>> >> the eastern provinces and syria. to put this in context the gateway between syria and iraq over 10 years has been a traffic .4 al qaeda eddy

hottest group that is now known as isis al qaeda in the incarnation. it is our relationship to be the war is to el paso so he, a tribe and he knows everybody in this region and. for the purposes of the book you will not write a book 1/2 to understand the nature of the enemy that more important and that their family members how is it the 16 year-old boy that studies electrical engineering wanting to the west will cast his lot with headlock been barbarians? what is that driving mechanism?

so the purpose is to explain common not justify but explain the rise of the terror are me that by last geographical to oculist note controls a swath of terrain roughly the size of great britain. i also did a lot of media a june 2014 to inaugurate this coalition war and the question i would is asked is where did they come from? out to the verge from nowhere? this sounds like the most absurd question never heard. in my book is like the viet cong concord southeast asia but they changed their debris betty says merger they come from? outside -- isis was al qaeda in iraq up until now they have been a primary enemy

and a primary target of the united states. so they just changed their branding the and marketing and strategy with a very direct and a sophisticated manner so this is a work of history to go back to the founder of the feast go to liturgy needed jailbird liturgy needed jailbird after the call the schaede campaign in afghanistan and essentially set up this organization but the cable and after a series of spectacular terror attacks so we want to give the average reader so brazen riyal have targets on our backs. to do everything that they

can to try to lead a and humiliate the united states and frankly every civilized country so it culminates with the "in-depth" reporting of essentially food they are and what they want. >> good morning welcome to the heritage foundation we welcome those who'd driven some of the website and will be joining us on booktv in the future. we want everyone in the

house to check theirself of a last comment as a courtesy we will oppose the program on the front-page for future reference to the gym reviewers are welcome to send questions or comments our guest today is dr. paul kengor professor of political science the author of over one dozen books from which you can see what is available today. so with that carbon curb archives. he also serves as a visiting fellow at the hoover institution at stanford he received his doctorate from d'arcy and pittsburg graduate school of so audrey

battery doctorate welcome the today from communist to progressives out the left with family and marriage. [applause] >> thanks for coming. and also c-span as well. people always say thank god for c-span. there isn't any outlets out there that's simply put it out there to let people watching and decide for themselves a up the shelter and interpretation of somebody telling you how to interpret. also to people who watch this on c-span and it is a provocative topic. i know that in this will

upset a lot of people. maya understand that. but if you believe in dialogue a in a diversity i am open to that. if you can't avoid streams of four-letter words, that would make the dialogue easier so i would be happy to communicate with you this. i am a cold war historian and friends of mine why would you attack it tackle marriage to a family and jumping into a culture war. do you really want to do

this? >> now. is not fun to be called the bastides of 99.9 percent of people have their views of marriage and family but to put it all belonged i would rather not do this but precisely because of my background in these areas to lecture over and over again with the marxist views on thinly that i had to write this because i come from a historical alogical perspective as someone who's studied the intellectual history. so i have a power point presentation did that i'd never do. the really good student of mine put together this fabulous power point presentation as long as i can press the buttons correctly and will be okay.

this is based on my book "takedown" decade not just a few months ago it is an electronic form as well as hard copy and i dedicate this to those with the courage to resist to redefine the teachings of god and faith of their ancestors by liberals and progressives in the debug tolerance denounce the base and dehumanize and seek to destroy them. this is what happens when you disagree with the forces of tolerance and a diversity of issues of marriage and family. they seek to destroy you. so those of other courage to stick to the courage started

with a quotation from pope francis i love this quotation but it's perfectly with the history that i lay out in the book the reforms the idiological colonization and to destroy the family that is good that descries we're facing. they're not bored of the mission of what god gave us they come from without the family is threatened by growing efforts on the part to redefine the very institution and of marriage with relativism and every threat to the family is a threat to society itself. the one theme that conservatives and communists agree is the absolute fundamental importance of

