Defending the Citadel of Marriage

It is one of those strange contradictions of the liberals that they change their position when it suits them.

It was back in the sixties when they began their brutal attack on marriage. Feminists hated the institution because they said it enslaved them. Sexual liberation was to be extended to all consenting parties.

Everything was done to take away the prestige and esteem of this cherished institution. Soon it became fashionable for couples simply to live together. The results are well known. The institution of marriage has suffered immense damage. We see the consequences of free love in the proliferation of single-parent households, no-fault divorce, abortion, contraception, sexually transmitted diseases and deviant sexual lifestyles of all sorts.

The only way marriage could valiantly defend itself was by not yielding and insisting that it remain a permanent union of exclusion admitting no others. Brave husbands and wives have resisted the free love onslaught of the sexual revolution and, although battered by the cultural war, the sacred standard of marriage still waves from the citadel despite everything.

Now it seems those who were so anti-marriage have become pro-marriage.

When marriage becomes an insurmountable obstacle for the sexual revolutionary agenda of free love, liberals have no problem of trying to turn marriage into an institution to promote their agenda in the form of same-sex “marriage.”

That is why the same people who promote the whole range of sexual revolutionary positions can now be found extolling the wonders of same-sex “marriage.”

When marriage becomes an insurmountable obstacle for the sexual revolutionary agenda of free love, those same people who were so anti-marriage, now promote their agenda in the form of same-sex “marriage.”

Those same people who called marriage enslaving in the sixties, now insist upon their “right to marry” today.

They have not changed their positions on abortion, contraception, divorce or free love. They still enthusiastically support these anti-marriage positions. We will find these liberals fleeing from chastity, abstinence, modesty and virginity like bats flee from light.

However, they take this new position because they know that, as long as the sacred standard of indissoluble marriage waves from the citadel, society recognizes the fact that morality still exists. As long as a morality still is perceived to exist, the agenda of free love suffers restraint which they find unbearable.

That is why they want to destroy the citadel not from outside marriage but from within. They seek to tear away the bonds of exclusivity that makes marriage what it is. That exclusivity that marked marriage as a fruitful and permanent union of one man and one woman now must become inclusive and sterile.

It is in the nature of the unbridled passions to accept no restraints and decry all morality. Thus, the new “defenders” of marriage will not be happy until the sacred standard of indissoluble marriage is wrenched down and the rainbow flag is hoisted in its place.

They will not be happy until any and all sexual relationships, “genders” and lifestyles are accepted. That is to say, they will never be happy because unbridled sexuality never brings happiness but only frustration, anxiety and disillusionment.