Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Traditional Marriage’

If Marriage Can Mean Anything, It Will Soon Mean Nothing



Sen. Cynthia Lummis speaking on the Senatea floor prior to voting on the Respect for Marriage Act
The Respect for Marriage Act lets the government establish a permanent presence in your personal life while redefining your relationships.

Author Stella Morabito profile




No matter how you define “marriage,” there is zero respect for it in the so-called Respect for Marriage Act. You may believe it serves to federally codify the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision that rejected marriage as a male-female union. Maybe it would do so temporarily. But that’s not the endgame.

If you’re paying attention, you can see that the Senate’s recent 62-37 vote for cloture on HR 8404 puts us one step closer to abolishing state recognition of marriage entirely. That’s where this train is headed.

This will happen the same way such things always happen — through a demonization campaign that frames skeptics as bigots who are guilty of discrimination. That’s how you get Democrat-pliable Republicans such as Mitt Romney and craven Supreme Court justices like Anthony Kennedy to sign on. That’s how you manufacture a public opinion cascade, warning average Americans that they’ll be pummeled with lawsuits and ostracism if they dare think out loud.

And that’s how Democrats in Congress are likely in the not-too-distant future — via HR 8404 — to make the case that marriage actually comes with privileges that discriminate against the unmarried. Disagree? You’re a bigot who deserves to be socially ostracized! Self-censorship in the face of such accusations will pave the way, as always

Collectivists Hope to Destroy Private Life and Regulate Relationships

Once they’ve gotten to that point via HR 8404 and Republicans who supported the measure, congressional Democrats will doubtless push us to agree that marriage is a discriminatory institution. We’ll start seeing more anti-marriage initiatives supported by singles, millennials, Julias, and gen Z, all well-groomed for the moment by teacher’s unions, academia, and media.

They’ll fall for the pitch that we can all just write up domestic partnership contracts instead. “Marriage” would then become nothing but a legal relationship (a contract) between two (or more) people for any purpose at all. Bureaucrats would broker those contracts. This proposal is all mapped out in Sunstein and Thaler’s 2008 book “Nudge.” It’s also been promoted for decades by internationally acclaimed feminist legal scholar Martha Fineman who writes that a system of contracts replacing marriage will help the state “regulate all social interactions.”

Under a system that abolishes state recognition of marriage, the family could no longer exist autonomously or unmolested by the state. How could it if the state no longer recognizes marriage as the foundation of the family unit? The government would have no requirement to recognize religious rites of marriage as valid. Thus, it would meddle more deeply in religion and religious communities that recognize bonds of kinship through blood ties.

We Become Atomized Individuals in the State’s Eyes

The atomization resulting from this will have repercussions that go beyond the bill’s guarantee to treat any difference of opinion as a federal crime. If we continue on this path, the government will no longer have to recognize any biological relationships. It need not recognize any legal right you might have as the parent of your biological child. Why should it? It would have already abolished its recognition of the union that produced the child. 

Some of this process has already been completed through gender-neutral language in documents like passports, birth certificates, or the rules of the 117th Congress that do not recognize the words “mother,” “father,” “son,” or “daughter.”

Much groundwork has also been laid by surrogacy and abortion laws that treat children as chattel to buy, sell, and dispose of at will. And why would the state have to recognize any other relationships resulting from marriage if it no longer recognizes marriage? It could ignore your blood relationships to brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or any familial bond. In this scenario, you’d likely need a license to raise your own child, an old communist goal that the so-called Respect for Marriage Act conjures up.

When all there is are bureaucratized domestic partnership arrangements, the government would no longer need to recognize spousal privilege and thereby could legally coerce spouses to testify against one another in court. It could also abolish the default path of survivorship through which your inheritance goes to your spouse or next of kin. Instead, the state would be free to redistribute your nest egg at will in its great bureaucratic wisdom.

Indeed, there is no reason to doubt that the Respect for Marriage Act serves as a midwife to the radical left’s long-held goal of abolishing state recognition of marriage. It will allow the government to regulate our relationships, rendering each of us naked before its power. 

We are each being set up for a pre-arranged marriage with Big Government operating as our abusive spouse. 

