I have frequently been accused of being unhinged on this issue. As a non-religious person, why would I care so much about a contract between two autonomous individuals? Why is it any of my concern, if it doesn’t affect me personally?
Well, the simple answer is that it does affect me personally, and all of you personally. Gay marriage was the victory of institutionalised postmodernism and served as a turbocharge for LGBT extremism. When you see pronoun badges, LGBT pride flags displayed everywhere, trans-identifying people called the pronouns they ‘identify’ with and not those which they actually are, the horrific child gender mutilations, the Orwellian control of language and recognition of absurdities like ‘non-binary gender’, all of this is a product of forces that were emboldened by the legalisation of gay marriage. There's a reason why the LGBT activists prized it so highly, it was an accelerant to ‘normalisation’ allowing their ideology to penetrate the highest reaches of power.
In this article, I will try and explain why I feel gay marriage was the ‘tipping point’ for Wokeism, which ensured it would take over every nation that legalised it.
How Gay Marriage Came About
I have often been critical of the more puritan elements of the Dissident Right that are very fixated on sexual morality. So some might be asking, ‘if that is so, if you oppose the Christian Right for its views on sex, then why are you so against homosexuality?’
Contrary to most people on the right, it is not the radical, promiscuous gay culture that I have an issue with; I believe those people should be left alone to their gay bars and their actions in private without it being a criminal offence. If I have any disgust, it is simply because I am not myself homosexual-inclined.
But the notion of ‘equality’ between heterosexuality and homosexuality, which gay marriage personifies, is bizarre and ridiculous, and the Woke term to describe it, ‘marriage equality’, is of an Orwellian nature.
Heterosexuality is the core of human life, whereas homosexuality is not. In response to the argument that goes ‘what about heterosexual couples that can’t reproduce?’, yes, some heterosexuals cannot reproduce, but homosexual couples can NEVER reproduce. Therefore, the civilizational purpose of marriage is towards reproduction; not exclusively, but it is the reason why the institution exists. Giving a falsely equal legal status can be seen as a slippery slope towards transgenderism because it was the start of separating the law, and what is legally valued, from biological reality, i.e., the primary of heterosexuality.
Sure, it's not as extreme of an example as transgenderism, which literally denies objective reality exists, and puts subjective feeling above empirical truth. But it was the first stage of this process, and the Christian Right that talked about the ‘slippery slope’, laughed at and dismissed throughout the 2000s, not only was completely and utterly vindicated, but probably underestimated the speed of radicalization.
Therefore, the homosexuals that wanted ‘bourgeois respectability’ and to work through the system for ‘equal rights’, identifying themselves as a group akin to African-Americans, were a greater threat to social order than libertine gays happy to be promiscuous on the side-lines; the deconstruction that gay marriage brought about was far more thorough and devastating. Instead of leaving the traditional family alone, it transformed it into a mockery of itself.
Before the 1980s, a large portion of the gay community was willing to live an alternative lifestyle, and be confined to the private sphere. Samuel Biagetti, who is gay, discusses this in a brilliant article at Compact. He tracks how the gay movement evolved, from one of hedonistic indulgence to one of political victimhood.
The inspiration for this was, of course… the Civil Rights Movement, yet another example that basically all forms of Wokeness can be traced back to a movement ‘conservatives’ are still forced to celebrate.
Harvey Milk, a paedophile living in San Francisco, was one of the key instigators of making homosexuals organise like the dreaded Civil Rights Movement. The AIDS crisis also brought a greater sense of desire for mainstream acceptance and a sense that living an alternative lifestyle in the private realm wasn’t a long-term solution. Gay marriage was a demand that was occasionally made by the late 1980s, though it was more commonly expressed as a means of equalising various different types of social relationships.
