The Sexual Revolution, Courtesy of Big Government

One of the more amusing tricks in American politics is when progressive libertines call themselves “libertarians” or confuse their sexual self-indulgence with a “strong libertarian streak.”

In reality, however, the sexual revolution is sustained and empowered by government and quickly unravels unless propped up by a paternalistic state.  While it’s fairly obvious that legalized abortion, no-fault divorce, and — to a lesser extent — the new HHS contraception mandate, create the legal structures necessary to launch a more libertine, self-indulgent lifestyle, less obvious is the extent to which government moves to mitigate the rather dramatic negative cultural and economic effects of that same self-indulgence.

We conservatives spend much time bemoaning the extent to which the “nanny” state is impairing our liberties and taking the place of parents, but when you talk to teachers at inner-city or poor rural school districts, they often say that the nanny state is taking the place of . . . well, nothing at all. Our fatherless kids are being fed breakfast, lunch, and sometimes now even a school dinner, and why not ban Happy Meals if there’s no competent parent around to say “no” when kids want to eat too much junk? In fact, much of the apparatus of state entitlement is built around the presumption that citizens should enjoy a certain standard of living regardless of their personal choices and conduct.

In fact, the Obama campaign is exploiting this apparatus with its “Julia” ad and its “war on women” rhetoric.  After the sexual revolutionaries annihilated the family, they left millions upon millions of Americans from two entire generations without the extended family support their descendants — even their poor descendants — depended on to help them through tough times.  When there’s no working parents to save for college, you need Julia’s scholarships.  When there’s no potential husband and father in sight, but you want to have sex, then you need Julia’s free contraceptives.  And when those contraceptives fail (as they tend to do, given enough opportunities), you need either Julia’s free abortion or Julia’s free day care.  Unfortunately, however, this labyrinth of paternalism doesn’t empower, it enables — leaving millions of Americans deep in pits of their  own making, with life just tolerable enough to avoid painful choices and meaningful self-sacrifice.

If citizens were forced to bear more of the weight of their sexual decisions, would those decisions be different? History suggests the answer is a rather decisive “yes.”

So faced with rising illegitimacy and the resulting intractable poverty (the “stickiness” at the bottom of the income ladder isn’t due to greedy bankers — sorry #Occupy — but to shattered families), do we begin to roll back the “reforms” that facilitate the revolution that is bankrupting us? By no means. Our government pushes forward, full speed ahead, separating sex even further from marriage, separating marriage from procreation, and throwing trillions of dollars at the inevitable (and tragic) cultural consequences.

We social conservatives hold the line on same-sex marriage not because we think it is more destructive than abortion and no-fault divorce (obviously it is not) but because all of these trends are rooted in the same destructive ideological and spiritual impulses that lead us to discard natural law, privilege adult wants over all other values, and erase even our most long-held liberties in the name of sexual desire.

  • Joe Canner

    Sorry, but same-sex marriage is not about sexual desire. Many people (straight and gay) will continue to have sex whether they get married or not. Legalizing same-sex marriage is about giving gays who love each other and are committed to one another the same legal rights as straight couples. This will *strengthen* families and perhaps reverse some of the distressing trends you refer to.

  • Fiver

    I dunno… I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation. The discussion of ‘divorcing sex from marriage’ and ‘separating marriage from procreation’ can be worded another way: ‘giving women control of their pregnancies’. We know that this has benefits for society, both for unmarried and married women: reducing unplanned pregnancies reduces poverty and gives children a better chance of being born into commited, loving relationships. Even if you ignored this concept, the tremendous saving in health care alone would make it worth the government’s money to allow, provide, and even promote contraception.

    • David French

      I think you’re overestimating women’s control in the abortion-on-demand regime — many, many women are coerced into abortions by future deadbeat dads and by angry families. Abortion is another method of oppression for millions of women.

      And reducing unplanned pregnancies doesn’t reduce poverty; reducing single parenthood reduces poverty. They are not the same thing.

    • David French

      Additionally, even though contraception and abortion far outstrip their availability pre-sexual revolution, unwed pregnancy continues to rise and rise and rise.

  • Charlotte

    I agree with you that none of the things you are against should be subsidized by the government, but won’t prohibiting them be just as paternalistic?