Consider the “marriage equality” slogan of left-wing advocates of marriage between homosexuals. To us it has always been weak and off-point. All marriages are of course equally marriages, including common-law ones. Same-sex unions or domestic partnerships are not marriages. So in what sense can marriages and non-marriages be equal?
The outing of Rachel Dolezal, the President of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, as white by her parents sheds light into this dark corner of the liberal mind. Although her parents showed photos of their blonde, blue-eyed girl, according to an AP AP story, she dodged the question of her actual race by stating that “We’re all from the African continent” and “There’s a lot of complexities …and I don’t know that everyone would understand that.” It appears to us that the “complexities” lie exclusively in Miss Dolezal’s mind. Just as Bill Clinton was acclaimed by some as the first black President, for some racial identity need not be factual or biological. If you identify with a group, and “disguise” yourself as Rachel’s mother said about her, your subjective belief becomes reality.
It is a common criticism of liberals that their policy positions reveal more about their subjective states than about reality. Just so with marriage between or among homosexuals. If, as some believe, couples marry themselves, for liberals their couplings become real marriages, which it is incumbent on the non-discriminatory state and Federal governments to recognize. Only in this sense could the slogan of “marriage equality” make sense.
The belief that one’s subjective feelings determine reality also plays into the debate about people claiming to be transgender (formerly transsexual?) Our thinking parallels the diagnosis of the former Psychiatrist in Chief at Johns Hopkins University hospital:
The idea that one’s sex is a feeling, not a fact, has permeated our culture and is leaving casualties in its wake. Gender dysphoria should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery.
Why then would these mad ideas and fantasies have received such recent popular support? To our way of thinking, the strain of thought supporting this kind of individualism has much in common with libertarianism. Though often placed on the right side of the political spectrum, contemporary libertarianism is largely at one with the left on cultural issues. After all, we are told, we own ourselves and thus by extension implicitly have the right to define ourselves. Universities, colleges, and public schools have been buying into these fantasies. Even arch-feminist colleges such as Wellesley (alma mater of H. R. Clinton) are now admitting men, or should we say people who identify themselves as one of the following:
- trans men
Can anyone tell the sex – that oppressive identity – of the people who identify as one of the above? Are they men claiming female identity? Or women claiming male? Some universities are permitting students to create the pronouns others are to use to refer to them, this independently of their sex. ‘He,’ ‘she,’ and ‘they’ among others are valid choices. In a world in which life seeks to become politically correct pastiche, biology is no longer destiny, it is merely banal fantasy.