One of the most prominent bourgeois ‘respectability gays’ that wanted simply ‘assimilation’ into mainstream culture was Andrew Sullivan. In 1989 Sullivan wrote an essay titled ‘Here Comes the Groom’ making the case that gays would benefit from monogamous relationships and formal recognition of ‘marriage’. Here you clearly see homosexuality going from a lifestyle, something one maybe ‘did’, to being an ‘identity’ akin to an ethnicity. It didn’t take long for courts to start echoing this argument before the concept even had much acceptability in gay circles, starting with Hawaii in 1993. Even opponents of gay marriage like Ross Douthat didn’t dispute how influential Andrew Sullivan was by the early 2010s.
This quest for bourgeois respectability is echoed with Jordan Peterson’s conversations with Dave Rubin. Basically the argument goes that ‘there’s a conservative case for gay marriage’ because it promotes monogamy and stable family relationships. Jordan Peterson supported Dave Rubin and his husband having a ‘child’, somehow concluding that this was a vindication of conservative values.
So, ignoring its outrageous imposition in the United States and other countries, what is it about this which is especially bad? What justifies my fixation on it? Isn’t it rather a conservative idea? Are they right?
Well no.
In previous eras, there were public standards around sex and gender roles. Yes, these were frequently breached in the private space. But society had public standards of behaviour, a sense of what was normal and what was ideal, and that was promoted over and above other lifestyles, that were not seen as demanding equal respect. With the traditional nuclear family producing the best life outcomes and being the best for social cohesion, family upbringing, and life outcomes, despite studies confirming this being repressed by the left and researchers like Mark Regnerus attacked and shunned, this is an obvious, common-sense view for a society to have.
The public/private sexual morality divide is beneficial because it doesn’t challenge the status of heterosexuality as the ‘correctly biologically intended’.
But when you see people like Dave Rubin and his ‘husband’ announcing that they’re having ‘children’, of course through stealing a child from its mother, and presenting a kind of pseudo-traditional aesthetic, it is not seen as separate: it becomes a mockery. It is changing something essential about an action or institution, and twisting it so fundamentally that the result is either comedic or offensive.
An example might be a postcard featuring a 1950s suburban family, wearing 1950s clothes, but the people are actually all chimpanzees. It becomes a mockery of the real thing, which might be humorous in that context, but when it is at a societal level, it becomes an enormous disrespect. As Auron MacIntyre frequently says, it is like they are ‘hollowing something out and wearing its skin like a trophy.’
One must also look at how much interlink there is between the gay rights and the transgender movements. People like Owen Jones, one of the most odious commentators in British political life and a staunch supporter of transgenderism, will frequently show that LGB people are some of the strongest supporters of T. The overwhelming majority of gay rights organisations, for instance Stonewall in Britain, jumping straight into advocating radical transgenderism, seems to confirm this overlap. Whilst Owen Jones is using this as an argument for supporting transgenderism, a sensible person interprets this only as confirming LGBT collective guilt. Indeed, if one follows the history of the gay rights movement, this is not at all surprising.
Up until the 1970s homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, which if it is not a choice, and stops the ability to start a normal family, is objectively the only thing it could be. The reason why it was declassified as a mental disorder in the DSM-II by the American Psychological Association (APA) in the early 1970s, was because of threats and protests, with science being subordinated to political activism and the interests of identity groups. In the 1980s and 1990s, gay rights activists went a long way of suppressing all information about a link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, pushing Paul Cameron out of his livelihood and profession, so that even suggesting such a link today is seen as beyond the pale of political discourse, despite the strong evidence.
The means of silencing scientists who do not absolutely affirm the narratives of LGBT, so common with transgender activists, is a carry over from the gay rights movement. The majority of gays say that their cause is interlinked with transgenderism, they are standing with their ‘trans brothers and sisters’, and the small groups that oppose this like the LGB Alliance and Gays Against Groomers are despised amongst their community, and usually ultra-right wing on every other issue, as repugnant pro-trans activists like Owen Jones say.
If the only section of a community that speaks an ounce of common sense is completely cast out of it, like LGB Alliance stalls were at Manchester Pride, why should we completely sacrifice a consistent analysis of where this phenomenon started, to try and appease a group which will overwhelmingly side with the trans mutilators anyway?
