A Tale of Two Attitudes

True Radicalism

by Patrick J. Shanahan
03/01/04

The strategy of “gay marriage” as it is being played out in the government offices of San Francisco, and Boston, and Washington is absolutely breathtaking in its radicalism. It may be the single most radical social movement in history. That may sound a tad overblown, but it is absolutely true.

Human social nature is remarkably adaptable, and social institutions have been wrapped around just about every concept imaginable. Even such taboos as incest, human sacrifice and cannibalism have been socially formalized in some societies over the course of history.

But never, anywhere, ever, has a society broadened the universal concept of marriage to include the union of two people of the same sex. It has never happened.

“Gay marriage” is truly unprecedented. And the attempt by its proponents to jam it down the collective throat of American society is not only breathtaking in its foolish and willfully blind radicalism, it is a case study in what radicalism is all about. Homosexual activists have married extreme radicalism of intent, with classic radicalism of process. If we are not very careful, we could end up with fully instituted “gay marriage” before we quite know what is going on. In the process, tremendous damage is being done to the social fabric, and groundwork is being laid for the next social/radical leap, whatever that may be.

The energy of Liberalism often resembles the energy of cockroaches scattering when an overhead light is turned on. No coherent sense of direction, but a whole lot of energy. This makes liberalism annoying but, on the whole, not terribly difficult to deal with. Liberals will usually end up defeating themselves. Radicalism is fundamentally different, because it tends to focus around attaining very specific social changes.

The radical process usually works something like this:

• 1) Soften up resistance to the idea du jour through a relentless social pounding. This may include music, movies, literature, news reporting, etc.

• 2) Position your radical idea in the eyes of the American people as being “normal,” even “conservative” (“But ‘gay marriage’ will produce greater social stability.”).

• 3) Relentlessly push the envelope at every opportunity, seeking to gain incremental social acceptance through fashion and peer pressure (“It is sooo uncool to be a homophobe.”).

• 4) When you sense the old social consensus sufficiently weakened, attack the existing order with all your might at the weakest link. Force the issue. Force society to accept your proposition (“We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.”) at the point of a gun, if needed.

We have reached the last bullet in the “gay rights” radical agenda. “Gay marriage” does not represent a practical social desire for equal benefits. It seeks social equality. It seeks approval by society, culture and religion that to be homosexual is “just as good” as being heterosexual. Courtesy of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and various mayors around the country, the final assault has begun.

Knowing this, what are conservatives doing to counter it? As far as I can tell, we are mainly scratching our heads and making vague noises about Constitutional amendments. In other words, we are doing nothing. If we restrict ourselves to relying on Constitutional amendments to remedy this situation, we are doomed. It will never happen. This is not only because it is a terrible idea from a constitutional perspective (which it is) but because the very idea will wither on the vine. The homosexual rights radicals have to be dancing inside at the suggestion that this is the preferred conservative path of opposition! I cannot envision a scenario in which it takes less than 2 or 3 years for the process to work itself through. In the meantime, that is 2 or 3 years for America to get “used” to the idea of “gay marriage”. Support for an amendment will wane, the sense of urgency will diminish, and in the end it will die as did the ERA.

It is essential that we do something more than look out from behind the skirts of the Constitution to protect us from those “gay marriage” meanies. We don’t need Constitutional amendments. The only thing that works in the face of this sort of radicalism is politicians with the guts to stand up to judicial tyranny.

Mitt Romney, liberal Republican Governor of Massachusetts, has ruled out directly contradicting the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, out of respect for the “Rule of Law.” This is ludicrous, pitiful and wrong. It is exactly backwards.

A court ruling that stands not only completely outside the consensus opinion of millennia of human societies, well beyond the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the state Constitution, and in direct defiance of the will of the people and their elected legislatures for the sole purpose of implementing the most radical social idea of all time, that’s defying the “Rule of Law.” Our elected officials have a positive obligation to restrain the unchecked power of judicial tyranny. They have an obligation to ignore the Court’s opinion (that’s not defying the “Rule of Law,” that’s called separation of powers. Courts have no more authority than any other branch of government.) They have an obligation to stop those who flagrantly act in violation of the law.

This may well be one of those bellwether moments which define whether the course we are on is going just fine except for a few speed bumps, or whether we the inevitable Decline of the West has truly begun.