Oct. 8, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – One of the most consistent trends on the “progressive” Left as of late is a loud and exuberant triumphalism. The sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s has come of age, with marriage hollowed out and redefined, abortion widespread and legal, and any and all sexual appetites uninhibited and celebrated.
That triumphalism is manifesting itself in two ways. First, there is the ongoing and vicious marginalization of all those who disagree. From hapless conservative academics to Christian bakeries, florists, and pizzerias, the new orthodoxy must be acknowledged and obeyed, lest re-education be necessary. Second, many things the Left once argued for on the basis that they were tragically necessary evils are now celebrated openly as wonderful freedoms to be embraced and enjoyed.
Take divorce, for example. There was a time when reasonable people could agree that divorce was, at its very best, an admission of failure. Something, somewhere, obviously went wrong, regardless if one spouse was at fault or if both were. It is a thoroughly mauling thing for all involved—philosopher Peter Kreeft once called divorce “the murder of the one flesh.” In cases where there are children, the results are devastating—a mother and a father, a family, make up a child’s whole world. When that world falls apart, the personal and social implications are profound. Was divorce tragically necessary at times, especially to allow people to leave, if they had to, an adulterous or abusive relationship? Yes. But it was still tragic.
Now, increasingly, so-called progressive commentators are lauding divorce as a good thing, not just as a safeguard for the once well-known “triple-A”—abuse, abandonment, and adultery—but as an easy way to check out of an arrangement that’s easier to exit than a cell phone contract. The sheer ease with which someone can obtain a divorce—the secular version of Islam’s thrice-stated “I divorce you”—creates an instability in marriages and a thoughtless approach to entering them.
But commentators such as the sleaze-monger Dan Savage constantly tout the idea that a marriage doesn’t “fail” just because it’s over. A marriage can be for just a short amount of time, and then mom and dad can call it quits, high five, and head off to find new partners while their children scramble about to gather the shards of their shattered world. No wonder some jewellery stores in places like Los Angeles actually offer wedding rings for rent.
The same, too, with abortion. Nothing in my mind is more emblematic of a tragic failure on behalf of all involved—church, society, mother, father—resulting in a tiny dead human being. Abortion activists demanded legalization on the basis that abortion should be safe, legal, rare—that abortion was a tragic but necessary evil, and that in certain, horrifying circumstances, abortion should be permitted. Now, abortion is openly lauded as the key to social liberation, an objective good that should never be apologized for. Campaigns asking post-abortive women to “shout their abortion” and brag about their “abortion stories” are now the feminist talking points, while various religious death cults refer to abortion as “sacred.” In fact, when abortion activists see pictures of starving children in Africa, their first reaction is: “Abortions. These kids need abortions.” The path from “we need this for extreme circumstances” to “this is an amazing social good” is a very short one.
And of course, now it is euthanasia. First, it was trumpeted as a necessary medical practice to relieve those suffering the indignities and agonies incurable diseases often inflict on people during their final stages. “Death with dignity,” they called it, and insisted that they would only ever advocate using it in the very final months of life. Now, of course, it is “assisted suicide,” and has been used by those with mental illnesses, those suffering from blindness, and even elderly people who have just decided that the long life they have been blessed with has simply been too long. Belgium and the Netherlands have already begun to allow the judicial murder of newborns, disabled people, and elderly people. “Involuntary euthanasia” is the new meaningless phrase that allows us to continue killing people softly. The corpses pile up, but such is the nature of Progress.
Whether it be the casual and celebratory manner in which they celebrate home-wrecking or fetal skull-crushing or suicide, the Left has long moved past their strategies of legislating from the exception and attempting to disguise their ideology with any façade of introspection or nuance. Now, their triumphalism is being felt across every social boundary. It is always the weak and vulnerable—children, the elderly, the disabled—who suffer the most, but they are being ignored.
I like to ask my left-wing friends a simple question: Which society is a better, safer, and more compassionate society? One in which divorce is discouraged and rare, pre-born children are loved and appreciated by either biological or adoptive parents, and our focus and our passion is on advancing palliative care and better programs for the elderly and the disabled? Or one in which divorce, abortion, and suicide are all the rage? There is always some dithering, but after some thought, all of them know that of those two options, one of them is infinitely better, safer, and more loving. And then the final question: Then why don’t you fight for that society instead?
