There is no such thing as a fundamentalist Catholic.

I'm not so much convinced that abolitionists were radically altering society as they were radically altering an industry. It seems to me that society, as a whole, was uncomfortable with slave trade or there would not have been such fertile ground for change. Therefore, it was not our society that was terrible, it was the practice. Yes, it was indeed a Christian thing to do to abolish slavery. Our society of Christian foundation finally came of age when it redressed the injustice. Redefining marriage however is not redressing an injustice.

In 1750, people supporting abolition of slavery were generally considered cranks and extremists.

By 1850, they had moved to the mainstream of popular thought (at least in the US and Great Britain), while those opposing abolition were becoming marginalized; in fact, the British had abolished both slavery and the slave trade by then.

By 1950, only an extreme crank or extremist would publicly advocate for legalized slavery. Society itself had changed, and changed dramatically, on this one topic.

In 1950, for me to live openly with a man and identify myself as his husband would have been unthinkable in almost any part of the Western world. In 2004, I can do so without noticeable difficulty in my own area, and several others.

By 2050, whose vision of a free and just society will have prevailed? Will the simple fact on the ground of who 'won' affect how people view that outcome? Certainly. Presumably by then, we'll be debating something else with equal fervor.

Robert,

I share your hope that we'll have moved on to other matters by 2050. The question is, will the "something else" be the right of polygamists to have the law acknowledge their form of family or of family members to enter into marriage with each other to facilitate mutual care or of singles to register with themselves or, on the other hand, the right of children to have their parents be forced to make every effort to keep the vow that they made to each other and (by implication) to the children that came of those unions.

If we're to move linearly toward ever-increasing freedom (in an individualist sense), you can't insist that freedom extend only to the choices that you would make. (And I don't mean to imply, here, that I accept the notion that SSM follows linearly from the abolition of slavery.)

Robert,

The argument from inevitability is old and tired by now. Communists were especially fond of it, IIRC. Anybody can compare their pet movement to one that succeeded and conclude that their own success is inevitable.

The funny thing about that argument is that those who make it almost never believe it, because taking that argument seriously means that you don't need to resort to extreme measures to advance your cause. If the abolitionists had believed in their cause's inevitability, then the Civil War would not have been necessary. If you believe that SSM is inevitable, then you should oppose as unnecessary the Mass. Sup. Judicial Ct's attempt to impose it by fiat. If you really believe that your cause is inevitable, then you don't need to undermine democracy to achieve it.

By 2050, whose vision of a free and just society will have prevailed?

Depending upon which view prevails, what will be the effect on our society in 2100, or 2150?

Here's my prediction (if it can somehow be preserved until then):

If SSM becomes the "norm" by 2050 in the US, by 2150 there will no longer be a US - it will be the USiskstan, or Al-USAh.

I may have been imprecise in my dialectic; my apologies.
I was not arguing from inevitability. The gradual transformation of slavery as a social construct from 'perfectly all right' to 'abomination' took the efforts of generations of sincere, dedicated men and women, most of whom knew they would never live to see the culmination of their efforts. Susan B. Anthony did not live to see women's suffrage come to pass, to cite another example.

The social transformation of homosexuality from 'abomination' to 'don't like it much, but what can we do' had taken similar effort over the past half century or more. I do not believe that the legalization/normalization of SSM is inevitable; there are powerful forces arrayed against it, which will not stint at any effort to reverse the aforementioned transformation. My son may grow up in an America where he can talk about his fathers freely and without fear; he may grow up to an America where he cannot. Neither is foreordained; neither is inevitable.

We agree, I believe, with the aphorism, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." We disagree as to what is the evil, and what the good.

Robert,
There is one flaw with your statement - "In 1750, people supporting abolition of slavery were generally considered cranks and extremists."

It presupposes that the non-slave-owning individuals were in agreement with those that could afford slaves. It seems more likely that their opinions were marginalized by wealthier people that owned slaves -or- they were unaware of the conditions of the slaves. Indeed the seeds of abolition were sown in the Declaration of Independence which declared that all men were created equal. It seems to me that it was very nearly universally accepted at that point that all men were created equal. That would be a lot of influence for (how was it you put it?) cranks and extremists.

Can you successfully argue that "all men were created equal" is compromised by marriage being defined as only one man plus one woman?