the family which is right conservatives want to preserve that why the most radical leftists fought to change it. there is nothing more fundamental than the family. every threat to society itself passes through the family said pope francis parker i wrote a barrel recently in response to his trip to the united states called cherry picking pope francis c. you can find of a lead so let's go through the history. karl marx for crowfoot for as part of the communist manifesto. and nothing bothers me borer when people all come up to be to say it is a good book if you stop to read it talks

about sharing in helping help at&t ad that i know that there really have not read it because it is an awful book and it doesn't take long to get through it. it is sure you can go online to get it for free read the 10-point plan that babies summed up in a single sentence the abolition of private property hand right there myofibril daughter can't tell you that if you abolish private property you will have to kill people. and marks even says for this to happen in despotism will be necessary for a time. mark's new that you have to be an idiot to not realize to abolish private property you have to use force but there is some light in their the abolition of the family

even the most radical flare-up so in the communist manifesto of 1848 already at that point in time not only talking about abolition of the family but the proposal for communists apparently it is of the best price didn't say professor what does that lead? i spent two chapters walking through that carefully with the pros and cons but i will move on and come back to that. even before marx ever the ideological colonist to work out to be defined marriage and family. a number of them, some of them were american but they all try to set up different ideological colonies so to

redefine family marriage is nothing new. robert l. wood with the oneida colony as it was called, a new party these people all sought to be defined and reshape the traditional understanding of one man and one woman of marriage the marriage based family. one other one father so they were all trying to change this. robert allen stood atop his new party colony july 24th 1826 the 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence. john adams thomas jefferson taking their final breath

literally dying the country is celebrating everyone in america is all excited while this is going on there is a great document they are celebrating robert owen, a socialist is declaring his declaration of independence and said i now declare to you and the world demand up to this our has been a slave to a tragedy of the most monstrous evils that could be combined to inflect bid to and physical evil. what is he talking about? i have to read mower i refer to private property irrational system of religion and marriage founded upon the individual property with some of these irrational systems of religion with property and

marriage all of these ideas are always swirling iran and. always chipping away. we ignore that match our peril that the self-imposed ignorance and blindness. people that will even me and called me names. it is not possible to speak of family as marx wrote blessed is he who has no family. that when he said that it was partly in jest because he was completing about his potential situation but if you know, about the relations with his wife and children he had a very, very very bad family life. marks was not a good husband and father.

several of his kids died before he did a couple committed suicide, one of the daughters committed suicide in a pact with her husband that marks denigrated with the most awful racist language because he was parked cuban. he cheated on his wife with the bears made who he seems to have been impregnated he never ate -- and acknowledged the child was his so he loved that idea he said right on. he refused to get married the all wanted him to make honest women and he refused to bury them he disliked marriage so much he did not get married the bridge what marriage is a system of

housewives the communist revolution in the manifesto is the most radical relations and has the most radical rupture of the idea is to fundamentally transform marriage or the notion is the property our religion and everything else. du charges stopping the exploitation of parents? to say we destroy the most hallowed of relations if you look at said 10-point plan in the communist manifesto it calls for free public education for all children in public schools. they did not want children being educated at home or in churches or religious

schools that wanted them educated public schools. they made it against the family of education what they hated the most was by robert owen was religion of private property and family and marriage and of course, marx called religion part of the masses that communism begins with the neediest begins. legged especially despised religion of worship is the necrophilia. see what that means. are eating fleet of cavity'' said avram jeffers said or washington? that is the founder of the soviet state. there qb in the big board

abominable and religion. but they bore a bobble their religion compare that to venereal disease. he tries to say what is the worst they get out there? that is religion and. so year after he died eagles said this is the book that marx wanted to write remarking on the family and he says in there that with the transfer of the means of production to ownership the single-family ceases to be the part of society so what does he want to do? housekeeping should be transported to a social industry to nationalize private housekeeping the care and education of children is a public affair

society looks after all children alike legitimate or not. one of the obedient the minister of the bolshevik revolution per but anybody read him? one hundred years ago the leading feminist of the bolshevik revolution like the soviet roosevelt and she said the type of family the worker mother must learn not to differentiate the worker rather must remember there are children of russia's communist borders society takes upon itself with the education of the child so i juxtaposed that next to a quotation from lois the harassed perry is very well educated.

