Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

My Gay-Marriage Dilemma

A libertarian cause is being led by an anti-libertarian crowd.

by
Robert Wargas

Bio

March 27, 2013 - 6:55 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

I have “come out,” as it were, on the screens of this venerable website several times in my support for same-sex marriage. I don’t do this to annoy people or to be a “contrarian” or to curry favor with various groups that value image over substance; I have drawn this conclusion based on the rather unfashionable classical liberalism in which I have believed, to one degree or another, since I became politically conscious.

What disturbs me now, however, and what has always disturbed me, is that the primary driving force behind gay-marriage legalization is not people who believe in individual rights. This push is, rather, largely the work of the identitarian New Left, the same Marxoid juggernaut that has brought us some of the most destructive policies and concepts in our history. What should be a movement based on individual liberty is actually a Frankfurt School-tinged movement of identity politics. It’s true that the pro-gay marriage crowd contains a truly diverse group of people: there are libertarians (Reason magazine), center-left liberals (most mainstream Democrats), neoconservatives (Dick Cheney), moderate conservatives (Ron Radosh), pseudo-conservatives (Andrew Sullivan), and many others. But behind this diverse vanguard one detects the greasy and despotic hand of the radical ’60s Left. I don’t mind standing with the former; I DO mind standing with the latter, since if you give them an inch, they take a mile, and that mile usually leads somewhere not too pleasant.

I have a feeling that if the push to end DOMA and Prop 8 were primarily the work of Reason or the Ayn Rand Institute, certain traditionalist conservatives would be at least slightly more amenable to it. This would be because the implicit threat of future civil-rights lawsuits against, say, churches that refuse to marry gays would be a moot point. No Cato Institute senior fellow wants to file suit against the Catholic Church for exercising its First Amendment rights. Social conservatives know this; they trust libertarians enough even if they don’t agree with them.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
What you are missing is that laws have always reflected a particular set of religious beliefs. Once you declare that laws are invalid because they are religiously based, what law remains? None. Our laws against murder, rape, robbery, fraud, are all based on the quaint notion that doing this is WRONG.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I think most are arguing for, or against, SSM for all the wrong reasons. I have read a lot about how the government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether but that is basically impractible. I have read the posts of others who say that we should just have "civil unions" with all the same benefits of "marriage." Please, explain to me the difference if they are exactly alike. Terminology? Pleeeeease.

First, let's examine Vargas' reasoning that the "gay" movement is Marxist based. It actually goes back further than that, with the attempt to abolish sodomy laws in Germany by a pedophile gay psychologist. Even the term "homosexual" was coined to personalize the actions of certain men in Germany. You see, Alinsky, like earlier Marxists, understood that if you draw attention to the individual by personalizing them, you distracted from the actions of those individuals.

The gay movement in the U.S. was first called "The Gay Liberation Movement." At that time, gays were trying to abolish, and/or diminish the importance of marriage of any kind. i.e. they were against marriage altogether. But once Lawrence was decided, they, like all leftist movements, had to find another cause de jour, and legalizing SSM it was.

So shall we take a good, hard look at reality and not fairy wings?

#1) there is no similarity between homosexual marriage and interracial marriages. If you think there is, then explain to me how I can tell a person is gay, and be biased against them, by simply looking at them.

#2) fairness in taxation. This is pure b/s. Look at the IRS deductions for both single and married filing jointly. You will learn that the person exemption is exacty double for marrieds. i.e. if you are a married couple, you get double the exemption to represent two people. Same with standard deductions. One person, the deduction was $5,300; two people, $10,600. Standard deduction x's two.

#3) tax laws under the Obama administration. Most of those increased taxes start for singles making $200,000. That amount is NOT doubled for marrieds as it begins at $250,000, increasing the tax burden on two people making $125,000 each. How will gays benefit from that? The truth is, they won't. They will be thrown into higher tax brackets if both of them earn $125K/yr each.

#4) SSM has no social benefit. Think about that. NO SOCIAL BENEFIT. It is in the interest of any state (as in country) to promote the continuation of their populations by reproduction. It is physically impossible for a gay man to impregnate another gay man. Reproduction can not be acheived without utilizing the basic design of nature.

Study after study had shown that children thrive better with two active parents of opposite genders. SSM will allow the legalization of adoption all across the nation. How do you then instill in a child the social skills that they learn from having parents of the opposite sex? You can't. And do you want to be the one to explain to some child why adults decided they didn't deserve to have the social skills that can only be taught to them by a man, or a woman? I don't.

Marriage laws all across this nation were designed for the continuation of the society and the protection of children. It was determined long ago that pologamy was detrimental to children. How does SSM protect the security of children? It doesn't.

Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist, wrote that there were certain ways to make sure that children grew up to be good little Marxists: first, destroy the influence of the churches; second, diminish the importance of the family unit, third, abolish all moral standards when it came to sex and lastly, indoctrinate children in the schools prior to the age of 12 because if children were not indoctrinated by age 12, the chance of them accepting Marxism blindly were greatly reduced.

SSM will send us down a slippery slope. If two men can marry, or two women can marry, then why can't a man marry two women, why can't a woman marry her brother if the only criteria is that they are all consenting adults who love each other?

The radical left have done a lot to destroy the very foundation this nation was built on. At one time, in order to get a divorce it had to meet one of the Three A's requirements; adultry, abuse or abandonment. Now we have no fault divorce and a high rate of divorce. Drip by drip, the family unit is being destroyed, just so we can make good little Marxists.



1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
See. I was on the side of supporting government civil unions for all with marriage remaining a province of religious insitutions and those who wanted could call their civil license a marriage although the word itself would not appear in the government contract law anymore. That way, we would all be equal before the actual law itself.

However, comments from people like you have nearly pushed me all the way back off the position because I find your attitude so odious. It's people like you who would brand people like me a bigot and not hesitate to call me all manner of nasty things for simply following my own constitutional right to freedom of religion. A reasonable adult can do that and not be a bigot at all.

I actually found myself revisiting what I "knew" about the '60s last night. The attitude of today's so-called civil rights crusaders actually have me pondering how many otherwise normal, none-hateful people have been forever branded as "evil, bigoted racists" by history who might actually have been unjustly labeled? How insane is that?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (127)
All Comments   (127)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
First they came for the Christians, but I did not speak out, as I was a libertarian...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I have an unwavering belief on this issue. It's my understanding marriage was instituted in the first place as a protection for the family structure. Dad needed to make a commitment and stick around for the well being of mom and the babies and Mom and Dad needed to make a commitment before God to seal the deal.
Men and women were created with different attributes that benefit children in their upbringing. Marriage between a man and woman is the ideal for raising children. Anything else is possible but less superior. Those on the left have done all they can to destroy this institution and gay marriage is just one more tool to finish the job. I'm all for Civil Unions or what ever they want to call the union. Just don't call it Marriage.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"There has been an unholy alliance between those on the left, who believe that man is endowed with rights but no duties and libertarians on the right, who believe that consumer choice is the answer to all social questions." - Theodore Dalrymple.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Wargas is a little late to the party. The left has been attacking the institution for decades - genderless marriage is merely a step along the way to eliminating it entirely. See beyondmarriage.org for the next assault.

The best defense against an overambitious state is strong, biologically related (extended) families. No surprise then that the left would be undermining it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What you are missing is that laws have always reflected a particular set of religious beliefs. Once you declare that laws are invalid because they are religiously based, what law remains? None. Our laws against murder, rape, robbery, fraud, are all based on the quaint notion that doing this is WRONG.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We adopted common laws and they are not necessarily expansive. I can't off hand, think of a single law beyond the common laws that is necessarily based on any particular religion, belief or practices. The layers of redundant criminal laws, equity laws, national security laws, aviation law, admiralty law, contract law and on down the pike.

My belief of the constitution and especially the first amendment, the framers 'limited' the government from establishing laws of religions, beliefs and its practice thereof. IF the constitution does not in fact do this, then we may as well become a theocracy under some government established religion, its beliefs and practices. If the claim that individual rights come only from God and shall not be infringed on by any government then, that claim would limit the government from enacting any laws other than some particular religions laws of scripture -- or laws for each religion of a diverse religious society.

I'm quite content with the 'limit' of the common law system and the government limited from enacting laws of religious matters one over another or separately -- the latter constitutionally barred under the equal rights clause -- correct?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"once you declare that laws are invalid because they are religiously based what laws remain"

The laws of Babylon. Holy people are held in captivity. When they see 50 million babies murdered in Mommies tender tummy they know where they are. More than 2000 deaths by the gun since the newtown children were slaughtered and nothing has been down to change this.
Holy people gathering in the temples are glad they can meet with other holy people in the worship of The Holy God.
Even people going to purgatory or hell are invited to these temples because it is difficult for mere humans to say who is holy and who is unholy while in Babylon captivity.
then the tests come
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The day may come soon when more and more religious people stop voting.as the" Casino" type money interest take over GOP with a platform to gain votes and power. and it is a sight to behold how fast people change when they are after power.
Then our prayers to God will be please elect people who will not take away our freedom to worship God . then the holy ones are tested
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I had been conflicted about this debate until I realized the big lie in this issue is from the Christian/traditionalist camp: Marriage has always been defined as a union of one man and one woman. Except that polygamy was recognized in Genesis and many other places in the bible and practiced by Mormans into the 20th Century.

It's time for government to become neutral on the whole subject of marriage. Relationships should be up to those involved. It should not be up to politicians or bureaucrats to decide who can hook up with or marry whom. SSM is not a threat to anyone's traditional marriage or to our society.

I know a lot of people with whom I disagree on everything else are for gay marriage but that's not sufficient reason for me to oppose it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Even in polygamous marriages, the individual bonds remain between a man and a woman. If the man who is married to multiple wives dies, the marriage is over. The women are all widows, not women who are married to one fewer spouse.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A) You're wrong - poligamy was NOT recognized in Genesis. If anything, it was those who went out side of traditional marriage that ran into the most problems. Also, B) Quit defining Christians from the Old Testiment. Christ, himself, in the New Testament defined marriage as between ONE man and ONE woman.

