>>

>> of course, we will post the program on the homepage following his presentation in the internet viewers are also welcome to submit questions or comments added a time our guest today is dr. paul kengor professor of political science the author of over one dozen books and a recognized authority from the cold war and communism with his extensive research of archival research of communist party usa and serves as a visiting fellow at the hoover institution it received his doctorate from university of pittsburg crash risk will and urges

master's degree at international service and also holds a eight honorary doctorate today he will discuss his latest book "takedown" please join me to welcome paul kengor. [applause] thanks for coming. and also '02 c-span as well people say thank god for c-span there isn't many outlets out there that simply put it out there to let people watching and decide for themselves without the interpretation of how you're supposed to interpret that and also to those it is their

provocative topics and this will upset a lot of people lined a stand that but if you believe in dialogue and diversity to speak about these things i am open to that so send me an e-mail i will dialoguing and engage with you on this topic avoid the streams of the four-letter words and that type of white which did makes the dialogue easier. i tend to to ignore the other type of e-mail and people asked me a cold war story and friends say why you want to tackle this issue? marriage and family? you are jumping into a

culture you really want to do this? no. it isn't fun to be called nasty names for supporting 99.99% of the people that have the traditional view of marriage and family but to put your neck out there to be attacked is not fun. but it is precisely because of my background in the areas of lecturing over and over with the communist manifesto, that i did have to write this coming at this from a historical idiological perspective with the ideological history so the power point presentation that my students know that i'd never do. a really good student of mine put together a fabulous power point presentation as

long as i can press the buttons of the gatt will be okay. so to take down the radical left assault of the family is based on my book "takedown" that just came out a few months ago. it is in electronic form as well as hard copy and i dedicate this to those with the courage to resist redefining bed teaching is a god were the ancestors in the name of tolerance the ounce to demonize and then destroy them. this is what happens when you disagree with the forces of tolerance and diversity. so i dedicate the book to the people who were willing

to have the courage to stick to the teaching starting with a quotation and from pope francis of all things in the philippines. i love this quotation of its so perfectly with the history i lay out in the books there are forms of ideological colonization. think of that it is very good too distraught - - describe what we're facing medicine the mission that god gave us but the family is threatened by growing efforts on the part to be defined the very institution of marriage with relativism every threat to the family is a threat to society itself. one thing that conservatives

and the spectrum that they agree is the utterly fundamental important example why the most radical left, there is nothing more fundamental. every threat to the family is the threat to society itself as it passes through the family said pope francis. i wrote in article in response to his trip to the united states called cherry picking you can find all mine. so let's go through the history. karl marx. in the communist manifesto. nothing bothers me when i read into this all the time people say the communist

manifesto is a pretty good book you stop to read it talks about sharing and helping your fellow human and humanity and i know as soon as i have read that -- say that they have not read it because it is an awful book and doesn't take long to get through with a. is short you can get it for free. read the 10-point plan. the entire theory abolition of private property. right there. myofibril daughter can't tell you if you abolish private property will have to kill people in marks says an order for this to happen it will be necessary for a time you have to be an idiot to not realize the you'll have to use force but there is a line in their abolition

of the family. exclamation point. so in 1848 already not only talk about abolition of the family but the proposal so apparently it was infamous already. by students say what does that mean? i spend two chapters walking through that very, very carefully and researching difference dollars i will come back. even before marx there were out to to redefine marriage and family. a number of them, a somber

american, but they all tried to set up colonies in the 1800's. so to redefine the family marriage although it has real accelerated it is nothing new. attempting to do this, zero went -- zero when in the new party colony in indiana, and these people all sought to redefine the traditional understanding of one man and one woman of marriage a marriage based family of one bad and one mother. robert o. when stood on top of an july 4th, 1826 to give the anniversary of the declaration of independence.