very strong academic pedigree odd msnbc one of the leading intellectual progresses today and made a statement a couple of years ago mattel closed it sounds we have never invested as much public education as we should because we always had the private notion of children. she does not like that with the idea that kids belong to their parents to recognize that they belong to the whole community. when i had to find equitation for the book was looking for the source and among the other places was on fox news and i was reading the readers' comments from different people who time and who said i have never seen anything like this before.

to save our children don't belong to us they belong to society. that is not new at all. the bolsheviks have been talking about this 140 years it is a new. not at all but what is new is now there is a progressive movement in america where they become spokespeople for the movement with wide public support that is what is new with the show was again and again 50 to 100 years behind the bolshevik i don't mean across-the-board but on abortion and divorce to redefine the family and education not on 100 out of

100 issues the american communist ed whitaker chambers talk about the communist party in the united states the party did bolick said to push into the industry this social unit i often talk of adopting children but the comrades dissuaded me be all embracing philosophy that determines the marriage that you have the relations with your children and your community and your profession ed whitaker chambers out of communism to conservatism talks about party there against a communist marriage that is usually was not in any way

was temporary. they have huge rates of divorce long before high divorce levels in the united states today chambers said they regarded marriage as the birds flock convention with the same intensity of anti-marriage before san country is russia i will go through this one of the first things they did was legalized divorce if you wanted to own private property or freedom of speech or freedom of press or religion all of the fur coat if you wanted a divorce the sky was the allotment

you were the freest person in the world. put his stamp on and you got it. there were not be in the bureaucratic state getting in the way of your divorce if you want a divorce then go the state will not get in the way but very soon they literally have not seen that before i state -- cites a study from par verge university press from communist russia it is not unusual to meet soviet men and women that have been divorced upwards of 15 times the atlantic published a piece entitled the russian effort to abolish marriage

remember marks abolition of the family of divorce was an epidemic in the ussr than abortion was the black plague the other day that the russians major that would be easy to do if he wanted abortion, ago, full privatization if you want an abortion go get it. when it had written as early as 1913 he promised the unconditional laws against abortion by 1920 it was made legally available provided free of charge moscow women were having three abortions for every live births.

at was swept three / one. not become as you said a great promoter of life but said he would not have a population if this goes on. by the way stolid was reprimanded by trotsky. what you doing? but to say we will not have a population of this keeps up. eventually he is replaced by christian of one of the things that he did was to bring back abortion. so by the late 1960's soviet

women that is many as 20 abortions by the 1970's the u.s.s.r. was averaging between seven and 8 million abortions per year. all those years several v. wade between seven and 8 million per year. but then they realize it is a disappearing population than the national fertility days to try to get our children in russia.

so margaret sanger i have the chapter on hershey has been in the news lately the founder of planned parenthood which began as the mayor can birth control league she took a pilgrimage to russia in 1934 like many americans calling progresses george bernard shaw margaret sanger had an affair with him. the founding father of the american public education and has several chapters on him because they're all progresses. they're all on the left summer socialist some are communist party usa they say maybe the bolsheviks are

ahead of us they want revolution we talked evolution. let's go see what they're doing so singer goes over to see if she can learn any lessons from the bolsheviks on birth control and at this point time singer writes she was not publicly on record in support of abortion. she wanted planned parenthood to have birth control for women to control the number of births and space out the birth we know garner heard negro project and other stuff racially speaking and to she also wanted birth control for sexual freedom she had an affair with h. g. wells but at that point said people

say we want birth control for purposes of abortion but we do not there is nothing more dangerous the borodin of laywoman's offspring. we condemn that in the strongest terms. 80 years later now planned parenthood natalie supports abortion but once federal funding if you favor a war on women. so to say what you can learn from the bolshevik to write an article on the birth control review and then she said listen carefully the

