Should this be our final stand?

I haven’t written much about New York’s legalization of gay”marriage”, not because it isn’t important, but because I’ve already said it all already.

Many conservatives are wondering how much they should stake in this fight.  We’re bound to lose and our children–who will be brought up to worship fags–will hate us for trying.  Would it perhaps be better to retreat now and save a bit of credibility for future fights?  To these conservatives, I would ask “what future fights?”  Where can we possibly stand if we give in here?  The entire point of conservatism is to defend the patriarchal family and the Christian church.  By accepting gay “marriage” we delegitimate the former–by renouncing the gender role distinctions on which it is based–and we declare the latter to be a false religion.  Yes, accepting gay “marriage” logically means that one regards Christianity as a false religion; not only false, but criminally false, a religion whose tenets are not only wrong but wicked.  And not only Christianity, but our whole civilization, which based itself on patriarchy and Christianity, is renounced.  This renunciation is to be taught to our children as self-evident truth.  Nor will any meaningful sexual morality be possible to those who are forced to affirm the lifestyle of the sodomites.  On what grounds can one condemn masturbation and contraception among the heterosexuals, if sodomitical unions are to be approved?  On what grounds can one condemn fornication and divorce among heterosexuals, if the contrary habits of the sodomites must be approved?  Are we ready to concede a world without chastity, without masculine chivalry or feminine virtue, without piety for our ancestors or their God?  Suppose we do.  What will be left for us to defend?

As Robert Stacy McCain once said, marriage is a hill to die on.

21 Responses

  1. Bah. The world ended long ago / and all we dwell today / as children of some second birth / like a strange people, left on earth / after the judgement day.

    To say this is “our” last stand implies that there is an actual “us” that we’re trying to defend. In the United States as a whole, there is no such “us.” There are just small groups worth defending; has collapsed, is collapsing, and will collapse further.

  2. If you were writing this post (long ago) about divorce, rather than about gay “marriage,” I would be right on board with you. The steady legalization and liberalization of divorce was a disaster. The idea of marriage as a sacrament was killed by divorce. That was worth fighting about. But gay “marriage” is an aftershock, an epiphenomenon. Obviously, vote against a politician who is pro, but what’s the big deal, really? It just is not important. Just as polyamorous “marriages” will not be a big deal. Just as incestuous “marriages” will not be a big deal. Kicking the corpse of marriage may be ugly and annoying, but it is not worth fighting about.

    It is long past time we stop thinking about avoiding the flood and start thinking about surviving the flood.

  3. On what grounds can we condemn any evil if we forsake the natural law that commands our deference? Surely the light of reason is dimming all across the world, and a dark age coming.

  4. When you die on this hill, do you want to be buried, or should we let the buzzards and various scavengers have at your corpses? It’s just a matter of whether we should bring a shovel or not…

  5. The SSM law will be used to further purge traditionalists from schools, county clerk offices, public life, etc. It’s harder to survive the flood when even rural county governments are enemy-occupied territory.

  6. I posted before I read the McCain post. His argument is bad. He argues that Phyllis Schlafly was right to fight the ERA to its eventual death. Without her, he says, “the ERA [would have embedded] in our Constitution a radical egalitarian ideology alien to our nation’s traditions and contrary to fact” OK, so is McCain claiming that that ideology is not now embedded in our Constitution?

    What possible point is there in fighting these fights? Even when you win, you lose.

  7. Hi Bill,

    If I had been around for the divorce debate, I would have said it. It would have been better for conservatism to have stood on principle then and gone out in a blaze of glory. Anything we do now is going to look a little silly, but there’s nothing we can do about that.

    Anyway, I don’t think we really disagree here. Practically speaking, here’s what “dying on this hill” means. Someday soon, mainstream conservatism will refashion itself as a gay-friendly movement. It will at first present this as a strategic necessity (i.e. if we don’t jump onto the “right side of history”, soon no one will take us seriously and we won’t be able to win elections), and it will focusing on opposing whatever abomination the Left will have moved onto by then. A lot of people will tell us (meaning traditionalists/reactionaries) that we should support this movement–call it the “queer-Republican party”–because it’s the lesser of two evils, and it’s the only thing that can realistically hold back the next Leftist onslaught. It will be just like the arguments we hear that we should support the pro-divorce, pro-contraception, pro-torture, pro-democracy Republican party. That’s already quite a few bridges too far to me, but we should definitely not support the queer-Republicans. Whatever the Left will be pushing then, the queer-Republicans won’t stop it. They never do, and their position will be more incoherent than ever. And even if supporting them did work, I would not buy political relevance when the cost is my soul.

    For me, this is easy. For some other people, it may be hard. There may be some genuinely conservative Congressmen who will be expelled from the Republican Party because they refuse to capitulate on this issue. This they must suffer, though, if they want to preserve their integrity. Going along with the queer-Republicans won’t do society any good, and it will mean surrendering to evil.