john adams and thomas jefferson who is literally dying the country is celebrating and everyone in america is all excited while this is going on. robert owen is socialist was proclaiming the declaration of mental independence and said. >> i now declare to you amba world demand has been a slave to a trinity of the most monstrous evils that could be combined to inflict mental and physical evil. so now i have to read more. i refer to private property wittier rational systems of marriage founded upon property combined with these irrational systems of

religion here in america the 50th anniversary. all of these ideas are always swirling around to. we ignore them at our peril and wrong self-imposed ignorance some people don't want to see this those people that will e-mail vr 83 i've even going into this. it is not possible to speak of it blessed is he who has no family. some thank that was partly in jest of his financial situation in but if you knew of his relations of his wife with his children mark said a very, very bad family life

he was not a good husband or father several kids died before he did if you committed suicide one of the daughters committed suicide in a pact with her husband and marx denigrated with the most awful racist language and he cheated on his wife with the nursemaid and he impregnated her and eight girls refused to get married he had several mistresses he refused to marry them. he disliked marriage so much she did not get married the abolition end of the family

the bushwa bearish is the system of housewives the communist revolution is the most radical wonder its development has the most traditional ideas because one of the fundamentally notion of property and religion the charges to run the exploitation by their parents? people will say reduce trade the most hallowed of relations if you look at the tenth point of the 10-point plan. for free public education for all children they did

not want the educated at home and wanted them educated in public schools. what they hated the most was religion and private property and of course, barks called the religion the opiate of the masses so letted especially despise religion that is adjacent all were shipped is necrophilia. are you think will you don't have anybody like this in washington? that is the founder of the

soviet state to save their to be nothing more abominable comparing religion to venereal disease to thank what is the worst? that is religion friedrich engels. they wrote one year after he said this is a book that marx wanted to write an ingles says the transfer of the means of production and the ownership the single family sees this to be part of the economics said he wanted private housekeeping to be transported to a social industry the care and

education of children becomes a public affair society looks after all children alike anybody ever read alexander:take? you should. the leading feminist of the bolshevik revolution and she said the worker mother must learn not to differentiate end remember the workers that society will take it upon themselves all love the duty is to educate the child melissa harris perry is very well educated very strong

academic on msnbc schumer is part of that lead forward campaign and made a statement a couple years ago but up close and sounds to alexander. we have never invested as much in public education as we should because we have a private notion. we haven't had a collective notion we have to break to the private ideas where kids belong to their families to recognize that they belong to the whole community. what i had to find equitation for the book i found a poster on the fox news website i was reading the readers' comments this that i have never seen anything like this before it

is crazy. where is she coming up with this idea? that is not new at all. they have been talking about this the hundred and 30 years this is a new at all but what is new is there is a progressive movement where people become spokespeople with wide public support and they showed this again and again there just 5100 years behind the bolshevik i don't mean that across the board with the gulag by divorcing and redefining the family with education now 100 out

of 100 but quite remarkable issues to talk about the communist party usa. the party that pushed women into industry and have often talked of adopting children cottages and is the all embracing philosophy the teacher is the kind of marriage that you have your relationship with your profession the great convert talked about a communist marriage that usually was

not done in a church and is very often temporary long before we had high divorce levels in the united states he said they regarded marriage as a convention and with low fit with the same intensity. day bourse said communist russia one of the first things that they did if you wanted to own private property or freedom a speech or freedom of religion a fur coat or a bank account but

if you want a divorce the sky was the limits you are the freest person in the world here is a card from the out put is the lamp you have it. we will make this easy there will be no obstacles getting in the way go. and very soon with the untendered 50 years they see the divorce rates like they have never seen before i cite one example a steady from the late '60s publish from harvard university press that it is not unusual to the soviet ben and women who were divorced upwards of 15 times. it mantic published a piece

the russians tried to abolish marriage remember abolition of the family with marx. if the force was an epidemic in the u.s.s.r. then abortion was the black plague the of the earth -- the unearthing a major if you want an abortion go. full privatization if you want an abortion go get it. leaded had written as serbia's 1913 promised unconditional moments of course, it was what year? by 1920 it was fully and legally available provided free of charge by 1934 moscow had free - - three abortions for every live

earth committee get flipped for us. abortion got so bad a bolshevik russia stolid interfered he said we will not have a population and by the way you should see he is reprimanded by trotsky you cannot be a good, but is to abolish abortion. what are you doing? buddies and we will not have a population of this keeps up than stalin dies eventually replaced by khrushchev one of the first things he did is to bring back a portion so by the late '60s one confined

soviet women who had as many as 20 abortions and by the '70s the u.s.s.r. was averaging between seven and 8 million abortions per year between seven and 8 million per year. bayadere 2050 there is a great piece of this russia is looking at a population plunged that they attribute of to abortion and abortion induced infertility and vladimir putin is the first major limits on abortion and in decades because he realizes this hurts the population even the national fertility rates.

