A Vote For Australian Labor Is A Vote For Incremental Homosexual Totalitarianism And Radical Government Over-Reach 

Good news if you like police states because there’s a 50-50 chance Australia will take one big leap towards it at our coming July 2nd election: all you need to do is vote for Labor.

Now, you may be supportive of homosexuality and redefining the only definition of marriage in all history but before you leap at the following proposal, just imagine the day when such a ploy is used against you because, guaranteed, it will come.

Government always seeks more power and while today they target the enemies of homosexuality, tomorrow they will target other enemies…and maybe you will eventually find yourself on their list when it is too late to do anything.

Given that just over 60% of Australians identify as Christians (compared to the 2-3% of homosexuals), will Christians be getting our own discrimination commissioner from labor?

Yeah, didn’t think so.

Here’s the bad news:

Labor has announced it will appoint an LGBTI discrimination commissioner to the Australian Human Rights Commission if it wins government in July.

Senator Penny Wong announced plans in Melbourne on Saturday morning for a full-time, dedicated commissioner to champion the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex people.

She said the move would help ensure LGBTI Australians feel safer and more included in society.

“The commissioner will address structural discrimination, work towards ensuring our schools, workplaces and communities are free from discrimination, continuing Labor’s tradition of removing discrimination and creating a more fair, more equal Australia,” Ms Wong said.

Senator Wong said the person appointed to the job would have a big task ahead of them.

“The simple truth is we’re not equal … and whilst great progress has been made in the fight for a fairer Australia, our fight is far from over,” she said.

“Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and intersex Australians continue to face discrimination in so many areas of their life.

“The impact of this discrimination is real and it can be deadly.”

Senator Wong said discrimination also included state-sanctioned discrimination and reiterated that the Opposition would legislate for same sex marriage in the first 100 days of the next Parliament if elected.



Leftist Governments Will Force Their Way Into Your Family And They Will Target Your Children To Do It

Here is the terrifying totalitarian future that Scotland is cooking up for families.


The Scottish Parliament has passed legislation to appoint a ‘Named Person’ for every child in Scotland.

This is a state official tasked with looking after a child’s “wellbeing”, that is, their “happiness”. This state guardian will be put in place regardless of whether or not children or parents wish to have one and regardless of whether there is any need for state intervention.

Confusingly, there are already Named Person pilot schemes in operation across Scotland, but the legislation does not actually come into force until August 2016.


Named Persons are given some of the duties of parents. A Government-funded leaflet said this includes having to check if children get a say in how their room is decorated and what they watch on TV.

A Named Person will have the power to speak to a child, including about very personal issues, and provide information or advice – all without requiring parental consent.


  1. It undermines parents and permits the state unlimited access to pry into the privacy of families in their homes.
  2. The Government keeps saying there’s no need for families to use the Named Person but this is disingenuous. The scheme is compulsory. Every child will have a Named Person by law. They will have power to access confidential data on the family, and to talk to a child without their parents agreeing with what they say.
  3. It’s already extremely difficult to protect vulnerable children with the resources available. The Scottish Government is stretching those resources even further by creating a scheme that applies to all children regardless of need.
  4. Appointing a Named Person with legal responsibilities for every child will divert resources away from vulnerable children. Time spent filling in forms for dozens of children at no risk is time that could be better spent on those children in need of help.
  5. One piece of Government guidance says a Named Person has “responsibility for overall monitoring of the child’s wellbeing and outcomes”. This is the role of a parent.
  6. Because of the pressure on them, Named Persons will be forced to act defensively, reporting trivial or irrelevant family issues to social services. This creates more work for social workers who will have to needlessly follow up these families, cheating vulnerable children of the resources that they need.
  7. The Named Person is legally responsible for monitoring the wellbeing of every child. Official guidance says “wellbeing is another word for happiness”. How can the state monitor the happiness of every child?
  8. Teachers are busy enough without becoming a Named Person responsible for monitoring hundreds of children and handling the large amounts of confidential data sent to them by all the other agencies involved in the child’s life.
  9. These plans could result in children having their privacy invaded over personal issues and could lead to them shunning helplines and advisory services.
  10. The current law says social services can intervene where a child is at risk of significant harm. But Named Persons can intervene merely where there are concerns about a child’s “wellbeing” or “happiness”.

