Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Gay Marriage and the Soft Totalitarianism it Implies

I use the term "soft fascism" every now and again on this blog to denote the intolerance of those on the Left who, while they LOVE to spout off about how inclusive and tolerant they are, they themselves are the most hate-filled, INtolerant bigots on the face of the planet. As author Jonah Goldberg wrote in his landmark classic, Liberal Fascism, The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, (quoting comedian George Carlin) "When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will be in Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley."

For example, one way the closed-minded, uncritically thinking screech-monkeys that support gay marriage scarcely notice their strong resemble to their ideological cousins, the racist segregationists of the American south from several decades ago, is in their arguments that they so predictably invoke involving race to rally their cause. Or as columnist Glenn T. Stanton wrote, (paraphrasing David Blankenhorn), "..some Southern racists redefined marriage to make it something it was never supposed to be about — racial purity — when race is not any part of marriage. It was about making marriage do something it was never intended to do for the sake of their own narrow social ideals. Likewise, same-sex marriage advocates today are drafting marriage into their own narrow social cause, as a way to elevate the social standing of homosexuality. Like keeping the races apart then, marriage has no place in this special-interest-based re-engineering... If the Loving [v. Virginia] analogy is exact, we would have to conclude that our current laws on marriage as a male/female union stem from some effort to keep others in their place. Study the anthropological origins of marriage for as long as you want and you will find nothing of the sort."



Getting back to the Left's "soft fascism" resemblance on this particular subject, George Weigel writes of a couple that he knows from a former Eastern Bloc nation who are all too familiar with the coercive power of government to redefine reality and shape it into an imaginary construct of a bureaucratically-approved fairy tale...










"As analysts running the gamut from Hannah Arendt to Leszek Kolakowski understood, modern totalitarian systems were, at bottom, attempts to remake reality by redefining reality and remaking human beings in the process. Coercive state power was essential to this process, because reality doesn’t yield easily to remaking, and neither do people. In the lands Communism tried to remake, the human instinct for justice — justice that is rooted in reality rather than ephemeral opinion — was too strong to change the way tastemakers change fashions in the arts. Men and women had to be coerced into accepting, however sullenly, the Communist New Order, which was a new metaphysical, epistemological, and moral order — a New Order of reality, a new set of “truths,” and a new way of living “in harmony with society,” as late-bureaucratic Communist claptrap had it.

The 21st-century state’s attempt to redefine marriage is just such an attempt to redefine reality — in this case, a reality that existed before the state, for marriage as the union of a man and a woman ordered to mutual love and procreation is a human reality that existed before the state. And a just state is obliged to recognize, not redefine, it.

Moreover, marriage and the families that are built around marriage constitute one of the basic elements of civil society, that free space of free associations whose boundaries the just state must respect. If the 21st-century democratic state attempts to redefine something it has neither the capacity nor the authority to refine, it can only do so coercively. That redefinition, and its legal enforcement, is a grave encroachment into civil society.

If the state can redefine marriage and enforce that redefinition, it can do so with the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, the parent-child relationship, the confessor-penitent relationship, and virtually every other relationship that is woven into the texture of civil society. In doing so, the state does serious damage to the democratic project. Concurrently, it reduces what it tries to substitute for reality to farce."




When viewed in this light, the term "soft fascism" doesn't seem far-fetched at all.



21 comments:

GentleSkeptic said...

We would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before.

—David Blankenhorn, under an oath sworn on the Bible

Why do you hate America?

His Lordship The Gun-Toting Atheist said...

When viewed in this light, the term "soft fascism" doesn't seem far-fetched at all.

What IS far-fetched is the entire premise of this blog post.

GRANTING a right is not totalitarianism, and is not coercive. This baloney mumbo-jumbo of 'redefining reality' makes no sense at all. No one is forcing you to marry another dude.

Who cares about marriage and families anyway?

"Moreover, marriage and the families that are built around marriage constitute one of the basic elements of civil society"

No. The basic element of any society is the individual.

JD Curtis said...

Who? Me? I'll bet there are numerous leftists out there who consider themselves to be virtual paragons of tolerance and yet never considered their support of a totalitarian like viewpoint or the similarity that they share with segregationalists.

JD Curtis said...

GRANTING a right is not totalitarianism, and is not coercive

In order to grant the so-called "right" that was fashioned out of thin air, the term marriage had to be redefined. As blog follower and fabulously gay blogger Coco Loco put it...

"..."since it [gay marraige] is symbolic, one must consider the symbolic effect. If there is no word, in language, to delineate a same-sex from an opposite-sex couple, then why have words to delineate anything that's different? Why not give everyone who goes to school after college an MD, whether they were getting a JD, a PhD, or an MFA? Why not call everyone Reverend? Why not give me twenty bucks and a gold ribbon for being gay? I want it. I'm asking you for it. I am willing to blockade your office building if I can't have it."

That is of course unless you genuinely feel that homosexual couples havethe same type of relationships that married, heterosexual couples have. If so, then where's your evidence?

JD Curtis said...

The basic element of any society is the individual

And exactly how do more individuals come about?

His Lordship The Gun-Toting Atheist said...

Dear JD, I don't give a crap about gay marriage. I don't care.
I don't give a crap about heterosexual marriage. I don't care.

If all marriages were banned tomorrow, I wouldn't care. If people were allowed to marry donkeys tomorrow, I wouldn't care.

I think marriage is a bad idea for anyone (except for the lady who sues you for alimony when it falls apart), but I don't care what they do because it's not my problem. I don't care. It's their mistake to make. I'm a libertarian.

But saying that granting or recognizing a right is totalitarianism is false.

