Brendan O’Neill, in the Spectator, laughs at “freedom to marry” as the phrase used to describe nothing less than forcible conversion.
Twenty-five years ago, American thinker Christopher Lasch argued that â€˜progressive rhetoric has the effect of concealing social crisis and moral breakdown by presenting them as the birth pangs of a new orderâ€™. Bingo! Thereâ€™s no better description of gay marriage. Here, too, progressive-sounding rhetoric is really the dolling-up of our atomised, risk-averse societiesâ€™ growing disdain for those deep relationships in which families and communities traditionally socialised the next generation, mostly away from the prying eyes of the state. This is why the gay-marriage campaign is so contradictorily illiberal, so hostile to dissent, and so attractive to petty-authoritarian politicians: because it isnâ€™t about expanding liberty at all; itâ€™s about unilaterally overhauling the moral outlook of the traditionalist sections of society and elevating the commitment-phobic, passion-lite, short-termist values of the chattering classes instead.â€¨Aussie campaigners for the â€˜Freedom to marryâ€™ are actually lucky that the PM isnâ€™t cheering their moral crusade. Because this means that when they finally win this illiberal liberty â€” which they unquestionably will â€” theyâ€™ll be able to present it as a great victory for civil libertarians who bravely took on The Man. When in truth, their victory will be built on the spilt blood of French protesters and the trampled-upon right to dissent of Americans and Britons and the transformation of gay marriage by Western political elites into a new orthodoxy that you question at your peril.
Read the whole thing.