefore, I speak up more and am more definitive when I speak to my children about what plagues our society.
    I tell them straight up how things are and how as G-d fearing individuals we have a purpose and that it is possible to be one person standing up in a room of thousands and be the only correct voice.
    In other words: I must begin at home by teaching the next generation how they are to behave. As for the rest of the world? I must support those who will uphold traditional values- even if they do not get selected...oops! Did I say that? I must have meant elected. ;)
    Hats off to another fine masterpiece, Daniel!

  4. Y. Ben-David15/4/15

    Right on the spot. Those who demand "marriage rights" for homsexuals are really after eliminating the whole concept of marriage and family life. They really say that a marriage contract is "just a scrap of paper" and the marriage is nothing more that "institutional rape" and that marriage "represses one's sexual freedom'". Add to that the belief that these radicals believe that the traditional family structure "promotes capitalism and militarism" (I am not joking.)
    Although I read this week that the Mormons of Utah now accept the idea of the state on the one hand recognizing all forms sexual relationships, but on the other hand, the state will recognize "freedom of religion" so that existing religious groups will still be allowed to "discriminate" in some form or other against homosexuals, does anyone think that will be the end of it? Those who pushed for "homosexual marriage" will now demand that the rights of the religious groups be declared as "fascistic" and "hurtful" and whatever and be removed.
    This is a battle for the very soul of civilization. Those who still believe in it seem to have completely folded up. What now?

  5. CS Lewis wrote of "The Abolition Of Man". That is what the left is aiming at, and the way to do that is make man's institutions meaningless.

  6. Anonymous15/4/15

    Yes, perhaps there is no real difference between Isis smashing the ancient cities and artifacts of Iraq and progressives destroying the institutions of western civilization. It's just a matter of method and degree.

  7. Anonymous15/4/15

    The deconstruction of gender, and human nature may not be as open ended as it pretends. Deconstruction has consequences. From Holland the most accommodating and tolerant of societies comes the report that mental illness, alcoholism and suicide are soaring in the homosexual population. The more free they are to deconstruct their gender and innate nature the more they actually, well , deconstruct permanently. The homosexual claim has always been their misery is "societies" fault. They say that more others accept them the more they will accept themselves. But it doesnt seem to be working Holland has constructed a society that gently holds homosexuals hands and soothes them continually with the message of love, and normalcy and acceptance. But the more the homosexuals hear this..the more they suspect its all a lie. In fact homosexuals have to make themselves out to be victims..and have manufactured endless hoaxes from fake science studies, to fake "gay bashing" crimes all in a bid to evade responsibility for their choices.

  8. Anonymous15/4/15

    Thank you, Daniel. I always enjoy your columns and clear insight. Your tongue is the pen of a ready writer. Greetings everyone. I appreciate your allowing me present this point of view for your consideration.

    Psalm 25:14 The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew
    them his covenant.

    Marriage is a blood covenant. From the Hebrew Beriyth, covenant is defined: to cut, with bloodshed implied. There are different types of covenants. When a covenant is cut between men it is done with a nick to their flesh and blood is mingled with oaths sworn before God to generations unborn and only broken by death. We would call these "blood brothers." (Consider Jonathan and David and how David honored their covenant with Jonathan’s son.) A scar or mark remains to remind them of the covenant they entered and vowed to keep. This, by the way, is the heart of honor where your word is an oath one will keep or die trying. A handshake is a remnant of blood covenant today.

    Marriage is also a blood covenant vowed to before God unto death do they part. Simple picture language shows the covenant ideal concerning wedlock. With consummation comes the evidence of the virgin bride's blood that signifies the covenant has been cut and entered into by her groom. Two of the same sex cannot cut the blood covenant of marriage as they don't have the right parts to fit. They miss the mark. From the Greek, Hamarita is translated sin and defined as to miss the mark.