Such Atomization Is a Totalitarian Necessity

The path to human atomization is the natural arc of all totalitarian systems in the making. They must always first isolate people in order to control them through terror, as Hannah Arendt noted in her work “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” Tyrants always mask their intentions by borrowing from tradition, using words like “respect for marriage,” “love,” or “equality” as they march us all into virtual solitary confinement

There’s nothing new about this trajectory. It’s a long-standing vision of all totalitarian systems, which first came into the open with the Communist Manifesto’s proclamation, “Abolish the family!” Communists referred to traditional religion as “the opiate of the people” while setting up communism as a pseudo-religion that demanded unquestioning loyalty. The resulting dependency then truly becomes the fentanyl of the people.

Such deceptions are why Schumer and company talk about marriage as though the government has some sort of litmus test for “love.” But anyone with half a brain knows that love’s got nothing to do with a functioning state’s interest in marriage. Marriage is an institution that exists to allow for a structured society and for the protection of children. 

Of course, we easily forget such facts while living in a nation that increasingly promotes infanticide, assisted suicide, recreational drug use, child pornography, and other ways to torture and kill our children. In fact, virtually all of their policy positions are tailor-made for family breakdown, community breakdown, and for hostility toward religious communities.

But maybe you like feeling lonely and alienated, like the idea of a childless and hopeless future, and are all for the state regulating your personal relationships and conversations. Well, then, you’ll like the “Respect” for Marriage Act.

But the destruction of bonds of affection and loyalty in the private spheres of life makes sense from the point of view of statists. Those loyalties get in the way of their ambitions for power and social engineering. They are invested in isolating us so that we become dependent upon them.

Stella Morabito is a senior contributor at The Federalist. She is author of “The Weaponization of Loneliness: How Tyrants Stoke Our Fear of Isolation to Silence, Divide, and Conquer.” Her essays have appeared in various publications, including the Washington Examiner, American Greatness, Townhall, Public Discourse, and The Human Life Review. In her previous work as an intelligence analyst, Morabito focused on various aspects of Russian and Soviet politics, including communist media and propaganda. Follow Stella on Twitter.


Report: Happiest Wives Are Religious Conservatives

Reported by DR. SUSAN BERRY |

Groom Davit Simonyan, 24, and bride Shogher Hovsepyan, 25, light candles in prayer after their wedding at Ghazanchetsots church on April 18, 2015 in Shushi, Nagorno-Karabakh. Since signing a ceasefire in a war with Azerbaijan in 1994, Nagorno-Karabakh, officially part of Azerbaijan, has functioned as a self-declared independent republic and …
Brendan Hoffman/Getty

The authors of a new report about marriage, faith, and families found the happiest wives in America are those who are religious conservatives.

“Fully 73 percent of wives who hold conservative gender values and attend religious services regularly with their husbands have high-quality marriages,” wrote researchers W. Bradford Wilcox, Jason S. Carroll and Laurie DeRose at the New York Times.

Their report, titled, “The Ties That Bind: Is Faith a Global Force for Good or Ill in the Family?” was published by the Institute for Family Studies and the Wheatley Institution.

“When it comes to relationship quality, there is a J-curve in women’s marital happiness, with women on the left and the right enjoying higher quality marriages than those in the middle — but especially wives on the right,” the authors explained.

They continued that American wives who are in the middle, both religiously and ideologically, as well as secular conservative wives, are less likely to experience high-quality marriages:

We suspect that part of their relative unhappiness, compared with religiously conservative women, is that they don’t enjoy the social, emotional and practical support for family life provided by a church, mosque or synagogue. We also suspect that these groups are less likely to have husbands who have made the transition to the “new father” ideal that’s gained currency in modern America — and they’re not happy with their partner’s disengagement.

Following behind religious conservative wives, 60 percent of highly religious progressive wives said they were “very happy.”

Among secular liberal couples, 55 percent of married women reported above-average relationship quality, while 33 percent of women in traditional secular marriages reported the same.

According to the researchers, devoted husbands and fathers are at the center of American wives’ view of happiness:

[I]n listening to the happiest secular progressive wives and their religiously conservative counterparts, we noticed something they share in common: devoted family men. Both feminism and faith give family men a clear code: They are supposed to play a big role in their kids’ lives. Devoted dads are de rigueur in these two communities. And it shows: Both culturally progressive and religiously conservative fathers report high levels of paternal engagement.

