AT&T and Verizon. Dow Chemical. Bank of America. General Electric. Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft. And the San Francisco Giants.
They’re among 379 corporations and business organizations that have signed onto legal arguments offering the court another reason to declare a nationwide constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry — it would be good for business.
“Inconsistent state marriage laws impose an added economic burden on American businesses at an estimated cost of over $1 billion per year,” the companies’ lawyers wrote. With 13 states still prohibiting same-sex marriage, and refusing to recognize marriages conducted in other states, they said, “our ability to grow and maintain our businesses by attracting and retaining the best employee talent is hindered.”
Of course, what our elites aren’t admitting is that destroying the family has always been one of their objectives, because families, by and large, are efficient and cautious consumers, while “households” composed of single adults, single or divorced parents, grandparents raising grandchildren, etc. tend not to be. And the biggest spenders of all are the DINKs--double-income, no kids--which describes the vast majority of gay couples in America (since only a relatively small number of gay couples will ever or do ever have any responsibility for children whatsoever).
So naturally our elites want to destroy the family. They have wanted to do this, says Rod Dreher today, since the 1920s:
I bring this up in context of the post from earlier today about “Silicon Valley Mordor,” and the rapid loss in our time of what it means to be human. Setting aside Dante’s theological vision, his metaphysical vision is what’s at issue. I quote here from an essay titled “The Ascendance of Eroticism,” collected in the book The Crisis of Modernity, by the late Italian philosopher Augusto Del Noce. The book recently appeared in an English version translated by Carlo Lancellotti, a reader of this blog. Del Noce died in 1989, but his vision was extremely prescient. He says, for example, “One is not surprised by the most advanced ideas, including marriage between homosexuals.” Why not? Because del Noce realized that the metaphysical underpinnings for traditional sexual morality were gone.
Del Noce points out that the ideas behind the Sexual Revolution were completely worked out in the 1920s, but Fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism put them on hold. They returned after the war, and became dominant in the 1960s. Del Noce, writing about the psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, an avatar of the Sexual Revolution, says Reich was correct to say “that no compromise is possible between traditional morality, taken in its entirety and without modifications, that is, fully recognizing its first premises, and thus without emphasizing unilaterally any particular aspect, and sexual liberation.” Del Noce, describing Reich’s vision:
"Having taken away every order of ends and eliminated every authority of values, all that is left is vital energy, which can be identified with sexuality, as was already claimed in ancient times and is actually difficult to refute. Hence, the core element of life will be sexual happiness. [...]"
Del Noce first published this in 1970. He appears to be every bit as visionary as Philip Rieff was. This is not the place to go more in-depth on his essay, but it will have to suffice to say that Del Noce argues that overturning of the older sense of metaphysics by the sexual revolutionists was advanced through the arts. In other words, it was the poets (meaning novelists, filmmakers, and all artists) who taught the world to see things differently (to use the most neutral phrasing). Whether you think they enlightened the world or endarkened it depends on what you think about the Sexual Revolution.You can’t have a mindless consumer culture until you have maximized the creation of mindless consumers. And you can’t do that without convincing people that the summum bonum of existence is self-gratification, including sexual self-gratification, unmoored from any considerations of responsibility, family, society, or culture. What started with the promotion of rampant divorce and the facilitation of ubiquitous fornication via contraception has reached its present fruition--funny word to use--in the promotion of the ultimate fruitless consumer lifestyle not only of gay couplehood, but of heterosexual temporary childless unions under the banner “marriage.” Since new consumers have to be created, though, our elites are also on board with the "non-carnal" manufacturing of children via IVF, and will be the first to insist that the artificial womb be used not as an emergency incubator but as the most liberating way to process one’s children who will be carefully selected and programmed from the embryonic state to be the ultimate not only in consumer choice, but as future choosy consumers themselves.
O brave new world, etc.