    The covenant of marriage is ordained from the beginning. God created the first Adam “In His own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female created He them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and increase in number…” Gen 1: 22-23.This indicates the nature of God and that God is able to increase after God’s own kind. Then, after God puts Adam in the Garden and he names the animals, finding not one of the same kind, God causes a deep sleep to fall upon the First Adam and from his side, divided with bloodshed, God TAKES the woman from his side.

    The word take is from the Hebrew Laqach. The definition from Strong’s 3947 is “to take, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away.” Inherent in the separation of woman from man is the idea of marriage writ there and plain.

    After that they are united together again in the covenant of marriage and the bloodshed of the cutting implies the increase of the family and nurturing of same. Family increase comes in three ways. Marriage, natural birth and by adoption. The increase of God’s family is God’s purpose in creation on Earth. Those who worship in spirit and truth are the ones the Father seeks.

    This is just a sketch of the fascinating topic of God and Covenant and from such there is much to be learned about current events today. For instance, the Greek divides it into two types of covenant. One is done willingly by both parties for expressed peaceful purposes. The other is done by conquest in war and the imposition of the victors’ rule over a defeated people where they must vow allegiance or die. That should ring some bells.

    Thank you for your time.

  9. Anonymous15/4/15

    If we discriminate against the bigots how isnt that still discrimination? Arent we bigots if we discriminate against the bigots? We need to recontextualize the situation. Lets introduce the concept of civil rights bigots.

  10. Anonymous15/4/15

    So... liberals are going to destroy everything by making it so gays can get married?

    Are you sure the problem is you don't like gays and you don't want them to be equal members in society because you don't like them?

    That makes a lot more sense that what you're saying here.

  11. We have been discussing your use of the word gender at Free Republic. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3279599/posts?page=19
    In that this is a 2 year old article is it possible that the meaning of the word has changed just as you predict in this article?

  12. Anonymous15/4/15

    Mr. Greenfield, I'm concerned that you are conflating "sex" with "gender." Sex is our biological reality, man and woman. "Sex roles" are reproductive: men inseminate; women are impregnated, gestate, parturate, and lactate.

    "Gender" is the social roles expected of men and women in a specific society. It varies so widely across geography and time that we can make few or no generalizations about "gender roles."

    If we surrender the distinction between biology and society, we have no argument against 51 "genders."

  13. Anonymous15/4/15

    Excellent concept, which needs to be repeated again and again. The overwhelming majority of society would agree with the underlying premise, but doesn't realize this is happening slowly but surely. I think people are slowly waking up.
    By the way, this is not the first description of this point. Several talk radio hosts have spoken about it, Mark Steyn has written about it years ago, etc. But it certainly helps to continue to repackage it in different ways - as this may catch the attention of otherwise "sleeping" listeners.
    Also, that this has nothing to do specifically with marriage but the larger structure of society at large..... correct again. But I don't think the actual final goal is to deconstruct society (read: destroy morality). The destination is to deconstruct society in order to assert themselves, the genious societal engineers, as the power brokers and tyrants. They claim to be so much smarter than all of us, so they should get to define their rules. Hence, they get to tell us how to run our lives, define our (read: their) priorities, ans serve THEM. Without US even realizing what's going on.
    The methodology is taking over by "evolution" rather than revolution. Social anarchy causing a vacuum that they can claim rights to because of their superior elitist intellects and their ivy league educations.
    Sound familiar? It should. It is the blueprint of Fabian Socialists. Darwin allowed for G-d to banished from society. Freud abrogated personal responsibility. Social justice eliminates individual rights. And "inclusiveness" demonizes any opposition.
    And moving slowly (evolution) means that we don't recognize what we are doing to ourselves until we lull ourselves into a comatose state. Think of the frog in the pan that is very slowly heated to a boil - who doesn't realize he is being boiled because it happens so incrementally.
    The left has long ago maped out their plan. People just need to listen to them!