We should not sacrifice our conception of reality and the normal for Woke postmodernism, the reigning ideology of our age.
If we want to truly end the transgender dystopia that has conquered the West, we need to defeat it at its absolute ideological root, and that means dispensing with any notions of ‘gay equality’, equality between the normal and the abnormal. There is a correct human functioning, and there is a deviation from that correct human functioning, and society must unapologetically take a stand in favour of healthy human functioning, or else it will see nothing ethically wrong with children being mutilated for thinking they’re ‘trans’.
One of the greatest mistakes in American history was not making the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act a constitutional amendment. The Defense of Marriage Act passed with overwhelming support, from Democrats and Republicans. If it’s sponsors had wanted, it almost certainly would have met the state ratification threshold to become a constitutional amendment.
However, tragically, it was not thought necessary. Whilst hindsight is 20/20, one can understand why people at the time would have felt this: gay marriage was nowhere in the constitution and having a federal act defining marriage as between one man and one woman would have seemed sufficient.
But opponents of gay marriage underestimated the LGBT activists, didn’t take into account their shameless manipulation and lying, as well as their utter contempt for the Rule of Law. These activists said an amendment wasn’t necessary for over a decade, stopping it from being passed, and then turned around to impose Obergefell vs Hodges.
It is a tragedy to think that Obergefell, and likely the subsequent LGBT extremism that currently plagues the West, could have been avoided, if only legislators in 1996 had a crystal ball. But the whole of American society was a frog in boiling water, only realising how much it was being manipulated when it was too late. From the moment a federal constitutional ban became impossible in the United States, the LGBT takeover of the Anglosphere and the Western world was on a predetermined course.
The American Experience and the Destruction of Democracy
I will talk chiefly about the American experience of the legalisation of gay marriage, both due to the nation’s global influence, as well as it being among the most anti-democratic and contemptuous in the world. However, similar processes took place in nations like Slovenia.
As Darel. E Paul describes in ‘From Tolerance to Equality: How Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage’ (2018), from the late 1990s to the early 2010s, 32 state-level referendums were held, at the request of ballot initiative, on the question of gay marriage, all voting to keep the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman.
The level of organisation was impressive; campaigners for traditional marriage spent a large portion of their time filing ballot initiatives at the required thresholds, often very high, to be put to a vote. These referendums often had exceptionally high turnout by American standards. California’s ‘Proposition 8’ on the subject in question in 2008, had 79% turnout (for the record, the average turnout in an American Presidential election is usually below 60%), with 52% of people voting to keep marriage between one man and one woman.
The campaign for traditional marriage should be seen as one of the most democratic movements in American history, due to its reliance on ballot initiatives and the high turnout of the referendums. The recent referendums on abortion do not have anywhere near this average level of turnout.
But gay marriage advocates always believed they were above the law, above majority opinion, and that they were justified in overturning the will of the people when they disagreed, because it was a ‘civil rights issue’. This is what Obergefell vs Hodges and earlier court cases striking down state laws represented.
Proposition 8 was overturned in the 2009-2013 series of court cases Hollingsworth vs Perry, where judges made it clear they saw the LGBT agenda as being above any democratic vote. This decision was pushed by judge Vaughn Walker, who was secretly gay himself, and therefore not an impartial interpreter of the law. Every referendum, every initiative that campaigners worked tirelessly to fight for and win, because they understood the stakes and wanted to defend their society’s conception of truth and reality, were overturned by judicial fiat across the entire nation with Obergefell vs Hodges in 2015.
If democracy was a functioning system, you’d expect the backlash to have been swift. Here was proof, indisputable proof, that LGBT activists held democracy in contempt, that they held the people in contempt, and that the Supreme Court was a corrupt, lawless institution intent on imposing the breakdown of traditional institutions and culture.
But the backlash never happened. Conservatives who had staked their reputation on this being a red line suddenly folded, and considered such an outrageous violation of the democratic will to be ‘settled’.
