Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

April 30, 2013 - 10:18 am

Listen to lesbian activist Masha Gessen speak on marriage. And listen to the applause when she says that “the institution of marriage should not exist.”

In the audio, Gessen says candidly that the fight for gay marriage is a lie. The movement’s real aim is the destruction of marriage and the traditional family itself.

A 2012 speech by Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community, is just now going viral and it includes a theory that many supporters of traditional marriage have speculated about for years: The push for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry – it is about diminishing and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the “traditional family.”

Specifically, she says three things:

  • “Gay marriage is a lie.”
  • “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
  • “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)

One could read her words on paper and assume that Gessen only speaks for herself and no one else. But the loud applause in the hall says otherwise. Not only is her statement not controversial there, it’s met with approval because she spoke a truth that everyone in the room already knew.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (13)
All Comments   (13)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
This will offend a large swath of americans but here goes:
Two words, seemingly, descriptive of opposite philosophies...have the same root word! Are they they same?
1. First word= Liber-tarian
2. Second word =Liber-al
If, for arguments sake, We accept the root word "Liber-" to be associated with a political philosophy whose charactistics tend towards "an INDIVIDUALS total Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties to self govern" then splitting hairs with endings to this root word, having assigned definitions...defy credulity.
1)A "Liber-tarian" would still be a "Progressive new Left Activist" twisting, convoluted definitions in an opposite direction to that of its brother;2) "Liber-al" twisting, convoluted definitions in the other direction...both still have the same "root" mantra,i.e., a Progressive New Left Activist one!

What do:1) LGBT;2) PLAN-B,3)Catholic Seminarian (Gay)Paedophiles;4)US military tens of thousands rise in sexual assaults and predatory sex cases;5)Summarily releasing of sexual deviants from prison;6)28% rise in crystal-meth use in Gay community;7)epidemic spread of HIV/AIDS amongst LBGT community8)and higher than normal incidences of STD's in and among the LBGT community? Sexual orientation!!!! Even "Plan-B" is couched in this Progressive New Left Activist mantra! Damn!
(The State Now has Tutelage over your siblings)! Germany-1930's!!!
In order to understand this new twist to World Gay Movements into “civil rights”, the argument has to be defined in actual terms and examined historically. Since this Gay Movement is identified as one having mostly a “sexual orientation” to it, a definition of what encompasses “sexual orientation” is fundamental.
From Wikipedia, “sexual orientation” is defined generally as: Sexual orientation describes an enduring pattern of attraction—emotional, romantic, sexual, or some combination of these—to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes, and the genders that accompany them. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. Asexuality (the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category. According to the American Psychological Association, "sexual orientation" also refers to a person's sense of "personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."
Therefore, based upon historic events, religious works and societal customs one concludes that modern day Gay Movements are fundamentally “sexual orientation” of individual: wants, needs and desires. AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HEREDITARY, GENETICAL NOR FAMILAL traits. Wake-up America! This is a revolutionary movement designed specifically to demoralize, confuse and disorient Americans and American society. !!!!Pray. Amen. Saul Alinsky, please read his book and learn!. There's a darker side to this story:Mexican/Colombian drug cartels "gaming-the-system" to increase their customer base across the USA=The Perfect Storm...watch the Right/hand!
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Make no mistake, the destruction of the traditional nuclear family and marriage has been near the top of the radical left's agenda for many years. Gay marriage to them is just another rung on that ladder.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Guilt by association"

Your implication being that *everyone* who supports Gay Marriage is actually advancing (wittingly or not) this anti-Marriage agenda. This is a classical logical fallacy and unworthy of you. It's as ridiculous as trying to paint *everyone* that opposes Gay Marriage as supporting the Westboro Baptist Church's agenda.

Unworthy of you.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is you and not Bryan that is making logical error. By supporting gay marriage you are supporting whatever outcome from it's adoption. The successful push for gay marriage inevitably destroys the institution. Claiming anything else is just like saying you supported Communism but the GULAG or National Socialism is a good thing but you didn't agree with the Holocaust. Your opinion as an individual doesn't absolve you from responsibility.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Bryan, you missed a HUGE piece of context from the article at TheBlaze:

'The excerpt above was recorded on May 19, 2012 when Ms. Gessen appeared at the Sydney Writer’s Festival on a panel titled, “Why Get Married When You Can Be Happy?”'

Also, check out the full, unedited recording of the discussion.

This was an anti-marriage panel. This was an anti-marriage audience. They are part of a minority of people who never (or never again) want to get married (not just in the legal sense, but in the commitment sense), and they would prefer no one else did either.

