GAY MARRIAGE

This is the Blast e-mail received on 6/27/2014 by Jonah Goldberg; the first two sections deal with
the importance of Family, with the two highlighted phrases worthy of critique [but the rest is also
enlightening, particularly the novel hyperlinks @ the end]. The first quote [No institution transmits
culture more effectively than the family.] is probably accurate, but the second quote [It is far better
for children to grow up with married parents (even if they didn't go to college!) than it is for them to
grow up with a single parent with a degree in gender studies from Princeton.] is highly problematic;
even if data-trends supported the latter assertion, they would predictably not be of sufficient potency
to warrant generating such an absolutist domestic policy [notwithstanding myriad faith-issues].
This recalls events of a decade ago, when Santorum wrote a book [It takes a family] to
counter Hillarys [It takes a village]; it also recalls a claim by Dinesh DSouza
[Marriage is the only known incubator for the raising of children. This arrangement
works best when marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples who are of adult age
and unrelated to each other. Polygamous arrangements, incest, and homosexual
relationships do occur in society, but there is no reason to give them greater social
acceptance, nor to give them the special legal status of marriage. ]
The etymology of the word suggests the word marriage should be reserved for -relationships,
employing civil union to accomplish legally what would be necessary to accommodate societal-goals
of participants in this type of interaction [e.g., including whether a state would have health insurers
accommodate identified members of a household within a unitary policy]. This is an example:
The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first
appears in 12501300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and
ultimately Latin martre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and martri
meaning to get married. (The adjective mart-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial
could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine
form for "wife."
[11]
) The related English word "matrimony" derives from the Old French
word matremoine which appears around 1300 C.E. and ultimately derives from
Latin mtrimnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the
suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "
[12]

Yet, the world passed-me-by, for my focus on linguistics created a distinction without a difference;
indeed, the 13-SCOTUS decision unleashed an onslaught of state-level orders recognizing gay-marriage.
I had thought that a reasonable compromise would be to reserve the word marriage for traditional
heterosexuality and ensure that civil union encompassed all the civil-rights homosexuals would want.
[BTW, my evolution is not in attitude, but in verbiageas opposed to that of BHO and Hillary.] Thus,
although the fundamental sourcing is related to the historic sex-roles of participants, it would probably
be laborious to ensure each state [1]maintained marriage for heterosexuality, and [2]created
civil union to encompass all the real-life effects thereof [in terms of civil-rights].
None of these imprimaturs would afford greater social acceptance for those engaged
in polygamy, incest, and homosexuality; indeed, there is no desire to exceed equality.
People have learned after having been married that they had been relatives, and have
not suffered; blended relationships [sometimes mediated by divorce or economics,
other times triggered by fertility-related arrangements] have also reportedly worked.
Thus, there appears to be no reason to feel it is libertine [rather than libertarian] for
society to accept the freedom of people to flourish openly in loving relationships.
Therefore, public policy should support the family-unit as long as others are not disadvantaged;
specifically, no onus should be imposed on LGBYQ relationships [including adoption]. None of the
points made in this essayfocused on the Family vs. the Governmentsways me from this viewpoint.
*
Family Matters
While I was in London, I had some really interesting conversations with some British conservatives. It
was a disparate bunch, but there was a consistency to a lot of what they had to say. Nearly all the Brits I
talked to think their country has lost its cultural confidence. They also think that the U.S. is in the
process of doing likewise. That's a worthy topic for discussion, and I think both contentions are largely
true. But I want to talk about something else. When talking about politics, many of the same Brits would
cavalierly mention that they don't care about "social issues" or that social issues aren't relevant in British
politics. As an analytical matter, that seems right. But I couldn't help but wonder if there's a connection
there.
Now of course, it depends what you mean by social issues. But it seems to me that, as a broad
generalization, social issues revolve around the role and authority of the family. Arguments about
abortion, gay marriage, obscenity, sex-ed, etc. all connect to the family directly or indirectly. Even gun
rights have a lot to do with the family, and not just because "gun culture" is primarily learned in the
home. Guns fit neatly into the conception of the autonomous family and the role of parents as primary
protectors of their children.
But the key word is culture. No institution transmits culture more effectively than the family. We learn
language, dialect, and accents in the home (we learn grammar at school). We get most of our religion
and morality at home. We learn from our parents how citizens behave in a society and what they should
expect from society and government. It's important to keep in mind that while parents teach their kids
by telling them things, the real learning comes from watching what parents do or don't do. Kids are
wired to emulate their parents. They see how we divide our time. The habits of the heart are formed in
the home.
And this is why progressives of all labels have had their eye on the family. It is the state's greatest
competition. As I've written a bunch of times around here, if you listen to Barack Obama's vision of
America, it's one where there's the state and the individual and pretty much nothing in between. Civil
society, mediating institutions, and other "islands of separateness" are problems in Obama's eyes. Well,
the family is the truest island of separateness. In the Life of Julia, the state is her family.
