Traditional Marriage and Equal Rights

The institution of marriage has worked well over the centuries in spite of challenges. Marriage is never easy, it is not just about love and companionship, it is an obligation and a covenant. Pope Francis declared the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Justice Anthony Kennedy reasoned that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996 by 342 members of the House, 85 Senators, and President Bill Clinton as an anti-gay move, to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” a certain group of Americans.

Most Americans believe that redefining marriage for the majority of Americans in order to include a minority who feels discriminated against is certainly a convoluted and destructive way to give Americans the same access to insurance, inheritance, civil unions, hospital visitations, and other perks that a traditional married couple enjoys, including divorce and higher taxes.

The existence of orderly society is based on reproduction resulting from the union of a man and a woman. The resulting children need both a man and woman in order to be successful, well protected, cared for, loved, and for society to survive over time and grow independent of government.

Marriage predates government but the government conveniently recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage in order to insure its survivability and the survivability of our species.

When marriage is promoted and protected, other relationships are not banned. There are common-law couples, heterosexual couples who never marry, homosexual couples, and single individuals who choose not to be in a relationship. The government does not force these adults to make the choice of marriage and thus no one should have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

Ryan T. Anderson said, “Redefining marriage would legislate a new principle that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is.” (The Heritage Foundation, March 11, 2013)

Marriage is not about having a party, a wedding cake, distributing legal property, insurance, or the right to divorce. Marriage is about survival of the species, “monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence.” If you redefine marriage, the so-called “marriage equality,” you open the Pandora’s Box of other ills. If same sex couples “marry” why not have polygamy, marriages to animals, and marriages to cousins, polyamorous relationships, and pedophilia sanctioned by the state?

Anderson argues that there is no such thing as “parenting,” there is “mothering” and there is “fathering;” each has an important and irreplaceable individual role in the upbringing of a healthy child who will grow into a healthy adult.

Marriage has been recognized as the union of a man and a woman in Jewish and Christian traditions, in philosophy, in ancient Greek and Roman law, even in primitive cultures that had no concept of sexual orientation.

Recently, “Marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view of marriage that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs.” By breaking down marriage, civil society is weakened and limited government will explode into government control. Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation cites numerous studies that show that man-woman relationships and their marriage promotes economic well-being because society does not need to care for children who are born out of wedlock.  One of the studies by Professor W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project summarized, “The core message…is that the wealth of nations depends in no small part on the health of the family.” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

“Government can treat people equally – and leave them free to live and love as they choose – without redefining marriage.” There is no ban on the same-sex love, there is freedom to have same sex unions, to live together, to buy a house together, own property, worship in churches that bless same sex union, and work in places that offer joint benefits.

“Redefining marriage threatens religious liberty.” Religious groups will stop running adoption agencies if they have to violate their religious principles. Under the directives of Putin, Russians have suspended adoptions for same-sex couples from the United States. Americans who refused services related to same-sex marriages were successfully sued in court. Their religious beliefs were trampled by the wishes of a minority who sought to redefine marriage and won.

Nonie Darwish, author, spoke with Silvio Canto Jr. recently about the marriage redefinition. She discussed her recent article, “Marriage is an obligation, not a right.” Born a Muslim in Egypt, she lived as a child under Islamic Law which encourages polygamy. She moved to the United States where she became a Christian and embraced monogamy because “respect of the Christian marriage is the only way to have peace, stability, and civilization.”

www.blogtalkradio.com/cantotalk/2013/07/05/todays-message

Nonie Darwish described the premise of marriage under Islamic Law where men don’t promise loyalty to their wives but the wives pledge loyalty to their husband. Muslim women live together and Muslim men live together. This creates a gender-segregated society. Darwish wondered if we are going to have a gender-segregated society with lesbian couples and homosexual couples. She mentioned the Australian lesbian activist who said that the purpose of gay marriage is to destroy the institution of marriage.

When children are brought up by gay couples, society will change. Such unions are based on artificial and false premises of inheritance, hospital visitations, employment benefits, things that do not define a family. Such unions can never produce a biological child without the help of a third party.

Marriage is not a right guaranteed by the state. Some heterosexuals never marry because it is a big responsibility to marry and divorce rates are high. Arranged marriages still take place in many cultures and are not based on love – some learn to love each other, some never do. “The marriage institution was not created to regulate love. Marriage developed naturally out of the need to raise the next generation.” Nonie Darwish concluded that, in spite of the liberal media bombardment with shows promoting the happy gay lifestyle, “just because it is legal, it is not normal.”