margaret sanger i have a of a chapter in the book the founder of planned parenthood which began as then abc al the american birth control league i call them progresses george bernard shaw margaret sanger had an affair with him john dewey the founder of american education to make the pilgrimage to russia they're all of the left some our socialist some archimedes party usa's

sympathizers so you think maybe a day are a little ahead of us let's go see what they're doing so singer goes over to see if she can have learned about birth control. she was not publicly on record for abortion she wanted planned parenthood to have birth control to control the number of blue -- birth with racial eugenics she also wanted birth control for sexual freedom she had an affair

with h. g. wells well she was married but said when they want birth control for abortion we do not there is that they were dangerous and the boarding of the old woman's offspring we condemn that in the strongest sense of course, 80 years later planned parenthood not only supports it but once federal funding and if you are against that and it is a war on women so the progressives had to evolves. so senator close to russia to sushi commercial birth control she came back and wrote an article that said in russia and the mother and child are under the protection of the care the government listened very

carefully theoretically there are no obstacles to birth control is on the grounds of health and human rights we could take example from russia of the soviet union. to be on the verge much the villages condemnation as part of the regular welfare service. we want no legal restrictions and if you

don't support birth control than you favor a war on women. so we're just 80 years behind was ingersoll. but on abortion and to her credit she was aghast at the number of abortions she was seeing. it was horrible she said the total number is not known but from moscow alone is estimated at 100,000 per year per girl that was right that was correct. here is a picture of utopianism but all the officials with whom i discussed the matter stated as soon as the economic and social plans are realized

realized, neither abortion and contraception will be necessary a communist society will usher the happiness of all to assume the full responsibility. so if they just have more power, don't worry give us more communism and state-controlled that won't even be necessary. a full faith of the progressive utopian state. now moving on. jumping ahead where you really start to get serious change to understand marriage of family and sexuality is not communist party usa or the traditional communist a lot of those people tended to be more socially conservative but the big change comes from

the frankfurt school and there are people in america who were wondering if it exist. the frankfort school at a jury in the '30's and '40's to shrewd the understand they could not take down the left their economic class base marxism. in the most liberal americans know the free market outperforms it will outperform communism and socialism the key to take down the west is through culture and sexuality and gender through the conveyor belt of media, movies

media, movies, hollywood comedy york especially especially especially academia academia academia. that was a long slow march they infused it with freudian as some -- freudian ism with gender sensuality and relations to argue people were fully capable to be bisexual at a very young age fully capable of premarital sex smashing monogamy one of their original creatures long before the left picked that up but a contrarian communist one of the founders and george said

they're the enemy most of the guys did that have good marriages. woman is the enemy healthy love dies in marriage which is a business transaction. the bourgeois family the traditional family stinks'. politics is only the means. so there are a bunch of these have to flee berlin because many were jewish and when hitler came to take germany there were forced to flee berlin. there are very few places in the world will into except these freaks what college would accept them?

there was one. columbia university. and john dewey in particular what gave the school president with others to say they are doing a fabulous work bring it to the united states to a columbia. he is also thinking he is honorary president and is thinking they can do fabulous work also through the teachers college that was the preeminent teachers college at the time i have a full chapter on wilhelm as well. he was sexually completely out of control at a very, very young age. trying to have sex in bed with his nanny when he is

really young. maybe six or seven. i know what to say this on television but the danes he did to itself sexually we're very unusual. and said marriages fall to pieces of the discrepancy between sexual needs and economic condition and writes the book the sexual revolution. sexual needs could be gratified with the same partner for a limited time only. tell that to your wives. i'm sorry only for a limited time. so i will smash this monogamous relationship that is the wretchedness of marriage so he writes to

force the most influential from the school as an intellectual guru to the new left with the weather underground bill errors, these people all red parka so with half dozen different institutions with harvard and columbia and a bunch of others to talk about polymorphous perverse city which was sexuality that included oral and anal and general -- genital erotica. with heterosexual intercourse to believe sexual liberation was she by a exploring presentations of desire and gender roles.

