The Big Winner of the Gay “Marriage” Struggle

David Brooks, Useful Idiot, prophesies the massive panacaeic benefits that gay “marriage” will confer on the world.  Meanwhile, Ms Gessen openly and frankly says that the goal of gay “marriage” is to destroy marriage and the family because they get in the way of homosex.

Meanwhile, as in every revolt against Catholic teaching since the Reformation, the big winners will not be the revolutionaries.  It will be Caesar.  Caesar was content while the funny little Protestants went on about their theological theories.  They were useful in attacking the Church.  Once their utility ceased, Caesar stopped pretending to care about their funny little theories.  Gay “marriage” and similar cultural fads will one day be discarded too once Caesar’s unvarying goal–the acquisition of all-controlling power–has sufficiently pulverized the family into atomized individuals who cannot band together to resist the State and whose freedom and lives are treated as gifts of the State’s largesse.  When you make “marriage” mean anything, you make it mean nothing.  And when marriage means nothing, the family means nothing.  And when the family means nothing, the state steps in to make it mean whatever arbitrary force and power wills it to mean.

When you make consent the sole criterion of the good and “Do your own thing” the highest conception of the good you are, like a goose running toward the farmer who calls “Dilly! Dilly!  Come and be killed!” playing into a timeless military strategy: “Divide and conquer.”

The big winner in the gay “marriage” struggle will be Caesar.  Because our Ruling Class never forgets that the dynamic is Our Ruling Class vs. the rest of us.

An Irish Reader on the Gay "Marriage" Push in Ireland, as well as Other Stuff
Hysteria about the Indiana RFRA is the Ebola Panic for Lefties
The GOP: On the Cutting Edge of the Late 19th Century
Tennessee Senator Denies 280,000 People Health Care
  • SteveP

    According to Edith Windsor, the point of marriage is a tax break – thus her brief filed with SCOTUS. You’ve probably forecast it correctly: rather than eliminating estate tax, the taxing authority will take the tax on all estates equally regardless of the heritor. Thus a woman will torpedo a measure meant to protect widows, the State grows, progress is declared.

  • Dale Price

    Far from being a threat to the Leviathan State, atomistic individualism is one of its unwitting best friends.

    • Jon W


      Well said.

      • Pavel Chichikov

        Agree. Great article, Mark.

      • The Ubiquitous

        Ditto. I’ve shared this blog post not for the content but for this comment.

  • Billy Bean

    One of the State’s most time-honored means of concentrating power is to fill in for delinquent intermediate authority structures which have abdicated (or been forced out of) their order-keeping roles. It is then that Caesar charges in on a white steed to provide order in the midst of the threat of social chaos. He is often welcomed as a liberating messiah.

  • Stephen J.

    Let us be ruthlessly fair: the goal of some pro-SSM activists is the eventual deconstruction of marriage as an institution. I still think the majority of GLBT people who want the publicly and legally validated ceremonies are, in their own way, paying tribute to the value of that institution; for if marriage did not have an innate value of its own — pre-extant to the State, recognized regardless of the State, and ultimately indestructible by the State — their pleas to participate in it would rouse much less genuine empathy and compassion.

    Their tragedy is that what they are pleading to participate in is not marriage per se but a misapprehension of that institution cast in the only terms by which they understand it to have value, i.e. legal privilege and adult gratification. And they cannot be entirely faulted for this misapprehension as it is largely something the culture at large has created by treating marriage this way in practice.

    But marriage will survive, one way or another, as no State has or ever will, until humanity’s end.

    • Irksome1

      I think Ms. Gessen’s position is even more problematic than that. I mean, if you inculcate an attitude which says, essentially, that those who experience same-sex attractions are inherently dishonest (or, at least, more suceptible to dishonest dealings) then why would you take at face value the testimony of one of these who calls himself “chaste?” Wouldn’t it be more prudent to hold such people under suspicion of being gay conversos? After all, didn’t every member of the so-called “Lavender Mafia” also claim “chastity?”

  • Dustin

    I opined here on Gessen a couple weeks ago. The Illinois Family article is aggravating in how it says that Gessen “admits” that activists are just to destroy marriage, as if she alone was the true spokesperson of the movement and saw into the minds of everyone involved in working for marriage equality, as if everyone here in WA who spent months talking about the importance of family and of bringing gay couples into the fold of protection offered by marriage were sneaky liars, and Gessen alone knows the real story. Everybody does this, seeking out the most radical position among our ideological rivals and claiming that the radical is the “true” face of the movement. We seem to believe that people who disagree with us can’t possible be good people, but must be monsters out to destroy us.

