They Stripped Marriage Of Its Sacredness To Sell Gay Marriage

The top-down imposition of gay marriage is now in the rearview mirror for America’s leftward drift. Will it grant legitimacy to such unions?

No. Legitimacy comes from widespread acceptance, not from imposition. Negative referendums, brow-beating by the media and volunteer thought police and five Supreme Court justices are not the sign of widespread acceptance. William Safire was right over a decade ago when he wrote that this gay marriage push was all over one word “marriage” and the legitimacy and approval that it granted. Those shocked at how fast this all happened may point to gay propaganda, but it is not just that. The media and academia smeared marriage long enough to remove the sacredness of the institution.

Many point to the skyrocketing support for gay marriage that has occurred in recent years. There are large, well-respected polls going back to the mid ’90s that show support around 25% and even in the mid ’00s support around 35%. It was a minority opinion to support gay marriage, but the conceptual granting of some recognition was not a minority. Tracking right along those same polls that showed a majority against gay marriage, were polls that showed a near majority or clear majority supported recognition of civil unions for homosexuals. A couple of decades of ‘gay is okay’ and ‘just like us’ propaganda did help put gay marriage over the top, as did five Supreme Court justices and every major corporation not named Chik-Fil-A.

Eventually enough Americans who already felt okay with gays being granted civil unions gave in on the word marriage. The religious did not do so, and that is because they could foresee the eventual fight over religion in general. The irreligious middle did. The somewhat religious caved. The type of people who say, “Half of all marriages end in divorce anyway so why not?” pushed it along. Half is a lie, but a lie the media loves to push. The divorce rate for first time marriages is under 40% now, and depends on the socioeconomic and educational status of the bride. Marriage is not a 50-50 chance as much as a 70% chance of succeeding. A bride over 25 with a college degree has a divorce rate half of the average.

Divorce has become an underclass plague with heavy correlation to minority brides, but no one wants to discuss that because we cannot criticize our duskier underclass for dysfunctional behavior. It is another method of using poor decisions and life outcomes of the underclass to manipulate core, middle class Americans into accepting, condoning, and emulating bad behavior.

Hollywood, the greatest propaganda machine ever created, consistently pumps out a message that marriage is no longer sacred in our culture. Television shows featured divorced leads, unhappily married women, unhappily married men, and few stable, loving marriages to serve as anchors for their familial networks. The act of getting married turned became the focus, rather than spiritual bonding, with the wedding day turning into a wedding pageant. The average wedding costs over $25,000, but in reality, many couples spend less than $10,000. Still, the status race for bigger and better weddings has grown. Psychotic behavior by brides has become a joke to the point where reality television has wedding shows named Bridezilla or micromanaged wedding pageant contests like Four Weddings.

Lost in that is that the wedding signifies the public declaration and recognition of a sacred union between man and woman. This is lost in topping prior weddings for food, covered chairs, decorations, music and party favors. It is a show where the woman is the star and the man just has to show up.

The activists sold you on marriage just being a list of benefits married people enjoyed, so gays needed that equal treatment, too. There are all of these benefits, and our egalitarian society can never deny someone government gimmedats. No one would pause for a moment and note the concrete financial benefits that the federal and state governments provide to unmarried mothers versus married mothers, but gosh darn it, one time in some mythical hospital a gay guy could not visit his lover dying of AIDS. Civil unions could grant all of the same benefits, but that was not enough. The gays wanted the word marriage. They wanted to be able to say to mom and dad, “See my relationship is real, buy me an anniversary card!” The homosexuals needed to receive auspices for their unions, and if the churches were still going to frown upon them, then the government could grant them that legitimacy. They failed to see that all they earned was the right for the government to administer their break ups.

The media created a false debate “marriage or no” to paint a battle between the evil bigots and righteous crusaders. No one mentioned the civil union approach. That solution was junked quickly, tipping the real target for using gays: religion. The Supreme Court even mentioned granting dignity in the ruling, which is comical considered how smeared marriage has become. If marriage is an oppressive institution for women, why push gays into it? If it is old and archaic, why do gays want it? Humpty Dumpty leftism strikes again! Marriage is awesome right now for this tiny group!