so it is the change over time of the radical far left it will culminate to where we are today. all of this takes us to where we are today what freud called perverse sexual desires non reproductive form not just with the opposite sex. en to he was heterosexual but identified as a homosexual as a radical standard bearer of sex and he was quoted as polymorphous perverse of the that has forced a homosexual to do explore the realities of polymorphous.

of lot of details year but it is changing. looking at the red butterfly collective of the gay liberation front his ideas on gay liberation to liberate tolerance very important and argued with that tolerance the toleration of movements from the left. if they disagree with your ideas they tolerate only

what they want to tolerate if you'll they tolerate what you agree with that is easy. could tolerate is i disagree i even hate your ideas but i respect your right to have a different opinion i will not shut you down or sue you. but these guys are arguing for repressive policies and this is fascinating. if you support the concept of male female based marriage which is the position of 99.99% over the last 2,000 years you were now on the right so you should not be tolerated. the new left marxist

leninist in the book the feminine mystique and betty friedan was a marxist. i found an idolatry and on one of the of websites like of fact checked and the response was who cares? she said the suburban homestead of american housewives of comfortable concentration camps a comment that she had to walk back one of the scholars is very good and is on the left and a notes portions that were taken from the book that i quoted earlier that actually have a draft of one of the early versions of the feminine mystique she incorporates the ideas.

understand she was a communist. kate is one of the founders of the national organization and wrote the book sexual politics and argued and would go on to argue for non monogamous marriage and bisexuality and today she supports same-sex marriages and wrote the sexual revolution would require an end of traditional sexual inhibitions and tab will particularly those that fred patriarchal and august their age. illegitimacy and extra marital sexuality. by the way my wife is not

patriarchal that she truly supports monogamous marriage. this is valerie on her sister kate talking about a group in 1969 where students are from columbia very highly educated women and said they went almost into a litany that is like a prayer in the catholic church. why are we here today? to make a revolution. what kind? the cultural revolution. how to read the cultural revolution? >> destroying the american family. how?

>> by destroying the american patriarch? how by destroying monogamy. how? by friday eroticism and prostitution and sexuality and goes on and on. i will go through it all but i'm explaining the trajectory and history don't go directly from marx and owen to same-sex marriage but cultural from the left picking up that monogamy the collective started and the hills there read family

collective experimented with not monogamous marriage all of the different stuff. there were no limits to our politics of transgression. this was a model of the weather underground the women's collective is in the book burning down america that penetrated the weather underground said that men were unnecessary included for sex. so they changed all of it

and bill payers talks about in the september 11 ended the year times they said they didn't want of monogamous marriage or a couple but everybody to experiment with homosexual al eddy and bisexuality. he tried a couple of times but he just could not do it and it didn't work for him it is amazing to read his claims of cultural taboo. just biologically was not attracted to someone of the same sex.

but bill ayers said he tried to have sex with his male best friend and did so he was capable but that ideology that compelled them to that action to take down the traditional family. and michael lerner hillary clinton's guy in the '80s very liberal is now the same-sex marriage movement as well and talks about when he got married having a wedding cake that said smashed monogamy on it they exchanged wedding rings that was down from the few sottish of the airplane that

was shot down and she was the daughter of a conservative military man so they're exchanging rings from downed aircraft and their marriage lasted one year because this violates natural law not just biblical law to say we lost a lot of really good people with the weather underground because some of them did not want other partners they wanted to be faithful but that went against the code so i have to move quick so communist than homosexuality

especially the old guard was not pushing, six morality or same-sex marriage. again that comes with the new left no matter how extreme or how far to the left none of them were talking about same-sex marriage that would have struck the most extreme but homosexuality communist party would usa was not pushing that but j. edgar hoover who was tarred and feathered and smeared and made fun of. they portrayed him as a cross dresser they called them transvestite and when the left does not like you they to be the biggest homophobe on the planet so they really went after him.

