Notes on Marriage Equality – freestyle

Saint Jerome reading a
pseudo-Mongol script
(Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος)

Notes on Marriage Equality |
Sunday – March 8, 2026

Marriage is a subject that I have covered in the past because the magnitude of the topic on the entirety of the social organization is simply too important to ignore, read more about marriage here and here, and sure there are many other such topics that are important from a social point of view, but I still find that marriage is at the core of the question of civilization, and truly I can assert with a great deal of confidence that without marriage there can be no civilization; at the core of all civilizations is the sacred unity between husband and wife. And yes, it is certainly the case that the consecration of marriage between husband and wife is under severe attack in the West, especially as this pertains to the concept of "Marriage Equality", that is to say the extension of marriage, in a legal sense, to members outside this sacred unity between husband and wife. Most often this extension of marriage applies to homosexual individuals, a topic that I have covered in the past, entering into a false consecration, as this "marriage" is no such thing and really just a legal fiction. Indeed, this is what could be referred to as profane marriage or anti-marriage, for this is no real marriage, it is merely a pretended marriage, a bastardization of the sacred unity between husband and wife, and in keeping with the monstrous uniformity of egalitarianism, the rectification of each individual to the lowest common denominator, to the beastly. This false marriage is quite typical of the modern world, as most institutions have come under secular assault, and the only thing moderns know what to do with the sacred is to "secularize" it, truly to quantify everything down to the mere substantive. Indeed, what about marriage but the substantive and legal fiction that is marriage? How could a modern man not understand marriage as another substantive element, another quantity, and quite rightly from this point of view it make sense that marriage should be egalitarian an extended beyond the sacred and metaphysical basis for this societal institution; it is simply a human "right" that everyone has to be able to marry whomever they wish to marry. The entire humanist axiom is truly based on a lack of skillful means, a lack of knowledge, negation, and this ignorance makes it impossible for modern men to ever look past their own domain, even though they claim to be able to do this; the problem here being that these same modern men truly only know of their own domain and deny everything beyond the ever narrow conception of the material and the immediate. The push for "Marriage Equality" is also a form of Western imperialism, and the Western nations are more than happy to bully around every other nation who still guard against this distinctly modern deviation, and here I am not merely referring to the blatant social acceptance of homosexualism and promiscuity in general, which is quite another topic, but to the general secularization of the sacred, which is an explicit goal, and in this context to the specific secularization of marriage. At the end of the day, the secularization of marriage or "Marriage Equality", as the moderns refer to it, is about power, Temporal Power, and as long as there are any institutions that can claim spiritual authority in the name of the metaphysical order of things, based on legitimate qualification, these people will not rest, and while this goal of destroying everything essential and truly organic used to be implicit, most of these people, the revolutionary elite, are now happy to very explicitly boast about their true intentions – the complete suppression of the primordial unity. In this sense "Marriage Equality" must also be understood as a form of totalitarianism, the totalitarianism of the masses, and while most moderns today only claim to want to extend legal marriage to homosexuals and people that fall under the banner of "Queer", it is clear that these people will not stop short of that, and quite frankly it seems reasonable to assume that with the law of spiritual diffusion during the Kali Yuga, what moderns call "the march of progress", marriage is likely to be secularized to its bare quantitative and substantive parts, a legal fiction and a economic partnership – truly a monstrosity. What should prevent a man from marrying his car, his cattle, or his brother?

    A very important note about polygamy that must be made clear is the fact that most moderns refuse to allow for polygamy, and what you will find in particular is that conservatives, the people most eager to defend the material order, will oppose this very strongly, as most of these people hold a completely secular and romantic conception of marriage, and truly most of these people have very little to no knowledge of the doctrines that they claim to seek to defend. Perhaps more pernicious still, are the radicals or the hypermodernists, often the youth, whose only ground for opposing polygamy is feminism and the hatred of any and all hierarchies, even merely profane and temporary hierarchies, and these people will often go so far as to claim that they oppose polygamy in the name of the protection of women. Of course, the liberal youth and the liberal establishment harbor hatred in their hearts for men of ascendant rank as they challenge the entire egalitarian conception of society, and this is why even men who hold the most libertarian and indiscriminate attitudes, for the most part, will not tolerate polygamy; of course, this strong opposition to polygamy should also be understood as a part of the bourgeois revolt of the Śūdra's (शूद्र) against the Kṣatriya's (क्षत्रिय), in the Hindu conception, for merely "ordinary" men cannot be said to have any mandate to enter into polygamy, for the most part.

    As with anything substantive, the general course is that of essential depletion, as everything approaches uniformity and rectification at the bottom of manifestation, and this general trend is no less noticeable with marriage. But, the only thing that could make a potential short-term exception in the case of marriage has nothing to do with the metaphysical or the sacred, but indeed with something quite quantitative: there is surely a general decline in birth numbers in the modern world, particularly in the "developed world", and the only solution to this general decline in birth numbers could be, for political and merely quantitative purposes, a legal definition of marriage that only includes a man and a woman, as the profane reason for marriage used to be for the benefit of children, and indeed in most countries where there has been a severe secular assault on the institution the common argument against "marriage equality" has been that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, as a man and a woman only can conceive a child, and truly a child is the most sacred symbol of the final act of marriage, the consummation. I still doubt this, but something like this could be possible in the periphery of the modern world, but not in the Imperial Core.

    Lastly, I believe that homosexualism can be understood in the context of "Marriage Equality" as a disorder, in this case a mental disorder, that has imposed itself on society as a sign of the general deviation, and truly the people who claim to be homosexual are never challenged, and this embrace of disorder, disorder in the truest sense of the word, is surely another hallmark of modern times. Was homosexualism present to this extent in the past? No, and even quite recently it must be stated that homosexualism was much less visible. Of course, the moderns would claim that homosexualism was less visible due to oppression, a very grand claim indeed, as if the entirety of human history is wrong – truly hubris.

Reginald Drax – March 8, 2026.