They want it because despite the smearing, we know the value of it. The emotional connection between couples. A newer wedding reception tradition is the anniversary dance. All married couples get on the dance floor to dance to one song. Every ten seconds the host asks couples married under X years to leave the floor. Those younger couples create a circle around those left dancing, and the couples are whittled down until it is the married couple with the longest tenure left. The crowd claps for the 50, 60 or 65 years the couple has been together. Some people will get teary-eyed because they recognize what those years mean. Usually, that couple shuffling on the dance floor is the elder statesmen duo of the family, and this wedding and the crowd is the extended product of their union. Song ends, the old man kisses his bride, and the new bride and groom hug the old couple. That long lived couple is the hoped for future for the new couple.

Everyone present understands that communal moment. Those dances make for great Kodak moments, but you would never see Hollywood push that. The media will push as much programming as possible to get you to forget the spiritual element to marriage. The weak-willed, who will forget they cried as they saw their grandparents dancing at a wedding, made the jump from civil unions for gays to marriage for gays because “Who cares? Marriage doesn’t matter anymore.” That moment of past and future and the implications of children for a new generation to repeat the cycle is part of the sacred moment and public recognition of marriage.

That spirit and legitimacy could never be granted by a government in a contentious manner to homosexuals who cannot reproduce. This is lost on the egalitarian pushers, it is lost on the herd creatures who forget, but it is not lost on us.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

16 Comments

  1. The top-down imposition of gay marriage is now in the rearview mirror for America’s leftward drift. Will it grant legitimacy to such unions?

    No. Legitimacy comes from widespread acceptance, not from imposition.

    I heard the same argument in the 50s regarding forced racial integration. Guess what. The people accepted it, as they will this.

    1. Marc, are you saying that all of America’s Racial Problems were solved by a few court cases? Quick, somebody tell Al and Jesse that they’ve become irrelevant! The Great Racial Divide, the basis of so many marches, and actions, and now TV Documentaries, doesn’t exist! It’s already been completely fixed by the Courts!

      You don’t get it, and you probably never will.

  2. Mr. Bahn,

    I’m afraid that you’re wrong as two boys fucking. Mr. Landry is correct. From its inception, sexual liberation was devised as a means of political control (per the line of thinking from De Sade on through the Marxist/Freudian eggheads and current corporate shills). Most people couldn’t care less about complex issues and just want to be left alone, but if someone can hit on a taboo and gin up orgasm-related controversy, they’ll come out and cheer (particularly fools and young people). TPP? Who cares? What matters is whether or not snowflakes can have a State-sanctioned ceremony to recognize how “FABULOUS” they are and piss off the kulaks. Cakes and so forth. Maybe a nice Facebook gimmick to provide a platform for social signalling of one’s moral superiority, tolerance, open-mindedness, and recognition that it’s 2015.

    Furthermore, denormalization may proceed apace, however, so do the consequences. Just ask the CDC. The mores, norms, and traditions that defined Western culture didn’t just osmossify themselves out of no where. They are based on centuries of collective survival mechanisms that expand the social carrying capacity for humanity. Contrary to what the cool kids say, sexual liberation doesn’t result in an egalitarian wonderland where all are loved and recognize one another’s dignity without judgement, and all that happy horseshit; but rather, it transforms civilization into a Darwinian fuck-to-death pile of burning shit. #StandardFuckParty #Dildocracy #WeAreGovernedAccordingToThePrinciplesOfProfessionalWrestling

    Also, racial segregation and poop-dick marriage are false equivalencies. One is a prohibition based on racial differences (affiliations which seem to reassert themselves to the detriment of social capital regardless of the egalitarian declarations of those such as yourself) and the other pertains to the desecration of a sacrament (formerly) protected by the State for the provision of its future citizens.

    Your dream is flawed. Utopia is for suckers.

  3. @ Bahn: I take that you were alive in the 1950s. That makes you pretty old, say if you were between the ages of 15-20.

    The Bahns of the world always find their way to these articles, and always manage to successfully show their derision.

  4. You are entirely correct that this issue was essentially lost as soon as you had the polls in the 90s showing people actually accepting of this behavior and wanting it legally recognized “somehow”. One of the main things that keeps perversion in check is a strong sexual economy with iron-cast sex roles. Sodomite acceptance was a predictable outcome of the women’s lib movement.

    Heck, if Suzy can cast of the “shackles” of womanhood to earn more than her cucked husband and demand the right to murder her unborn children, then why can’t Jimmy marry Steve… and his dog.

    One word encapsulates the solution to all of these perversions that scar the culture of Modernity.

    Patriarchy. Patriarchy. Patriarchy.

    Ecclesiastic courts and religious taboos are important in a very general sense, but for this issue, the most important thing is having an Ancient concept of where men and women stand.

  5. Whoa! Lighten up. I’m only the messenger.

    I’m not endorsing it. I merely see the same pattern playing out. And yes, I was about 15 – 20 when I saw my parent’s generation go from resolute resistance against integration to silent acceptance, within a decade. I knew then as I know now that any people that would accept something so antithetical to their interests and principles (and just plain common sense) would accept anything.

    The only thing that will stop the leftward drift in the United States is the determination to employ the second amendment of the US Constitution for the purpose for which it was intended. But if they lacked the willpower then, when the country was not yet thoroughly feminized, I’d have to be a fool to think they have the guts to do it now.

  6. Marc B, we have yet to see the end of the Integration Experiment. Heartiste has often said “Diversity + Proximity = War.” Despite all of the caterwauling about civil rights and the attempts to push blacks ahead while keeping whitey behind, blacks are as worse off as ever. The social engineering that was supposed to help them has all but crippled them by destroying their families, the country’s push towards globalization has destroyed their ability to make a living at low-skill work. They’ll be serfs for a good long time to come (or at least until the coming Race War.)

    The main reason for the present rise of genderfluidity and the tolerance of homosexuality in general is because resources are still abundant. In a resource rich, r-selected environment, strong polarized gender roles and aggressive masculinity become a liability. (There’s no reason to waste energy on aggression when there’s very little chance that you’ll starve. And since women don’t really need men around to raise their children, they no longer need to attract men by demonstrating feminine qualities.)

    All this, of course can only continue as long as the cheap resources and fiat money keep a-flowin’. The minute the spigot shuts off, people are going to panic. A quick glance through Tumblr and Twitter will show you several examples of mewling grown children, whining about how their lives were ruined when their mothers burned their lunches. God only knows how these pierced, neon-haired pudge-lings will fare once SHTF, but I’m guessing they won’t fare well.

  7. Mr. Bahn,

    I apologize for the friendly fire. I misunderstood. I thought you were with Them. When They went after The Dukes of Hazard…well, it ratched up the Defcon level on me. Sorry about that.

    As for the rest, what you just wrote makes me think of that book, The Fourth Turning; the WWII Gen losing power to the Baby Boomers and older members of the Silent Gen. If that pattern is true, then we have reason to hope. We’re gonna get through this. For now we just have to make it through all the full-spectrum faggotry.

  8. “Half of all marriages end in divorce anyway so why not?”

    “My car’s rear window is broken, so I might as well break all the other windows, slash the tires, and pour sugar in the gas tank, too!” It’s a bizarre argument from the left – that if something is a little bit broken, the answer is to break it more instead of fixing it – but as we all know, they will use any argument, no matter how bizarre or insensible, in order to get their way.

    As for Marc B, he’s only channeling Moldbug here. Public opinion really *is* merely a function of whose army is guarding the television station. And Moldbug, of course, was channeling Chomsky, except that Chomsky doesn’t want to talk about the fact that it’s as easy to manufacture consent for something like gay “marriage” as it is to manufacture it for any war.

    The Cathedral is a machine that pumps opinion into people’s minds. Right now, approval for gay “marriage” hovers around 60%, and it will likely stay there until that machine is finally switched off for good. Once it is, its effects will slowly but surely begin to wear off, similar to what we’ve been seeing in Russia over the past quarter century. It’s like the old joke about the Grateful Dead:

    Q: What did the Grateful Dead fan say when the marijuana wore off?

    A: “This music sucks!”

  9. Landry’s essay — brilliant but sad.
    Most of the comments — too verbose.

    1. That’s because I heavily moderate the comment section and delete the ones that aren’t interesting.

  10. J.D. Humphrey July 14, 2015 at 4:29 pm

    The author is correct, acceptance comes from widespread agreement. The hazard the author runs into is acceptance only comes from widespread agreement. When the youth have dealt with the “holy” union of marriage being extended to same sex couples in the form of state licencing and select clergy performing the ceremony, they will see that all the doom and gloom malcontents were wrong in their dire predictions and further turn their backs on the version of “holiness” this author ascribes to. Further hammering the nail into the coffin of malcontent, I mean conservative Christianity. My children’s children may ask me one day what the big deal was, I hope to tell them a group of people who thought they were masters of their domain lost a privileged status in society for the thousand years of darkness they reigned down on “other” people groups, the last to wrestle from the oppressive grip of the demon Jehovah and his only begotten deceiver were homosexuals. But alas grandchildren, light of reason and the truth of equal rights under the state showed through, and the would be theo-tyrants lost the last vesta of their power over the culture and minds of man. This is why grandchildren shortly after the gays won the right to equal protection under the law, you heard the malcontent Christians cry from the hilltops that freedom was a sin, and true freedom was to be a slave to their Tyrant god. Never understanding that if they didn’t want a gay marriage, they shouldn’t marry a gay person.

    1. I apologize to Bahn for my post. It seems that post was meant for Humphrey.

  11. Up until now, I haven’t made any online comments on gay marriage. I admit to being neither for it or against it as I try to understand the implications and come to grips whether I should have an opinion on it or not. A selfish attitude perhaps, but it doesn’t affect my marriage or my life and I have other things that I feel are more worthy of my efforts. However, I have a couple of observations. “Marriage” as a sacred practice has been trivialized for decades before now. And it hasn’t just been by the efforts of the State. I feel that many churches have been contributors in the process by refusing to marry anyone who is not assessed as active or future participants in that church. In excluding those that they do not deem as valuable contributors to their organizations, the churches have pushed the bulk of marriage ceremonies and responsibilities onto the State and divulged the sacred, religious aspect of the ceremony. The separation of Church and State leaves no other option over time as procedures and practices are continually examined, than to be inclusive of all peoples, regardless of race, sexual orientation and whatever other classifications we have now or develop in the future, in State ceremonies and traditions. Looking forward to any comments.

  12. Haven Monahan July 14, 2015 at 6:51 pm

    No. Legitimacy comes from widespread acceptance, not from imposition.

    No, widespread social acceptance does not confer legitimacy. Slavery is not right just because the mob says so.

    The acceptance of gay marriage has come about because of a change in how we understand what marriage is. The question to ask people is: what differentiates a marriage from a long term legally recognised cohabitation? If you can’t spot the difference then you’re part of the problem.

    Traditional societies married through a religious ceremony or blessing. The union was meant to have supernatural dimension, insofar as the union was not just two people shacking up, but two people in a union blessed by the God/Gods. And the Gods were only going to give their blessing provided certain rules were kept.

    This is why atheism is such a potent poison to the institution of marriage, it undermines the very conceptual framework. Marriage in an atheistic environment becomes something “two people just do” and the state simply confers upon it some privileges. What the State chooses to recognise is a political thing and hence a function of politics. Politics is second order to culture; so change the culture, change politics, change marriage. Hence the importance of Cathedral Prolefeed in a demokraci.

  13. I fear that Marc Bahn is correct. Taking a static look at the situation, the political reality of gay marriage has been rammed down the throats of a partially unwilling public. However, the demographic showing the most support for gay marriage has been the youngest generation: the future of this country.

    More fundamentally though, Landry is correct that marriage has been degraded. While gay marriage has been a result of a long campaign of degradation, I’m not convinced that it was the reason for this campaign, and to my mind seems like a symptom of the disease rather than the disease itself.

    And example of this would be the response of a liberal Protestant clergyman when presented with the following text from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer marriage ceremony stating three cardinal reasons for marriage:

    First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
    Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
    Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

    His response was to edit the text to the following:

    Marriage was ordained as a gift of God for the joy, comfort, and blessing of a man and woman, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.
    Marriage was ordained so that children, if they come, will be brought up in awe and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

    The notion that marriage merely exists so a man and a woman can enjoy each other’s company, that the raising of children is a secondary and optional concern, and the removal of all reference to the fact that marriage serves as an institution against fornication very much reflects the modern understanding of marriage. Given that starting point, it is no wonder that the political winds have shifted and allowed such a laughable idea as gay marriage to become the law of the land.

Comments are closed.