perrier is the most prominent gay communist pioneer. a was expelled from the communist movement because he was homosexual but it looks more like he left because he knew it would cause problems if he stayed and even said they did book the other way. and will who play grandpa of the waltons was the gay lover of perrier's who brought him into the communist barkeeper party.

been here is the fascinating case that compelled me to stick my neck out. i started to notice a few years ago. every day i read people's world which is the web site to the daily worker that was a soviet funded mouthpiece of communist party usa for a century i read it every day communist party usa web site because this is my field. i cannot be ignorant and make up things. that is interesting because i find the left does not read i will get nasty emails on people who will not read the book by reading harry hays i read all of their stuff. that is called true open

mind and real diversity in real tolerance if you consider with the other side has to say but when you completely banish them and want to throw them in jail to demonize them by started to notice a few years ago that the american communist were very supportive of same-sex marriage and i quote in the book a statement on gay pride month that they stand in solidarity it is designated as pride month of the lesbian and gay and bisexual we still have a long way to go. that struck me that they started to notice about three years ago really strong pieces in support of same-sex marriage and

speeches by sam webb air and people's world every week last june people's world really celebrated gay-rights and they become some of the strongest supporters. i was puzzled. not just mildly supportive why is communist party usa? i am not making it up your far were likely to find the colors of the rainbow flag in them the red flag or hammer and sickle because they do a good job to not use the word communist but they are really out there but the full total lgbt agenda and those that are against the day go after the view should have seen on the

indian religious freedom the communist hammer them and raked them over the kohl's there were no to% full lgbt bandwagon. then why really blew me away i have them lecturing with my background in communism communism, fidel castro through gay people in to insane asylums that was one of the least gave friendly places on the planet. but now the having to post 400 transvestites sashayed behind castro to weigh a conga line to celebrate the fifth candidate against homophobia.

really? did they get thrown in jail? no. the regime supports this. observed elsewhere to shout down with homophobia long live sexual diversity. fidel castro's neece says he has done gay advocacy work speaking of the indeed to make profits -- progress why is castro's cuba aalborg for same-sex marriage? what is going on? so to me it makes sense if you take it back to the regional communist goal of communist party usa of abolition of the family communism and this all comes

together same-sex marriage gives them the tool they have been looking for a couple hundred years they have a tool to reshape and family and marriage so this is perfect for them what they say this so clearly it doesn't mean same-sex marriage was a communist plot nobody says that they're not obviously but that they are thrilled with the save sex marriage movement to go against the

national biblical definition they have been breeding for so long. this is an outstanding tool. when they see kim davis thrown in jail they love that. when they studebaker persecuted to not be fined for not wanting to be forced to vacate that violates religious beliefs had shut down the communist love it. they absolutely love it. this is what they wanted to do.

there are groups out there including same-sex marriage ended long list of signers that broad coalition of people on the left as the same-sex marriage as a chance to reshape that bonn to i tell people all the time my problem is far less with same-sex marriage than the fact what it does to finally allow the ability to break the mold of the male-female marriage from thousands of years and once you break the mold your open to all sorts of new configurations and same-sex marriages just one of them.

the best thing for a child is the home with mom and dad dad. by the way the left agreed with me for a while there was with the national fatherhood initiative mr. d opening of the book quoting a beautiful father's day speech from barack obama how important it is. the left it agreed but now is supporting a fatherless home because the male-female asher they're supporting the mother was because of the mail mail marriage so it is entirely new ground so there are people on the left that want to create other forms

we're beyond same-sex marriage. . .

i'm not trying to change that. that's done but my point is by redefining the digital standard for marriage you are opening the door to all sorts of things and i warned people on the left this is going to lead to arrangements that you don't like but it's possible by bringing that original. you are changing it. you are redefining it. i don't like lying in creating fiction in my life. that's not why i came out of the closet a few years ago.

check out the piece at the institute from a girl that wrote i have five parents and it sucks. it's very confusing for a little child. i have three kids have five parents more or less i don't know why they shouldn't have been legally. my new partner had a baby into the db's biological father is my brother and the biological father is a man that lives in russia and my adopted son also considers himself. so the five parents break down into groups of three. you kind of need a board outlined these. i would like to live in the system that is capable of reflecting that reality.

