10

The Deconstruction of Marriage

Destroyed Wedding CakeThe only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn’t come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.

Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.

The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.

The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country — it produces its next generation.

The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.

Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.

There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.

The left hasn’t gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.

You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.

Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.

The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.

Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.

In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.

Falling ApartThe deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.

Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.

Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women’s clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.

The left’s deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.

Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change ‘rose’ to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.

The left’s social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.

Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.

As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell’s Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left’s deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.

The left’s greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.

To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.

Dream FallingThe deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.

The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.

That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.

The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.

And that is what we are truly fighting against.

[Editor’s note: this article first appeared at Sultan Knish.]


Daniel Greenfield is a blogger and columnist born in Israel and living in New York City; he is a  Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a contributing editor at Family Security Matters. His daily blog column is at Sultan Knish.
Filed under: »
  • Kim58

    “The left’s greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do.”

    This is why I won’t vote for the left OR the right anymore. The folks on the right think the folks on the left are to blame for the deconstruction of marriage. But if a heterosexual couple can DELIBERATELY (not naturally through either old age or natural infertility) sterilize their sexual acts, how then are their sexual acts any different than the sterile sexual acts of two men or two women??? Doesn’t contraception completely undermine a critical component of marriage that is necessary to distinguish marriage from any other pairing of two persons? The folks on the right are equally at fault for this whole marriage mess today. When most folks on the right can honestly say, “We can now see how our desire to put our own pleasure ahead of making sacrifices to raise a family have gotten us into this marriage mess”…well, that’s when I will cast a vote again for a conservative political candidate. Until then, it’s independent candidates all the way.

    • beezwaxing

      You should vote for any candidate who is willing to state that marriage is and should remain defined as it has been for 5000 years: one man + one woman. You should vote for any candidate who is willing to support that position and will not change his or her mind or support so-called, “civil unions,” because that is simply the slippery slope to SSM.

  • goral

    Maybe “independent candidates all the way” is the way to go. Both parties certainly are disappointing, How do we know that the Independents are not sterile as well?
    My guess is that they may actually abort and contracept more than the Republicans, hence their fewer numbers.

    Now, I would need some hard statistics to make the comparison to Dems.

    On the basis of what we already know, no one beats the Dems. in abortion and sterilization, They own, promote and profit on the whole anti-life agenda.

    Independents, for the most part, are just disenchanted democrats.

  • Kim58

    I’m not planning on voting independent because I think they sterilize their sexual acts at a lesser rate than Democrats or Republicans…I’m going to vote independent to help America hit rock bottom faster. No one seems to believe the logical consequences of going further and further away from God’s plan for humans. Humans have gone down these paths before (just read through the old testament) so the quicker we proceed down the past of destruction, the faster we can get to a point of more people being aware of how their actions have brought on so much misery (right now they only seem to think their misery is the result of “that other political party”). Only when they are up to their necks in sheer misery do they seem to start being receptive to the message of hope and redemption that Christ can bring to them.

  • Why are we talking about voting? The column is about marriage, the bedrock of society, which is now crumbling beneath us.

  • goral

    Why not talk about voting? Gay “marriage” is on the ballot all the time, somewhere. It is now before the Supreme Court. It’ll be an issue until they get what they want.
    The left is good at deconstructing and they’re good at incremental progress.
    They’re happy with five or ten percent every couple of years. Eventually their perversion becomes the law of the land.

    The Right is impulsive and impatient. We want all or nothing, many times. We want to tear it down and start again, Many right-minded people, like Kim, want to hit rock bottom. Why not build and preserve what we have. Why not incrementally improve our condition form year to year.

    Marriage is the foundation of society. We must fight to keep it sacred and out of the hands of the perverts. The fight and the offensive needs to be on every front, including political.

  • happysheep

    Birth control redefined marriage. If sex is separated from reproduction and becomes a means to pleasure, then any means of obtaining that pleasure must be accepted in any form. Therefore gay marriage becomes possible and instictively people know to deny gays social acceptance is hypocritical.

    • beezwaxing

      It isn’t hypocritical, but support of marriage as heretofore defined is an inherent admission that some relationships or persons are “privileged” above others. There should be no attempt to call marriage something other than what it is both culturally and legally. Yes, I support marriage, the institution, as it is still defined in most states of the US, and I admit that the institution gives heterosexuals a certain privilege. Even so, polygamy, like SSM, may also represent a certain “flattening” or leveling of social privileges as well, and not too many gay or lesbian people think that marriage should be redefined to include polygamous relationships.

  • Don’t kid yourself, gay marriage is a feather in the cap and all the while makes a mockery of REAL self-giving, self-donation, i.e. child-rearing. This IS the key that unravels the villiany of the “Left” – self-lessness, self-donation, personal accountability and responsibility, doing the right thing for no other purpose than it is the right thing to do. The Left will NEVER get that far – it’s up to us to teach them. St. Francis, pray that we can PREACH the word with our lives, and, occastionally, if pressed into it, preach it with our lips as well. This IS the age that martyrs are made, let us rejoice and be glad in it!!!!!

  • beezwaxing

    I’m not a Catholic, but this is what I have been saying for close to a decade. The movement for SSM will inevitably lead to the demise of the cultural institution. I learned this by reading what radical leftists in Europe had been saying for several decades. Recently, Masha Gessen, a lesbian activist, admitted that SSM will result in the destruction of marriage which has been a goal of the radical left ever since Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist revolutionary, first advocated the infiltration, undermining, and destruction of all western cultural institutions as the most effective means to bring “capitalist” nations to their knees. And what institution is more fundamental to the human family than marriage. The gay left picked up on Gramsci’s theme probably close to twenty years ago. Marriage, they believe, is a relic of the “patriarchal” hierarchy which must be eliminated in order for a particular culture or nation to “progress” towards the perfect state, which is communism, the society envisioned by Karl Marx as perfect. In fact, ALL hierarchies “of privilege” must eliminated before world socialism can advance towards the ultimate goal of communism. Communism is the goal, while socialism is the road or means to communism. It was Marx himself who deemed marriage and family as problematic institutions which should, he thought, be caste aside at a point when they are no longer useful to the proletariat in establishing its dictatorship. That’s why Gessen says that gay leaders are lying when they say that SSM will not affect the institution of marriage negatively. She says that gays and lesbian leaders know what SSM represents, the fundamental leveling or flattening of all bourgeois institutions.