And this climbdown, this complete surrender of principle, was what allowed the current transgender horrors to take place; the LGBT activists, unfortunately quite rationally, assumed there was no issue where conservatives wouldn’t ultimately give in.
A key feature of a functioning democracy is ‘losers consent’, but with the 32 state referendums against gay marriage, it was liberals who broke the covenant of ‘losers consent’ first. Of course they will dismiss that, saying that a ‘civil rights issue’ is ‘not up for debate’, perfectly personifying Carl Schmitt’s belief in the ‘state of exception’.
But this is why it is ultimately irrelevant if Donald Trump truly won the 2020 election or not. American liberals do not have credibility to champion democracy because they do not respect the results when they lose, and they fired the first shot in this regard with Perry and Obergefell. Obergefell showed consent can be manufactured after imposition, making democracy shallow and meaningless. Because of this, it is understandable conservatives might likewise believe they are justified at overturning democratic votes when they don’t like the results.
The worst part about the discourse of gay activists during the 2000s and early 2010s was the spectre of ‘civil rights issue’, which is a way of putting something beyond democratic debate. The legacy of the Civil Rights Movement and its uncritical lionisation with Martin Luther King Day set a precedent of minorities being able to place themselves above majorities by using the spectre of ‘rights’. The legal precedents that Obergefell relied on started with the Warren Court, where the court took it upon itself to maximally interpret ‘rights’ and make up the constitution to promote liberal policy objectives rather than respecting the will of democratic majorities.
This shows the bankruptcy of Social Contract Theory, which is the idea that one can ‘opt-out’ of society because their ‘natural rights’ are being violated by a democratic outcome, which in turn allows a minority to hold a majority to ransom. In the case of California, mass protests by LGBT activists followed the democratic vote, not accepting the outcome. Lists of supporters of the proposition were named and shamed, boycotted, publicly humiliated, and in many cases lost their livelihoods. People like Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla, publicly pleaded with the activists how sorry he was for supporting the proposition, but they were merciless, and he was fired from the company he founded.
Yes, if votes were held today, people would vote for gay marriage, but if results going the opposite way are invalidated, how much can we say this is unrelated to social status signalling, as Auron MacIntyre described? These social attitude survey results are as a result of years of insidious educational and media indoctrination as well as the spectre of the court imposition itself, subliminally telling all social conservatives they will always lose and always be on the ‘wrong side of history’, disgraced in the history books like southern segregationists, if they don’t submit. People convince themselves that they authentically believe what they subconsciously know they must believe, as any other belief would be met with swift punishment.
This is the very definition of what Noam Chomsky would call ‘manufactured consent’, though as a leftist he would deny that this was. People know that any other answer other than ‘yes’ on ‘do you support gay marriage?’ will cost them their reputation and possibly their livelihood, and any democratic vote which votes against it will just be overturned.
As Vaclav Havel said, people will bend over backwards to declare allegiance to a regime just to have the easiest life possible. Indeed, the display of the pride flag could be akin to Havel’s greengrocer displaying ‘workers of the world, unite’. The people have been beaten and silenced into submission, something the activists frequently gloat and taunt about when displaying the latest social survey results to show why any pushback is a ‘lost cause’.
Understanding that you are powerless and subject to social ostracism if you do not toe the line is humiliating, so it is better to convince yourself it is what you genuinely believe. I did this in my personal life, I convinced myself that I supported gay marriage because I was beaten down enough, me only being open about my opposition when the taunts of inevitable surrender on transgenderism, due to my acceptance of gay marriage, started.
And conservatives let it all happen. A line they said would not be crossed, the definition of marriage, was not only crossed, through the conduction of further votes on gay marriage coming out in favour, but in the most disrespectful and humiliating way possible. Perry and Obergefell were a signal that the will of the people had been nothing more than the moaning of ‘bigots’ and totally unworthy of respect from the elites. They made it very clear that democracy for social conservatives was worthless and irrelevant, only being legitimate when cultural liberals win.