If SSM is not inevitable, it is not because 'there are powerful forces arrayed against it, which will not stint at any effort to reverse the aforementioned transformation'. It is because it may well not be as harmless in its effects on the next generations as its supporters would like to believe. I am willing to say that if there is really no negative effect of SSM on culture over a thirty-year period, it is inevitable, in most Western nations at least. Those 'powerful forces' Robert imagines are not near as powerful as he believes. Any examination of history shows that cultural conservatives capitulate easily, in part because they don't have the support of their supposed allies in big business, which tends to regard resistance to cultural change as a hindrance to 'growth'.

I know that Robert and others believe that SSM will have no negative effects. But they don't know this. They are gambling on this assumption. Or they unrealistically hope that if negative effects exist they should become obviously manifested in only five to ten years, and that if not they can then declare the experiment a success and encourage all holdout states and countries to follow suit.

Why are they not even willing to admit the possibility that androgynizing the concept of marriage might have negative effects that won't become obvious until the next generation has completely grown up with the idea? There are no historical examples of SSM that lasted long enough to be successful, and this fact at least deserves an explanation.

We cannot prevent SSM from being enacted in some places. The most we can do is slow down the train enough so that if the effect on culture is a disastrous one, there will still be some Western countries that will not have been hopelessly damaged, and can lead the others back to a reasonable state that reverses the excesses without throwing the baby (toleration for gays) out with the bath water.

"The question is, will the 'something else' be the right of polygamists to have the law acknowledge their form of family or of family members to enter into marriage with each other to facilitate mutual care or of singles to register with themselves or, on the other hand, the right of children to have their parents be forced to make every effort to keep the vow that they made to each other and (by implication) to the children that came of those unions." You forgot the really important one: the right of minor-attracted adults to... express themselves... without fear of prosecution.

The Communists (or more properly cultural Marxists) never had much success in America with its search for a proletariat.
The poor found it too easy to move up the ladder and get rich.
Blacks had suffered just too much, and are too Christian to risk their plight on a tenuous ideology.
Women simply like men too much (naturally) and want babies too much to genuinely move against the “patriarchy” in mass.

Among homosexuals however they have garnered great success.
Both the leadership and the rank and file seem thoroughly invested in this class struggle.
They are the ultimate proletariat – the permanently disenfranchised.
They will never be able to do anything except grossly approximate the family; an institution that the overwhelming bulk of society reveres and strives to emulate (with general success).
They are by the very nature of their orientation (chosen or otherwise) cut off from this cycle of life that all human cultures have exalted and built their societies around.

This is why they are the “permanently disenfranchised” and the “ultimate proletariat”.
This is why they are so easily radicalized and seek to tear down are most foundational institutions. This is why they employ such brute tactics.

Fitz
(just looking for some feed back on what i believe is a cogent analysis)

Fitz -
when the stated goals of the mainstream gay/lesbian political-cultural movement -
the 'permanent proletariat' in your words -
center around, in no particular order,
getting married, adopting children, joining
the military and working without fear
of discriminatory firing and hiring policies -
well, if that's your idea of cultural Marxism,
our maps are not matching up.

There is a radical wing of the above-mentioned
movement, but there is a radical wing of almost
every movement for social change or transformation. A 'queer activist' agitating for the destruction of the family (or state) is precisely as representative of the wider movement as a Reconstructionist agitating for a theocratic government is representative of conservative Christians.

Lenin used the term "usefull idiot" In this he was refering to the great majority of the people who follow the coarse with out realizing its intended destination.
Look up Gramscian Marxism & something called the Franfurt school of marxism.

As you say...
"stated goals of the mainstream gay/lesbian political-cultural movement -
the 'permanent proletariat' in your words -
center around, in no particular order,
getting married, adopting children, joining
the military and working without fear
of discriminatory firing and hiring policies "

However, - as a matter of fact - we know that only a small percentage of the homosexuals do evail themselves of the right to mary (Canada, Scandanavia, Mass) & the dire social effects that gay unions has on the instition of marriage as a whole (Scandanavia-Netherlands ect)

It is these desired effects that the cultural marxist has as his ultimante end (called creative destruction meant to pave the way for the "new man", or workers paradise or whatever)

As a philosophy major we understand that ideas matter and their real genisus need not be fully or even partially aware to the exsposer of them.
Hence- usefull idiot..