The researchers’ presentation of their report in the NYT editorial created a stir on social media with a fair amount of bitterness:

Others responded more happily:

This Filmmaking Couple Doesn’t Want to Be Punished for Not Promoting Same-Sex Marriage

waving flagAuthored by Leah Jessen / / December 06, 2016

URL of the original posting site:

Filmmakers Carl and Angel Larsen say they wish to tell stories about God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman, without fear the government will punish them for not promoting same-sex marriage. (Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom)

A Minnesota couple is suing state officials to allow their film production company to celebrate marriage as a man-woman union without being forced, against their biblical beliefs, to promote same-sex marriage.

Carl and Angel Larsen, of St. Cloud, Minnesota, say they run Telescope Media Group as a way to deploy their storytelling ability and production services to glorify God.

“The Larsens desire to counteract the current cultural narrative undermining the historic, biblically orthodox definition of marriage by using their media production and filmmaking talents to tell stories of marriages between one man and one woman that magnify and honor God’s design and purpose for marriage,” the lawsuit filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota says.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Larsens and Telescope Media Group, which they own.

“Because of their religious beliefs, and their belief in the power of film and media production to change hearts and minds, the Larsens want to use their talents and the expressive platform of [Telescope Media Group] to celebrate and promote God’s design for marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman,” the suit says.

Minnesota government officials argue that private businesses face criminal penalties if they promote a marriage between a man and woman but refuse to promote a same-sex marriage, the Larsens’ lawyers at the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom say.

“Filmmakers shouldn’t be threatened with fines and jail simply for disagreeing with the government,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a formal statement.

“Filmmakers shouldn’t be threatened with fines and jail simply for disagreeing with the government,”

If convicted after criminal prosecution under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the Larsens face a fine of $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail, according to the lawsuit. They also could be ordered to pay compensatory and punitive damages up to $25,000.

The Larsens, who are in their mid-30s and have been married for 14 years, are challenging the law before Minnesota officials take any action against them and their company. The law in question is the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

“The law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from nondiscrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage,” the Minnesota Department of Human Rights website says.More forced

The Larsens’ lawyers filed a pre-enforcement challenge against Kevin Lindsey in his official capacity as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and against Lori Swanson in her official capacity as attorney general of Minnesota. According to the suit:

The Larsens simply desire to use their unique storytelling and promotional talents to convey messages that promote aspects of their sincerely held religious beliefs, or that at least are not inconsistent with them. It is standard practice for the owners of video and film production companies to decline to produce videos that contain or promote messages that the owners do not want to support or that violate or compromise their beliefs in some way.

The Daily Signal sought comment from both the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Human Rights, but neither had responded by publication.

Telescope Media Group’s services include web-streaming and video recording of live events as well as producing short films.

“Telescope Media Group exists to glorify God through top-quality media production,” the company’s website says.

The company has created content for clients such as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and LifeLight, an annual Christian music festival held near Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

“Every American—including creative professionals—should be free to peacefully live and work according to their faith without fear of punishment,” Tedesco said in a release from Alliance Defending Freedom. He added:

For example, a fashion designer recently cited her ‘artistic freedom’ as a ‘family-owned company’ to announce that she won’t design clothes for Melania Trump because she doesn’t want to use her company and creative talents to promote political views she disagrees with. Even though the law in D.C. prohibits ‘political affiliation’ discrimination, do any of us really think the designer should be threatened with fines and jail time?

French fashion designer Sophie Theallet published an open letter  Nov. 17 saying she would not dress President-elect Donald Trump’s wife, the future first lady, because of disagreements with him and urged other fashion designers to do the same. Last week, American fashion designer Tom Ford said on TV’s “The View” that he would not dress Melania Trump, in part because “she’s not necessarily my image.”

“The Larsens simply seek to exercise these same freedoms, and that’s why they filed this lawsuit to challenge Minnesota’s law,” Tedesco said.

Big Gay Hate Machine


Leah Jessen is a news reporter for The Daily Signal and graduate of The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Leah.


Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers To Make Wedding Cake, How They Respond Proves Liberals Are Hypocrites

Posted by Michael CantrellDecember 16, 2014

URL of the Original Posting Site:

Christian bakers have repeatedly been under attack from homosexuals and non-gay progressives for refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples getting “married.”