  14. Anonymous16/4/15

    They are deconstructing murder also. Every murder was instigated by the victim. The victim is no longer someone whose life was cut short but someone who is now eternally a symbol of what ails society. The murderer is simply reacting. The murderer's act can be endlessly interpreted but the dead victim gets their faults aired, judged and finalized. Whether it is a gangster, terrorist, woman with a grievance, etc..etc...etc.... its all the same.

  15. In essence, the committed leftists and their actions shows their deepest angst, that all creation and with this, life, would be purposeless. They see no raison'd être and want to clutch and drag everything and everyone with them in desperateness of their fall into oblivion.

  16. I fail to comment more, dear Mr. Greenfield, simply out of a paucity of intellect. I am, however, smart enough to know when I've seen a definitive take on a matter. Well done.

  17. Anonymous16/4/15

    "In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in."

    With hook-up culture and casual sex in full swing within the youth of the educated and/or productive classes, marriage really will be nothing more than a legal contract, with the entire goal of raising offspring between two adults. With societal changes in how both genders now go away to college, then maybe move to another area for a graduate level degree, then move to another area for an entry level job, then another area for a career advancement opportunity, not everyone can put roots down early in life. With the constant possibility of having to jump from location to location, I can see why young people would rather have friends with benefit type relationships, or no relationships at all and just hook-up with some stranger from a bar/house party.

    The downside to this change in lifestyle for young people is that people will likely settle down in their late 20s/early 30s, but their past will be littered with who knows what. I've seen a recent trend in articles written about men not wanting to marry. Most of these are written by women in their 30s, talking about how numerous women in that age group are having to freeze their eggs. This generation went to college back in the 90s, when it seems that "growing up" right after college started to die. People either seemed to get engaged quickly after college, or some were destined to live the next 8-12 years single hoping to find the right person. They say right now 70% of all men aged 21-34 aren't married. Wonder if it will hit 80% by the next decade, and maybe 90% the following?

  18. Do you need government to confirm or deny a marriage? Shouldn't said marriages be confirmed and upheld by God? Isn't God greater than government? This whole article talks about deconstructing marriage and other sacred institutions because Daniel believes that without government support of marriages, then the institution of marriage will fail.
    Sorry folks, but if you believe in true freedom and liberty, then marriage, being blessed by God, will stand on it's own.

  19. Anonymous16/4/15

    I wrote a comment discussing the Torah implications of what is happening today. You failed to list it among the comments. Why? I'm very disappointed in you. Despite all your brilliance you have missed the point about the left. You've shamefully left G-d and His book out of your analysis. You're not as smart as you think you are and have relied on secular knowledge which, when compared to Torah knowledge, doesn't hold up. I stand by what I said. Just because you didn't think of it doesn't make it less valuable.

  20. Anonymous16/4/15

    It's about privilege, benefits, and the destruction of societal norms.

  21. I ask a gay person, "What will you say when someone demands to marry their pet chicken?"
    "That's disgusting," the gay person said.
    "So then you are a racist," I said.
    No answer.
    The world is just one step away from going bonkers, and it will make something like that stupid movie The Purge look like a grade school yard play. Defend your family and your religion and hope for the best.

    1. Anonymous3/7/15

      That analogy does not hold. There is a very important difference between a chicken and a consent person. The latter can make a decision for himself and express it, the first cannot. So while this seemed like a clever comparison, it contains the flaw of not considering consent.

  22. For starters I would like you to give some thought to not posting comments by anonymous for the simple reason that it if more than one person is using this moniker at any given time, it sometimes gets confusing as to where a certain reply is being directed. Let them sign with Mickey Mouse or XXX if they desire to remain anonymous.

    Now, as to whichever anonymous complained that you shamefully left G-d out of the mix, I'm sure that his rendition of Emunah 101 would be a nice fit for my blog (EmunahSpeak) but if I remember correctly the piece in question was posted on Sultan Knish which addresses a somewhat wider audience.