radically there are no obstacles it is accepted on the grounds of health and human rights week said take example from russia. writes on the verge of the purge. they could take examples from russia are the founder of planned parenthood were there are no religious condemnation with the regular welfare service of the government. that is where we are. birth control and structure and is part of the regular welfare service no religious condemnation she said this

she was to a credit was aghast that the number of abortions. this was horrible the total number is not known. it is estimated at 100,000 per year. here is of pitcher a progressive utopianism. with all the officials with whom i discussed the matter stated as soon as the economic and social plans are realized leader abortions nor contraception is necessary. a functioning communistic

society will insure the happiness of every child and will assume the full responsibility for its welfare and education. so they just have more power. to give more state control the full faith of the progressives of the utopian state. >> to get serious change of sexuality and gender not the communist party usa. a lot of those people tend to be more socially conservative but the big change comes to the culture of the school and there are

people that are wondering right now the frankfurt school of germany in the '20s they were freudian marxist. that he could not take down the west to the economic class based marxism. the most liberal americans knowing that the free market outperforms. so the key to taking down the west especially through sexuality, gender and through the conveyor belt of media and the movies and especially academia and the

skies began team jeanne to sexual relations to argue that people were fully capable from a very young age there were fully capable of premarital sex to smash monogamy but george was one of the founders put one of the founders that george said that he is the enemy.

held a lot of guys. that is a business strategy of the british rock family. the traditional family stinks'. politics is only the means so there are a bunch of these instances they free berlin because many of them when hitler comes in to take germany there is very few places in the world is willing to except freudian marxism. but there was one.

and then to log leave the school president so they're doing fabulous break them to colombia and the wife of the national education association they do fabulous work and can also load do wonderful work and to have a full chapter in on him to be completely at of control

chronic and what he did to himself sexually but will hold rates to be part of that ever deepening discrepancy will hold rates the sexual revolution it can be gratified for a limited time. tell that to your wives. and then to smash this monogamous relationship. of the wretchedness of marriage wilhelm rates herbert was the most

influential the intellectual guru with a half a dozen institutions of harvard and columbia and a bunch of of the art -- others. to talk about polymorphous perverse city of oral and anal and anatol eroticism. to focus on heterosexual intercourse to believe that the liberation was achieved by exploring new permutations of sexual desires so as the changeover

time on the radical full left it culminates to wear today that freud called perverse desires of sexual behavior not just with the opposite sex so he himself was heterosexual but identified with homosexuals of the radical standard bearer of sex to'' on polymorphous perversity the anatomy that has forced a homosexual to explore the realities of polymorphous eroticism. a lot of details but it is changing. one last thing, also cited

the market's action -- faction and they stress his ideas on gay liberation and then gave manifesto but because i have to move on on, he talks about liberating the repressive tolerance. think about this. very important to see this on the left all the time today. he argues intolerance against movements romney/ryan in toleration of movements from the left. that is where the left is today. if they disagree with your ideas, and then they don't extend your view they tolerate only what they want to tolerate. but if you only tolerate

that being sure agree with it is not tolerance. it is really easy to tolerate the things that you agree with that is real say i totally disagree i even hate your ideas but we live in a diverse country of respect your right to have a different point of view i will not sue you or shove it down your throat but these guys argue for repressive tolerance not tolerating ideas. it is fascinating if he supports the concept of male-female based marriage that has been the position of 99.99% of humanity over the last two dozen years you are now on the right so you should not be tolerated. the new left marxist for a ministerial dash feminist the book the feminine

mystique so here you go betty friedan was a marxist profound an acknowledgement on that on one of the web sites with a fact check they said yes said the comments were who cares? who are you? and she said suburban homesteads of american housewives were a kid to comfortable concentration camps a comment that she had to walk back one of the scholars who is on the left of very good scholar, he notes portions of the feminine mystique that were taken from the book that i quoted earlier on origins of the family that it a draft of one of the early versions of her book, she'd take an ounce to incorporate ideas.

