The Deconstruction of Marriage

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

  • Chuck Anziulewicz

    What a bunch or hysterical nonsense.

    Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd. The reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

    THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight OR Gay. It looks like American voters are starting to accept that.

    But let me reassure you: For Straight couples, absolutely nothing is happening to "traditional marriage." Nothing is being "redefined." Straight couples will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will be remotely affected whether (or not) Gay couples are allowed to do the same.

    Conversely, allowing Gay couples to marry will have ZERO impact on the number of Straight couples who divorce, have children out of wedlock, or give up unwanted children for adoption.

    • EarlyBird

      You are 100% correct, Chuck!

      I admit that just 10 or so years ago I too saw gay marriage as a radical political act, not a genuine personal commitment to marriage. I said, "Are you kidding me? What's next?!" When seen purely as another battle in the culture war, it looks radical.

      But it's not. Gays are not demanding the right to have anonymous sex in bath houses, but to have serious, committed, deep and socially sanctioned marriage. It's the most conservative thing someone can want. And simple "civil unions" are not the same as marriage, as any married couple understands.

      I am not only for the right for gays to marry; I'd like to see a lot more gay couples do so.

      • patron

        You have been brainwashed by the Democratic's pathetic attempt to reclaim their civil rights glory days because they have spent us into economic ruin. Patty Murray, Harry Reid, Charles Schummer and Nancy Pelosi are happier than pigs in slop, sitting in DC winning votes by politically destroying anyone trying to stop the rapidly approaching economic armageddon.

        Do we stop giving millionaire drug dealers foodstamps, welfare and medicaid? Nope.
        Do we shut down the trial lawyer gravy train which has ballooned US healthcare cost? Nope.
        Do we stop giving millions of disability fraudsters $1,000 a month? Nope.
        Do we bring an end to the corporatism which gives the K Street client with the best Lamborghini billions? Never.

        If you are Former ACORN Lawyer Barak Obama, you pander on divisive issues for political advantage, awarding approval only

        • EarlyBird

          Your bizarre post is simply proof that you see everything in terms of partsan political warfare.

      • Grace

        You are deluding yourself. Same sex marriage is not about two people being permanently & exclusively committed to each other as it is with real marriage. Research done to answer the question as to why so few homosexuals marry in countries where it has been made legal revealed that they have no interest in marriage – and even those who marry did not decrease their promiscuous behaviors as they largely do not believe in monogamous relationships. Dr. Greenfield is correct – the battle for marriage is about eliminating all traditional gender normative aspects of society. Google Professor Judith Stacey and get it straight from the other side (no pun intended, lol!)…

    • patron

      Marriage is exactly about raising children. The "damages" homosexuals claim are based on their exclusion from benefits which are intended for two people who have created a child together.

      Discrimination lawsuits against churches from a Supreme Court ruling affirming homosexual marriage will definitely impact traditional marriage.

      If your point holds true, we should grant federal marriage benefits like preferred immigration status and tax breaks to celibates and the asexual. Because they do not get to pick an arbitrary foreigner to become a citizen or an heir, and two homosexuals do, is they federal government damaging celibates? Expect debates more ridiculous than this one due to Obama's newest scheme to distract from the bankrupting of America.

      We are quickly becoming the world where every assertion is perjury and every identity is a lie, Dante's lowest Maelbolge of the 8th layer of hell, where the fraudulent suffer the evils of their own making.

      • EarlyBird

        "Marriage is exactly about raising children."

        But surely you are not suggesting we deny the right of elderly or infertile couples with no ability or desire to raise children the right to marry.

        Strike one!

        "The "damages" homosexuals claim are based on their exclusion from benefits which are intended for two people who have created a child together."

        Nope. The rights of property transfer, inheritance upon death, tax breaks, shared health benefits, rights to be involved in end of life care decisions, etc., have absolutely nothing to do with children.

        Strike two!

        "…Because they do not get to pick an arbitrary foreigner to become a citizen or an heir, and two homosexuals do, is they federal government damaging celibates?"

        No, because there is nothing "arbitrary" about a gay person wanting to bring his/her spouse to the US from a foreign country. It the very same marriage commitment that allows heterosexual Americans to bring their spouses to America from foreign countries.

        Strike three, you're out!

  • Ar'nun

    The deconstruction of marriage is all part of the Sol Alinsky program along with the deconstruction of the Constitution. They fight against freedom of speech, freedom of self preservation and any other individualistic freedom.

    A healthy marriage isn't imortant to a Collectivist utopia because there, "it takes a village" I really do emplore anyone who hasn't read Hillary's book to give it a try. You may have to replace a few windows after attempting to throw it out of them, but it is important to know what our enemies think. She willl be running in 2016 with Mark the Sealion killer Kelly as her VP. (just my prediction) And this is what is in store from our society if she is successful.

    • EarlyBird

      How sad. How ridiculous. What a terrifying world yours must be that everything Good in the world is constantly under assault by Evil Leftist Conspiracies.

      You make ZERO sense. I would be thrilled to read any attempt by you to actually argue the issue in a sane fashion. Have you even bothered to consider the arguments?

  • EarlyBird

    I'm sympathetic to Greenfield's take on gay marriage, the exact one I used to share 10 or so years ago. It seemed as if just one more definition which the left couldn't tolerate had to be smashed in the name of radical "equality."

    But I've come around, basically because in that time period I've made some very close relationships with gay couples, who are as serious and committed to each other as my wife and I are, and as boring and conservative as we are, who want to make a very mainstream life. I've realized it is not a fad or a campaign for deconstruction, but for inclusion in the most important social institution we have.

    Knowing gay people and is how conservatives like Portman and Cheney, can see the desire for marriage equality as a noble campaign, not an act of social vandalism. There is zero threat to the institution of marriage, in fact, it is a celebration of it.