    What this person missed was a seminal piece that did much more than simply validate what we already knew to be true. You actually opened up new ground even for those of us who thought that they were well versed on this subject.

    A grosse yasher koach! It was absolutely brilliant.

  23. Thank you Meir. The blog addresses an audience of different religions and some of no religions at all, so I avoid lecturing people from a religious position.

    That said, the complaint here is coming from someone who has invented his own version of Torah in which everything in the past and presented involved a homosexual conspiracy. People like that end up doing damage to the cause they claim to believe in by making it look ridiculous and crazy.

    The Westboro Baptist Church probably did more for gay rights than any other gay rights groups.

  24. Anonymous16/4/15

    Daniel, with all due respect, you really sound like those conspiracy theories nuts. Human beings are not capable of great conspiracies. They are not that smart to figure every move out to the details. What you fail to realize it that the left is just the tool. What's behind all this is a very powerful force. In Jewdaism, it's known as Yetzer HaRa, or the force of evil, Satan. When humans turn away from God, they tend to channel their collective energies towards supporting of this force. It's very appealing to them, but altimately causes their demise.

  25. Anonymous16/4/15

    A gay man I know, likeable fellow, and I were talking the other day. He said something about keeping his eyes open for men to hook up with, and I tapped the "wedding" ring on his finger and said, "Don't you know you have to behave now?" He laughed that idea to scorn, scoffing, "I'm a GAY MAN. Of Course I'm going to have sex with other men! and my husband [sic] is 30 years old! are you crazy?"

    So, yes, it's not about marriage and a sacred covenant for them -- it's about taking a flame-thrower to what is for us a sacramental institution. Oh, I suppose some of them are faithful to each other, but I suspect more of them will be up-front about having no intention of fidelity, as they see they have triumphed.

    But my other thought is that WE decide what a marriage means to US. Christians and Jews have historically lived in the world, while not being "of the world." And we're going to be going back to that, I believe. It will be up to us to maintain the sacredness of our own commitments, regardless of how much the heathen rage.

    1. In answer to the immediately preceding: I agree that the gleeful, unapologetic lack of fidelity on the part of the homosexual whose attitude you described is worthy of disgust; but surely you have not led such a sheltered life that you have not encountered similar tomcat attitudes in married folks of the heterosexual persuasion!

      Aside from the differences in the mechanics and esthetics of sex as practiced by both groups, I cannot see that infidelity on the part of heterosexuals is any more edifying than that of homosexuals.

  26. DenisO16/4/15

    "...Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender..."

    Good points, as usual, but is the goal just destruction of society as it has evolved to one of a non-reproductive species? The Left is suicidal and would rather be "dead right" than wrong or shunned. Considering the small percentage of the population that is homosexual, it doesn't make any sense to try and drive society away from the stability of family. That is, of course, if rationality is assumed, but I stopped seeing rationality from that side a long time ago. They seem to just follow a "pied piper" or an imaginary atheist religious leader, blindly, without a plan, other than to oppose what they must hate: family, tribe, pack or herd, the instinctive survival mechanism embedded in our genes.
    Will that work? Can more than two billion years of DNA be overcome to make them feel their gay minority is just as "normal" as the rest of the herd? Of course there can never be a "blank canvas"; the sex drives of both genders are too powerful and unconscious. It's crazy and unworkable, like children stamping their feet because they're denied candy or some toy. A generation of unhappy feminists may finally be realizing the "candy" was not worth it.
    Their goals in the environment are destructive to society, as are their economic instincts to kill jobs for their children and end safe cities as a place for them to live and work. What is clear is that they don't like themselves, and are perpetually angry and unhappy, so the only reasonable conclusion, from the evidence, is that they are sick, suicidal, and getting worse. Their disease is apparently highly communicative, and involves contact with the infected. They want everyone to be sick, just like them. Remember AIDs? Avoid them; they will die, and worse, be rejected, which they fear most. The pendulum reverse is inevitable, they know, and it haunts them.