so it isn't a party you have to understand she was a communist for where these ideas come from. eight also one of the founders of the organization for women, along with betty friedan, kate wrote a book sexual politics and would argue not only for non monogamous marriage before bisexuality with sex with the opposite and to day support same-sex marriage and wrote in sexual politics a sexual revolution would require first of all, the end of traditional sexual inhibitions and taboo particularly those that threaten the patriarchal monogamous marriage homosexuality, illegitimacy and extra marital sexuality.

and my wife totally supports monogamous marriage. [laughter] she is a woman patriarchal monogamous marriage. this is mallory on her sister kate talking about attending the group or is students of columbia highly educated women whose said they went into a litany that is like a prayer were you repeat over and over. why are we here today? to make revolution. what kind? the cultural revolution. to destroy the american family. had we destroy the american family? by destroying the american

patriarch. how to redo that? by destroying monogamy her cautery destroy a monogamy? >> promote eroticism and prostitution and homosexuality and promiscuity and goes on and on. that i explain the trajectory in the history and then to go through cultural marxism and the new left here are some of the different people the read family started and berkeley hills.

to experiment with not monogamous marriage so on all of your conventional values there were no limits to politics or transgressions this is the motto with the women's collective underground so the member of the women's collective that they don't need a man for sex so bill ayers talks about september

september 11 and they said there should not only be monogamous couples the bare want everyone to experiment with homosexuality and bisexuality. end just biologically. but the marxist blames it on and culture. but to be turned on by my naked buddy.

he was capable but that ideology to the action to take down the traditional family striking in in this is the student and talks about when he got married having a wedding cake to smash monogamy they exchanged wedding rings. the american aircraft shot down.

and his fiancee the daughter of a conservative military man exchanged a ring from the downed aircraft their marriage lasted one your because this violates because they said we lost a lot of really good people with weather underground because some were in love they wanted to be faithful to reach other but that went against the code. to take down the traditional family and marriage. with communist and homosexuality, communist especially the old guard guard, and there were not pushing homosexuality were

same-sex marriage, and again that comes with the new left no matter how extreme nonet of those were talking about same-sex marriage that would be the most extreme but homosexuality communist party usa were not pushing that a couple of cases of j. edgar hoover he was tarred and feathered and made fun of by communist a portrait of as a cross dresser, or a transvestite with the left does not like you they to be the biggest and worst homophobes' on the planet so they really went after j. edgar hoover. harry kaye is the most prominent gay communist

pioneers. i have read his memoir and a leading biography it is fascinating he was expelled from the movement because he was homosexual but i take it looks more like he left because he knew it would cause problems if he stayed in it even says if they looked the other way gramm paul walton on the waltons was the gay lover of harry k. who brought him into the communist party. see you could say he was always a homosexual but was drawn into the communist movement but i will. here is the fascinating

thing this is what caused me to stick out my neck making people hate me but i started to notice a few years ago that i read every day people's world, the web site to the daily worker that was the soviet directed and funded communist party usa for practically one century. i read that every day every communist party every day website because this is my feel like cannot be ignorant and just make up things. i read. which is interesting the left to find the right i get all kinds of nasty emails from people who will buy read the book they will not by reading harry hays and i read all of this. that is true open mind real diversity when you actually

read it the other side to see what they have to say but when you complete the banish them and throw them in jail to demonize that is the real tolerance so i started to notice a few years ago that american communist were supportive of same-sex marriage. i'' in the book in 2006 statement on gave pride that communist stand in solidarity the month and to his designated as pride month for the achievements and struggles of lesbian and gay and transgendered we still have a long way to go. that struck me. that i started to notice about three years ago really strong staunch pieces in support of same-sex marriage in speeches of people like sam webb and people's world every week.

the most recent people's world through the celebrated the gay-rights laws and they have become some of the strongest supporters of same-sex marriage. i was puzzled. i thought there just not mildly supportive but huge advocates. why is communist party so on board? i am not making this up you are literally far more likely to find the colors of the rainbow flag on the web site of people's world they and the red flag with hammer and sickle because they do good job to not totally use the word communist but they are really out there to support the full total lgbt agenda and those that are against it they really go after. you should have seen how they went after the states of indiana.