I'm reminded of a passage from Liberal Fascism where I am discussing "children's rights" a concept
developed precisely to get the state into the home as quickly as possible:
Since Plato's Republic, politicians, intellectuals, and priests have been fascinated with
the idea of "capturing" children for social-engineering purposes. This is why Robespierre
advocated that children be raised by the state. Hitler who understood as well as any
the importance of winning the hearts and minds of youth once remarked, "When an
opponent says 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us
already . . . You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In
a short time they will know nothing but this new community.' "

Woodrow Wilson candidly observed that the primary mission of the educator was to
make children as unlike their parents as possible. Charlotte Perkins Gilman stated it
more starkly. "There is no more brilliant hope on earth to-day," the feminist icon
proclaimed, "than this new thought about the child . . . the recognition of 'the child,'
children as a class, children as citizens with rights to be guaranteed only by the state;
instead of our previous attitude toward them of absolute personal [that is, parental]
ownership the unchecked tyranny . . . of the private home."
James Pethokoukis cites a fascinating passage from George Weigel's biography of Pope John Paul II:
Perhaps the hardest-fought battle between Church and [Poland's] regime involved
family life, for the Communists understood that men and women secure in the love of
their families were a danger. Housing, work schedules, and school hours were all
organized by the state to separate parents from their children as frequently as possible.
Apartments were constructed to accommodate only small families, so that children
would be regarded as a problem. Work was organized in four shifts and families were
rarely together. The workday began at 6 or 7 a.m., so children had to be consigned to
state-run child-care centers before school. The schools themselves were consolidated,
and children were moved out of their local communities for schooling.
Marriage Is Great for Straight People, Too
Now I don't think today's progressives (at least not most of them) are consciously at war with the
traditional family. But they are certainly not its biggest fans, either. Perhaps the most depressing thing
about the Democratic party is that its electoral success hinges on the continuing unraveling of the
traditional family. The more Julias, the better. Democrats have a huge advantage among single women.
Married women recognize that the government can never be a family.
Getting married was once a celebrated life goal. It still is for millions of people, of course, but it's less
and less celebrated as a cultural priority at least not for heterosexuals. One of my biggest peeves is
that 99 percent of the time you hear a liberal saying anything positive about marriage, it's about gay
marriage. And now that we're getting gay marriage, some activists don't feel the need to saying anything
nice about it at all.
Think about how often you hear politicians, economists, educators, and journalists talk about the
importance of going to college. Now consider that getting married is about as beneficial to your lifetime
economic prospects as going to college. And let's be clear: It is far better for children to grow up with
married parents (even if they didn't go to college!) than it is for them to grow up with a single parent
with a degree in gender studies from Princeton.
Charles Murray exposed the ugly secret of the American elite in his book Coming Apart: The rich and
successful are closeted traditionalists when it comes to how they raise their own children. They're just
horrible hypocrites when it comes to everyone else's children. "It is the privileged Americans who are
marrying, and marrying helps them stay privileged," Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins
University, told the New York Times.
As Charles puts it, the biggest problem with today's elite is that they refuse to preach what they
practice.
Anyway, when I hear people say they don't care about social issues but they worry about a loss of
"civilizational confidence," creeping socialism, and the rest, I wonder if they're not part of the problem.
I'm not saying that there's a direct link between, say, being pro-life and supporting laissez-faire
capitalism. But I do think that much of what passes for laissez-faire capitalism is an artifact of our
cultural heritage, and that cultural heritage is formed and transmitted by cultural institutions. Change
those institutions, subvert them to the state by making them dependent on the state, and the culture
goes with them.
Not All "Social Engineering" Is the Same
Opponents of child tax credits and the like are shouting "social engineering!" I like and respect some of
these critics, but I think that this is an asinine criticism.
Think of it this way. I love artificial reefs. They provide new habitat for all kinds of wildlife. Over time a
pile of concrete or a sunken oilrig can turn into a whole vibrant ecosystem. But it is absolutely true that
building artificial reefs is a kind of meddling with the natural order. I have no problem with meddling
with the natural order if the meddling helps the natural order heal from other negative meddling we do
all of the time. The oceans are overfished and too polluted. Why not help counteract that?
As Brad Wilcox, Ramesh Ponnuru, Robert Stein, and other champions of a conservative family policy will
tell you, their proposals are aimed at counterbalancing the burdens liberal social policy has put on
families. It's a bit like Bill Buckley's famous line about moral equivalence. If one man pushes old ladies in
front of oncoming buses and another man pushes old ladies out of the way of oncoming buses, you
simply cannot describe both men as the sort who push old ladies around.
If one political party wants to engineer family formation and another political party is invested in
engineering the destruction of families, you simply can't denounce both approaches as "social
engineering." Or I guess you can, but doing so is dumb.
Piketty Palooza! As I warned you, I've written a very long review of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the
Twenty First Century for the July-August issue of Commentary (It's a double-sized review for a double
issue!). The feedback so far has been very flattering, though I am sure the criticisms will be coming
shortly.