And finally, you want the destruction of the church and the nuclear family, then fine - just say so. But quit lying. You're like those people who always say they are life long conservatives who are going to vote democrat. It's just a lie.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Mormon polygamy was a criminal offense under federal law, and that law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reynolds v. U.S. (1879). That it was still widely practiced was not a sign of Christian support or toleration of polygamy, but of the difficulty in enforcing federal law on a group that was isolated and had their own territorial government.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You just stated the obvious. Gay marriage isn't about gay marriage - it's about polygamy, beastiality, and incest. It's about breaking down societal norms until people no longer trust in the family or their religion, so that the State becomes family and religion.

And you're helping.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Hate to rain on your parade or stir up a new controversy, but Mormonism is generally thought of as a non-Christian cult with all kinds of esoteric teachings. The only ones advocating for polygamy are other deviants in the gay camp.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Cultural Marxism, look into it. Also research the Marxist roots of the gay rights movement, where they explicitly state that they want to destroy marriage and the nuclear family.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The sufficient reason for you to oppose it Par4Course, is because it helps advance everything you disagree with.

Fools isnt a strong enough word to describe these libertarian useful idiots.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Let me quiet your fears. You seem to think that the far left is involved in pushing gay marriage.

Listen, I'm a liberal on some issues and I read a number of liberal, far left, right-leaning, and centrist sites. And let me assure you that the far left has absolutely no interest in gay marriage. None. They couldn't care less.

I assume it is partly because in their minds they think it is an upper middle class distraction from real issues, and partly because any advance in gay rights here draws attention to how retrograde Iran and other Islamic regimes are.

In any case, I assure you once again that the far left that you are so afraid of allying with has zero interest in gay marriage, and the driving force behind it is mainstream Democrats and libertarians. So join us without fear!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Unless you count Obama. And unless you think Obama is not far left.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read today. The Statists absolutely back gay marriage. They want the State to dictate what is and isn't marriage, and what is and isn't normal.

I've also read plenty of Progressive Socialists who recently posted that this is about eliminating the concept of marriage.

You are either a fool or a tool.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
fizziks, I travel widely as well. And while it is true that the Marxist Left doesnt give two figs about women, gays, or black people, they most certainly do support Gay Marriage (as a subset of Identity Politics) as a wedge to destroy Western Civilization and to gain power. The deconstrcution of European Christendom, upon which they will build the Utopian Vision.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Finally!

Thank you Robert Wargas!

Dont be a useful idiot!

I agree 100 eleventy percent! Wake up, people!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I think I understand the author. Personally, I feel some discomfort about the way this is happening, and I cannot explain why.

I know gay couples who have been together for 25 years. In every respect they live as a married couple. Why shouldn't they marry? If every couple on my block were married gay couples that would not impact my own marriage one bit.

In our society marriage is a civil contract. A man and a woman, both atheists or nonreligious can go down to their courthouse and marry. Nobody cares. When a marriage does not work out, the couple files legal papers to divorce. They do not go to their church and announce to God, 'Sorry. We made a mistake." I could offer many more examples to prove that marriage is a civil contract, and only becomes a matter of religion when the couple wish to ask God to bless their union.

As it is, churches are not forced to marry couples that do not adhere to their teachings. Some churches may only marry couples who are members. Gay Christians have options already with welcoming churches such as MCC. So this cannot be my reason for discomfort.

All the same, there is something in recent developments that is disturbing. I do not know why I feel there is something more at work here, but I trust my instincts to tell me when something is wrong. Personally, I would not wish to deny anyone the comfort of a lifelong mate. But my instincts say something more is going on right now that has more to do with politics than preference.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"This push is, rather, largely the work of the identitarian New Left, the same Marxoid juggernaut that has brought us some of the most destructive policies and concepts in our history."

Low information sheep herders or low information group thinkers or both.

The libertarians, uncloaked, have been around much longer than this nation, Todays U.S. populist anrachists, the libertarians, have progressed and 'strategically' adopted components of nearly ever politicial ideology, residing firmly inside the GOP. Their idealist politics fits well with the GOPs idealist foreign relations as an avenue to further thier true ideologies. Likewise, they fit well with the 'conservative' Christian idealist ideology of foreign relations as an avenue to further their true ideologies. Like the progressives, they sought a legitimate vehicle to operate from rather than simply an isolated movement removed from a government vehicle.

Do the libertarians ideologies clash with the ideologies of the traditional GOP and the social conservatives? You bet they do but, they know when to stay seated and and to rise up and take the charge strategically speaking.

When they see an opportunity in which there is waining objections too, they rise up to promote INDVIDUAL RIGHTS OVER GOVERNMENT RIGHTS or religious rights. The gay rights movement is now positioned as a libertarian ideological opportunity. Other instances where there is agreement, is on the issues unregulated captialism and effectively a small non influential government authority, which of course plays right into the uncloaked libertarians historical political and social ideology. They are equally as smart and strategically patient and coy as their rival socialist/progressives. The founders engineering of a new political and social structured nation lies in a narrow balance between degrees of socialism and degrees of anarchism.

The traditional GOP and the 'conservatives' aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer of political ideological warfare!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All