Masha has some silly ideas about how to achieve that goal, but her comments were on-topic -- not some dirty little secret she let slip during an unrelated discussion. For that reason, this article really needs correcting.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
DUH! Many of us here at PJM were always well aware of this fact. It's always helpful when the LGBT community owns up to their real agenda.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
At least I can agree with two of her comments:
Gay marriage is a lie.”
“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”

Beyond that, once we 'get there' why stop at same-sex marriage? Why not go on to polygamy and polyandry as well as incest and bestiality, all in the name of 'love'. There is no end to this nuttiness.

Reply to SilverAge: Government is in the business of defining marriage for the simple reason of knowing how to allocate assets at death and to take its cut in estate taxes. What same sex marriage can potentially do is to allow estates to escape taxation. Suppose person A has a large estate, and person A has an off-spring B of the same sex. Person A can 'marry' offspring in the form ifperson B, and when person A dies the estate will goetax free to person B who is the surviving 'spouse' of person A.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think it depends on what one means by "the institution of marriage".

If we're talking about relgious ceremonies then of course they should exist. It's absurd to claim they shouldn't. Beyond the religious freedom aspect of the thing it's hard to argue that the traditional nuclear family isn't the foundational unit of our society. Well, let me rephrase that: it's not hard to argue the point, just hard to do so and not look like an idiot.

But I don't think the LEGAL institution of marriage should exist, in that I don't think the government should be blessing or refusing to bless relationships. If the government wasn't in the marriage business then this wouldn't be a controversy in the first place; Catholics could ban gays, atheists and divorcees from being married with no problem. And everyone regardless of religion could enter into contractual arrangements with whomever they wish to govern things like medical proxies and insurance benefits.

It's because the government is involved in the first place that this is a problem. With the government giving out benefits and legal status to married people a legitimate equal-protection question is raised when they refuse to allow some people to take part.

And, all that aside, shame on this woman for wanting to "destroy" anything. I'm sure if people wanted to destroy homosexuality she'd be howling at the top of her lungs about how we should be tolerant and live-and-let-live. She ought to try doing it herself.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
We already know what a society looks like without state sponsored marriage. It looks like the ghetto. How many people are going go through the legal hassles which will bring risk over what we have today? In the fantasy world inhabited by Libertarians contested "divorce" cases go in front a jury and not a judge. The loser gets to appeal. What will happen is exactly what the gay lobby wants -- the end of marriage and the entire society will look like the south side of Chicago.

I am tired of S.F.B. Libertarians posing as small government conservatives. They are radical social revolutionaries who other than a belief in markets are descendants of radical syndicalists and not Hayek. They have become the preferred tool of the left for normalizing aberrant behaviors that create social anarchy and dependence on the state.

Libertarians are the new stupid party. They actually believe that leftwing social policy will lead to increased freedom. The left is is much smarter than their Libertarian allies. Do you really think that the statist left would champion policies that would undermine state power?

So here is a rule of thumb: if the left supports something, it isn't going to going to enhance freedom. Libertarians either get a clue or join Obama's Democratic Party.

51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
This is not and has never been the panacea its proponents claim. Marriage consists of legal as well as extralegal relationships. Separate them into two different things and the need for government to define and regulate the legal relationships will remain, and whatever damage the government does to them will only get worse *because* the extralegal part has been severed.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Bingo! You could say that the government, like it does with everything it touches, destroys the institution of marriage by regulating it. Your solution follows the First Amendment, reduces government, and subtracts money from lawyers who contribute over 20% of all campaign contributions now, thanks to their windfalls from tort actions and divorces. Since lawyers contribute heavily to Dems, I would think it a "no brainer" for conservatives to support getting government out of the marriage business.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howard, your lawyer comment show the empty headedness of the Libertarian. You do not decrease the involvement lawyers in the marriage process, you increase it. Now both marriage actions require an attorney. It also increases government involvement in marriage. Now every divorce goes to civil court and a jury trial. If the loser doesn't like the outcome he or she can appeal. In your fantasy world of private contract marriage even marital disputes not related to divorce could go to court. In the real world few people are going to go the contract route. The inevitable result is the social structure of the ghetto where males provide insemination services and women marry the State. This is the desired result of the left. In the real world as opposed to your Libertarian fantasies, freedom ends when marriage and the family end.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Orwell's "1984" is looking more and more like "Leave It To Beaver" all the time.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All

One Trackback to “‘Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.’”