DADI.org

Marxist Red Eye on Marriage
Steve Farrell
January 13, 2000

As a child growing up in New York, I, like every kid around me (that I knew of), had natural feelings for the opposite sex. When I saw a pretty little girl come my way or look over and flash a smile at me, my heart fluttered, my cheeks blushed and I no doubt shuffled my feet and shyly looked away.

As shy as I was and as busy as I was playing sports, I always liked girls. No one had to tell me that I should. I just did.

When I became a teen, the feelings continued, but I was still shy and still busy with sports. Except this time around when I thought about a girl, I thought about marriage. To me, getting married seemed like a prerequisite to happiness, to completeness. Don't ask me why, because I still wasn't dating. It was an instinctive feeling. I knew I was born to get married.

Ben Franklin, who was not the philanderer history rewriters make him out to be (he firmly believed in the law of chastity), expressed long ago what I, by nature, felt as a teen. In an attempt to persuade a young friend to reject the idea of a mistress and embrace the institution of marriage, Franklin wrote:

"Marriage is the proper remedy. It is the most natural state of man and therefore the state in which you are most likely to find solid happiness. Your reasons against entering into it at present appear to me not well founded. The circumstantial advantages you have in view by postponing it are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the thing itself, the being married and settled.

“It is the man and woman united that make the complete human being. Separate, she wants his force of body and strength of reason; he, her softness, sensibility and acute discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the world. A single man has not nearly the value he would have in that state of union. He is an incomplete animal. He resembles the odd half of a pair of scissors. If you get a prudent, healthy wife, your industry in your profession, with her good economy, will be a fortune sufficient."

"Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord:" This, a command to Adam and Eve that they become “one flesh;" a complete being.

Such a blissful unity comes only when two people, naturally in love, bound by a covenant to love and share that love between themselves and their children, are married and bound to each other and none other. They then become one flesh, first, in the natural unity of sexual intercourse; second, through the resulting offspring who possess a genetic code linked to both parents; and third, through the common endeavor of raising the product of their love, their children.

They also become one, as Dr. Franklin instructed, because of their natural differences which interlock and compliment each other in a wonderful symphony, which is achieved through a lifetime of give and take, sacrifice, patience, struggle and mutual reform.

With the coming of grandchildren, the unifying common causes continues, and grand child, parent and grand parent, are all blessed and pulled together as a result. It is a wonderful plan devised to refine us; a plan which has met with the approval and sanction of every great civilization.

That is as it should be, but it is not always that way. The fault lies not with the family, but with the less than salutary exercise of free choice by some individuals. It is also the fault of forces, which, in ignorance or malicious intent, are working to manipulate that free choice in ways which will destroy the family.

I do not hesitate, as anyone who reads this column well knows, to bring up the name of Karl Marx and the political system of socialism/communism as one of the chief offenders.

In words typically hate filled, inflammatory and loaded with gross generalizations, Marx decried Western Civilization's belief in the "hallowed co-relation" of husband to wife and parent to child as "bourgeois claptrap (artifice)" which he called "disgusting."

He said, children and wives are collectively thought of by parents as nothing more than "articles of commerce and instruments of labor;" wives and daughters as "common prostitutes," and bourgeois marriage, "in reality a system of wives in common."

If this is so, Marx ‘reasoned,’ then why not then a free sex society where anything goes — the very argument the lavender lobby uses today.

But Marx's conclusions were not based on some "holy" interest in children, who, like everyone else, he slighted as dumb cattle, but to the intent of promoting revolution or more specifically, how to succeed at a revolution. Annihilating the traditional family, that stabilizing unit of any successful civilization, that transmission site of the values, religion and traditions of society, was key to this success.

This is why right smack in the middle of Marx's plan to destroy the family lay this comment, "We [must] replace home education [with] social [education]." The motive: sever the transmission belt of values and stability — the family.

Commenting on the potential for the family to stabilize, and the neglect of the family to destabilize, a nation, French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville contrasted 19th Century America with 19th Century Europe:

"There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated. In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasure of home is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart and fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions that frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience with the legislative powers of the state exact.

“But when the American retires form the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; and as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, he accustoms himself easily to moderate his opinion as well as his tastes. While the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his won home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs."

Therefore, it takes no grand light-bulb-turning-on revelation to recognize that incessant assaults on the traditional family - through intrusive social service regulations, through anti-family/anti-religious school curriculums, through anti-family/anti-religious children's bills of rights, through the imposition of gay scout leaders, teachers and foster parents on our children and through the legalization of gay marriage - has anything to do with an interest in rights for gays and/or rights for children. It has everything to do with promoting a social revolution; a revolution inspired by Marx that the shortsighted and the enemy still embrace today.

If Americans which to keep our country secure, stable and free, it is time that they reacquainted themselves and then defended with great vigor the sacred institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

Steve Farrell is the former Managing Editor of Right Magazine, and a widely published research writer who serves on the staffs at Liberty Caucus, Enter Stage Right, and Ether Zone. His current projects include his upcoming book, Democrats In Drag: Another Look at the Republican Party.

Please email your comments and/or media requests to Steve at Cyours76@hotmail.com

Back to DA*DI's Home