    • F.K. Juliano

      Who cares if two homosexuals pledge to commit sodomy exclusively with each other? Their behavior is still an aberration. That having been said, no one is proposing to deny them the right to do as they wish. However, what they want is a legal and social endorsement of that behavior. In effect, they want the government and society to recognize something that is not true: that their couplings are as meaningful and as important as the marriage of one man and one woman. That type of marriage–the only real marriage–is the arrangement best capable of generating and raising healthy children. That is why leftists are intent on attacking it. It's not a conspiracy; it's their inescapable attraction to everything that's rotten, abnormal, and destructive.

      • EarlyBird

        "Who cares if two homosexuals pledge to commit sodomy exclusively with each other? Their behavior is still an aberration."

        Gay relationships are no more or less about sex than heterosexual ones are. And though homosexuality is not the "norm," it is not "aberrant." It's a biological reality, and God doesn't make mistakes.

        "… they want the government and society to recognize something that is not true: that their couplings are as meaningful and as important as the marriage of one man and one woman."

        But they are just as meaningful and important to society, and full marriage commitment strengthens your community as much as straight marriage does.

        "That type of marriage–the only real marriage–is the arrangement best capable of generating and raising healthy children."

        Get back to me when you're ready to restrict marriage to those couples only willing and able to make children.

        "…rotten, abnormal, and destructive."

        I genuinely feel sorry for you.

      • EarlyBird

        What's interesting, FK, is your's, Patron's and others' focus on the sex acts between gays, rather than the whole relationship. It's so child-like, your concern with the "ick!" factor.

        I remember when my cousin (who is actually gay!) and I met my mother and aunt's cousins, middle aged men at the time, who were raging queens. We were 12 years old, and totally freaked about by gay people, because we could only think of them in terms of having sex with each other. But what does one expect of 12 year old boys in the '70s?

        It so happened those two men had one of the most solid, fulfilling, loving, complete "marriages" anyone could ask for, but were entirely denied a lot of the basic rights which go along with marriage. It took me to grow up to recognize what they had, and overlook the "ick" factor.

        Perhaps its time to grow up, FK?

  • Jeff Long

    Mr. Greenfield, A brilliant piece which opens up with unusual clarity for the reader a view of the deconstruction process as the communist (and mostly homosexuals) vanguard of the Frankfurt School, et al., envisioned would unfold as it "transformed" all of society, especially in the Christian West their most formidable foe. It has been hard for them however as the Bible is if anything a solid anchor for defining in absolute terms those institutions of especial interest to God and His followers. The "zero threat" that gay marriage zealots aver is not posed to marriage of the Genesis One type is one of their biggest lies. The threat is real and is already engulfing us on so many fronts.

    • EarlyBird

      "The "zero threat" that gay marriage zealots aver is not posed to marriage of the Genesis One type is one of their biggest lies. The threat is real and is already engulfing us on so many fronts."

      How so, Jeff? Really, please illustrate for us how if a gay married couple moves next door to you, it impacts you and your wife's marriage. I want to know. And sorry, but just referring to the Bible doesn't cut it.

      I am more concerned by far with hetero marriages that are gone into lightly, or people choosing to shack up instead, or by granting gays civil unions, thereby offering everyone a "Marriage Lite" option.

  • Danny

    Kudos to Chuck and EarlyBird for cutting through Greenfield's BS to get at the core of the matter. It is sad though that Greenfield sees his marriage or prospective marriage (not to mention the whole of western civilization) as somehow endangered by allowing gays to marry, stating that it's "hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists" because gays are marrying. It must be an incredibly fearful and depressing way of life to think that way, to see others' happiness as "deconstructing" something sacred to you (when Greenfield finds a new word he likes, he certainly milks it, doesn't he?), rather than simply enjoy the love and commitment that marriage offers to those of us lucky enough to have found someone with whom we can share our lives. I sincerely hope Greenfield one day stops obsessing about "deconstruction" and the approaching end of marriage and western civilization and finds happiness with someone. Somehow though, I don't think he will.

    • EarlyBird

      Sadly for Danny Greenfield, I think he's just too frightened, in general.

  • Qalb-Al-Assad

    I'm surprised Dave (Horowitz) would allow this kind of drivel on his website, with the world full of Islamofascists killing & raping kuffar we're worried about Gay marriage, I can't believe it, let the queers get married for God's sak, we have real threats to address..

  • TheTruth12123

    another propaganda article from the far right that paints the left as anti americans give it up no one with a brain is falling for your crap

    • Princeton67atCoxdotnet

      A friend posted on Yahoo News, regarding the April 2015 march for support of marriage:
      “Despite the First Amendment, these folks persist in demanding government impose their religious doctrines on everyone else.”
      SANDY KRAMER (in response):
      About whom are you speaking? On whom is what religion being imposed? Are you speaking of the religious doctrines of Judeo-Christian Americans, or the “religious” doctrines of atheists? Despite protestation to the contrary, atheism IS indeed a religion. The religion of humanism. Its god is one’s self, and it has its own pantheon of demigods, including materialism, relativism and scientism. Its sacraments are unchallengeable. It condemns what it views as sin. Its tolerance for other religions is nonexistent. It wages unrelenting war against its enemies. Its tenets include rebellion, scorn, ridicule, mockery, disobedience, pride and arrogance. Its observance is manifested throughout the world. Its founder is worshipped unquestionably. And it is as ancient as time and man.
      My friend’s reverence for the provisions of the 1st Amendment’s twin concerns (free exercise and governmental restriction) is only invoked when it suits his agenda. Furthermore, his lack of understanding of the 1st, 10th and 14th amendments is appalling.

      (Dr.) Sandy Kramer