The point is that Marxist thinking in the sense of a class struggle and revolutionary mind set. (this is often a point of confusion)
That aspect of class struggle (and the consequent need for revolution) is what the academic left and the activists have been able to preserve most effectively and use politically.
Notice how I made parallels to other groups that Marxist thinkers have attempted to radicalize. (And how it has failed)

With homosexualists thought however (& feminist) I believe the greatest gains have been made among homosexuals as a group in co-opting their thinking precisely because
of this “cut – off” from the cycle of life theory I propagated
Marriage & child rearing is a very meaningful and fulfilling institution that the all cultures have exalted and that people who cannot by the very nature of their relationship (gays) take part in – end up feeling left out and marginalized. It is this insecurity that the Marxists have exploited in their subversion of institutions like marriage.

Hope that helps
Fitz

So, the Marxian radicalized homosexualists, in their drive to subvert the institution of marriage and child-rearing, wish to. . .
marry and raise children?

I have to admit, I don't find this convincing.

For the last twenty years, I've heard people from a certain part of the political/cultural/social spectrum criticizing gay men (in particular) for living self-indulgent, narcissistic, consumerist lives, shunning the responsibilities of adulthood for the pleasures of a protracted adolescence.
To hear now that the problem is completely different is at least a change.

For the record, as a (former) history major I am moderately familiar with the dialectic you refer to. My skepticism is not reflexive, but the product of that familiarity.

Breeeee! Debatorial foul!

I'm working on something else, just now, so I've only been watching the discussion as it's unfolded. But so as to keep things on a productive course, I must jump in and note a bit of missed communication.

Robert writes:

So, the Marxian radicalized homosexualists, in their drive to subvert the institution of marriage and child-rearing, wish to. . . marry and raise children?

This ignores the following point from Fitz:

However, - as a matter of fact - we know that only a small percentage of the homosexuals do [avail] themselves of the right to [marry] (Canada, Scandanavia, Mass)...

Robert is failing to separate two distinct propositions:

1. That homosexuals want the right to marry each other.
2. That homosexuals in fact want to marry each other (whether according to traditional terms or their own).

Pursuing #1 in the absense of #2 is certainly not incompatible with a "drive to subvert the institution of marriage and child-rearing."

Its not that they "want" to its that thats the intellectual /philisophical/historical antecedants of the current debate.

As a history major you know that were we are going has everything to do with were we have been.

That "dialectic" Im refering to is playing itself out. (and has found a host in gays - the ultimante proletariate)

I am curious though- since you assign such innocent motives (and I agree, most homosexuals i know are not aware of the damage their cause is doing)why are they so reluctant to accept traditionalist arguments in the light of the devestation that has been wrought in Scandanavia

thanks

I (me, myself, the actual person)want the right to marry because I want to marry my husband (legally, that is, not just in a Christian marriage ceremony conducted by a Baptist minister, which we did years ago).

That's why I, personally, want that right. If there are people out there agitating for the right to marry who have no interest in gay men or lesbians actually getting married, I'm both unaware of and, frankly, indifferent to that. The supposition that many of those involved in this struggle are motivated by a desire to denature (pardon the pun) the institution of marriage, and by so doing destabilize societal norms, strikes me as the sort of extraordinary claim for which extraordinary evidence is required. Those 'queer' activists who do subscribe to the sorts of quasi-Marxian beliefs Fitz refers to (Matt Bernstein Sycamore comes to mind) are typically fiercely critical of the mainstream drive for same-sex marriage as assimilationist and counterrevolutionary.

Regarding the 'devastation' in Scandinavia, I have no confidence that it has been caused by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Correlation is not always causation - in this case, one could argue with equal conviction that the social changes that have led acceptance of cohabitation, unmarried parenthood and frequent divorce have also led to acceptance of SSM.

Robert,

I'd go gather you some evidence (Stanley Kurtz has a number of relevant pieces... heck, even in my piece in the current National Review, I note that Andrew Sullivan has stated more than once that he has no interest in marrying), but I'm not sure what purpose it would serve if you're "indifferent" to it.

Frankly, the fact that you so brazenly declare indifference strikes me as potential evidence that Fitz is correct that "Marxists have exploited" the "insecurity" of those who are "'cut-off' from the cycle of life." The effect that your cause will have on the society-sustaining institution seems of no concern to you.

