What do the Soviets and gay "marriage" have in common? Bad ideology.

Here's a sobering commentary on the attacks on marriage in the former Soviet Union.  A book which points this out is  Orlando Figes’ The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin’s Russia.

John Stonestreet notes:

There’s a lot more we can learn from Figes’ book as well. For example, we can learn the folly of trying to redefine the family to suit our ideological purposes.

According to Figes, for many Bolsheviks, the “fundamental goal” of the revolution was the creation of a “new kind of human being” who only lived for the “common good.” Of course, the “common good” was defined as “service to the [Communist] Party and its cause.”

Creating this “new human being” required “blowing up the shell of private life” that was the source of competing loyalties and obligations. This conviction put the family in the Bolsheviks cross-hairs. For them, it was an “article of faith” that the traditional family—or the “bourgeois” family as they called it—was the “stronghold” of “religion, superstition, ignorance, and prejudice.”

So the Bolsheviks did everything in their power to undermine it, starting with “[removing] the influence of the Church in marriage and divorce.” They re-wrote the law to make divorce easy and gave cohabiting couples the same rights as married ones. Abortion was readily available.

The result was a “huge increase in casual marriage and the highest rate of divorce in the world.” Sexual morals were loosened and familial and communal ties were weakened. The “birth rate declined disastrously,” which left the USSR short both of laborers and soldiers. Child abandonment became a “mass phenomenon.” The Communist Party was then left trying to clean up after the mess that its war on the traditional family had created.

Well, less than twenty years after declaring war on the family, the party did an abrupt about-face. Suddenly marriage was promoted as “glamorous” and wedding rings, which had been banned as “Christian relics,” became available. Divorce laws were tightened and abortion was outlawed. The “good” Stalinist was expected to be “monogamous” and “devoted to his family.” And some comrades were expelled from the Communist Party for being bad fathers or husbands.

Obviously, the Communists weren’t acting out of a new-found respect for tradition, much less religion. Theirs was a pragmatic response to hard-learned experience. Creating good Soviet citizens, they found, required strong families.

Reading about the USSR’s reversal on the family, it’s difficult not to draw parallels with our own time. Now, let me state this up front: comparing Stalinist Russia with contemporary America and the rest of the West is ridiculous. In virtually every way that matters, they’re diametrically opposed.

While Soviet attacks on marriage were emanating from an authoritarian ideology, the push for gay "marriage" another ideology - the believe that individuals are autonomy, accountable to only the standard they want to create.  In commonality is the absence of a Creator who designed the world.

But that said, today we ourselves are in the midst of a kind of social experiment involving the traditional family. And while the goals are different, the elements of that experiment resemble the one Figes described. “No-fault” divorce has given the US the highest divorce rate of any Western society. Increasingly, cohabiting couples are treated the same as married ones. While child abandonment is rare, increasing numbers of children are born out-of-wedlock, all-but-abandoned by their fathers. And of course, selective abortion due to disability or gender is common practice.

The personal and social costs of this experimentation are well-documented, but they’re also ignored or at least downplayed. Why? Ideology. In this instance, it’s an ideology whose “article of faith” teaches that personal freedom and autonomy are the highest goods. Any appeal to the common good or to the traditional family’s role in promoting the common good is regarded as an imposition and even worse, as “bigotry.”

But that won’t stop the troubles we’re creating for ourselves. We can only hope that an about-face is in our not-too-distant future. Then we can all roll up our sleeves and begin cleaning up the mess.

You see this belief in the traditional family is not just a tenet of our religion. It’s reality rooted in the way God made the world.

 Attacks on marriage and sexual mores will lead to what de Tocqueville called "soft despotism".  Wikipedia has a good description of "soft despotism'.

Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people. Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace.

That's exactly what we will see happen in the West and increasingly in the US.  As marriage and family breakdown it leads to calls for the state to regulate more and more aspects of our daily lives.

Freedom. Liberty. More religion means less government.

One of the themes coming out of the Massachusetts vote and the mood of the country is massive government programs will mean less freedom and liberty. While people are frustrated with the economy, I think people are also concerned with the expansion of the state, government. I support these sentiments but am ultimately concerned it will only be a short term reaction unless something deeper happens in the life our nation and state. There needs to be a revival of religious sentiments and belief to keep down the size of government and preserve freedom and liberty.

As Professor Bradley writes:

If more and more men are abandoning the religious communities that have provided solid moral formation for thousands of years, we should not be surprised by an increase in the explosion of demand for morally reprehensible products as well as the family breakdown that follows closely behind. With consciences formed by utility, pragmatism, and sensuality, instead of virtue, we should expect to find a culture with even more women subjected to the dehumanization of strip clubs, more misogynistic rap music, more adultery and divorce, more broken sexuality, more fatherlessness, more corruption in government and business, more individualism, and more loneliness.

Alexis de Tocqueville cautioned in his 1835 reflections on Democracy in America, that the pursuit of liberty without religion hurts society because it “tends to isolate [people] from one another, to concentrate every man's attention upon himself; and it lays open the soul to an inordinate love of material gratification.” In fact, Tocqueville says, “the main business of religions is to purify, control, and restrain that excessive and exclusive taste for well-being which men acquire in times of equality.” Religion makes us other-regarding.

As social problems mount, there will invariably be calls for more government. Only problem is this approach isn't very viable as we go deeper and deeper into debt as a nation. Government lacks the ability to throw money at social problems. Hopefully, this will result in individuals, churches, and communities being more engaged in addressing social issues in our own backyards.