Liberals have the audacity to complain that the Supreme Court since Amy Coney Barrett was appointed is ‘far-right’ and ‘not a legitimate court’. Unlike all courts since the Warren Court, it has not fabricated the law according to its ideology, only rolled back some of the most egregious liberal fabrications of the law. A true equivalent of Obergefell would be the current court declaring the ‘right to life’ non-negotiable, and overturning the recent referendums enshrining abortion access in state constitutions. That is the view of ‘Common Good Constitutionalism’ developed by Adrian Vermule, and whilst I do not like this kind of unapologetic court politicisation, if such a court ever existed, American liberals would 100% have brought it on themselves.
A ‘right’, that had not existed for 147 years since the 14th Amendment was passed, was suddenly ‘discovered’. This indicated that those who passed the amendment were violating their own amendment by not including it, and the past was retroactively declared illegal for denying people the ‘natural right’ of gay marriage, despite marriage not even being a demand of gays until the 1980s.
Such nonsense should not be taken seriously, it should be seen as a horrendous abuse of the power of the court, and a usurpation of power from the American people into a 9-member directorial dictatorship. Any ‘Democracy Index’ worth its money would downgrade a country’s score for such blatant violations of the ‘Rule of Law’.
But of course, measures of democracy are not measures of democracy, but of liberalism. The decision was not seen in the way Antonin Scalia correctly described it (pg. 69), even by conservatives: Donald Trump unfurled a pride flag on his 2016 campaign.
US states made no effort to refuse to comply with the law, something they are doing now through ignoring a Supreme Court order to give the federal government permission to tear down a border fence. Their actions now are admirable, but why didn’t they do this when it mattered, when the legitimacy for 32 democratic votes were at stake, the ultimate test of whether conservatives would defend their values, and in which their refusal to do so led directly on to the mass sterilisation and mutilation of children? An Evangelical Christian marriage clerk who refused to acknowledge Obergefell’s usurpation of democracy was rebuffed and given no support by her Church leaders. Do you think the army would have been prepared to impose gay marriage on the Red States if they absolutely refused to comply? Do you think the court would have been motivated to make such a decision if they felt the Red States had the fighting spirit they once had?
The Consequences of Conservative Surrender on Gay Marriage and Misplaced Priorities
But the respect that the Red States, disproportionately the southern states, have gotten from Washington D.C has been on a downward trajectory for the past 80 years. The reason is simple: the (now) Red States do not make good on their threats. The fact that George Wallace’s ‘segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever’ ended with him changing his mind and apologising, showed that conservatives would always capitulate and liberals would perpetually be vindicated to be on the ‘right side of history’.
Jim Crow was morally repugnant and had to change in a way that complied with the 14th Amendment and also respected state’s rights. But conservative compromise gave the left a smug sense of self-righteousness that they would continue to have, that they would always win on cultural issues, and conservatives would only try to stop change but never try to roll it back. This was the rallying cry of the gay marriage movement, the accusation of ‘you would have opposed interracial marriage’, despite the absurdity of the comparison due to the western conception of marriage being far older than formal racial classifications. But the fundamental falsehood of the comparison unfortunately did not stop it from persuading a great many people.
But at least southern Blacks really were appallingly treated, giving conservative change in position a moral basis. With gay marriage, it was the real test for social conservatives to prove if they would make good on their principles that claimed the word of the Bible as their justification, something that was indisputable, and not specific to the form of Christianity practiced in the Antebellum and Jim Crow South. But like on segregation, and much more pathetically and shamefully so due to the nature of the cause, conservatives backed down.
It is because of conservative surrender on gay marriage that LGBT activists feel they can push evil transgender ideology with impunity, erasing any mention of biological sex from public life and mutilating young women indoctrinated into the trans cult with mastectomies of healthy breasts.
With Bruce ‘Caitlin’ Jenner and Blair White being considered a part of the ‘conservative’ movement simply for being slightly more moderate than the mainstream LGBT position, with their ‘moderate’ position the extremist position of yesterday, the Neocon Cycle is vindicated. The LGBT activists predict, not irrationally, that in 20 years ‘conservatives’, would have totally capitulated to the trans cult, whilst insisting that paedophilia is different, that they will be openly pushing for.
