We depend on all our great readers to keep Salvo going!
Follow Salvo online
May 10, 2016
The Twentieth Century saw two World Wars (some say it was really one war in two parts) and a Cold War with the possibility of nuclear annihilation. Let us recognize another world war, it seems, sparked by the so-called Sexual Revolution. It is now global, as Peter Leithart (a contributing editor of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity) wrote last month at First Things:
Firmly institutionalized in law, academia, media, and popular culture, the sexual revolution is advanced and enforced by official and unofficial bodies, from the EU and the UN to a global network of NGOs and advocacy groups.
Lest you think this is merely a squabble about social policy, think again:
Eric Enlow, dean of South Korea's Handong International Law School, has bluntly argued that Obergefell "changed all marriage contracts so that the conditions of validity, duties in marriage and conditions for divorce that once all hinged on sexual self-giving are abolished." In changing these contracts, conditions, and duties, "Obergefell abolished marriage."
This breath-taking expansion of the state's jurisdiction has led some observers to draw ominous parallels with totalitarian movements of the last century. According to University of Mainz criminologist Michael Bock, "The claim to put a society 'on track' in this way through a comprehensive, uniform formal principle of politics is known to us from the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century." Such a determination "to subordinate the entire social reality to a uniform principle or to penetrate it with this principle is the reason these regimes are called 'totalitarian.'" It's another project to straighten the crooked timber of humanity through the exercise of power.
"Totalitarian"—isn't that a bit over the top?
Not really, not if you realize that a government and its courts are claiming total authority over something that is above the state: language itself.
If the state claims the authority to revise the meanings of words like marriage, male, and female, where will it stop? It will call "hatred" or "bigotry" a woman's discomfort at having to share a bathroom or locker room with a male who says he is a female. It says that a man may make up his own definition of female and that you have to respect his definition and not impose your own. But it's not your definition; it's the common definition of generations.
Language predates state. But when the state insists it can overturn our common language and impose its own, that's a power grab, a dangerous form of totalitarianism, is it not?
Related reading from Salvo:
• World War Sex
A Global Revolution Imperils Men, Women & Children: An Interview with Gabriele Kuby
by Benjamin J. Vail
• Truth vs. State
It Takes Courage to Confront False Ideologies
by H. Lynn Gardner
• The Tyranny of the Minority
How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex "Marriage" Undermines a Free Society
by S. T. Karnick
• State Purposes
Utopian Creep & the Struggle for Human Rights & Freedom
by Terrell Clemmons
If you enjoy Salvo, please consider giving an online donation! Thanks for your continued support.