Consider the following commentary for further insight into just how terrifyingly bad this actually is:


The Purpose Of Government

Please read carefully:

In the midst of a rancorous presidential nominating season, when we are bombarded every day with promises by politicians about how they will create jobs or educate our children better or get the economy rolling again, few if any candidates seem to grasp the purpose of government in America. The purpose of government is to preserve liberty. 

That would include protecting us from foreign enemies who seek to take our freedom and from people who come into our nation illegally, either as illegal immigrants or as terrorists. Protecting the legal integrity of our borders and our citizenship is an aspect of protecting American liberty. Nothing matters, though, if liberty first is not preserved.

Listen, then, to the next Republican debate. What are the candidates talking about? Who will create the most jobs, who will jump-start the economy, who will improve our educational system. We do not need government, especially the federal government, for any of that. The economy hums along just fine without politicians. Jobs are created when people work and not when the Bureau of Labor Statistics captures data for dreary and dull reports.

Do we need government to educate us? We need government less than at any time in human history to educate us. There are a hundred different ways for children these days to learn to read and write, and once children are literate, there is a limitless universe of knowledge that eager and willing minds can pump to become truly and magnificently educated. Indeed, it is incomparably better for de-institutionalized willing minds to learn to keep learning than to earn a diploma, which implies entitlement or merit when often it means nothing at all.

Liberty, though, is quite different. It is the very air free minds need to survive. It is the soil in which wealth grows. There is no substitute for liberty, no government program that can simulate liberty, no regulation that can mandate liberty. It cannot be bought, and it ought not be sold. 

When our Declaration of Independence states that it is to preserve liberty that governments are formed by men, and when the Preamble to our Constitution states that the reason for this experiment in federalism is “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity,” that is the heart of what America is, or what it was founded to be.

Expanding liberty would a worthwhile goal for discussion in a presidential election year. Devolving power to individuals and to state governments, which lack the sort of monopoly the federal government possesses in its continental reach, is surely worth talking about. What might be some practical ways of accomplishing this goal?

Restore to individuals and to businesses that are not inextricably linked to government the right to discriminate. The right to discriminate is at the heart of freedom. What if a particular variety of discrimination seems wrong to us? Then we, personally, should not do it. We might also tell businesses that if they want our trade, we will consider when and how they discriminate. But stop making federal judges and government bureaucrats the arbitrators of good and bad discrimination. Let markets and individual consciences do that.

Abolish as many federal offices and agencies as possible. This does not mean that the function performed by that agency is not a proper role of government, but rather that it is not the proper role of a national government. Government operations close to the people, that compete within states or among states for taxpayers, businesses, and homeowners, cannot trample liberties recklessly. 

Finally, consider giving teeth to the Bill of Rights, which is, of course, all about liberty. It is from beginning to end a statement of what the federal government may not do, to us or to the governments of the states. The Second Amendment, for example, is about preserving our individual right of self-protection. We need to stop apologizing for exercising that right. 

The Ninth Amendment is not about allowing abortion on demand. Hear the words of that amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The italicized words show an intention to limit federal judicial power, which was also seen as a threat to liberty.

The sad fact, of course, is that we live in a land full of people more afraid of the responsibilities of freedom than the blessings of freedom. Until we re-learn the purpose of government in our land, the problems we have in politics will remain intractable and politics largely an exercise in futility.

America is about liberty, and with liberty, despite the dolts who hold or seek elective office, our nation will do just fine.

Remember, it’s always governments who headed up the worst historical atrocities.

The bigger we allow them to get, the close we are to the next atrocity.

When we expect them to be big, the atrocity is at the doorstep.

Freedom: The Cost Of Championing Homosexuality

No matter how loud people shout the lie that “it won’t change anything,” there is a cost to subverting the natural design for human sexuality and forcing society to bow to sexuality is plainly unnatural and unhealthy.

The cost is freedom and we are repeatedly finding that out as law suit after law suit targets Christians who refuse to bow to the ideological pressure of the homosexual agenda.

An Oregon judge has ruled that the owners of a Portland-area bakery who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple should pay the couple $135,000 in damages, state officials said Tuesday.

Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough issued a proposed order last week that could mean Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein will have to pay $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer, and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer, for emotional suffering.

In 2013, when the two women were planning their nuptials, the Kleins, citing their religious beliefs, refused to bake the cake. The gay couple married in 2014 after a federal judge struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban.

The state’s Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) contends the bakery owners violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws because the shop is not a registered religious institution.

The promised tolerance is starkly absent as the agenda to normalise homosexuality rolls forward in the West.