  27. Anonymous16/4/15

    I don't agree on your postulation it was a deconstructing of marriage but rather the DESTRUCTION of the family unit.

    Destroy the family and you destroy a nation. Communist and radicals knew if you take away their Christian heritage you DESTROY AMERICA.

    This is just ONE of the ways they are, however, DECONSTRUCTING America!

  28. To the Anonymous commenter that thinks Mr. Greenfield sounds like a conspiracy nut I recommend looking up the Gramscian March, just use Bing, Google or Yahoo. This has been going on in the US and Europe for many decades. Is it a conspiracy, probably not in the usual sense unless you think any loosely organized effort by humans is a conspiracy.

  29. Anonymous17/4/15

    Allen Ginsberg, the homosexual “beat” poet was asked by a Justice of the Supreme Court in 1966 (during an obscenity trial related to the book Naked Lunch, by William Borroughs) whether at “some time in the future there will be a political party, for instance, made up of homosexuals.” Ginsberg replied, saying “this has already happened in a sense -- or of sex perverts -- and we can point to Hitler, Germany under Hitler” (The New York Times, August 10, 1997).

  30. Anonymous17/4/15

    Daniel, from the Pink Swastika:

    Abram Kardiner, psychoanalyst, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, 1966 recipient of the Humanities Prize of The New York Times:

    There is an epidemic form of homosexuality, which is more than the usual incidence, which generally occurs in social crises or in declining cultures when license and boundless permissiveness dulls the pain of ceaseless anxiety, universal hostility and divisiveness...Supporting the claims of homosexuals and regarding homosexuality as a normal variant of sexual activity is to deny the social significance of homosexuality...Above all it militates against the family and destroys the function of the latter as the last place in our society where affectivity can be cultivated...Homosexuality operates against the cohesive elements in society in the name of fictitious freedom. It drives the opposite sex in a similar direction. And no society can long endure when either the child is neglected or when the sexes war upon each other.

    A powerful explanation of my Torah analysis by someone with experience in dealing with the Sodomite.

  31. Anonymous17/4/15


    check this link out...

  32. Anonymous17/4/15

    To take your nice article one step further...
    "destruction" for what purpose?
    Not just to "destroy" man...but then
    to also take control over those remains of man.
    Absolute power over "man" (or, what is left if him).
    To me, *that* is the desired tyranny.

  33. Daniel once again streaks to the heart of the issue. Good job.

  34. Anonymous17/4/15

    The consistent thread I see in the attacks on traditional values of America, whether from the liberals in general or Gays specifically is trying to take down any form of criticism and judgment that may be made of them as people and as a group. What maybe once was a sincere grievance, e.g. two gays belonging to a church wanting to get married but not being allowed to, have devolved into a movement of bullies where civility has gone out the window and politicians have sold out mainstream citizens (by that I mean the majority) by subjecting them to government duress.

    Something I hate are liars. Next on my list are bullies. If gays cannot make a case in the court of public opinion, then they resort to using intimidation tactics that might win them some battles in the short term (and they think they are winning) but they will lose the war in the long term. And they know it. That is what makes them so angry. That is why they have resorted to gaining legal rights to same sex couples adopting/parenting children. It is all in the hopes of growing their numbers which naturally would remain a rather low and insignificant number. But rather than just go on with their lives and work to be productive citizens (which would be a hell of a lot easier if they didn't stick their business in everyone's face all the time!), they choose to play the martyr/victim for the legal and government benefits that are so readily available to them.