I am hereby recognizing your right go to Church and worship as you please. Does that make me totalitarian? Of course not. Think about it.

In order to grant the so-called "right" that was fashioned out of thin air

Rights DO come out of thin air. A right is an abstract legal concept that does not exist in nature. There are only TWO ways by which a right can come into existence.

1. By being GRANTED or RECOGNIZED by an AUTHORITY to a GRANTEE.
2. In the absence of a granting authority, one can simply TAKE it for themselves.

Might makes right.

If the government gives you the right to plant pink plastic flamingoes on your lawn, well, there you have it, you have the right to do so. Similarly, if no one prohibits you from putting garden gnomes on the roof of your house, same thing, you have that right.

Rights exist from the moment they are granted. There is no other way. We have the right of free speech in this country because men, a long time ago, kicked out the army of a foreign monarch with their muskets. So the right of free speech exists in this country as a result of that, because men killed other men to have that right. They took that right by force. Out of thin air, the right became theirs, and they wrote it into the bill of rights, and it was passed down to us by them. They took the right for themselves, and then they granted it to all Americans. Today, our current government still recognizes that right. That's how it works.

As blog follower and fabulously gay blogger Coco Loco put it...

I have no idea who Lucky Koko is. What is she even saying? I'm not following.

And exactly how do more individuals come about?

An individual gets pregnant. No family needed for that.

GentleSkeptic said...

In upside-down conservative world, people who wish to adjust a civil institution to make it more expansive and inclusive are "segregationalists," and legislation passed by a majority of duly-elected representatives from both parties is "fascism."

What happens when soft fascism get hard? That's what I want to know.

GentleSkeptic said...

"Blankenhorn, however, insisted that polygamy satisfied the principles of marriage because it involves a man who marries one woman at a time. Boies asked whether Blankenhorn was testifying that a man with five wives is consistent with his rule that marriage involves two people. Blankenhorn said yes, adding that the marriages did not occur at the same time, and “each marriage is distinct.” Link

"…gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea."David Blankenhorn

JD, WHY do you hate America and its ideals?

GentleSkeptic said...

LOL

JD, I just ran a little test. You've gotten a lot of mileage out of one comment from one gay, so I thought I'd see if I could track the original down. The results are here.

First three hits are YOU reposting HIS comment. Hilarious. It works for any set of words from the quote.

Now here's a little test for YOU to run. I want you to test the definition of marriage and the way people understand it. Go out this weekend and tell people you are "married". I'm curious to know if the word will confuse them because the state has redefined it. You can report back here on Monday.

JD Curtis said...

saying that granting or recognizing a right is totalitarianism is false

I don't think that the above author is actually commenting on "granting or recognozing rights" but rather the totalitarian way some governments wish to redefine the commonly accepted meaning of something.

An individual gets pregnant. No family needed for that

Now youre on the right track. Now, how have studies shown the optimal environment for children to be raised in?

JD Curtis said...

In upside-down conservative world, people who wish to adjust a civil institution to make it more expansive and inclusive are "segregationalists,"

Actually, in an upside-down world", certain homosexuals are demanding that they call their relationships "marriage" when nothing is preventing them from entering into exclusive, monogamous relationships.

I want you to test the definition of marriage and the way people understand it. Go out this weekend and tell people you are "married". I'm curious to know if the word will confuse them because the state has redefined it. You can report back here on Monday

GS, I want you to tell the next new friend that you make that your brother is "married" for 5 years now but averages about, say, eight different sex partners a year. Then ask your friend if this relationship constitutes "marriage" as the term has been commonly understood over the millenia and post their response here.

GentleSkeptic said...

But JD, I don't tell lies about my brother. Like me, he is monogamous. The point of your assignment is to test the claim you're making, which is that the state has redefined marriage. Just try it.

And seriously, drop the crap clause "as the term has been commonly understood over the millenia" unless you're trying to be the next David Blankenhorn.

Why do you hate America?

JD Curtis said...

Millenia as defined since the time of Christ

His Lordship The Gun-Toting Atheist said...

I don't think that the above author is actually commenting on "granting or recognozing rights" but rather the totalitarian way some governments wish to redefine the commonly accepted meaning of something.

I still don't see the 'totalitarian' connection. That sounds like a 'totalitarian' way to redefine the commonly accepted meaning of totalitarianism. If the objection is regarding calling a gay union 'marriage' just call it 'gayrriage' so there is no confusion and let's change the subject.

Now youre on the right track. Now, how have studies shown the optimal environment for children to be raised in?

I don't know of any studies, but my personal opinion is that the best environment is military school. Makes good citizens and sharp shooters.

GentleSkeptic said...

Millenia as defined since the time of Christ

Why are you trying to change the definition of millenia?

Fascist.

JD Curtis said...

Define the term "millenia" please and explain how I am altering it.

GentleSkeptic said...

Millennia: plural of millenium, more than one thousand years. You'd restrict it to mean exactly two thousand years. Soft Fascist.

Regardless: was King David, favored by Yahweh, MONOGAMOUS? I know how important that is to you.

BTW: thought of you when I saw this.

JD Curtis said...

I almost always think of you whenever I hear Roger speak

GentleSkeptic said...

"Social conservatives certainly have every right to try to influence the process and convince others that gay marriage is a bad idea, but it’s dicey for conservatives to argue with the results of votes on public policy by popularly elected state officials." —Jennifer Rubin

Bret “Ginx” Alan said...

Your comment policy is retarded.

JD Curtis said...

Ginx,

Your particular brand of bigotry is unwelcome here.

Please do not comment here, under any name or alias.

Thank you