GAY MARRIAGE - Pushing the whole camel under the tent!

My friend Laura (aka the Biker Babe, the seldom blogger) at Pitchforks & Hammerhandles gave me a tip on the following from The Claremont Institute ...

We are at a precipice, not only for constitutional law but also for thought itself. If developments continue apace, we will soon have no word to express the union of a man and woman, as it was in the beginning. (Already, the young adults I commonly interact with—college students— typically see nothing "wrong" with the new, expansive definition of marriage and can't imagine why anyone would want to cramp it.) In such a regime, those of us who cleave to the notion that at least the concept of marriage is sacred— its boundaries not subject to deconstruction— are destined to be disappointed in the short-term. But the long-term prospect is, from one point of view, better. As the silent artillery of time wreaks its inevitable havoc on the chords of our memory, we will not have to fear being adjudged guilty of thoughtcrime because we will no longer have a word to express that which… someone, somewhere, once meant by the union of a man and a woman. Unconsciousness will be, perhaps, our best defense.

I for one do not want my children and grandchildren to have to go over that precipice ... what is wrong with the Orwellian American public? Don't they have any idea what is going on?

The author quotes from George Orwell's 1984 ...

It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words…. In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it…. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.

In the language of Newspeak an expert explains, above, the ultimate purpose behind the manipulation and command of language.

This is something the homosexual community picked up from the feminist community, who filched it from the leftists and socialists of the sixties. Now, with the "PC" crowd and the judicial activists cooperating with one another, we can see how Pope Benedict XVI has picked up on the "dictatorship of relativism."

What is the danger here?

Our lament, therefore, must not be for the loss of a word, for all words are, in themselves, purely conventional. Nor should we lament the redefinition of "marriage" merely because of the immediate moral, political, or policy consequences. As judicial review becomes literary deconstructionism, our lament must be for the loss of the possibility of a natural basis for human laws. The argument for same-sex "marriage" (and even much of the argument against it) elides the question of whether the noun "marriage" refers to anything in nature. Is the thing that marriage signifies a particular concept with an essence outside the mind and control of the observer—or is it a whim subject to infinite reinterpretation by lawyers and judges?

What has happened is that our language has been co-opted by the godless in our society, and they have expunged God from the lexicons of the world and substituted nominalist/relativistic secularism for the faith traditions of thousands of years ... in effect rendering the faithful culturally and politically mute.