i can't say that all these people don't love the child the most stable thing that we adhere because i know that there's probably gay people yelling at the tv that are watching this on c-span. you christians do a pretty good job yourself up screwing of marriage. you're right. no question about that. and we have the synchronized marriage. no question about that. however the last 2,000 years dated well into the recent self-inflicted wounds on the historical radar but even with as much as christians and other people and in her sexual

subscript of marriage, they didn't redefine it. they didn't break the mold. what is so different is that it redefines it and once you've decided you have the ability to redefine it which meant a male and female bond. once you feel you can redefine the terms and to call them whatever you want and then he kennedy did that in the plan where he said being in america means coming up with your own meanings of meaning. your own definitions of life, mystery of the universe while also being an american today means coming up with your own definition of marriage. there's a danger in there is a danger in that. again i tell people on the left look beyond same-sex marriage. my problem is less with the data being the redefinition. to wrap up, and i don't hear?

what is so shockingly different about today's people who are redefining and reshaping and the people that are attacking the traditional standards the typical same-sex marriage supported today and the new left in the 60s and the cultural mark in the 30s, what do they all share in common not that they are all communists but they all share the notion that there is not a fixed natural traditional biblical absolute for marriage and family. they all believe no matter where they are they themselves can redefine the same. they all share that in common. for the far left they are beside themselves and thrilled that they finally for the first time

ever have mainstream support for their ideas to take down the national biblical family. and in the past the ideas put them under government surveillance and people considered them crazy, extremist. but now now for the first time ever, they have the support of the majority population. and get this. the people that oppose them especially for religious reasons, they are called the extremists. i must say to the people on the far left i congratulate you. this is a remarkable coup. you've done it, you've pulled it off and it's been a long time coming, but you did it. thank you very much. happy to take your questions. [applause]

we have a microphone right there. it's great to hear from you. >> thank you. this redefinition of marriage do you see that leading to the division between the communists that are in the abolition of marriage and those for more open definition? what do you think the response would be? >> i think that generally when marriage ceases to have a single definition and it can mean anything to anyone and anyone can have their own definition i don't think that strengthens marriage at all. i think at some point it makes marriage almost meaningless to where you could have so many different conventions. i should add here as well but again for gay people who are listening, the header of

sexual's also separated the function for marriage and so gay people would say heterosexuals marriage is about reproduction, it's not. for some it is. so don't tell us that to be married is about reproduction. again, heterosexuals have done a good job of screwing up the marriage themselves, marriage themselves, that there is a danger here and breaking the mold and read the decision will find very quickly by kennedy's definition you cannot deny that man and three women in montana or wherever that's now want their marriage equality, they now want their marriage rights

and those people are saying wait a second, if love wins, there's three of us here. we love each other. if consenting adults should be able to form a marriage, we all agree. where are our marriage rights? are you saying that our love is a legitimate and if we have kids we want to have kids argue saying to them that our love is a legitimate survey using the exact same rationale in and same thinking you cannot deny that marriage. you can't. and your also again using the same language and standard. you're not going to be able to deny the man who once provides. he's going to be able to point to the same logic. and when that happens i know you will try to establish some boundaries but it will be too

late. it will not have been my fault because i'm arguing for the male and female standards that have been around for 2,000 years. i know a lot of realtors folks don't like to see this but i say all the time that he wouldn't have the to church and state acrimony with religious belief versus the have done civil unions. i know they say yeah but you have your conservative buddies don't support that. well maybe not religiously speaking. but certainly at a legal level white house made this such a battleground with people like tim -- kim davis and certainly for the baker and photographer and things like that, the belief that marriage is ordained by their creator. they believe they have no right to redefine it. they think that they would be

sending if they rendered onto themselves if they irrigated onto themselves the ability to do something in the province of the law of nature. when i pass into the next i have enough answer for. and i also redefined your marriage stuff while i was at it. they belief they don't have the right to do that and if you believe in tolerance you ought to respect the rights their right to disagree and not call them all kinds of things. and by the way as a christian i believe in tolerance. and my charity also means i think that it's sinful. this is my same christian belief system that condemns that but also tells me i can't redefine marriage. so be careful about wanting to

attack my religious state because it also does things that leads to genuine tolerance to people whose lifestyles i disagree with. another question? down here. yes. >> you may have mentioned they are going into foster homes and -- >> the same-sex adoption they wrote a piece for the crisis magazine that might have been a motivation in one of the reasons to ban the adoption of russian children in the united states. he had other reasons that have to do with political and i've written on this as well.