My favorite department store just celebrated June as gay “pride month.” Upon entering the store, a large board was quoting one of its employees, urging shoppers to “Be Inspired.” I am certain that I will be inspired to stop shopping in this store - I don’t like to buy my clothes in any place that engages in politics. This is the same store selling “sustainable shoes.”

 

 

 

 

You Can Never Have Enough Progressivism

One of the many solicitations I received in the mail today asked for $5 donation in order to meet their modest $15,000 goal. The letter was asking me to help them support the not-so-modest “progressive vision for America.”  Their vision for America was spelled out in the first line:

-          Voting rights (When did we lose the right to vote? We’ve been voting freely for many years, give a few incidents here and there, like the voter intimidation in Philadelphia by the Black Panthers;  even the women’s suffrage was successful in 1920; we are so successful, we allow illegal aliens to vote, and some poll workers in Illinois boast about voting six times. They must be referring to photo IDs. It is so evil to require someone to prove that they are who they say they are; after all, we have to produce photo ID everywhere else in society, why require low information voters to be inconvenienced by a silly photo ID.)

-          Health care (Did our President and the Democrats not passed the Affordable Care Act that nobody can afford? Did they not fundamentally change how our health care will be delivered to all citizens, non-citizens, and illegal aliens? Are they not gutting Medicare and Medicaid as a result of this law? Do we not have to pay now a minimum $20,000 a year premium for the Bronze level insurance and the Supreme Court says it is a tax? Is the IRS not the enforcer and overseer? How much more can we change health care that would satisfy the socialists?)

-          Gun Reform (Are progressives not pleased until everybody is disarmed except the elites in power, Hollywood, and hardcore criminals?)

-          Amnesty (Apparently progressives will not rest until we have open borders to all our enemies and we give blanket amnesty to every unfortunate illiterate immigrant who does not care about America, its values, its language, flag, and Constitution. Who are we to judge that illegal aliens are only interested in our generous welfare system and taking back the lands that have been ‘unjustly’ confiscated from the previous owners by war and purchase; by this definition, nobody has a claim to their country or their borders, so open borders makes sense to generous-with-other-people’s-money liberals.)

-          DOMA (Homosexuals, LGBTs should have the same rights as heterosexuals, they should be allowed to be equally miserable in marriage, divorce, and whatever other rights they do not currently have; at the same time, no child should be allowed the right to feel uncomfortable when children of the opposite sex use their bathrooms, they should definitely be punished if they feel discomfort and complain.)

-          Climate Change (Capitalism is evil and whatever progressives must do to destroy the U.S. economy must be accomplished quickly. The wealth confiscated through carbon swaps, carbon footprint, carbon taxes, and other “green” schemes, must be immediately distributed to third world nations and to Americans who are allergic to work and prefer the safety net of undeserved welfare while the industrious Americans are held slaves to high taxes in order to pay for it all. The unjustified fear mongering of global warming/climate change fits the bill. Low information voters believe whatever misinformation is fed to them, including catastrophic weather events caused by faux man-made global warming. The masses are kept happy with sports, vampires, reality shows, and other trivial Hollywood drivel, the modern day equivalent of bread and circuses.)

The Center for American Progress has a vision for America, a progressive vision. “The president and the public are on our side. With your help, we can make our shared progressive vision a reality.”

The CPA is listed as “an independent nonpartisan (chuckle) educational institute that does not support or oppose candidates or political parties.” (chuckle again) It boasts “ideas for a strong, just, and free America.” Who knew that we were not free? Millions of legal immigrants, who came to America for freedom and opportunity, must have deluded themselves for so long.

To illustrate that the CAP is nonpartisan, the letter I received contains examples of egregious lack of freedom such as “a Tea Party Congressman from Texas who ‘hoped and prayed’ that Congress would reject gun reform legislation to protect the country from Sharia law.”  What was this Congressman thinking? How dare he oppose what CAP promotes?

To show again that CAP does not support or oppose political parties, the letter chastises conservatives – “Just when we thought conservatives had learned their lesson in November, eight more states introduced invasive and medically unnecessary anti-abortion bills.”  The anti-abortion bills are “invasive and medically unnecessary” but the killing of innocent unborn is not invasive and unnecessary. Really?

The ‘nonpartisan’ Center for American Progress (CAP) continues, “A top GOP senator from Iowa – one of 22 Republican male senators who were the lone votes against the Violence Against Women Act – called protecting women from domestic violence “unconstitutional.” Who knew that men in general applauded domestic violence but particularly “evil” men of Republican persuasion?

This letter is so outrageous and disingenuous, only an insane person would take it seriously or contribute money after reading it. I must take an aspirin for my headache. Humanity has sunk to the lowest low in the quest for the end justifies the means of progressive drivel.

 

You can never have too much progressivism

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/53482