WSJ is Wrong About Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Having No Dire Effects

The otherwise responsible Wall Street Journal went tabloid mode with a major article on how 20 years of legalized de-gendered marriage in America failed to produced the doom some family-advocates predicted. They tip their hand from the opening line:

Twenty years ago this week, David Wilson and Rob Compton entered into a marriage that some believed would bring on the apocalypse.

The rest of the story follows that since the actual apocalypse did not happen, that the cosmos continues and heterosexual couples still marry and form families, the de-gendering of marriage by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 should be of no concern to anyone. Nothing to see here, same-sex “marriage” has harmed nothing.

The Journal cites a new research report from the Rand Corporation supposedly proving the fact. The article even quotes Ralph Reed, a notable 1990s Christian political organizer, admitting same-sex marriage “probably in hindsight didn’t do as much damage as we feared.”

They are all wrong. Things are not fine.

The legal de-gendering of marriage from our nation’s highest court did profound damage and destruction that all of us are actually keenly aware of. We just refuse to connect the logical dots.

Same-sex “marriage” erases the meaning of human male and female in any objective way because it was the first legal wave of the current gender revolution.

How Does Same-Sex “Marriage” Erase Male and Female?

The fundamental assertion of the same-sex “marriage” proposal and the landmark Obergefell decision, which made it the law of the land in the U.S., is that there is no moral, legal or effective difference between natural and same-sex marital or familial unions. That which makes them different – the existence of a man and woman – is of no consequence whatsoever. One form is just as good, important, and legitimate as the other.

This is a revolutionary moral statement and the logic is simple.

If M/M = F/F = M/F unions and families, and they are all absolutely equal in every way under Obergefell and the new gender ideology regime, then there is no effective, consequential, difference between male and female. There can’t be.

Male and female have lost all their essential substance, mere preference among wholly equal choices, like chocolate, vanilla or pistachio ice cream.

This is what this radical redefinition and de-gendering of marriage and the family has wrought. Full stop. It is the redefinition of humanity itself.

And for this new definition of marriage and family to stand, we had to adopt the wholly unscientific belief that there is nothing uniquely special or essential about being male and female. Your family is missing a woman because you are a man who loves a man? No problem. You don’t need one.

Women are not essential to the family anyway, goes this reasoning. You can just hire a woman in Handmaid’s Tale fashion if you find you might need female reproductive services in the future. Just like these two men did. Same-sex families are the objectification of the rejected sex. It is actually vile. Certainly not a picture of feminine empowerment.

Embracing same-sex “marriage” means that the objective truth and substantive distinction of male and female can no longer exist. If male and female have any valuable and essential quality for the family and humanity, then same-sex “families” are by definition lacking something important. Of course, this conclusion is anathema under the new logic of de-gendering humanity that LGBT politics requires.

This fact is demonstrated in a not-so-curious “coincidence.”

Do not miss that Bruce Jenner appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine as Caitlyn the very month the Obergefell decision was handed down: June 2015. There was literally no gap between the ultimate victory of the gay rights movement (legal access to marriage and the de-gendering of the family) and the declarative launch of the “trans” revolution. Both are victories of the same movement. Both are fruit of the same bitter tree.

The Ultimate Erasure of Women

So-called “marriage equality” is directly linked to the reality that we can no longer, under the new gender orthodoxy regime, define what a woman is.

This is because the T and the Q are the new power players in the ever-growing alphabet soup that denotes that movement. The legal de-gendering of marriage was simply the first major step in erasing the binarity and complementarity of male and female.

There is a direct logical line between same-sex “marriage” and the fact that feminists like J.K. Rowling are properly spitting angry that we can no longer use the word “woman” anymore in any meaningful way.

‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 6, 2020

It was this straight logical line that forced Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest member of the United States Supreme Court, and its first black woman member, to pretend she could not define “woman” in the second day of her Senate confirmation hearings. Of course she knows what a woman is. She is one. It was the reason for her appointment, after all. But she knew she must play along with the illogical farce. Thank you, Obergefell and same-sex “marriage.”

It was this straight logical line that compelled a Berkeley Law Professor, Khiara Bridges, to use the term “people with the capacity for pregnancy” before a U.S. Senate hearing and tell Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, “I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic, and it opens up trans people to violence” simply because he asked her what that curious new phrase meant.

Hawley then responded to Professor Bridges, “Wow, you are saying I am opening up people to violence by asking whether or not women are the folks who can have pregnancies?”

Same-sex “marriage” has erased natural, wholly reasonable language.

As usual, the Babylon Bee has demonstrated this brutal truth through biting satire.

Same-sex “marriage” is not “marriage equality.” It is radical marriage and family redefinition, the subversion of basic human language itself, removing the essential and cooperative nature of male and female that create humanity’s very existence and future. It is the de-gendering of marriage, and thus humanity.

It has changed how language is used and negotiated. Too many of us are now faced with severe punishment at work, school or community if we do not adopt another’s self-defined, subjective sex identity for themselves. Like Justice Jackson and what Professor Bridges tried to do to a U.S. Senator, we are now expected in polite company to use speech that is illogical and untrue. It is a terrible violation. Some of us correctly refuse to play along, and we face significant legal consequences for our commitment to reality.

What has taken place with the meaning of male and female since the day Obergefell was passed down is clear to anyone paying attention. It is all around us, in the media, at work, at school, in our government, in our entertainment, in our own families. Same-sex marriage has changed us very much … and for the worse.

The very smart editors at the Wall Street Journal cannot have missed this clear fact. They just refuse to admit it.

Additional Articles and Resources

Sorry ‘Gays Against Groomers,’ But Gay Activists Helped Start This Transgender Fire

Sorry ‘Gays Against Groomers,’ But Gay Activists Helped Start This Transgender Fire – Part Two

Why Christians Can’t Avoid the “Trans” and Gender Redefinition Issue

How the “Trans” and Gender Redefinition Issue Attacks the Family

Why the ‘LGBT Person’ and ‘LGBT Community’ Don’t Really Exist

How to Respond to “Trans” and Gender Ideology? Simple: Live Not by Lies

Berkeley Professor Leaves Senators Speechless with Absolutely Senseless Statements About Humanity


Image from Getty.

The post WSJ is Wrong About Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Having No Dire Effects appeared first on Daily Citizen.

Read More

Daily Citizen

Generated by Feedzy