there's a number of different players but among other things they also want more children to stay in russia because of the fertility problems and that is a redefinition of the family as well. by the way, pope francis who was in argentina called same-sex adoption and same-sex marriage id product of the father of lies the national register and father of lies and liberals you'll find you will find they have a lot of views that you don't like at all. but again, he's also very tolerant and charitable towards people of the same sex attraction. so he has certain standards and they are not religion that tells

him he can't support same-sex adoption or marriage but also tells him he must be charitable and loving to people that he disagrees with. yes. over year. >> what is your viewpoint on someone like david horowitz? i found it significant when i was having a conversation discussed i know they used to be colleagues and comrades. >> is obviously completely broken with all of them. i quoted horovitz a number of times in this book and the two excellent and outstanding former communists who do such great work today and few people knew

that side and they recommend any of the books the difference between the old communists and more orthodox class-based economics-based. that's where things really change. it goes from the early 18 hundreds and the people don't just wake up one day and walk out of starbucks and redefine the institution of marriage. they had to be chipping away at

different parts of this over and over again. you don't just wake up and one day completely reject the views on marriage and family that was held by your grandparents come your great grandparents, your great great grandparents, 20 to go on, should i belabor this point? great great great great great grandparents. they are not just hate mongers and homophobes. people have reasons. it's so cool to just simplify and attack the people that we disagree with and number two not only am i a very orthodox roman catholic if you want to know my views but as a conservative,

conservatives believe in conserving and preserving preserving and there is nothing more fundamental to society than the family. you would not expect the conservatives to just wake up one day and say let's redefine marriage. you would expect a progressive to do that. it also means 20 years ago the majority of the democratic party supported the defense of marriage act and so did both clinton's and barack obama did just a few years ago. that was on male and female marriage. now 20 years under a changed and if we continue to hold the position that we did which was the position of all of our ancestors for 2,000 years we are the extremists.

we have the position you held on marriage. what this also means is that if you ask them okay it's 2015. what will your position be in 2035? will you support marriage between a man and three women or a three woman marriage and right now they might be only know we don't support that. the truth is you don't know what your position is going to be because the essence of the progressive is that things are always changing. they are always progressing and evolving the margaret sanger writes in 1932 that there's nothing more awful than abortion. we do not support. not a planned parenthood is the largest abortion provider and if you don't support with your tax dollars than you hate women. you know what the progressive position will be on marriage in

2035? they will tell you when you get there. they don't know what it will be now either. you can be sure of this. when they get there if it's different they will call you the wildest extremist. last question. >> [inaudible] they know what actually happens when the fathers disappear and become less likely to go to college. this is the point in the father's day speech, june 2000.

kids with their father are more likely to drop out of high school and eight times more likely to go to jail. what will a whole bunch of homes without moms be like? that's been really bad. leaving aside other elements the wanted in the consequences for traditional marriage and fatherhood and who want to bring the fathers back in the family. >> bill clinton and those guys were arguing back in the 1990s the left was arguing of the importance of dads and they often have been thrown under the bus with the question of the same-sex marriage movement so it

has to be argued. and i would add also by the way none of this is to say that same-sex parents can't love a child of course they can and none of it is to say they won't grow up and say i didn't love my parents. people will say look, if you have same-sex parents that can provide a roof over the child's head they can get them to pay for their college, they can -- it's true of course no one is denying any of that. by the way if that's the case why not a three or four person marriage? a four person marriage you can really get the kids to and from soccer practice. you can have people helping them and have money for the college education. you double the workload. you have to really cover it with that. so again with the people can

provide or that they love each other. you can't use those arguments and prohibit the multi-person marriage. you are the ones that will have to tell the marriage according to your own standards like they can't do it. my standard will be the same as it is now. the best thing is my mother and one father and one public policy i again feel free to e-mail me. >> we do have copies available to sign. thank you for your attention. we'll see you on a future occasion.