    I try very hard to resist this whenever people I strongly disagree with occupy my thoughts. I try to understand their fears and concerns and find arguments that address them. I don’t think the Westboro Baptist Church is the true face of those opposed to gay rights. I’m saddened when people on the other side whom I have quite a lot of respect for, like you, Mark, do this.

    • Dale Price

      But how much of an outlier is she? An essay expressing the same sentiments was published in Salon last month.

      The “Beyond Marriage” petition isn’t a collection of non-entities, either.

      The make or break question: How fringe-y are Ms. Gessen’s sentiments? It is not unreasonable–at all–to be concerned.

      • Dustin

        Despite Kohn and Gessen’s dreams, the gay rights movement has followed the trajectory of most radical movements that achieve any kind of success. With acceptance of gay people having been almost completely mainstreamed, it’s taken on an aura of respectability that radicals find distasteful. It’s the hipster analogue: it’s popular, so now it sucks. They wanted rights and an end to persecution and harassment, they got it, and won so overwhelmingly that they’re now victims of their success. Radicals are incapable of accepting victory, will never cease to push, and can’t accept when they’ve actually reached their goal. Political purists aren’t satisfied with winning; if they don’t win on precisely their defined terms, it isn’t good enough.

        That said, I like the HuffPo article that the Kohn’s Salon piece links to. I think the suggestions in her sixth paragraph are good ideas:

        I hope I got the block-quote tags right.

        • enness

          “They wanted rights and an end to persecution and harassment, they got it, and won so overwhelmingly that they’re now victims of their success. Radicals are incapable of accepting victory”
          Unless they actually want more than that, and are not finished yet.

          And yes, there may be a few good ideas below.

      • Dustin

        Nope. Let’s try again. Here’s the quote I meant to include:

        “For the rest of us who otherwise value the role of government in our lives, benefits and rights can as easily be based on family functions, not forms. If I am my best friend’s primary caregiver, then I should be able to sign up to be one of, say, three people who have hospital visitation rights. If I want my closest aunt to be my Social Security beneficiary, why should the government stop me from signing her up?”

    • enness

      Of course I don’t believe she represents all people. The problem is, the radicals will win because they aren’t taken seriously. That allows them to act under cover. It’s actually a tremendous advantage sometimes, not being taken seriously, being able to hide in plain sight. While the “useful idiots” as Mark terms them are still drinking champagne, radicals will be be moving on to Phase 2.

  • Dustin

    The second sentence of my 10:29 should read, “just out to destroy marriage.” And, obviously, the “was” that follows it a few words later should read “were.” I’m not much of a proofreader.

  • Pavel Chichikov


    Some horses are afraid of sticks -
    The rider begged me to obscure
    My walking stick behind my back
    And that would make it feel secure

    So in another way they screen
    Their purposes until the day
    When they can show us what they mean -
    It will be late to shy away

    The public is a skittish steed
    That must be guided past the stick,
    Then they beat it till it bleeds
    Because they know the subtle trick

    To set the punishment apart
    Until you have it in the stall,
    Power is a subtle art
    Until they’re backed against the wall

    April 17, 2013

  • Dustin

    Is anyone else completely locked out of the “Ideology” thread because of the redirect? I

    • Jon W

      THEY GOT DUSTIN!!!!!!!!

  • bob

    I figure the article is being “sincere” though I don’t imagine there’s a Protocols of The Elders of Gayness being assembled at secret meetings of the World President of all the homosexual people. The fact that one person is telling it like it is doesn’t surprise me. One of the hallmarks of gay activists seems to be a complete inability to understand how their ideas effect other people. clueless. Whether or not people want to admit it, same sex “marriage” IS destructive to actual marriage.

    • Newp Ort

      My latest orders (which I get encoded in certain daily newspapers) tell me that we should ridicule this woman as a fringe idiot, thus causing more confusion and making everyone doubt our true goals. But I admit nothing.

  • kmk

    And of course the big losers are the poor young children who have to muddle through and then explain their non-family structures to their friends and acquaintances.

  • Rosemarie


    I always thought the big winners would be the divorce lawyers. More marriages, more divorce cases, more money for them. But yeah, Caesar, too.