the communist hammer a mandrake to them over the kohl's so there 100 percent on that bandwagon and. then what really blew me away and have been lecturing on castro's cuba for years again my background is communism with international and domestic but fidel castro is the biggest homophobe he threw gave people in st. asylums that was one above of least gave them in places on the planet. but now, 400 transvestites do a kong the line through the streets to celebrate the fifth cupid gay against homophobia. really? they all get thrown in jail? no-no. the regime supports it.

observed elsewhere to shout down with homophobia will live sexual diversity. fidel castro's neece says for he has said advocacy work for the gays.

they have got a tool to reshape family and marriage that the mainstream population -- so this is perfect. let me say this so clearly, this doesn't mean same-sex marriages a communist plot. it was given test by communists, no one is saying that. it doesn't mean the typical same-sex marriage, obviously not, may be 1% of the american population. what it does mean is the communist thrilled with the same-sex marriage movement because it has given them a chance to do what they always wanted to do which is against the natural traditional biblical definition of marriage and family. they have been waiting for so long for this and they finally

have it. remember what do communist hate more than the family? religion. this is an outstanding tool for the communists to hammer -- when they see a in davis throwing jail they love that. when they see the beggar being persecuted for not being fined, for not wanting to be forced to make a cake for a wedding they believe violates their religious beliefs, when they see them being shutdown, communists love it. they absolutely love it. this is what they wanted to do. just a couple final things and i will wrap up and take some questions. there are groups out there including the group beyond same-sex marriage, they are looking, they have a web site,

beyond same-sex marriage, a petition signers and so forth, broad coalition of people on the left, they see same-sex marriage as a chance for them to fundamentally reshaped the male/female based marriage bond and create all sorts of other forms of marriage. my problem is far less with same-sex marriage than it is with the fact that what same-sex marriage does is finally allows the ability to break the mold of mail/female marriage. once you break that mold than you are open to all sorts of new configurations and arrangements of which same-sex marriage is just one. i think the best thing for a child is a home with a mom and dad, what everyone strives for. the left totally agree with leon that for a while.

there was a blessed moment in the 1990s, the national fatherhood initiative, bill clinton, the opening of this book by quoting a wonderful beautiful father's day speech in 2007 by senator barack obama on how important it is to have dads and moms, the left agreed but now the left is actually supporting fatherless, a female/female narrative, supporting motherwest homes, marriage without a mom. this is entirely new ground but there are people on the left to break this ground, break other forms and configurations of marriage beyond same-sex

marriage. and that education funds. and transforming the very fabric of society. transforming the very fabric of society. we must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternative to marriage and radically reordering society view of reality. radically reordering. that is big stuff. the writer/locker and gay-rights activists, no-brainer that homosexuals should have the right to marry but equally it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage -- fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there. i am not trying to change that.

my point is by redefining the original standards of marriage and opening the door to all sorts, i warn people on the left this is going to be too arrangements we don't like. that you don't like. you will have made it possible tiebreaking that original molds. fighting for gay marriage involves fighting about what we're going to do with marriage when we get there because we live at the institution of marriage is not going to change. you are changing it, redefining marriage, changing, the institution of marriage is going to change and i think it should change and i don't think it should exist. she said i don't like creating fictions in my life. that is not why i cannot of the closet. the final statement, five parents more or less, i don't see why they shouldn't have five

parents, check the peace, it jennifer wrote back, a girl who wrote -- i had five parents and a son. is not fun. to have five parents. very confusing. for a little child. i had three kids with five parents, i don't know why they shouldn't have five parents legally. i met my new partner, she had a baby whose biological father is my brother and my daughter's biological father is a man who lives in russia, my adopted son considers himself his father. the five parents break down into groups of three. you need a board to outline those. i would like to live in a legal system capable of reflecting that reality. i don't think it is compatible with the institution of marriage. i don't say these people can't love the child, but the most stable society for people has

