FOR YEARS, New York Times writer Lisa Belkin has been an industrious purveyor of the view that whatever feminism says is good for women must be good for children too. Since feminism and its denial of innate sex differences has led with inexorable logic to the idea of same-sex “marriage,” it is no suprise that this weekend, when same-sex “marriage” becomes legal in New York, Mrs. Belkin weighs in with her views in a piece predictably titled, “For the Sake of the Children.”
Mrs. Belkin describes three ultra bourgeois couples in the hopes of convincing us that the emperor is wearing clothes. One mother is a “stay-at-home mom” who oversees a family arrangement that is “so mundane in [the daughter's] eyes that when a schoolmate asked “Why do you have two moms?” she replied, curiously, “Why do you have a mom and a dad?” (She will have to ask many, many children this question and is bound to find the answer.) The male couple have a favorite restaurant they’ve been going to for years “like many a long-married couple” and one of their sons is in college. The other two women, who have made the fact that they were both pregnant at the same time into a standing gimmick, pose on their porch with their children in mostly traditional attire. (The rock musician mother’s black boots, however, disrupt the scene.)
The stay-at-home mother says she is “marrying” for the sake of her seven-year-old daughter:
All Kate’s life we have taught her that she is part of a bigger world. That there are laws that are old and that need to be changed, and that this is a time in history, like freeing the slaves and giving women the right to vote, when things changed. For us to not get married is pretty much telling her that the fight wasn’t important.
The mother’s evocation of the suffragettes is not surprising. After all, the suffragettes found men so unreliable, they felt it necessary for women to step in. These women find men so objectionable they can’t find any two men in the entire world worth marrying. But the idea that same sex “marriage” has anything in common with the freeing of the slave in bondage is too absurd for even a little girl unless one follows the logic further and sees the racial self-loathing that also lies behind this radical experiment in adult selfishness.
Imagine being seven years old and having heard so many lectures on progressive politics. While most couples recognize marriage as important to their children so that they have a living kinship with their natural mother and father, this woman is “marrying” “for the sake of” so that her daughter will have faith in progressive politics. The onus on this child to admire this experiment will be heavy indeed. She will have two choices: to join in the crusade against history or reject her mothers.
One of the men states that he and his boyfriend are “working the wedding around the kids.” That they might have worked their lives around their children, holding their noses perhaps and mating with women, is not as important as making that event convenient.
Which returns us to the author of this piece: Lisa Belkin. Why does a white middle class woman who has raised her own children with a husband find homosexual “marriage” so uplifting? The answer is, she is a feminist. Same-sex “marriage” confirms the feminist’s deepest belief in the mutability of sexual identity and the endless adaptability and resilience of young children. For this reason, feminism had to lead to enthusiasm for a project that creates fatherless and motherless children.
— Comments –
James N. writes:
You are correct about Lisa Belkin: “Same-sex “marriage” confirms the feminist’s deepest belief in the mutability of sexual identity”.
This is, of course, why the whole horrible “transgender” phenomenon is allowed to exist (I mean, why the mutilators posing as surgeons are not in prison).
It’s not just feminists,and it’s not just sexual identity. The entire project of the Left is premised on the mutability of ALL created human essences, and that’s also why, when the targets prove immutable, there are always mountains of skulls.