    • bob

      The children certainly have an interesting time ahead. What does the daughter of two men hear when she someday asks, “Seriously, who are my actual parents?” Sorry kid. None of your go**** business. This isn’t about you, it’s about us and inheritance.
      The lawyers really will clean up. One thing the clergy I know agree on, having around 200 years of cumulative pastoral experience: Gay relationships are 99% fleeting things. The couples who claim 40 years or something of sort of wedded bliss are almost non existent. The same sex marriages will be short lived, and *costly*. In no fault divorce states like Washington, after 3 such dis-unions a person will probably be bankrupt having lost 50% of their money each time. Not likely. They’ll see the light and go back to living together. They’ll have made their point. Acquiring the right to “marry” wasn’t for real. It was to destroy marriage. I don’t need anyone to *admit* the obvious.

      • enness

        On person I know is already divorced and re-”married” in the short time since we met. I’m not trying to be derogatory, that’s just a fact.

  • Tom R

    > “as in every revolt against Catholic teaching since the Reformation, the big winners will not be the revolutionaries. It will be Caesar.”
    Like most statements by Mark that include the words “Protestant” or “Reformation”, this one yields some interesting comparisons when subjected to a test of falsification.
    This statement would, for example, suggest that in pre-1917 Russia – where the dominance of Orthodoxy was (as writers like R Joseph Hoffman have noted) never challenged to a significant extent by anything remotely resembling the Reformation in Western Europe – the power of the state over the individual should be less than in those countries of Western Europe that, as Voltaire put it, had the great misfortune to no longer be subjects of the Pope?

    • The Ubiquitous

      Ah. So Orthodoxy equals Catholicism. Interesting.

      • The Ubiquitous

        Less glibly, this does not at all lend the slightest relevance to the issues at hand. If the West in revolt had the misfortune to no longer be subjects of the Pope, the East (in Russia) had the misfortune of never being subjects of the Pope.

        Orthodoxy is at bottom as atomistic and deferential to imperial authority as Protestantism. It is the one common thread between the two — rejection of Papal authority with acceptance of civil authority to replace it. If anything, the example of Orthodoxy does not deny the truth of Shea’s claim, but buttresses it.

  • Tom R

    Well, Ubiquitous, whether Orthodoxy = Catholicism seems to vary depending what issue one is debating. Whenever I respond to the tired old fresh vigorous anti-Protestant trope “Sola Scriptura cannot be correct, because its adherents have been in schism from each other for 500 years” by asking what that says about “Sacred Tradition” and “Apostolic Succession” whose adherents have been in schism from each other for 1000 years, I am assured that Rome and Constantinople are 99% on the same page and are ready to reunify any day now once a few minor issues of wording are sorted out. Whereas the Ustashi, for example, seemed to have never received this memo, and likewise most of the Orthodox resent very vocally any suggestion that they have any dog in the fight between Rome and Geneva.
    I am not talking about the Orthodox before the Reformation. Mark specified “since the Reformation” so I am comparing Western Christianity, which had a Reformation, to Eastern Christianity, which didn’t, so as to subject to empirical proof the rather counter-intuitive claim that Christianity without a Reformation would have seen the State wield less power over the individual than Christianity after the Reformation.
    If you want to put the East on the “anti-Catholic” side (being aware that may bite you later if you want t play the “before Luther, 99% of Christendom was united” card), then try such Catholic countries as Spain, Portugal and the non-Communist parts of Latin America, less than half a century ago. The Iberian countries and their colonies were untouched by either 1054 or the Reformation.
    On further thoughts, I think this disagreement may be a question of definition. Mark probably sees the pre-Reformation Church in, say, England as separate from the State whereas Protestants would apply the “quacks like a duck” test to conclude that if, say, the King’s Lord Chancellor Sir Thomas More is ordering people to be put to death for heresy against the established church, then functionally speaking, the state and the church are as one. Functional tests are a very Protestant way of approaching issues and I acknowledge that Catholics have a different epistemology (hence divorce vs annulments, contraception vs NFP, iconoduly vs idolatry, and various other issues)(.

    • The Ubiquitous

      What would you say is the one percent of teaching that Orthodox disagree on? (Hint: Issa Pope-acy.)

      Also, would you say that this is fantastically relevant to Mr. Shea’s claim? (Hint: You’d better, because the whole point here is that a international body independent of Ceasar — capable in practical terms only through union with the papacy — is not admired by Ceasar, but pet religion, in the forms of Protestantism and Orthodoxy, is admired as useful.)