always been the kid with a dad. let me add there's probably gay people yelling at the tv that are watching this, this is i will check out, christians do pretty good job yourself growing up marriage. totally. absolutely. no question about it. no question about it. we have -- no question. no question about that. for the last 2,000 years mail/female marriage did really well, 1,984. these recent self-inflicted wounds in marriage are a blip on the historical radar. with as much as christians and other people and heterosexuals have screwed up marriage they didn't read define it. they didn't break the mold. what is different about same-sex

marriage is it redefined, once you have decided you have the ability to read the fine it, marriage always only meant mail/female bond. as anthony kennedy did that in 1992, the mystery fossil where he said being an american liberty in america means coming up with your own meanings of meaning, your own definitions of life, history, of the universe, also being an american today means coming up with your own definition of marriage. there is a danger in that. i tell people on the left look beyond same-sex marriage. my problem is less than that than the redefinition. wrapping up, and i'd done here? this is the last slide real quick, what is shockingly different about today's reshaping marriage, the people

attacking the natural traditional standards, typical same-sex marriage supporters, the new left marxists of the 60s, cultural marxist of the 30s, what do they all share in common? not that they are all communists. what they share in common is the notion that there is not a fixed, natural, traditional, biblical absolute for marriage and family. they all believe no matter where they are communists, far left or not, they themselves can read the find these things and they all share that in common. for the far left they are absolutely beside themselves and frills, shocked, shocked, thrills, exuberance, that they finally for the first time ever have mainstream public support for their ideas to take down the natural traditional, in the past

ideas put the money government surveillance in the countries they in, people considered them crazy, extremists but now for the first time ever they have the support of the majority of the population and the people who oppose them, especially for religious reasons, they are called extremists. be out liars. i must say to the people on the far left i congratulate you. this is a remarkable coup, a remarkable accomplishment. you have done it, you pulled it off and it has been a long time coming. but you did it. thank you very much, happy to take your questions. [applause] >> we got mike right there.

>> this redefinition of marriage, the you see as leading to a decision between advocates, abolition of marriage and more open definition? what would the response be by either party to that? >> generally when marriage ceases to have a single definition and can mean anything to anyone, anyone can have their own definition, you have a dictatorship, i don't think that strengthens marriage at all. at some point it makes marriage almost meaningless where you can have so many different conventions and understandings. i should add as well that again for gay people who are listening, the heterosexuals separated the appropriated function of marriage so gay

people will say you heterosexuals don't give me this jive about marriages about reproduction. for some it is. don't tell us to be merry is about reproduction. that is true. this absolutely wright. again heterosexual have done a really good job of growing up marriage themselves. there's a real danger here in breaking the mold, read justice kennedy's decision, do a little bit of googleing, very quickly people were posting things on different website saying by kennedy's definition you cannot deny that man and three women in montana or wherever, that now want their marriage equality, they want their marriage rates. if love whins there are three of us, we love each other.

if consenting adults should be allowed to form a marriage we are consenting adults, we all agree, i am not forcing the lead two women here, where are our marriage rights? i use saying our love is illegitimate? we have kids or we want to have kids. are you saying to them that our love, is illegitimate? by using the exact same rationale you cannot deny that marriage, you can't. you are using the same standard. you won't denied the muslim men who wants four lives. he will be able to point to that same logic. when that happens you will try to establish some boundaries but it will be too late because you have broken the mold and will not have been my fault because i am arguing for the male/female standard that has been around

for 2,000 years. a lot of religious folks don't see this but i see all the time you would not see this church/stake acrimony its gaze had done civil unions. gay people say yes, but you in a lot of your conservative personal buddies don't support that either. maybe not, a religious dispute but certainly at a legal level, what made this such a battleground with christians, people like kim davis and that is, and gives out marriage licenses, the baker, the photographer and folks like that, is for them they believed marriage was ordained by their creator, by god. they believe they have no right to redefine it. they think they would be blaspheming there got if they rented to themselves the ability