Scandalclipse
Have you noticed that basically the only way this White House can get out from under one scandal or
controversy is by getting crushed by another? The White House was reeling from the VA scandal, which
is why they rolled out the Bergdahl news. They didn't expect that the Bergdahl story would become so
controversial; fortunately they were rescued by the June 6 news of thousands of immigrant children
showing up at the border. Hey, quick question: I can't get my kid out of an airport without her getting
messy. Isn't it strange that all of these kids seem to show up, after a 1,000-mile journey looking so
spiffy? Anyway, the immigrant-kid story was pretty brutal for the White House; fortunately they were
rescued three days later by the news that ISIS had taken Mosul. The "Who Lost Iraq?" narrative isn't
great for the White House either, which is why it might have been a relief when the IRS announced on
June 13 that they lost Lois Lerner's e-mails.
Elizabeth Warren: A Clarification
So the other night before Special Report Charles Krauthammer sang "Rapper's Delight" perfectly. He did
say that while he loves the old-school hip hop, his real passion is for GWAR. But none of that is
important right now, and besides, what happens in the green room stays in the green room.
That same night, I went on a bit of a rant about Hillary Clinton and how she's a pretty awful politician. I
then concluded by saying something I wish I could re-phrase. I said: "And if I were Elizabeth Warren, I
would jump in the race today because she is an authentic, truth-telling kind of politician and it would
cause utter panic in the Clinton camp."
In response to this my Twitter feed exploded. At the Cleveland talk, the last question was a dyspeptic
inquiry into why on earth I would compliment someone like Warren. Michael Graham drove all night
from Boston just so he could set fire to a bag of Tom Friedman columns on China (if you know what I
mean) on my doorstep.
So look. Here's the deal. I stand by what I said, but I wish I'd said it better. Yes, Liz Warren speaks with a
forked-tongue about her noble Indian heritage. Yes, I have huge problems with her. But my point is that
she would create more problems for Hillary and that would be awesome. Indeed, that's what my
column is about today.
If Warren jumped into the race, it would mess up the Clinton's delicate plans like a drunk orangutan
with irritable bowel syndrome in a wedding-gown shop. The whole feminist argument behind Hillary's
campaign would come apart like something that comes apart in a really funny way ("Dude, how
hungover are you?" The Couch). She would get all kinds of money from left-wing fat cats and the
hardcore grassroots crowd. An early Warren candidacy would force Hillary to get in the race earlier than
planned if she's going to run. Hillary couldn't stay a "private citizen" above the fray and simultaneously
criticize Warren. If she criticizes Warren, she gets into a mess similar to the one she got into when she
tried to criticize Obama in 2008. The base loves Warren -- perhaps not as much as they loved Obama,
but enough so that Hillary attacks their hero at her peril. Criticizing Warren also exposes Hillary for what
she really is. And the sooner Hillary is seen as what she is a (bad) politician the sooner her poll
numbers go down. Moreover, according to game theory (or maybe not, I just think that sounds cool), a
Warren candidacy will have the added incentive of encouraging other Democrats to enter into the race.
The moment Warren gives her announcement speech on C-SPAN, aides to Joe Biden will run into his
office and shout "Mr. Vice President, I think you should put down your crayons and see this." Andrew
Cuomo will stop midway through cutting off the head of Bill de Blasio's favorite horse and have to
decide if he's going to get in. Every candidate who gets in encourages more candidates and soon what
was supposed to be a Hillary coronation ceremony becomes the Democratic-party equivalent of the
fight scene from Anchorman. It's ragnarok, baby!
Now, it's true, I'm being a bit Leninist here. I want to heighten the contradictions, and I do think worse is
better when it comes to the Democrats. But that doesn't mean my column or my comments are, in the
words of one Twitter follower, a "false-flag operation." I do think Warren taps into a very real populist
trend. And while she's probably to the left of Clinton on many issues, I have to say in my gut, I'd rather
Warren as president than Clinton. The good news, however, is that I think Warren would be a bad
candidate and would lose handily in the general election. So, where's the downside?
Operation Weak-Sphinctered Orangutan Commence!
Awkwardly posing models.
Tumblr of sad food for one.
Bear crashes little boy's birthday party and eats all the cupcakes.
Bear cools off in Cali backyard pool.
Disgusting state of student houses at the end of the year revealed.
Pizza bed.
Man, 82, accused of flying kite naked.
In honor of fed employees: EPA Employees Asked To Stop Pooping In The Hallway (since they are the
EPA perhaps they were trying to fertilize the carpeting?).
In honor of your airline troubles: Man Sues British Airways After He's Sent To Grenada Instead Of
Granada.
In honor of traffic: Road-Rage Driver Sets Car Afire with Flare Gun: Police.
In honor of sleepaway camp: 5 Things to Expect When You Send Your Kids to Overnight Camp.
In honor of Ohio: Edwin Tobergta Accused Of Sex With Pool Raft YET AGAIN.
In honor of Thomas Piketty and the French: Eiffel Tower made out of chairs created in 125th birthday
tribute.
In honor of the World Cup: Chileans asked to stop World Cup barbecues as pollution rises.
In honor of Hillary's book: Hillary's Book Sales Fall Sharply, May Not Sell Enough to Repay $14 Mil
Advance.
In honor of the IRS hearings: Inside the World's Largest Gathering of Snakes.
In honor of PETA: Horrifying scene as dead whale is butchered in front of schoolkids.