    Want a service or product and a business refuses you? The smart citizen would take their business elsewhere. Vote with your wallet. Vote with your feet. We are in the 21st century now. What is the point of taking on a small business and trying to destroy them in an effort to get your way? I know, it is for the publicity and making a scene. But just as Negro performers in the early days of TV would play the clown role, now it is gays who willingly play the clown role, and play it up all for sympathy. What they fail to understand is that the government, the courts cannot force people to respect you. You have to earn that respect and that is still a matter of character and being a good, productive citizen and neighbor. The gay community has drawn the line in the sand and they are the ones challenging every aspect of traditional America with their utter disregard and lack of respect for their fellow citizens. They are the ones now acting like Bullies. I don't hate gays but I do hate bullies. You want to have a loving relationship and make a life commitment with someone of the same sex, it's none of my business. You want to keep poking traditional American in the eye, well, as I used to tell my kids, "You will meet some people who are difficult and want to cause you harm. You can try to use humor, logic and negotiation to reach some kind of agreement. But inevitably you will meet a bully who only understands one thing. And when all else fails, give it to him a knuckle sandwich right between the eyes!" I am tired of being civil and am ready to take off the gloves.

  35. How does one explain gay activists and media change in attitude over the last 20 years?
    Twenty years ago the attitude was one totally disdainful, rejecting and mocking of marriage. If you were to inquire about the possibility of gay marriage; the response would be to the effect of -Why would anyone want to be apart of such an archaic destructive absurd limiting institution.
    My guess is that if anything, the activists are in reality just as disdainful and hostile to marriage as they have been historically and that like the author articulately asserts the real goal in the past and the present is the destruction of what the activists hate "real' marriage.

  36. Anonymous17/4/15

    The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of people.

    And that is what we are truly fighting against.
    What happens when the major institutions of society are online? Who then do these violent social movements threaten then? What happens to disparate impact then? Arent finance and education the next sectors of the economy to be disrupted from Silicon Valley? What precisely will the deconstructors deconstruct then? Wouldnt those innovations make it harder to rationalize interfering with freedom of association?

  37. The problem with the idea of homosexual marriage is that it would be or is socially inert. It produces nothing for society; that is, children. The para-sexual intercourse that is conducted between people of the same sex cannot produce a zygote, so it is not sex.
    I've got no idea why a government would have a mind to pretend that there is something meaningful it its involvement in non-sexual relationships that cannot produce children, relationships that are biologically meaningless and therefore socially irrelevant.
    Unless, of course it is to lift the pathetic acts that attempt to mimic sexual intercourse to be part of serious life, or to allow the adoption or purchase of children by pairs of the same sex; removing the child's natural right and expectation of life with its biological parents.

  38. Anonymous18/4/15

    G-D created Judaism to create an ordered sane loving society that contrasted from the social chaos created by the fall and the insane, unloving, ugly impulses and propensities of the fallen mind and body. G-D's Laws/Statutes/Commandments/Precepts, etc. were for humanity's own good and were issued out of the loving concern of a Divine Parent. Worship of G-D is obedience and obedience brings Shalom to man's mind, family, relationships with others and to society as a whole.

    Islam and the leftist ideologies are man-made systems and cannot create Shalom, only more suffering, confusion, conflict and chaos.

    Leftists are re-creating pre-Judaism, pre-Christian, pagan, fleshly societal chaos.

  39. Anonymous18/4/15

    All of the values that uphold civilized societies have been under attack by the left for decades: self-reliance, self-restraint, industry, thrift, sobriety (meaning seriousness and ability to defer gratification, not necessarily refraining from drink). This has long been the left's MO because undermining these "bourgeois" values leads more people to depend on government.

    Today's attacks on marriage are only the latest gambit. The kinship structure created by the natural union of a man and a woman is the best defense against an overambitious state. It is within intact families that the characteristics that develop independence are inculcated. So, of course, they have to go.

    Reading the S Ct briefs by conservatives is sad because it doesn't matter any more what they say. Justice Kennedy will give homosexuals a Constitutional right to "marry" and I don't know where we go from there. The left has always had its useful idiots.

    I don't believe that other western countries have gone this route - ssm has been legislated and can therefore be reversed. A Constitutional right is more difficult.

  40. Anonymous18/4/15

    He who controls the meaning of the words, gets to control the outcome of the debate.

    -- theBuckWheat

  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

  42. Anonymous18/4/15

    Marriage is a covenant defined by God, not a contract defined by man and thus cannot be regulated by man's governments.

    Because too many government officials are now hostile to how God defines marriage, government is being used to force me to recognize and even enable "marriage" that God tells me is morally repulsive. Just as we have a separation of church and state, we must now have a separation of marriage and state. When marriage is a private matter, then anyone can enter into any manner of relationship they please, but they cannot use government to impose their definition on others.

    -- theBuckWheat

  43. Anonymous19/4/15

    Excellent analysis, very much the same argument could be used against the false ecumenism engaged in by every 'religion' on the planet. The idea best expressed by Gilbert and Sullivan in The Gondoliers "When everybody's somebody, then no one's anybody!" The deconstruction of man is happening on every level, not just sexually. Even somewhat liberal-leaning popular psychologists like John Gray are alarmed at the throwing away of gender identity, which is clearly a tactic of the emerging one world religion/government we see happening in our day.

    Homosexuality was for Catholics (as I am) before Vatican II one of the "four sins crying to Heaven for vengeance" along with willful murder of the innocent, depriving a worker of his just wages, and the failure to care for widows and orphans. Any pre Vatican II catechism or review of "Basic explanation of Christian doctrine" will easily demonstrate that. This is an attempt like the communists before them, to rewrite history, to make those who are on the side of the Almighty to look "evil" while making those who would oppose Him to look/appear as "the good." What did Isaiah say about those who do that?

    The natural law is written by the Creator on all men's hearts. One former homosexual who was able to come out of that lifestyle self-identified himself as suffering grievously from attachment disorder problems. He was much castigated by the gay community at large for saying so, but...anyone who has dealt with emotionally troubled children (or adults - Borderline Personality Disorder - the "I hate you, don't leave me" mentality) knows what an astute, brilliant, self-aware person that gentleman was in identifying what he was suffering from. Most children afflicted with that disorder have serious difficulties with self-identity. The gender bending liberals and social engineers are out to increase and multiply that problem, rather than helping children develop a stronger sense of self - what Freud liked to call the Id, I suppose. Destroying a person's sense of self just increases self hate, regardless of how much they drink the poison and call it delicious wine.

  44. Clelia & Eric19/4/15

    Mr Greenfield, we share your sharp and profound analysis. The Left is winning because the contra-culture of the One Way Thought is disseminating beyond borders of social and political affiliation. The increasing deficiency of basic culture and individual autonomy convert free citizens in malleable Media-preys. Stereo sounds and screen sights are muzzing the brains, so that " the ears are hearing without listening, and the eyes watching without seeing ". In name of old revolutionary slogans ( the leftist narrative claims all revolutions of history ), namely " Egalité, Fraternité, Liberté ", we are forced to believe in slogans like " multicultural society ", " unselfishness ", " appeasing attitude ", " demolition of social differences ", " no sexual secernment ", " all religions are the same ", e.g. Most underdogs, simply minded, castoffs, immigrants are canoodled in order to feel trendy and smart. With slogans they are given feeling to belong to this Brave New World, in which the Rich is the wheelman on his sailboat, and the Poor is watching him from the shore and applauds . Empty slogans, paving the road to the "perfect" worthless society, where also marriage becomes a perfect meaningless cerimony. The final purpose is eliminating remnants of etical codes which allow individuals to positively interact, to start a family, to lead an enterprize, to cooperate in society, to build a nation. The leftist vision is a liquid global government of few " big brothers " controlling amorphous masses of paupers. Indeed Comunism loves poverty. History shows that under it's enlighting governments the rate of poverty has always inreased.

  45. Ultimately the religious element has to give meaning and defense to the basic social concepts or a nations basic human ideas. Westboro Baptist group are weird fringe. They don't need to be sited as we wouldnt say don't talk about military assistance in Mid East because that soldier who teased the little Arab child caused militants to rise up around the world.