The reason why the Republican Party did this was chiefly homosexual infiltration and funding of the Conservative movement, wanting it to be simply a movement for pursuing their economic interests. People like Paul Singer, a homosexual businessman and GOP donor, were absolutely crucial at getting the GOP to sell-out.
The gay marriage movement was funded not by far-left activists, but by ‘respectable’ businessmen like Tim Gill (Gill Foundation) and Jon Stryker (Arcus Foundation), who worked with both Democrats and Republicans, alongside the odious Koch Brothers, to get them to support gay marriage. However, this bourgeois respectability did not mean they were truly moderate, it simply meant they were more effective at infiltrating institutions, from which they could then spread more extreme ideology, explaining the seamless transition from LGB to T. The Republican pro-LGBT tendencies were ultimately more destructive, as they successfully sought to disable true opposition.
But this doesn’t justify the disgraceful sell-out of the wider GOP. A stronger conservative movement could have found other donors and refused to budge, as it has done with abortion, despite many of the corporate donors not caring much about the issue and seeing it as counter-productive.
The GOP chose to sell itself out to the pro-LGBT rich, it was not forced, particularly in the case of Donald Trump, who was not dependent on corporate donors, being self and small donor-funded.
And the GOP never had abortion in the bag from the 1990s, but they did have gay marriage in the bag, yet they chose to surrender, chose to capitulate, chose to debase and humiliate themselves in front of their enemies.
Abortion was mostly just the preserve of the religious and those genuinely believing in the ‘sanctity of human life’. It is slave-morality coded and fundamentally motivated by the same sentiments as Woke is, as well as the most ‘feminine’ of social conservative movements. Political capital on this issue would have been better spent elsewhere, namely on protecting a traditional understanding of marriage, even though Roe vs Wade was too an outrageous example of judicial activism and an attack on state’s rights.
The vast majority of still existing organisations that pushed gay marriage now push for the mutilation of minors and chilling denial of biological sex differences. The ‘bourgeois’ respectable gay that was a fixture of the 2000s was merely a smokescreen for a much darker agenda, with a highly Machiavellian plan outlined in the 1989 book ‘After the Ball’ by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. The lesson that we should learn from this is ‘impose first, indoctrinate later’. Public opinion is downstream from power and propaganda, as the acceptance of Obergefell shows.
How easy would it have been for Trump’s SCOTUS nominees needing to commit to overturning Obergefell, and have Red States immediately start banning it and challenging the Obergefell ruling? It is what they did with Roe, though gay marriage was a far more fundamental struggle than over abortion. It was a struggle for society to privilege the normal and well-functioning over the abnormal and dysfunctional, for it to prioritise reproduction of the human species as opposed to detaching the law from reality, and the final struggle for the traditional conception of categories outlined in Plato’s ‘Theory of Forms’ against postmodern chaos.
Conservatives need to stop saying things ‘aren’t possible’. The LGBT activists will be justified in their smugness until they are actually proven wrong, and we certainly don’t prove them wrong by giving up. We should make active, concrete plans for the repeal of gay marriage.
As discussed previously, whether the 2020 election was stolen or not is irrelevant. All the Democratic pleas for democracy, pluralism, and fair play are misplaced. Yes, the Electoral College is unfair. Yes, Republicans have behaved dishonestly when it comes to court appointments. But when you consider that control of the court is existential, that if liberals get their court appointments, they will get everything they demand on cultural issues, whereas if conservatives get their court appointments, perhaps liberalism won’t be completely dominant and the court will have some semblance of neutrality, conservative scepticism of the formal democratic process becomes more understandable.
