As for Brooks’s concrete recommendations, many of us believe that preserving the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental ways to “reweave the sinews of society” (as Brooks himself notes). Social bonds have been strained and frayed by what, exactly? Isn’t the sexual revolution one of the main culprits (aided and abetted by presumptuous Supreme Court decisions that insist on removing these debates from the democratic process, with Roe and Obergefell at the top of the list)?

The stressed and fluid living arrangements that afflict millions of kids—aren’t those owing to rampant promiscuity, the decline of marriage (especially among the poor), and the epidemic of fatherlessness (subsidized by Uncle Sam)? In other words, aren’t those components of the sexual revolution that social conservatives have been seeking (however futilely) to resist? Even Brooks himself appears confused at this point. After reading his article, I’m left to wonder whether Brooks wants us to resist the “barbaric” sexual environment our young people swim in, or whether he wants us to do something else.

No doubt Brooks would want to distinguish between the push for same-sex marriage and the other more “obvious” problems plaguing us—unwed mothers, children having children, father hunger, and the rest. But we social conservatives, and especially those of us who are Christians, recognize deep connections among these issues, many of them having to do with what sex is for, what marriage is for, indeed what people are for. As with knit sweaters and Berber carpet, you can’t unweave it a little bit. Once you start pulling, the fabric keeps unraveling.