



⪠No matter how you define âmarriage,â there is zero respect for it in the so-called Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage Act lets the government establish a permanent presence in your personal life while redefining your relationships...
âśď¸ READ THE FULL STORY HERE
You may believe it serves to federally codify the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision that rejected marriage as a male-female union. Maybe it would do so temporarily. But thatâs not the endgame of the Left.
If youâre paying attention, you can see that the Senateâs recent 62-37 vote for cloture on HR 8404 puts us one step closer to abolishing state recognition of marriage entirely. Thatâs where this train is headed.
This will happen the same way such things always happen â through a demonization campaign that frames skeptics as bigots who are guilty of discrimination. Thatâs how you get Democrat-pliable Republicans such as Mitt Romney and craven Supreme Court justices like Anthony Kennedy to sign on. Thatâs how you manufacture a public opinion cascade, warning average Americans that theyâll be pummeled with lawsuits and ostracism if they dare think out loud.
And thatâs how Democrats in Congress are likely in the not-too-distant future â via HR 8404 â to make the case that marriage actually comes with privileges that discriminate against the unmarried. Disagree? Youâre a bigot who deserves to be socially ostracized! Self-censorship in the face of such accusations will pave the way, as always.Â
Collectivists Hope to Destroy Private Life & Regulate Relationships
Once theyâve gotten to that point via HR 8404 and Republicans who supported the measure, congressional Democrats will doubtless push us to agree that marriage is a discriminatory institution. Weâll start seeing more anti-marriage initiatives supported by singles, millennials and Gen Z, all well-groomed for the moment by teachers unions, academia, and media.
Theyâll fall for the pitch that we can all just write up domestic partnership contracts instead. âMarriageâ would then become nothing but a legal relationship (a contract) between two (or more) people for any purpose at all. Bureaucrats would broker those contracts. This proposal is all mapped out in Sunstein and Thalerâs 2008 book âNudge.â Itâs also been promoted for decades by internationally acclaimed feminist legal scholar Martha Fineman who writes that a system of contracts replacing marriage will help the state âregulate all social interactions.â
Under a system that abolishes state recognition of marriage, the family could no longer exist autonomously or unmolested by the State. How could it if the State no longer recognizes marriage as the foundation of the family unit? The government would have no requirement to recognize religious rites of marriage as valid. Thus, it would meddle more deeply in religion and religious communities that recognize bonds of kinship through blood ties.
We All Become Fragmented Individuals In The Eyes Of The State
The fragmentation resulting from this will have repercussions that go beyond the billâs guarantee to treat any difference of opinion as a federal crime. If we continue on this path, the government will no longer have to recognize any biological relationships. It need not recognize any legal right you might have as the parent of your biological child. Why should it? It would have already abolished its recognition of the union that produced the child.Â
Some of this process has already been completed through gender-neutral language in documents like passports, birth certificates, or the rules of the 117th Congress that do not recognize the words âmother, father, son,â or âdaughter.â
Much groundwork has also been laid by surrogacy and abortion laws that treat children as chattel to buy, sell, and dispose of at will. And why would the state have to recognize any other relationships resulting from marriage if it no longer recognizes marriage? It could ignore your blood relationships to brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or any familial bond. In this scenario, youâd likely need a license to raise your own child, an old communist goal that the so-called Respect for Marriage Act conjures up.
When all there is are bureaucratized domestic partnership arrangements, the government would no longer need to recognize spousal privilege and thereby could legally coerce spouses to testify against one another in court. It could also abolish the default path of survivorship through which your inheritance goes to your spouse or next of kin. Instead, the State would be free to redistribute your nest egg at will in its great bureaucratic wisdom.
Indeed, there is no reason to doubt that the Respect for Marriage Act serves as a midwife to the radical leftâs long-held goal of abolishing state recognition of marriage. It will allow the government to regulate our relationships, rendering each of us naked before its power.Â
We are each being set up for a pre-arranged marriage with Big Government operating as our abusive spouse.Â
Such Fragmentation Is A Totalitarian Necessity
The path to human fragmentation is the natural arc of all totalitarian systems in the making. They must always first isolate people in order to control them through terror, as Hannah Arendt noted in her work âThe Origins of Totalitarianism.â Tyrants always mask their intentions by borrowing from tradition, using words like ârespect for marriage, love,â or âequalityâ as they march us all into virtual solitary confinement.Â
Thereâs nothing new about this trajectory. Itâs a long-standing vision of all totalitarian systems, which first came into the open with the Communist Manifestoâs proclamation, âAbolish the family!â Communists referred to traditional religion as âthe opiate of the peopleâ while setting up communism as a pseudo-religion that demanded unquestioning loyalty. The resulting dependency then truly becomes the fentanyl of the people.
Such deceptions are why Schumer and company talk about marriage as though the government has some sort of litmus test for âlove.â But anyone with half a brain knows that loveâs got nothing to do with a functioning stateâs interest in marriage. Marriage is an institution that exists to allow for a structured society and for the protection of children.Â
Of course, we easily forget such facts while living in a nation that increasingly promotes infanticide, assisted suicide, recreational drug use, child pornography, and other ways to torture and kill our children. In fact, virtually all of their policy positions are tailor-made for family breakdown, community breakdown, and for hostility toward religious communities.
But maybe you like feeling lonely and alienated, like the idea of a childless and hopeless future, and are all for the state regulating your personal relationships and conversations. Well, then, youâll like the âRespectâ for Marriage Act.
But the destruction of bonds of affection and loyalty in the private spheres of life makes sense from the point of view of statists. Those loyalties get in the way of their ambitions for power and social engineering. They are invested in isolating us so that we become dependent upon them.âŞ





















âśď¸ CLICK HERE TO VIEW
âśď¸ 1 Hour 6 Minutes 21 Seconds âď¸ Canuknucklehead
âśď¸ 11 Minutes 9 Seconds âď¸ Michael Brower
âśď¸ 5 Minutes 38 Seconds âď¸ Bosun Higgs
âśď¸ 51 Seconds
âśď¸ 59 Seconds

