[Jesus] answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
– Matthew 19:4-6
|Joni Mitchell – "Blue" album cover (1971)|
My old man
He's a singer in the park
He's a walker in the rain
He's a dancer in the dark
We don't need no piece of paper
From the city hall
Keeping us tied and true
No, my old man
Keeping away my lonesome blues
– My old man by Joni Mitchell (1970)
I hate to be the one to agree with a bigot like Rush Limbaugh, but this one time he's right. The left, the liberals, the secular humanists, the atheists, the hippies, the counter-culture or whatever you want to call it never cared about marriage until they latched on to the concept of "homosexual marriage".
In fact marriage was an institution that was totally rejected by the "progressive" thinkers of the 1960s. Everything possible was done to undermine marriage. The feminists viewed marriage as an institution created by men to imprison women. "Free sex" was the motto of the day. Sex outside of marriage was viewed as a form of liberation. The notion of getting married was considered old fashioned at best.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and an advocate of "free sex" wrote in 1914 in an article titled "No Gods, No Masters":
Marriage, which is a personal agreement between a man and a woman, should be no concern of the State or of the Church.Notice that even Sanger believed that marriage was restricted to "a man and a woman". She simply argued (incorrectly) that neither "the State [nor] the Church" should be involved. This came to be the view of marriage endorsed by the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s as expressed in the lyrics of Joni Mitchell who is an icon of that era.
Marriage laws abrogate the freedom of woman by enforcing upon her a continuous sexual slavery and a compulsory motherhood.
Marriage laws have been dictated and dominated by the Church always and ever upon the unquestionable grounds of the wisdom of the Bible.
A man and woman who under a natural condition avow their love for each other should be immediately qualified by this to give expression to their love or to perpetuate the race without the necessity of a public declaration.
A reciprocal, spontaneous voluntary declaration of love and mutual feelings by a man and woman is the expression of Nature’s desires. Were it not natural it would not be so and being natural it is right.
And notice that Sanger bases her argument on "Nature", but what is natural about contraception and abortion? Yet that did not stop Sanger from fighting in favor of those views even more strongly than she fought against marriage.
Limbaugh asks "when did marriage become so important to liberals?" It became important when they realized that one particular form of "marriage" could be used to undermine the authority of the Church.
This answer to Limbaugh's question makes more sense when we realize that the liberal agenda has been hijacked by the secular humanists. The ultimate goal of the secular humanists movement is to destroy the Church. This follows from the fact that "humanism" is just the PC equivalent of "atheism"; in the same way that "gay" is the PC equivalent of "homosexual".
Marriage is only an important issue to the secular humanists with regards to how they can destroy it. So for them the important marriage issues in the past have been divorce, contraception, civil marriage, open marriage, etc.
Humanists were looking for a way to use the Church's stance on homosexuality in order to attack her. It was not enough to point out that the Church viewed homosexual acts as sinful, they had to somehow deliver the message that the Church was "discriminating" against homosexuals. To do this, they needed to create a confrontation between the Church and homosexuals where none had previously existed.
Humanists knew that the very notion of "homosexual marriage" was totally unacceptable to the Church, and so they decided to press this issue. Not because there was some enormous latent desire for homosexuals to marry, but because they knew they could turn this into an issue of "civil rights" which could then be used to garner public sympathy for their cause.
So far the humanist strategy with regards to "homosexual marriage" has been carried out with near perfection in the form of a public relations blitzkrieg against the Church. The attacks have come from all sides simultaneously through the newspapers, the TV stations, music, celebrities, politicians and even through sources within the Church herself.
But take heart fellow Christians. The longer this battle drags out, the more their blitzkrieg will bog down into conventional warfare. And the humanists will be forced to defend their positions. Already their use of the strategy of "civil unions" as a way to open the door to "homosexual marriage" has been exposed. And this has brought into question the ultimate goal of the humanist/homosexual coalition. More and more people are beginning to distrust assurances that churches will be protected from the effects of "homosexual marriage". As well they should.
Now if we could only get the leadership of the Catholic Church solidly behind the fight against "homosexual marriage".... Perhaps the American Catholic Church will finally be forced to take a stronger stance by a coalition of evangelical, black and hispanic church leaders who are beginning to make their voices heard on this issue.
Epilogue: What went wrong with the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s?
The funny thing about the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s is that it wasn't "counter-cultural" at all. At least not in the way that people like Joni Mitchell thought it was. They viewed themselves as rebelling against "the establishment'. But they were just echoing the views of establishment figures like Margaret Sanger, whose Planned Parenthood organization had the backing of big establishment groups like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation.
In fact the Rockefeller Foundation could not have come up with a better plan if they tried for indoctrinating the young people of America (and the world) in favor of "free love" and contraception. Because as anyone can easily deduce, you can't have one without the other.
And once young people began to sterilize themselves through the use of contraception in order to engage in "free sex" then the result was a decrease in the fertility rate of the population. And all this was accomplished without having to use the force of the State because young women were convinced to voluntarily administer to themselves hormonal poisons which act like human pesticides.
I think that Joni Mitchell and many others like her are in denial to this day about the role they played in moving forward the eugenic "population control" agenda of the elite.