Why Singles Rights And Same-Sex Marriage Will Abolish All Marriage

The Federalist ^ | Oct 29, 2014 | Stella Morabito

[Ray76]

I recently argued in The Federalist that same-sex marriage is merely a vehicle to abolish all civil marriage, and with it, all family autonomy. I predicted that “singles’ activists” would try to finish the job by using those same “marriage equality” arguments to claim that all civil discriminates against singles and therefore should be abolished. Lo and behold, a singles’ activist, [] Bella DePaulo, confirmed exactly that []: “Morabito says that what I really want is ‘to abolish marriage without saying so.’ That’s not quite right. I’m happy to say so.”

As for me connecting “singles’ rights” with the same-sex marriage movement, DePaulo had this to say []:

The author picks up on an argument I have been making for some time – that single people are targets of institutionalized, legalized discrimination in the form of the 1,000+ federal laws that protect and benefit only those who are legally married. She also accurately notes that my argument, and that of many other like-minded critics, has roots in the same-sex marriage movement.

Central planners have always understood that when you legally isolate people, you can better control them. Take away the sanctuaries of marriage and family, and you take away everybody’s privacy and autonomy.

Too many Americans seem hypnotized by the slogan that abolishing civil marriage will “get the state out of the marriage business.” [] Have you ever heard anyone who makes this claim explain exactly how it gets the state “out”? I haven’t, and I’ve concluded that’s because it does no such thing. Rather, by abolishing marriage, you simply give the state permission to refuse to recognize your marriage, and its attendant rights and responsibilities. This refusal inevitably extends to the rest of family relationships, including parent-child.

[liberalism is suicide]

People have been conditioned to think all discrimination is wrong(except in cases when liberals use it). Its not. Moral discrimination is definitely good and necessary for a healthy civilization.

[Ransomed]

The last thing the statists and leftists want is to give up any sort of control over marriage, in my opinion. If they did, individual states where leftists and statists have been in control for decades would have actually done it, instead of the most conservative states now working towards it in reaction to enforced state recognition of ‘gay marriage.’

They love that many have been conditioned get their definition of marriage from however the state happens to be defining it at any one time. I can’t see them giving that up, no way.

Freegards

[Ray76]

> They love that many have been conditioned get their definition of marriage from however the state happens to be defining it at any one time.

I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. Until the USSC action there was recognition of the definition of marriage, a definition which has been recognized for millenia. That recognition protected and favored families, which serves the societal need for the continuation of society.

The illicit action of the USSC is a war on society. The minds of those “justices” are clouded and dark.

[Ransomed]

No fault divorce wasn’t recognized for millennia. That went a long way for folks being conditioned take the state’s version of marriage as the actual version. And all that is in the modern era is a state contract which can be broken and resumed with the state’s permission between any parties the state currently deems acceptable. And what the state accepts is only what judges, pols, or the voting public accepts at any one time. That’s all it ever will be to the state in the modern era, it doesn’t have any other way to do it.

In any case, I can’t see leftists or the state ever allowing it’s control of marriage to slip away. Those religious groups that accepted ‘gay marriage’ wouldn’t even marry their own gay members until the state they happened to be in agreed with them about it.

Freegards