Gary DeMar’s description of this fine as “cruel and unusual punishment” is an apt one and his assessment gives us a disturbing though unsurprising insight into the promised totalitarian future for Christians in the West:

By now you know that a bakery has been fined $135,000 for not baking a cake for a lesbian wedding. Let that sink in. It’s not that the bakery refused to bake a cake; it only refused to bake a cake with a particular message on it.

Now we’re learning that Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, may end up losing their home. “This is intimidation and bullying — that’s exactly what it is,” Melissa Klein told Todd Starnes of Fox news in a telephone interview. “They are trying to strong-arm me into handing over $135,000 to the two [lesbian] girls, and if I win on appeal — they will never pay me back.”

The court should have told the disgruntled lesbians to (1) find a different baker or (2) bake their own cake, especially since same-sex marriages were not legal in Oregon at the time Melissa Klein refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

As I’ve pointed out in numerous articles, no one should be forced to produce a product for something they do not believe in. You don’t need the Constitution to establish such a principle as a freedom. It’s in inalienable right neither to be conferred nor taken away by a government or its courts. Should a British loyalist that owned a printing company have been forced to print the Declaration of Independence?

Companies refuse business every day in the United States for any number of reasons. A web designing company should not be forced to develop a website that promotes pornography. Such a principle protects everyone no matter what side a person may be on regarding a particular issue.
But when it comes to same-sex marriage, there is no room for disagreement. You will be made to care and comply . . . or else.

While the Supreme Court created a new right based on a sex act not found in the Constitution, there are several items in the Constitution that apply to those who do not want to violate their fundamental beliefs. They aren’t new freedoms; they are inherent freedoms.

The First Amendment protects a person’s beliefs concerning his or her religious beliefs. It also protects their right to free speech. That would include the right not to be forced to speak about what others want them to speak about. No one should be forced to be a mouthpiece for an opinion that is not theirs.

There is another constitutional principle that impacts the $135,000 fine leveled against Aaron and Melissa Klein – the Eighth Amendment:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

There it is – no excessive fines imposed. “In Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909), the Supreme Court held that excessive fines are those which are ‘so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.’ . . . In other words, the government must not be able to confiscate such a large amount of property without following an established set of rules created by the legislature.”

The rules in the Sweet Cakes case were made up.

The Sweet Cake’s fine was capricious and punitive well beyond anyone’s definition of punishment — $135,000 for not baking a cake!

Persecution is normal once again for the church that refuses emperor worship and Christians, like our brethren of old, are the atheists in a land where the pantheon of false gods are worshipped.

Our need for the knowledge of Jesus Christ has never been more pressing but as always, what lawless government can seperate us from the love of God?

There is no persecution that trumps the everlasting joy that we have in God’s presence.

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (‭Ephesians‬ ‭3‬:‭14-21‬ ESV)


Social Justice And The Welfare State Lead To Unpayable Debt

A nation swamped in debt empowers the government. Not to do good mind you but to ramp up its influence and power over the lives of the people it exists to protect. 

When a culture honours and rewards laziness, apathy, and even immorality at the expense of those who demonstrate qualities like integrity and hard work, society is bound to collapse.

Irony has it that those who suffer the least consequences are usually those who had the biggest role in creating the problem in the first place.

This aptly describes where the West is headed today and we are arriving there quickly.

The debt crisis is endemic and like cancer too far gone, it has riddled our society at every level from the personal to government and all the way to the banks.

Everyone is living dangerously on borrowed (stolen?) money to maintain a standard of living that is unsustainable.

Consider Daniel Greenfield’s analysis of the significant role maintaining the welfare state has had on the entrenchment of the West in debt:

Banks are the root of all evil.

When a member of a traditionally oppressed group wants a house or a car he can’t afford, financial institutions are expected to lend him the money. If they don’t, they’re engaging in discrimination.

Then when he can’t pay, it’s the fault of the evil banks for having “loaded him with debt”.

The mandate for loading him with debt came from the very same people denouncing the debt loaders. Not loaning money was discriminatory and then retroactively, loaning the money was also discriminatory. In the social justice economy, everything you do is always wrong.

As go the people, so go the nations.

Detroit, Puerto Rico and Greece are the victims for having so much debt loaded on them. But who did the loading? Who decided that it was a good idea to keep selling bonds and borrowing money without having an actual plan to pay it back? Financial institutions have their share of the blame, but none of them ever forced a credit card on a politician at gunpoint.