Rather than expressing their displeasure by taking their money to another bakery, they file lawsuits geared toward completely destroying these folks’ livelihood. It’s pretty despicable.

One would think that since so many homosexuals claim they were discriminated against by Christians for not providing their services to them, a bakery owned by someone who is gay would have no problem baking a cake for a Christian straight couple, right? After all, they are the perfect examples of “tolerance” and “acceptance,” right?


From Wayne Dupree:

But what happens when the tables are turned? Theodore Shoebat wanted to find out. After spending quite some time calling various gay bakeries asking if they would bake a cake for a traditional marriage ceremony, he quickly found out that tolerance is a one-way street in their eyes. Shoebat was cursed at, screamed at, and met with animosity, but the frosting on the cake as when he was asked why he would make such a request, as it would go against the beliefs of the baker. Sound familiar, anyone?


PLEASE WATCH VIDEO BELOW:'+document.title.toString()+'&d='+((document.getElementsByName(‘ );</script>”>wedding

Wait. What happened to all the talk of equality and tolerance? How dare these bigots refuse to serve a couple based on their religious beliefs! How rude!

Unlike the foul liberals who decided to sue Christian bakers and put them out of business for not violating their religious principles, Shoebat isn’t going to file a lawsuit against these hypocrites for not wanting to serve him.

Businesses have the right to choose who they serve and who they don’t. Those who don’t get served have the right to take their money elsewhere and urge their friends and family to boycott the business too.

Eventually, if enough customers are unhappy with the incident, they would stop shopping there and the baker would either switch up his stance or go out of business.

The free market would take care of all the “equality” issues. No need for the government to get involved.

Unfortunately, that’s not good enough for liberals, as that doesn’t provide them with a platform to expand the federal government further into the private lives of citizens.

Perhaps one day these hypocrites will wake up and see how silly they look and stop trying to force the world to believe what they believe. In other words, maybe they’ll actually start practicing tolerance instead of blabbing about the lack thereof.

 Blog wishes


The issue that threatens to unravel both the Constitution and the GOP


People wait to enter the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, Oct. 6, 2014, as it begins its new term. The justices cleared the way Monday for an immediate expansion of same-sex marriage by unexpectedly and tersely turning away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit gay and lesbian unions. The court's order effectively makes gay marriage legal now in 30 states.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

People wait to enter the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, Oct. 6, 2014, as it begins its new term. The justices cleared the way Monday for an immediate expansion of same-sex marriage by unexpectedly and tersely turning away appeals from … more >

– – Monday, October 6, 2014

Read more:




With the 35-year marriage between Christians and the Republican Party already on the rocks, a U.S. Supreme Court with a majority of Republican appointees just put the religious liberty of every believer in the GOP base in unprecedented peril.

The GOP was already struggling to maintain the loyalty of its conservative base, and one of its last, best talking points was the importance of judicial appointments. Now that talking point has also been blown to smithereens. The John Roberts court gave us Obamacare, the narrowest wording possible when siding in favor of Hobby Lobby, got rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, and, on Monday, opened the floodgates for an onslaught against the First Amendment.

By deciding not to intervene in the fight it started last year, (in a divisive 5-4 ruling that Justice Antonin Scalia chastised for its “jaw-dropping assertion of judicial supremacy”) the Supremes gave the green-light to a full-blown constitutional crisis, the likes of which threatens to tear the GOP apart at the seams.

There are two reasons — one constitutional and the other political — why this has the potential to be far more explosive than even Roe v. Wade:

Constitutionally speaking, redefining marriage and morality has already proven it will also include redefining free speech, religious liberty, and private property rights as we’ve known them since the dawn of the republic. Already this year, we’re seeing an unprecedented assault on these cherished traditions by the same people who promised us the new “tolerance” wouldn’t cost anybody else their rights. The examples are legion and would require a whole separate column to chronicle. They even include a military court martial for those who believe in marriage as we’ve always known it.

One of the worst examples is what’s happening now to Robert and Cynthia Gifford, a Catholic couple in New York who are facing a $13,000 fine for refusing to rent their own home to lesbians for their “wedding.”

With few exceptions, disagreement on the sanctity of life hasn’t cost someone their livelihood or their home the way disagreement on marriage and morality has already shown it will. That’s because what’s behind this movement isn’t really tolerance, but intolerantly using the coercive force of government to make you abandon your own moral conscience. Just ask the Giffords in New York.