  8. It is long past time we stop thinking about avoiding the flood and start thinking about surviving the flood.

    Agreed.

    In my opinion since legal marriage is such a catastrophe and liberalism rules in law traditional conservatives should end their support for legal marriages.

    We should ex-communicate “Cafeteria Catholics” or liberal Christians like Cuomo, Lady Gaga and cleanse the Church while disdaining and in all rejecting legal marriages. Christians should only wed at a Biblical Church at the uttermost instant in the sight of God, get a certificate of their marriage and participte in a ceremony. Rejection the most liberal forms of culture (censorship of media at home) and homeschool.

    It would be better if Christians had this understanding:

    Caucasian Liberals enabling and supporting Black mobs and Latino crime = Liberal Heterosexuals enabling and supporting Gays and Transgenders

  9. Someday soon, mainstream conservatism will refashion itself as a gay-friendly movement. It will at first present this as a strategic necessity (i.e. if we don’t jump onto the “right side of history”, soon no one will take us seriously and we won’t be able to win elections), and it will focusing on opposing whatever abomination the Left will have moved onto by then.

    Traditional conservatives, far-right wingers and reactionaries should, no must give up, abandon and reject every right-liberal, neoconservative or libertarian party.

  10. If you were writing this post (long ago) about divorce, rather than about gay “marriage,” I would be right on board with you. The steady legalization and liberalization of divorce was a disaster.

    Of course it was a disaster but Bill I get it that you think traditionalists didn’t fight divorce. They did. They just lost thanks to Feminism, another sector of Liberalism. Read all of the frivolous divorces and mind-blowing stories that feminists have done.

  11. Hello alcestiseshtemoa,

    I wonder if you could elaborate on that last point. Are you saying that conservatives tend to ignore one side or the other of the liberal assault, and that that’s hurting us? I suppose I would fall into the group of those who are dead set on fighting the gay agenda but who don’t think too much about black mobs, Latino crime, or race replacement.

  12. JP2 had as his formation the life and death struggle between an all-powerful communist party ruling over his native Poland and the apparently defeated and suppressed Church.
    Brace up, guys. We know whom shall win in the end.

  13. We know who will win.

  14. “A lot of people will tell us (meaning traditionalists/reactionaries) that we should support this movement”

    Except they are no more traditionalists/reactionaries than legally united sodomites are married (yeah, I know battling over a label).

    “It will be just like the arguments we hear that we should support the pro-divorce, pro-contraception, pro-torture, pro-democracy Republican party”

    With you entirely on this.

    “I would not buy political relevance when the cost is my soul.”

    Too right!

  15. “Traditional conservatives, far-right wingers and reactionaries should, no must give up, abandon and reject every right-liberal, neoconservative or libertarian party”

    Agreed: “the first Whig was the Devil”, Samuel Johnson.

    This, sadly, is difficult in the modern west as America is the cultural centre, especially of the Anglo-phone nations, and Whiggery is at the core of that countries foundation myth.

  16. Liberalism has attacked all fronts of reality and society Bonald. It has attacked the natural/biological order, the social/cultural order and the transcendent/spiritual order (the tri-parte order of society). Traditional conservatives really need to be somewhat united on all fronts to be able to have an effective and serious response to liberalism and defend the traditional order fully. Just as I believe that an “atheist conservative” is contradictory and doesn’t exist in the long-run and that a biological conservative can’t ignore social liberalism I believe that religious conservatives can’t ignore the biological/natural aspect of society. You can think of it as a man having a body, a soul/mind and a spirit. All are essential and three form one part (e.g. society).

  17. If you were writing this post (long ago) about divorce, rather than about gay “marriage,” I would be right on board with you. The steady legalization and liberalization of divorce was a disaster. The idea of marriage as a sacrament was killed by divorce. That was worth fighting

    Don’t be under the impression (thanks to liberal lies) that traditionalists didn’t fight it. In reality they did. Now who is responsible for frivolous divorce? FEMINISM. I love it when liberals talk about how we devote “no attention” to “no-fault divorce” (yeah right) and ignore the scared cow of FEMINISM huge, possibly total influences toward these actions.

  18. Sorry I mean sacred cow of Feminism.

  19. “natural/biological order”

    Can you explain conservative view of the natural/biological order to me?

  20. Some fights are just worth fighting for, even if it seems a lost cause, agreed!

    Now, the important issue is knowing what to fight for.

    In this battle, the issue is judicial activism. All legislative battles are 90% wasted unless we change the rules of judicial supremacism.

    Now, the question is, how do we do that?

  21. OK, I think I understand. My only reservation would be on abortion: that is, limiting the evil of abortion might motivate support for the queer-Republican candidate if there was not a pro-life candidate who was better on these issues. But, I think write-in and third party votes are looking more and more mandatory at this point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: