Dexter: How Gay Divorce Cheapens Traditional Marriage

In Penna Dexter's (above, right) latest article, she provides her reasoning as to why the divorce rate among married gays cheapens the institution on traditional marriage as it has been understood for centuries...

"How much divorce is there in the same-sex "marriage" world? It turns out there's a lot.

The United States' history with same-sex "marriage" is short, but Scandinavian countries have been at this much longer. A Stockholm University professor of demography found that in Sweden and Norway male same-sex "marriages" are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages.

In Sweden, the divorce rate for female couples is twice that of male couples. And in Norway, lesbian "married" couples are 167 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.

Despite the many efforts to usher in civil unions and same-sex "marriage" in the United States, when laws are changed, the number of couples registering their partnerships is surprisingly low.

Charles Cooke of National Review wrote that since 1997, when Hawaii was the first state to allow registration of same-sex partnerships, only about one in five self-identified same-sex couples have taken advantage of the various ways states register such couples so they can receive benefits. Same-sex "marriage" actually is declining in popularity in the Netherlands."

In the headlong rush to dismantle one of the great pillars upon which Western civilization is built around in the name of such abstract terms as 'tolerance' and 'inclusion' never once are the predictable societal effects taken into account.

Before any gay apologists start popping off about a 50 percent divorce rate among heterosexual marriages, I would suggest that they actually research the matter first. It turns out that in many surveys, 2nd and 3rd marriages that end with divorce are often lumped in with first marriages and the actual divorce rate of first marriages may be as low as 20 percent.

EDIT: And just how is that technique of 'jamming' working out for the Gay Left? It appears that the logical firstfruits of stigmatizing principled, civil disagreement (or any disgreement for that matter) with the gay agenda as 'bigoted', 'intolerant' or 'homophobic' is now coming to fruition.

A Principled defense of Traditional Marriage; Two Arguments

Kelly O'Connell's recent article raises the above question and provides a number of defenses re: traditional marriage. Being that Western society is becoming increasingly irreligious, I won't even touch upon the religious arguments raised by Ms. O'Connell for the simple fact that in today's world, religious arguments are completely lost upon people who have almost no grounding in Biblical history or study. John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, (above) recently presented a balanced, civil and principled argument against gay marriage (without appealing to religion) in which he basically stated redefining marriage to include same-sex couples 'would benefit nobody'...

"I firmly believe that redefining marriage to embrace same-sex relationships would mean diminishing the meaning of marriage for most people, with very little if anything gained for homosexual people. If I am right, in the long term we would all be losers.

Of course, if someone should ask, "how will my marriage be affected if couples of the same sex can marry?", the answer is: not at all. But let me put the question another way: what sort of a society would we have if we came to see all family relationships primarily in terms of equal rights? The family is designed to meet the different needs of its different members in different ways. It is the model of the just society that responds intelligently to differences rather than treating everyone the same...

Unless one believes that every difference between the sexes is a mere social construct, the question of equality between the sexes cannot be completely addressed by the paradigm of racial equality. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not discriminatory against same-sex couples. What I am pressing for is a kind of social pluralism that does not degenerate into a fancy-free individualism."

And how is Archbishop Sentamu treated for daring to differ with the enlightened idealogues of The New World Order? He's advocating 'bigotry' of course. No dissent, no matter how well laid out and completely absent of ill will is allowed being that the more vocal supporters of gay marriage obviously ascribe to the viewpoint of 'gay marriage uber alles'.

Ms. O'Connell meanwhile, cites some statistics in her defense of traditional marriage such as the following...

• 
  
  63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census)—5 times the average.



• 
  
  90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes—32 times the average.



• 
  
  85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes—20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
  


• 
  
  80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes—14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)



• 
  
  71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes—9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)



• 
  
  70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes—9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
  
  


• 
  
  85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes—20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
  
  
  "Now, one can assume that a female playing the male role in a lesbian relationship would erase this problem, if such a dynamic exists. But frankly, why would a female attempting to act masculine take the place of a real man? This assumes that the problem with being fatherless is due entirely to there being only half a couple responsible for the children. It also assumes men and women are utterly interchangeable. And yet we know for a fact that men and women, even when undertaking the same tasks, are still radically different (see here).
  
