Back in what I supposed some could call my more "moderate" days, I used to think that conservatives and/or Christians who complained about litigation challenging legal definitions respecting the traditional "family" were alarmists. No more. As Fields notes at the outset, "Not so long ago such questions would have been raised only in a science fiction tale. Not any more. They're questions seriously discussed in college classrooms, advocacy seminars and in forums to challenge lawyers, judges and policy-makers. The idea is to change family law as we know it. Marriage is targeted for deconstruction."
As Fields accurately tells it, the war is terribly fashionable:
Influential advocates from politically correct academic and legal organizations sneer at traditional marriage as another bad example of "ethnocentric" thinking that promotes "old-fashioned ideological stereotypes." These advocates accuse the law of dismissing "diversity." By diversity they mean the experience of racial minorities, women, single parents, divorced and remarried persons, gays, and lesbians. A large body of social science and psychological data demonstrate that not all forms of parenthood are equally child-friendly, but these advocates say that's merely a point of view to be replaced by "close relationship" law.The bottom line, of course, is that the war on traditional marriage is quite at home among those in the nihilistic, narcissistic far Left: "So before we start tampering with our respect for traditional marriage, we should pay heed to what we know that works. If we don't want to do that for our selfish selves, we must do it for the sake of the children."
This is or should be a red-flag issue. Anyone who claims to be a "conservative" who can't stand up for the fundamental building block of civilized society truly has a radical agenda at work.