Politicians ran up debt to pay for a wonderland in which there are a lot of public sector workers, few businesses and a lot of social services.

Detroit had 55 residents per government employee. Half the city’s residents didn’t pay property taxes which were the highest of any major city. The employment rate wasn’t pretty. The third largest “industry” was education and health care, both mostly government subsidized, the fifth biggest industry was government. Fourth was manufacturing, which in Detroit has hovered around being state-owned.

 The money had to come from somewhere and eventually the $18 billion bill came due.

Greece has a working age population of around 7 million and over 700,000 government employees; not counting workers in state-owned enterprises. A quarter of government spending goes to paying government employees.

Greece also has a 25% unemployment rate. The fairly generous employment to population ratio is at 39.

The debt is in the hundreds of billions and it isn’t going to be paid back. The debt to GDP ratio is at 175%. Under Obama, we’re also above 100%. Puerto Rico, now in crisis, is at only 70%.

The government is Puerto Rico’s largest employer. Back in the eighties, a third of the working population was employed by the government. There has been some progress since with the ratio falling to a quarter in this century, but some of the load was being shifted over to public sector corporations that were responsible for running up much of the debt.

Puerto Rico has a working age population of over 2 million and had 200,000 public employees. And, depending on how you count, the numbers may be even higher.

All of these stories follow similar narratives.

The left runs a welfare state overseen by a vast number of government employees and agencies. Much of this infrastructure does nothing useful. The administrative sector grows much faster than any other. The public sector employees are unionized. Firing them is a difficult and painful process.

Fiscally conservative governments come into office to try and make reforms, but their reforms are undercut by the bureaucracy. The unions fight privatization every step of the way. There are cries about neo-liberalism and big banks. Meanwhile more bonds are sold to subsidize the mess. The left returns to power shouting class warfare slogans and vowing that it will take care of everyone from cradle to grave.

It can’t do that, but it will bankrupt the system to protect its power.

It’s not just the story of Greece, Detroit or Puerto Rico. It’s also the story of California and the UK. It’s the story of America and Europe.

You can find the same warning signs in major cities across the country, but for the moment there are still enough jobs to keep the system afloat. At least until the jobs and the people leave.

Detroit’s population fell from 1.85 million in 1950 to below 700,000 today. Thousands to tens of thousands flee every year. Things are so bad that experts flirt with filling the city with refugees. 

There are more Puerto Ricans off the island than on it and Greeks have been leaving for a while.

But the same is true of California, New York City or London. Net migration from Europe is hidden by the huge volumes of Muslim migrants coming in from the Third World to mooch off the welfare state.

The left’s response to each setback is to spread the pain. Activists demanded that the people who fled to the suburbs should pay for Detroit’s disaster. The rest of Europe is expected to shoulder Greece’s burden. But spreading the pain only delays the inevitable. The underlying problem is still inescapable.

America has been led down the same bad road by a party that loves the imaginary numbers of Global Warming, but hates the hard numbers of economics. Obama has renamed spending, investing. But the only real investments are in a vast bureaucracy, a welfare state and crony capitalism.

The Obama coalition is based around public sector workers, the welfare class and billionaires getting special privileges in return for contributions. Their “investments” are draining the economy. What the European Union has done to different countries, Obama has done across the nation.

And all of this was done in the name of social justice.

The debt piles up in the name of social justice. The welfare state must be built for the underprivileged. And then when the bill comes due, it’s the fault of the banks and the holders for wanting their money. Any cuts are denounced as austerity. The media fills with horror stories as welfare clients, public sector employees and students riot in the streets in protests that are often funded by wealthy businessmen with ties to the corrupt political infrastructure of the left.

It’s not about the poor. It’s not about the oppressed. It’s about power.

When the left says justice, it means power. Its unwieldy coalitions are kept together by mutual hatreds and massive bribes. The bigger debt, the more the coalition must cling together as it moves from mere theft to mass economic destruction. Economic collapse deepens the complicity of all the players.

The financial institutions that laundered the bonds that paid for their welfare state now become the enemy. But that’s part of the game that the bosses on both sides understand. Financial institutions make a good deal of money by pandering to the terrible spending habits of leftists. Taking the blame for those habits is part of the deal. The left needs scapegoats more than it needs anything else.

A fundamentally false ideology convinced of its own complete rightness needs reasons for its failures. The voters who never asked hard questions about what the cost would be need someone to blame. So do the politicians who took the deals and blew the cash. But all of it is bad acting by bad actors.

When it’s all over, the left will go back to pretending not to know how money works and financial institutions will pretend to believe it. The damage will continue to spread as long as people think that they can buy a better world without ever looking at the interest rate and the final cost.

And it’ll always be the fault of wealthier countries and individuals, the suburbs and Germany and all the ants who worked while the grasshopper sang. It’s the fault of everyone who gave the governments of the left money for a grand social experiment and committed the unpardonable sin of wanting it back.

The question that remains is now that the West is wanning, what will the governments do with their power?


“Same-Sex Marriage” Is About Abolishing Marriage Altogether

If only people actually thought for themselves, we would not be where we are in the West today. Far too many people have been served up lie after lie about how people living in homosexuality are no different and their love is the “same love”. 

An entire generation of young people has been indoctrinated far better than Hitler’s Youth through their own free wills, consuming music, movies, television and literature that firstly normalised promiscuity, fornication, and adultery before moving onto more perverse and unnatural forms of social destruction.
Ask most kids today about “gay marriage” and they will say “why not?!”
I have literally had conversations with teenagers and young people where, through basic deduction and logic, I forced them to acknowledge that because they accept that homosexuality is normal, so must they accept that paedophilia and beastiality can’t be denied. And you know what, once it was out of their mouths, they were happy to claim it just so they could continue to justify homosexuality.

That’s insanity right there, folks.

And relativism is insanity when you actually think about it but as I have said, that’s the problem right there: people don’t think at all!

Stella Morabito, in contrast with these blind and thoughtless types, knows her stuff seriously well. Her article Bait And Switch: How Same Sex Marriage Ends Family Autonomy is about the real goals and dangers of so-called “homosexual marriage”.

It’s an eye opener with terrifying implications and it should be compulsory reading for all humanity.

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies.

Consider also the breakneck speed at which the push for same sex marriage has been happening recently. The agenda’s advocates have been very methodical in their organization, disciplined in their timing, flush with money, in control of all information outlets, including media, Hollywood, and academia. And perhaps most telling is the smearing of any dissenter in the public square, a stigma made de rigueur by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in his animus-soaked opinion that repealed the Defense of Marriage Act.

We’ve seen also how the Obama Administration’s push for same sex marriage has occurred in lockstep with policies that are hostile to marriage, such as the severe marriage penalty written into Obamacare.

Activist judges have taken their cues from Attorney General Eric Holder who used the DOMA repeal to proclaim open season on any state that recognizes marriage as an organic (i.e., heterosexual) union of one man and one woman. In their crosshairs are state constitutions, businesses, students, communities, churches, and all of those bogus “conscience clauses” that were written into same sex marriage legislation in order to sway wavering state legislators to vote “aye.”

The tipping point came soon after certain big name conservatives and pundits swallowed the bait on same sex marriage. Folks like Michael Barone, John Bolton, George Will, S. E. Cupp, and David Blankenhorn have played a huge role in building momentum for this movement, which, as we will see, is blazing a trail to the abolition of state recognized marriage. And whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

The notion of marriage equality was never about marriage or about equality. It’s all about the wrapping paper. It’s been packaged as an end in itself, but it is principally just a means to a deeper end. It is the means by which marriage extinction – the true target — can be achieved. If marriage and family are permitted to exist autonomously, power can be de-centralized in society. So the family has always been a thorn in the side of central planners and totalitarians. The connection between its abolition and the limitless growth of the state should be crystal clear. So anyone who has bought into this movement, or is tempted to do so, would want to step back and take a harder look.

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage

We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

1) The Gender Theorist Model: Replace civil marriage with government-regulated contractual relationships

Collectivist style parenting may still seem like the stuff of science fiction to a lot of folks, but the ground for it has softened a lot since Hillary Clinton’s 1996 treatise It Takes a Village and American Federation of Teachers president Sandra Feldman’s 1998 op-ed “The Childswap Society.” We now have MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry declaring open war on traditional families by announcing “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

She envisages that the State will fill the vacuum left by the abolition of family

The abolition of marriage and family has been a longtime project of gender theorists. Among them is internationally renown feminist law theorist Martha Albertson Fineman whose 2004 book The Autonomy Myth argues strenuously for “the abolition of marriage as a legal category.” Her treatise is breathtaking in its brazen approach to ending family autonomy and privacy.

Fineman advocates for a system that would unavoidably result in the regulation of personal relationships through legal contracts. “Contract,” she writes “is an appealing metaphor with which to consider social and political arrangements. It imagines autonomous adults” hashing out the terms, etc. Yet she envisages that the State will fill the vacuum left by the abolition of family [emphasis added]:

“. . . in addition to contract rules, I anticipate that ameliorating doctrines would fill the void left by the abolition of this aspect of family law. In fact, it seems apparent to me that a lot more regulation (protection) would occur once interactions between individuals within families were removed from behind the veil of privacy that now shields them.”

Fineman operates on the apparent assumption that family privacy serves no purpose other than to afford institutional protection for men behaving badly. Her prescription is sweeping: “Once the institutional protection [is] removed, behavior would be judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society.” [emphasis added]

There you have it. All of your social interactions judged by certain standards. Standards established by whom? The state. And lest our eyes glaze over at mention of it, we ought to think of the State for what it really is: a hierarchy of cliques, with one dominant clique at the top. (Think mean girls in charge of everything and everyone.)

Fineman replaces the word “spouse” with the term “sexual affiliate,” because, she professes, what we think of as “family” should be defined by its function, not its form. In other words, only “caretaker-dependent relationships” would be recognized in the sense that “family” is recognized today.

So the abolition of marriage, according to Fineman:

“would mean that sexual affiliates (formerly labeled husband and wife) would be regulated by the terms of their individualized agreements, with no special rules governing fairness and no unique review or monitoring of the negotiation process.”

Feel better? Fineman also states approvingly that:

“if the family is defined functionally, focused on the caretaker-dependent relationship, the traditionally problematic interactions of sexual affiliates (formerly designated “spouses”) are not protected by notions of family privacy.”

Indeed, no interaction could be protected by “notions of family privacy” in Fineman’s model. She elaborated further and more recently on all of this in an October 2013 article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review.

2) Friends in High Places promote Fineman’s Model of State-Regulated Contracts

Cass Sunstein, who served as President Obama’s regulatory czar from 2009 to 2012, has advocated strongly for the abolition of civil marriage and its replacement with contracts that would negotiate the terms of personal relationships.

In 2008 Sunstein published an article in the Cardozo Law Review arguing that there is no constitutional right to marry and suggesting that “states may abolish marriage without offending the Constitution.” And an entire chapter of a popular book Sunstein co-authored with Richard Thaler in 2008 is devoted to arguing for the abolition of civil marriage. This is from Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.

“Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government. . . . Under our approach, the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people.*(*Footnote: We duck the question of whether civil unions can involve more than two people.)”

Sunstein and Thaler dub their approach “libertarian paternalism,” an odd jargon which seems contrived to win over readers by evoking a strange juxtaposition of moderation and a heavy touch of the archaic.

Clearly, Sunstein has been laying the groundwork for the abolition of civil marriage. He purports that this would get the government out of a “licensing scheme,” but his specious phrasing is a fig leaf covering up the predictable effects of his approach: greater government regulation of personal relationships. His popular writing on the subject comes in the guise of “privatization” of relationships – even as gender theorists like Fineman argue against America’s “obsession” with privacy and individualism. But this is not a difficult circle to square. Thaler and Sunstein argue, pretty much in line with Fineman, that people ought to make use of contracts to define the terms of their relationships. And contracts invite – indeed, for Fineman, they demand – that the government function as an intimate partner in this legal ménage a trois.

3) LGBT Activists Say So Themselves: The Goal is to Abolish Marriage

“Gay marriage is a lie,” announced gay activist Masha Gessen in a panel discussion last year at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.” [Applause.] “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

Gessen was merely echoing a message from an LGBT manifesto of 2006 called Beyond Same Sex Marriage. The manifesto is a blatant rallying cry to bring about a post-marriage society, one in which there is no room for state-recognized marriage.

“It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

Ethics and Public Policy Institute scholar Stanley Kurtz wrote extensively about this document in two National Review articles, entitled The Confession and The Confession II. Kurtz noted that the intent of the sponsors of the manifesto – which as of 2006 had hundreds of prominent signatories, including Cornel West, Barbara Ehrenreich, Martha Fineman, and Gloria Steinem – was “to dissolve marriage by extending the definition to every conceivable family type.”

Sunstein needn’t have “ducked the issue” of more than two parties in a domestic contract because legalizing polygamy is central to the manifesto. And there can be no doubt that the legalization of polygamy would result in the abolition of all state-recognized marriage. Polygamy — repackaged in the now trendy term “polyamory” – comes with an array of configurations too dizzying and with too many moving parts to be sustained as state-recognized marriage.