  
  
  It also assumes that male and female homosexual couples model male and female behavior effectively, which is crucial since young children learn much by mimicking. In fact, many experts are concerned that gay parenting will be brought in with anodyne claims of its harmlessness, and only after it becomes an institution, will we be told it is harmful but its too late to call it off. But what could possibly be done after it is legally and culturally established as a norm if it is found deleterious? For instance, in dealing with cases which came before a court, one author wrote:
  
  
  
  "A systematic analysis of appeals court cases or cases cited in those appeals cases regarding custody of children in which a homosexual parent was involved. Here, 82% of the homosexual vs 18% of the heterosexual parents and 54% of the homosexual’s associates vs 19% of the heterosexuals’ associates were recorded as having poor character in cases involving a homosexual claimant."

When taken as a whole, all of this adds up to criteria in which a reasonable person could say 'Wait a minute, let's put the brakes on this whole 'gay marriage' thing and study the effects of such institutions on a society before rushing forward, pell-mell style, utilizing emotional rather than scientific arguments in this case'. That's if that reasonable person doesn't mind being accussed of hatred for daring lift their head on this subject.

An Open Letter to Rachel Held Evans‏

If anyone wants to see an example of Hand-Wringing Over Homogamy-Christian Style! look no further than this tear-jerker posted by Rachel Held Evans. I doubt I ever could invent a more sloppily put together, parody of an argument based solely on emotionalism if I actually tried. The entire article is so filled with errors that I scarcely know where to begin!

"When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.”

Really? And why do you think that is Ms. Evans? Being that the church has been buffeted by years of trumped up accusations of intolerance and seldom, (if ever) are the churched allowed to respond in a public forum where they are treated with dignity rather than disdain, is it any wonder that people of that age bracket have probably never even heard one of the better Christian apologists in their lives? Could they even name a Christian apologist if you offered them 20 bucks to do so? Could they even accurately define the word 'apologetics' if asked?

When a well known newspaper reporter for the New York Times openly declares that "three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals” then is it really any wonder that the religious aren't getting a fair shake by the MSM?

Next, I'd like to address the following nonsense put forward as serious commentary re: the outcome of North Carolinians thoroughly rejecting pretend, sodomy-based marriage in favor of traditional marriage...

As I watched my Facebook and Twitter feeds last night, the reaction among my friends fell into an imperfect but highly predictable pattern. Christians over 40 were celebrating. Christians under 40 were mourning. Reading through the comments, the same thought kept returning to my mind as occurred to me when I first saw that Billy Graham ad: You’re losing us."

Billy Graham is 'losing you'? I would argue that it is you and your ilk that are losing Billy Graham as various churches are submitting to heresy in the name of feel-goody platitudes rather than actually analyzing scripture in a critical and open-minded manner for it's central message.

When reading your article Ms. Evans, I admit that I am concerned as to how remarkably and dangerously misinformed you truly are. You seem to subscribe to the utterly unfounded notion that "the Church’s response to homosexuality is partly responsible for high rates of depression and suicide among..gay and lesbian friends" as expresssed to you by students. However how do you explain that in highly secular European countries where same-sex marriage has been legal for a decade or more, suicide is endemic among homosexuals? This holds true for such countries as the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and especially Norway where about one in four homosexuals under the age of 25 have attempted suicide at least once.


Again, given that these nations are highly secular, it's hard to hang this one on Pat Robertson et al Ms. Evans.

Furthermore, when one compares the statistics of suicide among gays in the US as compared to those countries, we seem to be doing something right when it comes to gay suicide...

"Now let's look at the facts. We will define a tolerant society where homogamy or civil unions are recognized; here are six tolerant societies: Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, France, Sweden, the Netherlands. Next we will define moderate religious society, where homosexuality is generally considered to be wrong, but not illegal: Ireland, USA, Italy, Mexico, Honduras, Paraguay...

