Perhaps the most outstanding and dangerous aspect of liberalism is its perpetual progressivism. Put simply, liberalism is never happy, never finished with its agenda, never content with the “progress” thus far made, and never will be. There will always be the next liberal step. And after taking that next step, there will always be another and another and another, all in the same direction. This relentless progressivism can only be stopped by an unforeseen and dramatic event – a great awakening, a divine intervention, a war, or societal collapse. Civilization cannot and will not survive the extremes of liberalism.
The liberal politician cannot be known or trusted. Whatever he or she presents to the public as an agenda is only a portion of a much larger scheme. And possibly even that politician is unaware of the larger scheme, because liberalism is endless and bottomless. As a radical social experiment that presses into unknown moral territory, it is by nature ever on the move, always pressing for one objective, achieving it, and then pressing on to the next thus far unmentionable objective. Can even a devotee keep up?
The most grotesque demonstration of these truths is seen in the sexual revolution. In the mid-twentieth century, this revolution presented itself as a cause of justice. Women needed to be liberated from the cruel consequences of intercourse and marriage. Hence, the liberalization of contraception and divorce. When these were not sufficient, the next step was abortion. Additional steps included infanticide and the sanitization of pre-marital sex, cohabitation, and homosexuality. Step, step, step, and liberalism finally arrived at the great cause of same-sex “marriage”. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, and yet another giant step was taken.
Are we there yet? Have we arrived at the magnanimous liberal utopia? Has the entire agenda been revealed and completed? Absolutely not. What are the next steps? They are polygamy, polyandry, legalized prostitution and pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, and the total elimination of the idea of gender.
Now what in the world makes me think I can foresee what’s coming? Simply, reason. If a Supreme Court Justice can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, and if that definition can become legally binding on all citizens, such that wedding cake makers and wedding photographers can be sued for objecting to it, county clerks can be jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, and priests, ministers, and rabbis find themselves performing their ministries in fear of the government, then what reason is there to believe that the same will not happen regarding these other extreme forms of perversity? Such steps are only a mass of propaganda and the stroke of a pen away.
I remember hearing a certain lesbian comedian once joke, when the same-sex “marriage” debate was only just beginning, that the standard Christian lunatic response was, “Oh sure, once you get gay marriage, then you’ll want to marry your pets as well!” She and her audience burst out laughing. Sorry, but it’s the truth and it’s only logical. Step, step, step. After all, a Massachusetts justice re-defined marriage as an “evolving paradigm”. How’s that for a purposefully open-ended all-inclusive notion? What sort of relationship could not fit into that definition? Actually, it’s not a definition at all; it’s an anti-definition.
Now let’s follow the reasoning to its natural conclusions. If marriage is not a pre-defined, concrete, objective reality, if, on the contrary, it is a malleable abstraction that can be re-defined by whatever potentate rules the day and in accord with the spirit of the times, then why should anyone believe that it will not be re-defined again and again to include each of the above-mentioned sexual aberrations? Again, all it takes is a mass of propaganda by a special-interest group and the stroke of a politician’s pen. All it takes is another liberal step.
If marriage can be re-defined from a life-long covenant between one man and one woman to that of a life-long covenant between two men or two women, then why can it not be re-defined again to that of a life-long covenant between a man and two women or a woman and two men, or between three women or three men? What could prevent this from happening – the current definition of Justice Kennedy that doesn’t recognize such relationships as marital? But wait! Hey-hey, ho-ho! Injustice! Intolerance! Narrow-mindedness! Judgmentalism! Bigotry! Polygaphobia! Following the identical tactics that the same-sex “marriage” crusade used against traditional marriage, the next group could just as legitimately ask, what right does anybody else have of imposing their restrictive definition of marriage on us? What sort of fundamentalist mentality holds that two homosexuals can marry, but not three or more heterosexuals, or a cowboy and his horse, or a brother and his sister, or an adult and a child, or the living and the dead? Would homosexuals be so narrow-minded, self-righteous, and exclusivist as to withhold from such persons a “civil right” that they now enjoy? What would be the difference between a Christian who says homosexuals cannot marry, and a homosexual who says polygamists cannot marry? If the Christian is intolerant, then isn’t the homosexual intolerant as well? This is the inevitable chaos that will follow from same-sex “marriage”. It’s only logical in a sick sort of way.
If homosexual relationships can be called marriage, then any relationship can be called marriage. The logical and inevitable result of re-defining marriage is the ultimate meaningless of marriage.
At this point in the moral collapse of our civilization, the great question is no longer, what is marriage, but rather, what is not marriage? Is there any consensual relationship on the face of earth that, by its very nature, could not ever be called marriage? Tragedy of tragedies, we can no longer answer this simple fundamental question, so essential to our happiness, dignity, and survival. Perhaps a Neanderthal could help us out?