The war on marriage and motherhood

[Geee]

Washington Times:

President Obama and I have very different notions of what a family is. For liberals, the family can apparently be everything from “Heather Has Two Mommies” to “Daddy’s Roommate” to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “It Takes a Village.” In the opinion of electoral majorities in Kansas and 40 other states, however, that does not a family make.

For conservatives, the concept of family is the same as the Judeo-Christian model God ordained, a model supported by every other major world religion. It is the same unit recognized by the laws of nature, the laws of government, and civilized societies for thousands of years: one man, married to one woman, with so many children as God should see fit to entrust to their care through birth or adoption. In my case, that means me, Angela (my wife of 18 years), and our four children (who happen to be adopted).

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in two landmark cases concerning homosexual marriage. The Hollingsworth v. Perry case challenges the federal constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative approved by 7 million voters to amend California’s state constitution to define marriage as an institution that involves only one man and one woman. The Windsor v. United States case challenges the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 federal statute overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 that recognizes traditional marriage for federal purposes and protects states from having homosexual marriage imposed upon them by other states.If at least five Supreme Court justices do not resist the temptation to legislate from the bench, they might overturn Proposition 8 and DOMA. If that happens, the high priests and priestesses of political correctness will have done irreparable harm to yet another pillar of the American paradigm for our patriotic, wholesome culture — “God, the flag, mom and apple pie.” Activist judges have already expelled faith from the public square (forbidding the Ten Commandments, a cross in remembrance of our military heroes, and Christmas Nativity scenes) and decriminalized burning the Stars and Stripes in public. The First Lady’s “Let’s Move!” initiative and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s sugary-drink ban suggest the days of consuming apple pie might well be numbered.

[Draggingtree]

Live Free or Die: Adam and Eve is Not Equal to Steve and Steve or Eve and Eve: Definitions Matter

 

Exhibit A: It Depends on the Definition of

 

By: checkmate2012 (Diary) | March 29th, 2013 at 07:45 PM

We’ll never know for sure the exact reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire but many attribute it to a marked decline in morals, especially by the ruling classes that eventually spilled onto the general public. “Immoral and promiscuous sexual behavior including adultery and orgies was commonplace and celebrated in the Colosseum arena”, according to one source,

Emperors such as Tiberius kept groups of young boys for his pleasure, incest by Nero who also had a male slave castrated so he could take him as his wife, Elagabalus who forced a Vestal Virgin into marriage, Commodus with his harems of concubines enraged Romans by sitting in the theatre or at the games dressed in a woman’s garments. Snip

Back to the issue of SSM.

Here’s how www.FrontPageMagazine.com phrased it:

The left’s greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one. http://www.redstate.com/checkmate2012/2013/03/29/adam-and-eve-is-not-equal-to-steve-and-steve-or-eve-and-eve-definitions-matter/

[Draggingtree]

31Mar

“Polygamy would have to be permitted”

William A. Jacobson @ Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion:

 

Also, “it’s just bad faith to forbid the brother and sister on these putative health grounds”

 

The words in the title and subtitle were spoken by one of the leading thinkers and advocates in favor of gay marriage, University of Chicago Professor Martha Nussbaum, in a speech she gave at Cornell Law School in 2009 (video and discussion below).

 

I was reminded of those words after Dr. Benjamin Carson created a stir when, during a television interview, he made the following comment (emphasis added).

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a well-established fundamental pillar of society, and no group — be they gays, be they NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Love Association], be they people who believe in bestiality — no matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition. So it’s not something that’s against gays; it’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definition of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications. http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/polygamy-would-have-to-be-permitted/

[Draggingtree]

Brief and Direct: Is Marriage a Right or a Rite?

 

How can a right require the continuing agreement and support of another person?

 

By: Flagstaff (Diary) | April 1st, 2013 at 10:03 AM

 

Another in an sporadic series of short commentaries on current events

 

Marriage Equality?

 

“Marriage Equality” is a recently-coined euphemism for “gay marriage,” which is itself a euphemism as well. Our tender psyches apparently don’t respond well to euphemisms that get too close to saying what they mean, especially in advocacy advertising. Still, it’s a great phrase that conveys exactly what its proponents want to convey–that everybody has a right to marry the spouse of his or her choice, gay or straight: marriage equality! The advertisements are superbly crafted.

 

I won’t go into the arguments that support that position; you’ve heard them all before. But all those arguments apply equally well to numbers greater than two. And if you believe that there is a Constitutionally protected “right” to marry whomever you choose, you must also agree that the same right applies to marriages between more than two people. Logically, the connection is undeniable. If the right exists, to restrict it to two people we would have to find specific language in the Constitution that does so, and there is no such language.

 

So is it a right?

 

An argument can be made that marriage is NOT a right

http://www.redstate.com/flagstaff/2013/04/01/brief-and-direct-is-marriage-a-right-or-a-rite/