According to the World Health Organization, the average male suicide rate for tolerant secular societies is 21.6 per 100,000. The average male suicide rate for moderate religious societies is 9.6 per 100,000."

Also, when one looks closer to home here in the US, it appears that highly gay friendly San Francisco has by far the highest suicide rate among young people of any county of California at 9.0 per 100,000 which is more than double that of San Mateo county which stands at 4.1 per 100,000 of the population.

All of these statistics are there for your verification and edification Ms. Evans. I guess the only question I have for you is why do you support putting conditions in place that, statistics show, would lead to higher rates of suicide among homosexuals? From whence this vitriolic hatred of your's Ms Evans?

Forces of Hatred Defeated In North Carolina

 

The forces of bigotry were turned back at the polls yesterday as citizens of North Carolina voted to amend their state constitution  to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.  The above map indicates the counties that voted for adding the language to the constitution (in green) and against it (in red).  The two western counties in red barely passed with 51% to 49% votes.  It would seem that the strategy of stealing signs from traditional marriage supporters backfired and the citizens then did the right thing by approving this measure. One thing not mentioned by the opponents of trditional marriage was the specific language to be included in the constitutional amendment...

"With the passage of this amendment, a new Section 6 was added to Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution, which reads as follows: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

Of course, to mention that would begin to take the only arguments the Left had going for them (emotion based arguments) off the table and the last thing the Pink Hand desires in these matters is rational discussion on the matter.   



Congratulations Frank Schaeffer, Youre Officially the World's Biggest Idiot

Chuck Colson's body must have barely been cold when *ahem*, "writer" Frank Schaeffer put forward what must be by far the most ludicrous entry written thus far re: Mr. Colson (above) recently entering the Church Triumphant. I'm regularly pouring over articles out on the net on a daily basis and I must admit I've never come across anything that manages to be nearly so spectacularly obtuse, misinformed, bigoted and socially autistic all at the same time.

For starters, Schaeffer's pigswill masquerading as commentary is titled An Evangelical Homophobic Anti-Woman Leader Passes On, but I guess we can all be thankful for small wonders in that he didn't decide to keep his original title, Religious Right Bigot Chuck Colson Goes to His Reward. Here's an example from Schaeffer of how to lay bare your complete stupidity for all to see and yet remain unapologetically proud and blissfully unaware of what an imbecile you are making of yourself...

"Evangelical Christianity lost one of its most beloved and bigoted homophobic and misogynistic voices with the death of Charles W. 'Chuck' Colson, a Watergate felon who converted to 'evangelicalism' but never lost his taste for dirty political tricks against opponents...

Colson teamed up with far right Roman Catholic activist Professor Robert George of Princeton to launch the dirty tricks campaign to brand President Obama as “anti-religious” with Colson’s and George’s “Manhattan Declaration.” This was a trap they set for the administration that finally paid off when they talked a number of bishops into branding Obama as anti-religious because he wanted women to have access to contraception even if they worked for Roman Catholic controlled institutions.

Colson worked closely with various right wing Roman Catholic bishops to launch the current Republican Party war on women and gays in the name of “religious freedom” having become one of the chief practitioners of the evangelical/far right myths of victimhood at the hands of left wing media, colleges etc., etc. Colson was also a key figure in organizing the Prop 8 anti-gay marriage California iniatives. Colson was a key figure in calling the depriving of women of insurance coverage for contraception a religious “civil liberties” issue and provided evangelical cover for the Roman Catholic bishops’ misogynist bigotry." 

If one were to define 'bigotry' as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" than Mr Schaeffer obviously suffers from some sort of self identification problem and is engaging in projection here. If speaking ill of the recently deceased in terms of hurling perjoratives that simply aren't true doesn't qualify as 'stubborn and complete intolerance' of an opposing belief, than I'm afraid nothing does. I guess in Schaeffer's hard left world, the fact that nearly half of women oppose the government cramming it's ethics down the church's throat matters not a whit. One is simply a mysoginist and Schaeffer apparently can divine that it is he who is on the side of the angels and advocating for the freedom of the church to not be bullyed by the state was simply untenable for Colson.

