Kathy Shaidle had a short but ingenious post the other day, headlined "If we're crazy, they made us that way":
The same people who told us 30 years ago that "marriage is just a stupid piece of paper" now insist that it's a "human right."
The same people who told us that "a flag is just a meaningless piece of material" now want certain flags banned and others raised — or else.
The same people who say you can't change who you want to f*ck tell us you CAN change the bits you f*ck them with...
The same people who used to tell us to "lighten up" and "learn to take a joke" now fire people who make them.
It's always a mistake to expect first principles from the left. In Turkey President Erdogan famously explained that democracy is a train you ride until the stop you want to get to - and then you get off. That's how the left feels about "rights". There are no principles, only accretions of power.
For those of us cursed by principled argument, the problem of the passing years is that, whatever comes up in the headlines, we had our say five, ten, twenty years ago, and haven't changed our minds. Six years ago I wrote a column for Maclean's, which was itself a restatement of a column from The Western Standard another five years before that - all about polygamy, and the gay activists purporting to scoff at it:
Five years ago [ie, 2004], proponents of same-sex marriage went into full you-cannot-be-serious eye-rolling mode when naysayers warned that polygamy would be next. As I wrote in that Western Standard piece:
"Gay marriage, they assure us, is the merest amendment to traditional marriage, and once we've done that we'll pull up the drawbridge."
Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, the former Supreme Court justice, remains confident the drawbridge is firmly up. "Marriage is a union of two people, period," she said in Quebec the other day. But it used to be a union of one man and one woman, period. And, if that period got kicked down the page to accommodate a comma and a subordinate clause, why shouldn't it get kicked again? If the sex of the participants is no longer relevant, why should the number be?
Ah, well, says Mme L'Heureux-Dubé, polygamists don't enjoy the same societal acceptance as gays. "I don't see a parade of polygamists on Ste-Catherine Street," observes the great jurist, marshalling the same dazzling quality of argument she used back in her days as the Supreme Court's most outspoken activist on gay issues.
Etc. Headline from this morning's Politico:
It's Time to Legalize Polygamy
Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism
The right never learns that there is no last concession, only a nano-second's respite to catch your breath and then (to reprise another Kathy Shaidle line) more KY for that slippery slope.
Someday soon some judge somewhere will rule in favor of polygamy, not because the left is especially invested in this particular "expansion" of rights but because of the opportunities it provides for further vandalism of what's left of the old order. That's what matters.
Read the rest here...