I have no personal interest in serving in our nation's armed forces (too busy working in a VA hospital right now, as well as raising a child),
but I do agree with people who want to so serve, despite being openly gay or lesbian.

They would be indifferent to my reasons for supporting them, I believe, as long as they knew I was doing so. I do not believe that SSM will have any significant negative effects on the 'society-sustaining institution' - therefore, the motivations of those supporting its legalization and normalization are less important that the fact that they do so. If Mr. Sullivan does not want to get married, yet supports my right to do so, I see no contradiction.

Also, as mentioned above, I am aware of radical 'queer' activists who do support a Marxian undermining and destabilization of 'straight' society - and almost without exception, they deride and decry the campaign for SSM. How could that be reconciled with Fitz's model?

What I would like to see you explain Robert, is why you believe marriage is a right. That is what does not make any sense to me.

I am aware of radical 'queer' activists who do support a Marxian undermining and destabilization of 'straight' society - and almost without exception, they deride and decry the campaign for SSM. How could that be reconciled with Fitz's model?

I'm not confident that you won't be able to, but I wonder whether you could find an example of this in a major publication from the past year or two.

Fitz -
Marriage is (in my view) one of those places where the personal life of the individual/citizen and the power of the state come together. I have committed myself - on every level - to be with my husband for the rest of my life. We ARE married, in every way that matters to us - except legally. The state has told us that what we are, who we are, is not real. We have been offered a separate-but-equal accommodation in the form of a domestic partnership. Half a loaf is better than none, but a whole loaf is preferable.

Short answer - it is not a right _now_. As of today, certain people have the legal right to marry the (single, adult, competent) person of their choice - assuming mutual consent - and certain people do not. I could marry my husband's sister, and it would be perfectly legal - I have that right right now. Fifty years ago, it would have been illegal in many states - I would not have had that right then. Rights are not some glowing light up in the sky that's existed since before the dawn of Time, and, as far as I can see, neither is marriage. Both are mutable human institutions. I do not have the right to own slaves, or rent my son out as a day laborer. In 1850, I would have had both those rights (in some areas).

Justin - the people I was referring to do not get published in "major publications". You could refer to www.suspectthoughts.com or www.gayshamesf.org as starting points. I should advise you that the views you will encounter will seem extreme and repugnant to you. I know they seem so to me.

Robert,

Honestly, if I had the time, I'd do the digging for you, but if you look through some of Stanley Kurtz's writing on the topic, you'll find examples of gay activists using much more prominent platforms to argue that same-sex marriage is a method of breaking down the institution.

As for this:

Rights are not some glowing light up in the sky that's existed since before the dawn of Time, and, as far as I can see, neither is marriage. Both are mutable human institutions.

It appears you reject the founding premise of our nation (again, not out of keeping with the proposition that "'Marxists have exploited' the 'insecurity' of those who are '"cut-off"' from the cycle of life.'"):

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...

(N.B. — I don't mean any of this to be snide or insulting. It just seems to me that you're spinning off examples of the very mindset that you're seeking to refute as a factor.)

Justin -
by that rationale, you could argue that any atheist likewise rejects the founding premise of our nation - no Creator, no inalienable rights.

The rights promulgated by the writers of the Declaration (and later, the Constitution) are not the same as the rights we have today. In most cases, they are broader; in some cases, narrower. In many cases, though, not the same.

I am unfamiliar with both the name and works of Stanley Kurtz, and appreciate the reference.

One of the things that provokes me about the imputation (which I understand is not intended as snide or insulting) is that I have long been the chief opponent (among my own set) of moral or philosophical relativism, as a subset of which I tend to view crypto-Marxianism. Since I tend to take the long view of history, currently popular academic or intellectual fashions (e.g., deconstructionism) tend to appeal to me much as ragweed or dandelions do. So, to have such a fashionable cut detected in my disputational garments is in no small regard distressing. I sincerely hope it is a trick of couture, and not woven into the fabric.

I have appreciated the colloquy, but will be unable to participate until next week. My thanks to you, and best wishes for a safe and blessed New Year.

Robert,
You did not do a very good job of explaining why you believe that marriage is a right. You've made it abundantly clear that you think you are being excluded from this 'right', but that still does not explain why you consider it a right.

And I'm not Fitz.