It seems lost on Schaeffer that attaching an adjective to someone that has conclusively been shown to be eytymologically incorrect like 'homophobic' and especially to a man who cannot defend himself is a clear cut case of 'complete intolerance' (or socially challenged behavior at best).

If I could ask Schaeffer just one question, I would pose the following. Given the tremendous and indesputable impact Colson's prison ministry has had over the decades, exactly at what point does all of that, (in terms of lives changed for the better, recidivism apparently reduced and families made whole) become irrelevant? For example, what if Colson simply preferred traditional marriage as opposed to pretend, sodomy-based 'marriage' and yet was neutral of the matter of the Obama administration manufacturing crisis by attempting to tell the church how to conduct it's business and forcing it to violate millenia of tradition in an attempt to garner more votes from women? Would that be enough to let the poor guy rest in peace?

In conclusion, I would like to say that if one were to pour over years worth of entries on this site, I wouldn't be at all suprised if an example could be produced in which I was critical of someone who had recently passed on. I would only add that if ever I have done so, I did not aim derision at a person who left the world a better place than when they entered into it.  

On MLK and Homosexuality

As I have previously mentioned, the Gay Left has done a masterful job at selling people on the fallacy of comparing the drive to redefine 'marriage' to the struggle for civil rights during the decade of the 1960's. While the Pink Hand pushes this faulty comparison, one thing they never seems to be asked is to produce a single person who has ever left behind the 'black lifestyle' to heal emotional pain while the list is nearly endless of those who are no longer homosexual.



A recent Christian Post article takes a look back at the man who was the most iconic figure of Civil Rights era, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and examines in his own words what Dr. King thought about homosexuality. In a letter published in a 1958 edition of Ebony magazine a young reader expresses that he has same-sex attractions and and this was Dr King's reply...

"The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King responded in the 1958 column. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it."

So we don't see Dr King telling the young man to embrace a homosexual identity, calls his same-sex attraction a 'problem' and then suggests that he can be delivered from such desires. Somehow I don't think this will go over well with the Wayne Besen/Dan Savage/Lady Gaga crowd, but since when were they ever concerned with facts to begin with?

""I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he [MLK] did not take a bullet for same-sex unions" Rev Bernice King, daughter of MLK

Is Rick Santorum anti-gay?

It seems that CNN and other news outlets are trumpeting the report that Rick Santorum was booed by some members of the audience while speaking recently at New England College.

"One man asked Santorum about his opposition to same-sex marriage, which is legal in New Hampshire. The candidate quickly picked a fight with the crowd, which seemed to support same-sex unions.

"So anyone can marry anyone else?" Santorum asked, swiftly turning the conversation to polygamy. "So anyone can marry several people?"

The crowd objected and tried to talk over him.

"I tried," he offered reporters as he left the conference center."

I don't really see Santorum's answer as trying to change the subject from gay marriage to polygamy as some outlets are characterizing the exchange. I think that Santorum was merely trying to ascertain from his inquisitors if they thought that there should be any limits whatsoever as to what should define the term 'marriage'. It could be argued then, that if any of them thought there should be at least some level of exclusivity in what constitutes marriage, then Santorum then feels the same way, there being only a matter of degree as to where the terminator line for such exclusivity should be drawn.

Meanwhile, in a refreshingly open and honest exchange with "moronic, liberal ass-clown" Chris Matthews, former Santorum staffer for 10 years and openly gay man Robert Traynham, thoroughly rejected the idea that Santorum is in any way personally against gay people, insisting that he was 'openly out' with Santorum.

"An interesting interview with Robert Traynham, Rick Santorum's former aide of ten years appeared on today's Hardball with Matthews. Traynham tells Chris, "I was openly out to him." and then goes on to defend Rick's character and beliefs. An important interview considering the angle the media and the Democrat Party will take in trying to sink Santorum's campaign."

Check out the 3 minute video on the above links I provided if you have the time. Traynham seems quite passionate in his defense of Santorum and after working with him for 10 years, you would think he would have some idea as to whether Santorum is in any way homophobic and the evidence seems to bear out that he decidedly is not.