    The religious element gives the meaning to social traditions. Judeo Christian cultivated North American marriage traditions, Jewish Torah foundational to Israeli marriage practices, Sharia for Middle East countries, Hindu for marriage traditions in India, etc. Atheists, gays, bisexual, divorved, single etc of course must have basic human rights , they don't have to be religious or even like religion, but still recognize and be truthful about the foundation and meaning religion gives to various social institutions or moral views in a country.

    It might also be a lot easier to fight for courts and judges to recognize religious traditions, than it would to convince them to defend human social concepts. LGBT relentlessly bashing and destroying basic human ideas and traditional concepts? Or LGBT, progressives, far left, anti establishment relentlessly bashing and trying to abolish foundational religious traditions in a particular country.

    Defending the Torah as an essential foundational aspect of Israeli culture would be of course a lot easier, but somehow defending religious rights and defending the historical foundations and contributions of religion to marriage and gender identity will be easier or more logical at this point in the struggle to save traditional marriage.

    Also maybe relevant is bringing in the idea that family stability and marriage stability is extremely important to the strength and stability of a nation. Functioning, stable families is more important to the survival of a nation than military defense. Asian countries write about this a lot and accept it as natural essential public policy

  46. Your analysis, Daniel, grasps the big picture, in which we swim about like blind fish. Thank you.

  47. Anonymous22/4/15

    "The left's greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. "

    Thank you. Now I undertand better the left's obsession with destroying Israel by redefining war crime, genocide, apartheid and the rest to refer to the target of those acts (Israel) rather than the perpetrators.

  48. Wow, this was so very powerful.

    Thank you so much for getting to the heart of this issue. Most people - on either side of the same-sex "marriage" issue just don't understand this.

  49. Great commentary on this subject. My only concern is that we don't misidentify the culprit. I don't think this scheme belongs to the right or left. Attacking marriage is a devilish work. There are folks of all party affiliations on both sides of this issue. Finding a way to unite with those who cherise the sacred institution of marriage is something worth pursuit. Thinking, strategizing, praying, and working together is what it's going to take to make this a fight. Again, great piece here. Will spread the word. Thanks

  50. Anonymous28/4/15

    I'm the one who wrote the Torah analysis...I see you are taking on the left and the gays more and more...in my opinion the gays are more of a threat to Jews and the social mores they brought to the world than the somewhat powerless Muslim who always seems to shoot themselves in the foot..please commit yourself and your great intellect to this cause...how about an article about the traitorous left wing websites like Huffington Post backing Muslims (because of their hatred of the Jews and Israel) who are killing our soldiers and committing atrocities all over the world?

  51. Anonymous28/4/15

    Also a discussion of their tactics, the constant refrain of the inevitability of gay marriage, phony polls favoring their positions ( Bibi supposedly losing at home), their intimidation tactics, their booing and ramming at the door of the boy scouts to get their slimy hands on those boys, their destruction of the Catholic church, their mischief's in the Reform branch, their use of activist judges...it would nice if you could address these issues...also for your sake.. as a man of G-d you would think an accounting will be made to see who stood in the breech to stem the tide of the G-d haters? I would bet my bottom dollar that the gays are behind the current trouble for the Jews on the campuses...If the book is true there is trouble ahead because of the rise of the sodomite...

  52. Emma Barker10/5/15

    It started, I think, with the birth control pill, not the socialists. Before the birth control pill, most women chose to wait to have sex until they were married because they did not want to end up as a single parent. Most men chose marriage to get a steady supply of sex. Then came the pill. Now women and men could have sex without having children and without being married. That and the welfare state greatly weakened the family unit. Yes, the socialists capitalized on this and continue to support the weakening of the family, the churches, and capitalism, but the problem is bigger than gay marriage, in my opinion.

  53. As complementary reading to Daniel's fine column, see my book review here:


Post a Comment

You May Also Like