Understand that what’s driving this movement isn’t equality, but validation. The kind of ultimate validation the “new tolerance” cannot get from the God from whom they are sadly estranged. So the “new tolerance” wants validation from the second-most powerful force on earth instead — government.

And if you will not validate them, then you will be made to care.

Politically, this issue could be the final undoing of the Reagan Coalition that transformed electoral landscape a generation ago. Prior to Roe v. Wade, Catholics rarely voted Republican, and evangelicals rarely voted at all. Catholics were mostly Democrats, and evangelicals were waiting to be raptured away. But once baby-killing was sanctioned by the judicial branch, and the other two branches of government rolled over and played dead as well, that mobilized long-at-odds Catholics and evangelicals to come together to form the Moral Majority. That’s what allowed Reagan and the Republicans to have their governing majority.

However, while that culture war resurrected the Republican Party, this one threatens to crucify it. Reagan welcomed the flock into his herd, but the elites in charge of today’s GOP have let it be known they want no part of this battle (or any other, for that matter).

To wit:

One of the key legal advisers to the anti-marriage crowd is President George W. Bush’s former solicitor general. John McCain’s 2008 national campaign manager is working with the ACLU to squash state marriage laws. The last two GOP presidential nominees, Mr. McCain and Mitt Romney, both urged Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto legislation that would’ve reaffirmed the First Amendment in her state earlier this year.

Of course, right on cue, a GOP establishment best known for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory jumps on a bandwagon just as it’s losing steam.

As Michael Medved recently noted, the latest figures from Pew Research show the so-called “gay marriage tidal wave” we’ve been told was forthcoming is barely a trickle-down-zeitgeist. Support for redefining marriage has dropped five points this year, and a majority of Americans — including 77 percent of black Protestants and 82 percent of white evangelicals — agreed with the statement “homosexual behavior is a sin.”

White evangelicals, by the way, remain the largest demographic of the GOP base. It’s quite possible John Kerry would’ve been elected president in 2004, without the marriage amendment on the ballot in the key battleground state of Ohio driving up their turnout. In that same election, the Michigan Marriage Amendment got almost 300,000 more votes than George W. Bush did. Proposition 8 defending marriage in California got more statewide votes there in 2008, a huge Democrat year, than any Republican has ever received statewide. Marriage did better than Mitt Romney in all four states they shared the same ballot in 2012. In North Carolina, 61 percent voted for marriage, just four months before the Democrats showed up in Charlotte for their national convention.

Yet here we are, the base that rescued the GOP from its post-Watergate funk, remembering all the times post-Reagan we plugged our noses, ignored the GOP establishment’s foul stench, and pulled the “R” lever on Election Day nonetheless. In our time of great need, how are we repaid?

With scorn, contempt, and abandonment. Just look at this Monday headline from The Daily Caller: “The GOP’s Plan B: Throw Social Conservatives Under the Bus.”

Who knows? Maybe all those illegal aliens the GOP establishment wants to grant amnesty to will happily take our place. And maybe I’d look good in a thong.

Ironically, the issue most Republicans would love to run away from will be a front-and-center vetting tool in the looming 2016 GOP presidential primary, which is slated to start on Nov. 5. The old talking points aren’t going to cut it, either.

We can’t “let the states decide” the issue when the courts won’t allow the states to decide the issue. And we can’t wait to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment while our religious liberty is being threatened right now. Not to mention the courts have already shown a blatant disregard for the Second Amendment and most of the Bill of Rights as it is. So I fail to see why they’d suddenly submit to this new amendment.

Most of the states that are traditionally pivotal in the early GOP primary calendar have passed marriage amendments — South Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, and Florida. My home state of Iowa historically fired three state supreme court justices who thought they could redefine marriage. Thus, everyone is going to be forced to go on the record on this issue, once and for all. And when it comes to protecting our God-given rights, that’s a pass-fail exercise.

The Christian family business owner doesn’t care that the Republican will cut their taxes when they’re too busy paying hefty fines and legal fees just for being a Christian.

(Steve Deace is a nationally-syndicated talk show host and the author of “Rules for Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again.” You can like him on Facebook or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.)

Article collective closing

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: