- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

A Divided Country Under Kennedy’s Constitution

“Natural law—God’s law—will always trump common law,” said Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and a Christian leader in her own right, “God will have the final word in this matter.” But, for now, Justice Anthony Kennedy has the final word.

Same-sex marriage is the law of the land, as the right of gays and lesbians to marry is right there in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868. We just didn’t see it. Tony Kennedy spotted what no previous court had detected.

The absurdity of the decision aside, it represents another stride forward for the revolution preached by Antonio Gramsci. Before we can capture the West, the Italian Marxist argued, we must capture the culture. For only if we change the culture can we change how people think and believe. And then a new generation will not only come to accept but to embrace what their fathers would have resisted to the death.

Consider the triumphs of the Gramscian revolution in our lifetime.

First, there is the total purge of the nation’s birth faith, Christianity, from America’s public life and educational institutions. Second, there is the overthrow of the old moral order with the legalization, acceptance, and even celebration of what the old morality taught was socially destructive and morally decadent.

How dramatic have the changes been?

Until the early 1970s, the American Psychiatric Association regarded homosexuality as a mental disorder. Until this century, homosexual actions were regarded as perverted and even criminal. Now, homosexuality is a new constitutional right and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is marrying homosexuals in front of Stonewall Inn, the site of the famous 1969 gay riot against police harassment.

Similarly with abortion. It, too, was seen as shameful, sinful and criminal until Harry Blackmun and six other justices decided in 1973 that a right to an abortion was hiding there in the Ninth Amendment.

Did the Constitution change? No, we did, as Gramsci predicted.

We are told that America has “evolved” on issues like abortion and homosexuality. But while thinking may change, beliefs may change, laws may change, and the polls have surely changed, does moral truth change? Are the Ten Commandments and Christian tradition and Natural Law as defined by Aquinas just fine for their time, but not for ours?

If what Justice Kennedy wrote Friday represents moral truth, what can be said in defense of a Christianity that has taught for 2,000 years that homosexual acts are socially destructive and morally decadent behavior?

Three decades ago, this columnist was denounced for writing that homosexuals “have declared war on human nature. And nature is exacting an awful retribution.” Hateful speech, it was said. Yet, when I wrote that line, AIDS victims in America numbered in the hundreds. Worldwide today they number in the millions. And there is a pandemic of STDs among America’s young who have joined the sexual revolution preached in the 1960s.

Can true “social progress” produce results like that?

And if it is an enlightened thing for a society to welcome homosexual unions and elevate them to the status of marriage, why have no previous successful societies thought of so brilliant a reform? The late Roman Empire and Weimar Germany are the two examples of indulgent attitudes toward homosexual conduct that come to mind.

“No-fault” divorce was an early social reform championed by our elites, followed by a celebration of the sexual revolution, the distribution of condoms to the poor and the young, and abortions subsidized by Planned Parenthood when things went wrong.

How has that worked out for America?

Anyone see a connection between these milestones of social progress and the 40 percent illegitimacy rate nationwide, or the 50 percent rate among Hispanic-Americans, or the 72 percent rate among African-Americans? Any connection between those fatherless boys and the soaring drug use and dropout rates and the near quadrupling of those in jails and prisons over the last third of a century?

One notes a headline the other day, that, among whites in America, deaths now outnumber births. This has been true for decades in Europe, where all the native-born populations are shrinking as the Third World crosses over from the Mahgreb and Middle East. Any connection between the legalization of abortions—55 million in the USA since Roe—and the shrinkage of a population?

“God will have the final word in this matter,” says King. Certainly, in the world to come, He will. Yet, even in this world, it is hard to recall a civilization that rejected its God, repudiated the faith and morality by which it grew great, embraced what was previously regarded as decadence, and survived.

Our utopian president may see ours as an ever “more perfect union.”

Yet, America has never been more disunited and divided—on politics and policy, religion and morality. We no longer even agree on good and evil, right and wrong. Are we really still “one nation under God, indivisible”?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. [1] Copyright 2015 Creators.com.

16 Comments (Open | Close)

16 Comments To "A Divided Country Under Kennedy’s Constitution"

#1 Comment By Fran Macadam On June 30, 2015 @ 3:06 am

“…all the native-born populations are shrinking as the Third World crosses over from the Mahgreb and Middle East.”

Which just might be, as per King, at least God’s interim judgement.

L. Frank Baum, as editor of the Kansas City Star, once pronounced Native Americans unworthy of the land they still lived on. Although guaranteed it by treaty, their neighbor race coveted that land, claiming God preferred us to occupy it.

“They cumbered the Earth, and were removed,” pronounced Baum.

We’re not in Dorothy’s Kansas anymore, are we? Perhaps we have now cumbered the land we took from others, and are being judged under that same judgement we pronounced on others.

Now why would God favor those, that we must decrease, while they increase? And if we now believe there is no God, what reason do we have to think we are entitled exclusively to it, since that was our former claim, that God gave it to us?

#2 Comment By Natalie On June 30, 2015 @ 8:59 am

What the Supreme Court says is NOT the “law of the land.” The Constitution says so when it states in Article One that ALL legislative authority is herein vested in a Congress of the United States. If ALL legislative authority is vested in Congress, then NO legislative authority rests any where else. If we could just get that through our heads, we would stop treating 5 unelected justices as if they were the Oracle of Delphi.

#3 Comment By Johan On June 30, 2015 @ 10:16 am

The country is divided only temporarily, eventually the angry old guys will pass from the scene.

#4 Comment By grumpy realist On June 30, 2015 @ 12:51 pm

Natalie: 1. look up the definition of “Common Law” in the dictionary. 2. Go read Marbury v. Madison. 3. Talk to a first-year law student for an explanation as to how American jurisprudence works.

#5 Comment By Thomas L Holaday On June 30, 2015 @ 12:55 pm

> does moral truth change?

Pick one, Mr Buchanan:

* moral truth does not change

* Washington, Jefferson, the Alamo, the Confederacy, and the others who killed to preserve slavery were acting morally for their time

#6 Comment By Fran Macadam On June 30, 2015 @ 12:59 pm

“Eventually the angry old guys will pass from the scene.”

It’s always revealing of one’s moral state to wish others dead.

#7 Comment By Sunny On June 30, 2015 @ 4:45 pm

This is why Mr. Buchanan and paleoconservatism represents the true american right.

#8 Comment By ELiteCommInc. On June 30, 2015 @ 6:30 pm

“Washington, Jefferson, the Alamo, the Confederacy, and the others who killed to preserve slavery were acting morally for their time”

I beg your pardon.

#9 Comment By Jonathan On July 1, 2015 @ 9:42 am

There is no mystery here – we have discovered the unchanging moral truth about these matters, which previous cultures (and present-day anti-moral dissidents) were ignorant of.

The terminology of “moral truth” and “moral knowledge” is not the exclusive preserve of Christians or any other religious group, any one can make use of it. Trouble is, it doesn’t settle any arguments.

#10 Comment By The Professor On July 1, 2015 @ 1:59 pm

Separate from the message being wrong (in my view), may I politely suggest that having folks like Buchanan carry your message is contributing to your massive, continuing losses in the public square?

#11 Comment By i’ll be your mentor On July 1, 2015 @ 3:09 pm

@Thomas Holaday “pick one”

How ’bout you go spend a few years with the history books before asking ignorantly sarcastic little questions like that, hey?

Anyone who lumps together Washington, Jefferson, “the Alamo” (whatever that means) and “the Confederacy” together as “killing to preserve slavery” is in dire need of elementary historical knowledge.

#12 Comment By Stephen Gould On July 1, 2015 @ 4:31 pm

Alternatively, the Constitution recognised (implicitly or otherwise) certain rights which the People (and the Powers) up until now were unwilling to recognize and hence ignored them.

Much of the US’s history consisted of ignoring what the Constitution said while paying lip service to it, And then people think that the rejection of that ignoring somehow runs counter to the Constitution,

#13 Comment By Richard B On July 1, 2015 @ 5:21 pm

“We are told that America has “evolved” on issues like abortion and homosexuality. But while thinking may change, beliefs may change, laws may change, and the polls have surely changed, does moral truth change?”

Of course it does. Here’s an example:

“You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest.” – Deuteronomy 23:19

“Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:18-19

All of Christendom took this “eternal moral truth” very seriously for many hundreds of years, until economic systems became advanced enough that the Jews and Muslims alone could no longer meet the needs of Christian borrowers in Europe. So Christians started becoming bankers, and then they realized that banking is a really good way to get rich off the sweat of somebody else’s brow.

Today, no “mainstream” Christians take that old command from God seriously. Pat Buchanan surely doesn’t. Are nearly all modern Christians blatantly ignoring the Word of God, or is “eternal truth” not really so eternal after all?

#14 Comment By Dakota Bob On July 2, 2015 @ 9:12 pm

If I perceive all the angst by conservatives and especially religious conservatives about the courts action, it seemes many long for a return to something like the medieval period where strong church figures pronounced how things would be, and it was so. I refer to this period because if you move forward, one finds a movement toward the enlightenment-slow at first, but picking up momentum as the church saw it’s power reduced by kings and taxation, distance from the Holy See and the building of strong enough armies to resist the domination that had existed when the church was everything.

The abuse of power by the church left a strong impression as did Indulgences, Inquisition and even people being put to death for failing to attend church as late as a few decades before Isaac Newtons’ time – there were colonies in New England by then.

As the Enlightenment proceeded, many learned how wrong the church had been about a variety of things from planetary motion and mechanics to the age of the earth and the fact that there hadn’t been a flood that covered all the earth – ever! As one gets closer to 2015 we see where priests buggered children and were protected by mother church reaching all the way to the vatican. In some Diocese(s) property was transferred so as to deny victims recompense for ghastly wrongs that the church completely failed to rectify.They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table trying to shirk responsibility like some sleazy corporation.

In Catholic Croatia in 1940 the Vatican stood with the Fascists as they slaughtered Orthodox Serbs. The Vatican established “Rat Lines” to help the torturers from the Croatian camps escape. This is still in the living memory of some today.

So what does the church have to bring to me about morality? God in his wisdom has presided over this and the establishment of more than twenty five thousand Christianities to even further confuse the potential believer.

Most of my friends are professionals and university professors. Most had a religious upbringing, but found the church failed in answering the existential questions. After being targets for frustrated nuns and priests and finding the object of the worship of the church to be quite bizarre from really reading his book, Most of us decided to just conclude that there just isn’t enough information to come to any conclusion other than “I don’t know”. And, actually, if one looks at many of the measures of us as a society, very many things have advanced steadily, sometimes slowly, but single mothers, gay marriages and abortions don’t affect me in any way. If you don’t like something, don’t do it. The trickle down economics and shipping millions of jobs overseas probably is the single most important factor in the change in families seen for the past 4 decades.

Truth is, just like the Medieval church, religious conservatives are having a very hard time with not owning everyone and our choices. You can’t prove a word of what you believe, and until that day arrives, I see no way to believe in anything supernatural with the record that’s been established by those who have assured me in the past that they understood all these things. The institutions and organizations we looked at to provide examples always pursue money, self preservation and make slimy corporate rationalizations for their awful deeds. Our politicians – both parties –
have brought things like “wide stance”, Weiner texts from phones and adult babies wearing diapers and seeing prostitutes.

I used to have conversations about religion and various beliefs, but rarely, if ever, does any one bring it up. It bores most people because they have concluded, as most I know, that it is a curiosity that has no answer at this point. Why bother and the gay couple or single mother doesn’t degrade me in any way I can see.

If one really wants a return to the Golden times when Christianity ruled, then get rid of as much education as you can. Look how much more developing countries observe religious traditions. The farther back in time they are oriented, the more pure observance of their faith. 35 year life expectancies and lots of death from simple infections and common, easy to cure diseases sure would humble all of we haughty, learned liberal folk, hey?

#15 Comment By Andrew W On July 4, 2015 @ 11:25 am

“Separate from the message being wrong (in my view), may I politely suggest that having folks like Buchanan carry your message is contributing to your massive, continuing losses in the public square?”

Sure but the public square likes people who tell them how wonderful they are, how evil anyone who disagrees with them is, and how great things are going to be in the future.

The problem is that that’s not reality.

#16 Comment By redfish On July 7, 2015 @ 9:40 pm

Eyerolls to go around to both Mr. Buchanan and the commentators.

Its a good thing the country “evolved” so that private behavior is no longer criminal and parents aren’t forcing their kids into therapy (at least for this issue anyway). It doesn’t mean the Court made its decision on good law in this case or Jefferson and Washington were evil people. We really can’t have more than two extreme sides on this?

Richard B, I’m not going to go into the deeper argument; I just want to give some friendly advice to look at the next verse, Deuteronomy 23:20.