The Warren Court and the destructive precedents it set were the cause of Republican radicalisation. It is why Newt Gingrich made the GOP into a far more partisan and zero-sum force, and why bipartisan cooperation ended. It was not simply narrow partisan interest, although that was undoubtedly part of it, but an understanding that due to court appointments and the lawlessness of liberal activist courts, which are a feature of even nominally conservative courts (Bostock vs Clayton County) which subscribe to the pathetic sell-out that is ‘New Originalism’, makes every election existential, makes the Democratic Party a fundamental threat to the American way of life. By appointing liberal activist judges who make up the law, it is they who do not respect the fundamental tenets of the ‘Rule of Law’ and are malign, anti-democratic actors.
As mentioned in the first section about the great mistake America made in 1996, it is of paramount importance that every country that does not currently have gay marriage, and a majority not yet conditioned to support it, pass a constitutional ban with a supermajority requirement to change. Many countries, such as Hungary, have done this, although others like Romania have not done so, and the clock is ticking before the LGBT activists successfully manipulate public opinion.
Nothing other than a cast-iron constitutional ban will prevent gay marriage, Slovenia had it court-imposed against popular will, and Estonia was unprotected by a constitutional ban, seeing it passed last year.
If a nation does not stop at this critical juncture, Wokeism is guaranteed to take it over in the span of less than a decade. They will not stop at this. It will be transgender indoctrination next, and you will get to a point where your children will be brainwashed, and abducted by the state to be mutilated if you do not ‘affirm’ their delusions, and consent to their sterilisation and mutilation yourself.
Demoralisation
Outside of the United States, the rule of ‘once imposed, repeal is impossible’ continues to hold true. It is seen as a finality, vindicating the ‘impose first, indoctrinate later’ strategy, because conservatives never muster up the courage to repeal it. It is not about popular support, as the LGBT crowd showed that popular support is downstream from power. It is instead a lack of will, and the demoralisation propaganda working even on conservatives.
The demoralisation is endless, it is said to us that it is a ‘losing battle’, something that has been so ingrained in so many. But nothing is a losing battle. Liberals know this. When abortion was rejected in a referendum in Ireland during the 1980s, the movement mourned their defeat, and tried again. But conservatives always see one defeat as the final defeat, not having the conviction or courage to stand their ground and fight for what they believe to be right.
It is why liberals laugh at them and believe they can legislate their cultural left-wing extremism with impunity, things have never gone backwards for them, and as long as they continue not to, every taunt they make, every time they make us feel small and low-status, will be earned. Losers and sell-outs deserve the humiliation they face from their enemies.
I am stunned by the complete lack of planning or any advocacy for repealing gay marriage. But if Woke is to be defeated, it must be done. It was the first symbol of Woke postmodernism becoming law, a false equality between unequal biological functions, and less than a decade separates it from trans indoctrination in schools and mutilation of children.
The cultural left, the civil rights activists, feminists, LGBT activists, intersectionalists, need to know they can, and should, lose everything. We must make it clear that there is not a single issue in which they won, not a single victory they can taunt us with. We should not take demoralisation bait; we should, like them, impose our will, and MAKE people agree with us after the fact. Their insufferable smugness will only end once we have proven, through events, that we can win, we can indoctrinate the young, we can repeal everything they fought for. Only then will we reclaim our much diminished sense of honour.
How Repeal Could Happen
But the path to repeal looks daunting. It would cause legal chaos and swift backlash. They say it ‘just isn’t worth it’.
However, it all is a matter of will. Back in the 1990s, hardly anybody agreed with the LGBT activists, yet they still won. We could absolutely roll it back. But we must be Machiavellian. We must work through the current Overton Window of the society in which we live, just like they did, hiding our true intentions until we have established enough hegemony.
This is different from Auron MacIntyre’s Neocon Cycle, because in those instances, the movement’s leaders actually do genuinely believe in the ‘liberalism before they were ejected’ and don’t actually have strong ideological commitments to rolling it back. For me, presenting in the current Overton Window is a purely tactical manoeuvre, to be abandoned once in power. Neoliberal politicians did this a large amount of the time. In the BBC documentary ‘Thatcher: A Very British Revolution’, it explains that Thatcher did not reveal most of what she wanted to do in 1979, knowing it would be unpopular with the British public. But she went onto do it anyway, and by the time she left office, Britain largely bought into her worldview. Was this moral? No, but neither was how gay marriage was imposed on the United States.