Despite the existence of the manifesto, the official line of the LGBT community still seems to be that gay marriage is only about equal rights for couples who love one another. Their spokespersons have been disciplined – with a friendly media running cover for them – in maintaining the official line so as not to provoke a debate about the real agenda to abolish marriage.

Supposedly conservative gay activists like Jonathan Rauch have also run cover and protected the timing of the agenda by claiming that the manifesto was merely a “fringe” of the LGBT movement. It’s irrelevant whether or not Rauch really believes his own propaganda that gay marriage will somehow strengthen a marriage culture by bringing loving gay couples into it. The main effect of the Rauch meme is to accelerate the abolition of civil marriage by hastening a legal framework for genderless marriage that will pave the way for total abolition of civil marriage, and with it private family life.

It’s clear the gloves are coming off and timing has entered a new phase. The push for polyamory has gone mainstream, right on schedule. Supportive puff pieces on it are popping up in places like Atlantic Monthly and the erstwhile women’s magazine Redbook. In the end, polyamory serves only as a transitory way station between the legalization of same sex marriage and the abolition of civil marriage.

4) Growing Dominance of Singles

Recent decades have seen a sharp upsurge of unmarried households. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2012 there were 103 million unmarried people 18 and older. That’s 44 percent of all US residents over 18. And 62 percent of those 103 million had never been married. Unmarried individuals represented 56 million households in 2012. The rise in singles has had an undeniably huge impact on the electorate. In the 2012 election 39 percent of the voters were unmarried, compared to 24 percent of the voters in the 1972 election.

The “Communication League for Unmarried Equality,” is a coalition of singles’ rights organizations which argues that government benefits for marriage – including tax breaks and survivor benefits in social security — amount to marital status discrimination. Its advocates argue that civil marriage unjustly awards financial, social, and cultural benefits to married individuals at the expense of unmarried individuals who end up subsidizing marriage and children, without compensation. In addition, proponents of “unmarried equality” insist that the existence of these privileges serve to perpetuate prejudices and stereotypes about singles that inflict harm on them. (Sounds like a Supreme Court case brewing.)

Bella DePaulo spearheaded the movement as a blogger and author of Singled Out and Singlism: What it is, Why it Matters and How to Stop It.” According to DePaulo, the discrimination she calls “singlism” may seem more subtle than racism or sexism, but is just as damaging. She has tip-toed to the edge of advocating for the abolition of marriage, with a professor of feminist philosophy Elizabeth Blake, by saying that marriage should be “minimized” (for now) so that singles have the same benefits as married individuals. Which, naturally, means abolishing marriage.

“Singlism” itself is not yet considered a form of illegal discrimination. But DePaulo believes it should be:

“Because singlism is built right into American laws, it is not possible to be single and not be a target of discrimination. If you have followed the marriage equality debate, then you probably know that there are more than 1,000 federal laws that benefit or protect only those people who are legally married. Even if same-sex marriage becomes legal throughout the land, all those people who are single — whether gay or straight or any other status — will still remain second class citizens.”

5) Morphing of the Memes – from Marriage Equality to Marriage Ambivalence to Marriage Hostility

“Why would anyone get married?” That’s a quote from Nancy Pelosi in a Valentine’s Day interview last month, downplaying the importance of marriage. While some might say she’s simply courting the singles demographic, she’s mostly reinforcing and echoing a narrative that marriage is irrelevant or perhaps even harmful. She is contributing to the drumbeat to abolish civil marriage.

Let’s not forget Julia, the mascot of Obama’s reelection campaign who serves as a Stepford wife to the State.

Major cultural forces – the media, academia, and Hollywood – have already adopted an increasingly hostile view of marriage. We can see it in the use of the term “greedy marrieds” from a recent New York Times feature “The Changing American Family“: “Single people live alone and proudly consider themselves families of one — more generous and civic-minded than ‘greedy marrieds.’”

And look at NBC Sports in its coverage Olympic gold medalist skier David Wise. It described him as living an “alternative lifestyle” because he happened to be young and married with children. The clear inference was that he was abnormal.

The promotion and glorification of single parenting which got its start with the Murphy Brown TV series of the 1990s has gone into hyperdrive now. Check out online services such as Modamily, that matches people with “parenting partners,” with whom they can draw up a contract, arrange for artificial reproductive technologies, and forgo marriage.