to do something that was the unique province of the laws of nature and society. when i pass into the next world i have a enough to answer for. i don't want to have to stand up and say i also read to find your marriage when i was that it. they believe they don't have the right to do that. if you believe believe in tolerance you ought to respect the right to disagree and not call them names. that is just not right. and by the way as a christian i believe in tolerance, i call it charity and my charity also means i think it is sinful to persecute, attack, hurt people because of their sins. mike same christian belief system that condemns that and tells me i can't read the fine marriage so be real careful about wanting to attack my religious faith because it also does things the lead to genuine tolerance of people with sexual

lifestyles that i disagree with. another question. down here. microphone. it will pick up. thank you. >> you may have mentioned this, that is now something same-sex partners do going into foster homes and adopting foster children. >> yes. same-sex adoption, that is -- for crisis magazine, that might have been a motivation, one of vladimir putin's reasons to ban adoption of russian children. he had a reason that had to do with political, i have written this as well. there are a number of different things, among other things he also wants more russian children

to stay because of the fertility problem. that too is the redefinition of family as well. pope francis who came to the united states was caught will in argentina called same-sex adoption and same-sex marriage a product of the father of lies. google pope francis national catholic register, father of lies. liberals find this man has a lot of views on marriage you don't mike at all. he is also very tolerant and charitable toward people with same-sex attraction. he has certain standards and stated on religion tell him he can't support same-sex adoption or marriage that is faith also tells him he must be charitable

and merciful and loving to people he disagrees with. yes? over here. >> what is your viewpoint on someone like david horowitz? i find it significant when i was having a conversation with bill airs, they used to be friends and comrades. >> in particular, horowitz completely broken with all of them. i quote horowitz a number of times. two excellent outstanding former communists who do great work today and few people knew that side, new left mike horowitz,

his memoir and horowitz, the destructive generation, radical son. they saw all of this and horowitz understands the difference between the old communists, more of the docks -- orthodox class based and the new left and you have to understand this cultural marxism is where things really changed. that is why i big people on the left don't caricature my argument. there is a trajectory that goes from 1800 to today, people don't just wake up one day and walk out of starbucks and redefined the institution of marriage. they had to be chipping away different parts of this over and over again. you don't just wake up and want

a completely reject as hatred against the views of marriage and family held by your grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents, great great great grandparents, great great great great great, should i go on? -i believe it is? great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents. not just wild hatemongers and homophobes. people have reasons. it is so cool to just simplify all of this and detect the people who disagree with you and not only am i a christian, a very orthodox roman catholic, you know my views on marriage perfectly, as a conservative, conservatives believe in conserving and preserve it and there's nothing more elemental,

fundamental to society than the family. you would not expect a conservative just wake up one day and say that 3 define marriage. you would expect the progress of to do that. what is progressive? always changing, always evolve in which also means progressives, liberals 20 years ago, the vast majority of the democratic party supported the defense of marriage act, so did bill clinton, barack, on the -- barack obama did a few years ago on mail/female marriage. 20 years later they have all changed and if we continue to hold the position they did which was the position of all our ancestors for 2,000 years, we are called the extremists. wait a second. we have your position you all held on marriage, were you guys haters and then? this also means if you ask them

if it is 2015, what will your position on marriage be in 2035? will you support marriage between a man and three women? would you support a three woman marriage? right now of a might be yelling know, we don't support that. the truth is you don't know what your position is going to be in 2035 because the essence of the progressive is things are always changing. always progressing, always evolve in. margaret sanger writes for the nation in 1932 there is nothing more awful than abortion, we do not support abortion. now planned very good is america's largest proportion provider and if you don't support it with your text driver -- they're always changing. you know what the progressive position will be in 2035? they will tell you when they get there. they don't know what it will be known either. they will tell you. you can be sure of this.

when they get there and it is different and it will be, if you don't support their position, they will call you wildest extremists. that is what they do. last question. okay. last question. [inaudible question] >> right. >> to revitalize traditional marriage because they know what actually happens when fathers disappear, kids go to jail at a far higher rates and less likely to go to college. >> this was barack obama's point in his father's day speech in june 2000. kids need dads. >> i like quoting barack obama. kids without a father are five