Repealing gay marriage should first be done through the lens of ‘religious freedom’. Even as somebody who is not religious, this is the first step to giving opponents of same-sex marriage a sense of getting a seat at the table, and ending the smug ‘no debate’ attitude of the LGBT activists. We should allow private institutions to marry people, based on their own religious beliefs, without being litigated by anti-discrimination law. It would be best if this was presented as benefiting Muslims rather than Christians at first.
Then, we should revise a fringe libertarian idea in the 2000s, which was seen as a compromise at the time, but which now could serve as a means of rolling back legal recognition of same-sex marriage without causing legal chaos or mass outrage at people’s marriages suddenly being invalidated: privatising marriage.
There would be the appearance of neutrality in this, with polygamous marriages and marriages to one’s dog being catered to. However the crucial thing would be that in law, the status of ‘married’ becomes ‘in a heterosexual couple with biological children’, the natural, normal family structure most conductive to human flourishing. It would also de-emphasise the idea of gay marriage as a ‘fundamental human right’ and gay an identity akin to African-American, in favour of a more generalised libertarian approach.
The libertarian factor here is crucial, as there were two arguments for gay marriage, one libertarian and one rights-based. The libertarian argument can be generally put down to not caring what individuals do, whereas the rights-based one was based on equality. This would be undermined by also legalising polygamy and human-animal marriages, it would in a sense be ‘accelerationist’ in pushing popular understanding of marriage back towards its original purpose, splitting the libertarian and Woke rationales, and not immediately causing backlash by declaring the marriages ‘invalid’. It would be a ‘death through 1000 cuts’.
It will take a while for this to sink in, but with constant propaganda valorising the traditional family and ‘heteronormativity’, with these new values constantly reinforced in education, the media, and entertainment, a new generation will learn the correct definition of what marriage is, with the privatisation creating a ‘category overload’ so the definition de-facto reverts back to what it was. We need our own ‘Will and Grace’ and constant, repetitive narrative reinforcement throughout entertainment. The speed in which Germans were indoctrinated into Nazi ideology, and the speed in which they were taught to reject it, should give us hope that the same can happen with Wokeism. After all, if they are so convinced that their hegemony is permanent, why are they adamant to censor opposing opinions as ‘hate speech’?
They’ll keep on demoralising us until one country actually does this. But once one country does it, they will show the world that it is in fact possible.
With Britain’s unwritten constitution and Parliamentary sovereignty, there is no better candidate for a country that could start the global roll-back. A government elected under First Past the Post with an absolute majority, every MP fully committed to rolling back Wokeism and Blairism, would face no formal constitutional obstacles in doing so. Of course there will be massive backlash, but by giving initial plausible deniability for our views in order to be elected, and planning an army of personnel, the backlash will be withstood, and our culture avenged.
Gradualism does not mean surrender, it means careful, calculated planning and changing of the narrative. It will one day be possible for LGBT ideology to, like communism, be consigned to the dustbin of history, and the child mutilating criminals brought to justice. But we have work to do.
We must keep pushing. An ideology that mutilates young women, wipes reality away from the public record, whilst dominating every aspect of our culture and indoctrinating our youth from the very earliest ages, cannot be allowed to continue.
We must reassert the supremacy of the good, the true, and the beautiful.
Put simply: Live not by lies. Gay "marriage" is a lie. I agree with you that it's legalisation was a watershed moment. A Rubicon in fact. The force of law was deployed to compel people to accept lies as truth. And before not very long the religious were being compelled to act against their beliefs. If there's a bigger inflection point than that, I can't see it.
The concept of giving inherently sterile, non-productive "marriage" the same status as fertile marriage just renders the institution wholly obsolete. If two butt buddies get the same benefits and government recognition as a young family then what purpose is there to marriage? It is just another grift operation to take money from the White taxpayer and distribute it to client groups of the regime.