And let’s not forget Julia, the mascot of Obama’s reelection campaign who serves, with more than a bit of irony, as a Stepford wife to the State. The narrative was clearly hostile to the idea of marriage and supportive of policies to abolish it.

6) LGBT Push for Same Sex Marriage in Developing Countries

The rush by LGBT activists and the Obama administration to lift bans on gay marriage in all 50 states is peculiarly fast and furious. Oddly so for a movement that seems to be gaining steam and social compliance. A reasonable question would be: What’s the rush if things are going so swimmingly your way? The only answer seems to be one of fragile timing.

The sudden LGBT push globally, especially in Africa, should give us pause as well. Why the abrupt shove into poor countries, threatening to cut off aid unless they comply with such a massive cultural shift and adopt the Western LGBT agenda? Why the laser focus on Uganda and Malawi instead of places like Iran where abuses of homosexuals are likely just as common?

We are witnessing a major strategy to export gay marriage – and all it entails for the abolition of marriage — worldwide. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have made an example of Uganda by threatening to cut off its aid over the existence of its anti-sodomy laws. Other developing nations are expected to take note and fall into line, creating a cascade effect until any other nation who resists will feel the noose tightening.

We might reasonably ask why this particular agenda is getting so much attention while the world goes to hell in a hand basket. Syria is overrun with vicious terrorist gangs at least as bad as its president. Russia is flexing its muscles, having just invaded the Ukraine and Crimea. Christians are being exterminated in record numbers throughout the Middle East. We’re looking at nuclear weapons in Iran. There’s a nuclear threat from North Korea, which not only starves its own people but is run by a guy who, it was said, feeds his political enemies to starving dogs. And yet President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have been spending special quality time focusing on the LGBT agenda in in the poor countries of Africa?

Clearly the Western LGBT agenda represents a new brand of cultural imperialism that is not content to shape life at home, but intends to propagate itself – and all it entails – worldwide.

Ending Marriage Leads To A Centralized All Powerful State

The hard push for marriage equality was never about marriage. Neither was it about equality. It’s a convenient vehicle to abolish civil marriage, whether to rid the world of paternalism, evade responsibility for children, “privatize” relationships, or whatever. Abolishing marriage strips the family of its autonomy by placing it much more directly under the regulating control of the state.

Once the state no longer has to recognize the marriage relationship and its presumption of privilege and privacy, we all become atomized individuals in the eyes of the state, officially strangers to one another. We lose the space – the buffer zone – that the institution of the natural, organic family previously gave us and that forced the state to keep its distance.

Isn’t it ironic that feminists would replace the “paternalism” of marriage (what happened to strong women?) with the new paternalism of state regulation of personal relationships? Isn’t it ironic that singles in this scheme of things simply end up marrying the state?

At some point, we must conclude that freedom of association has its source in state acceptance of the core family as the primary buffer zone between the individual and the state. There is no escaping this fact, no matter a particular generation’s attitude or public opinion polling, or advances in medical technology, or whatever else comes our way.

Marriage Is The Template For Freedom Of Association

Without state recognition of – and respect for – marriage, can freedom of association survive? How so? On what basis?

Civil marriage provides the entire basis for presuming the rights and responsibilities of biological parents to raise their own children. It also assumes the right of spouses to refuse to testify against one another in court. It presumes survivorship – in guardianship of children as well as inheritance of property. If we abolish civil marriage, these will no longer be rights by default, but rights to be distributed at the pleasure of a bureaucratic state.

When a couple enters into a civil marriage, they are not inviting the government into their relationship, but rather putting the government on notice that they are a family unit. It’s the couple – not the state – that’s in the driver’s seat.Otherwise, they needn’t marry. Otherwise, central planners wouldn’t be so intent on abolishing marriage as a private and autonomous association from which the state must keep its distance, unless one partner wishes to exit by divorce.

Children – i.e., all of us born into a family – inherit that presumption of autonomy and broadcast it into society. We do so whether or not we ever get married ourselves. The presumption of family autonomy and privacy informs our right to freely associate with others – through romances, friendships, business contracts, and so on. It would be catastrophic to freedom if we threw it away.

State recognition of this autonomy cannot exist without state recognition of marriage. In fact, traditional marriage — just like traditional oxygen if you will – helps all of society breathe more freely.

If civil marriage is abolished, you can say hello to the government at your bedroom door because that comfortable little meme about “getting the state out of the marriage business” will have flown out your bedroom window while you were sleeping.