Well thought out defense of traditional marriage from Catholic World Report

While browsing the internet today, I came across a well put together piece at The Catholic World Report by Mark Brumley. Among the arguments concerning marriage that I encounter on the World Wide Web are from more Libertarian friends who seem to think that 'government should get out of the marriage business altogether.' I will list some of the better points raised by Brumley (IMO) below...

"Those libertarians and conservatives who argue in favor of so-called privatization of marriage do not adequately consider a key point regarding it: the public interest in government encouraging couples who engage in procreative kinds of acts publically and legally to commit themselves exclusively and permanently to one another and, by implication, to their offspring, should they have any. The legal institution of marriage encourages such commitment between sexually-active heterosexual couples.

Why does government have a stake in this? Because it has a stake in encouraging the parents to provide a stable, loving, committed relationship as the morally best environment for raising children. Government has a stake in encouraging couples together to raise their children and to provide examples for their children of parental relationship. Children, after all, are the future of the state. They provide the foundation for society’s future success or failure, so government has an interest in encourage certain behaviors in relation to children and in discouraging others."

The entire article is a good read and Brumley gets more into the child-rearing aspect further on in it. One of the most important first steps in taking on Leftist bigots who enjoy stifling rational discussion through feel-goody, appeal-to-emotional rhetoric is to immediately take emotional arguments off the table and get down to verifiable, empirical evidence. Once that occurs the anti-free speecher is then diminished to the poorly informed, mindless lemming that they are. That doesn't necssarily mean that they are bad people, just that they swallowed hook-line-and-sinker a poorly thought out position based on emotionalism rather than actually thinking the issue through to it's logical conclusion.

Gay Activist Supports Supervisor Demoted Over Pro-Traditional Marriage Remarks

Gay activist Peter Tatchell has spoken out in support of a fellow Brit Adrian Smith who was demoted by his employer for remarks he made on his private Facebook page...

"Smith’s Facebook comment went on to state that he felt civil unions were a state issue but that those unions excluded Christian marriage.

"The bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women if the state wants to offer civil marriage to same-sex then that is up to the state; but they shouldn't impose its rules on places of faith and conscience,” he wrote on Facebook.

Tatchell will testify on Smith’s behalf because he feels that Smith has done nothing wrong.

“He expressed an opinion. He did not personally discriminate against anyone. There is no evidence that he has treated any of his gay housing clients adversely,” Tatchell wrote...

However, despite Tatchell’s strong backing for Smith, other members of the LGTB community have strongly supported the harsh punishment.

Tatchell disagrees: “If a gay employee was treated this harshly by a Christian organization for writing pro-gay comments on their personal Facebook page, there would quite rightly be an outcry and accusations of homophobia. Why, then, are some lesbian and gay people supporting such a harsh penalty for Adrian Smith?”

I would like to thank Mr. Tatchell for being a voice of clarity and reason in this blatant attempt at free-speech bigotry by Smith's employer. Some of the most deluded people in the entire universe are those who actually believe that by advocating/supporting gay marriage, they are somehow 'standing up against discrimination of a repressed minority'. Nothing could be further from the truth and such mindless, robot lemmings are only aligning themselves with a certain segment of the gay population that actually wants gay marriage when opinions on the topic within the gay community are hardly monolithic. ( Click here and here for examples.)

"Marriage was the most liberal institution known to man. It opened its arms to the ugly and the homely as well as to the beautiful and the stunning. Was it defined as between a man and a woman? Well, yes, but only in the sense that a cheese omelet is defined as an egg and some cheese — without the least intention of insulting either orange juice or toast by their omission from this definition. Orange juice and toast are fine things in themselves — you just can’t make an omelet out of them." Link

Pro-Life=Good War, Traditional Marriage Support=Bad War?

David French writes.....

"I’ve seen this reality on college campuses. Speak to conservative college students and you’ll generally find enthusiastic pro-life support and deep ambivalence about — if not outright hostility to — preserving traditional marriage. Younger conservatives want to talk about life. They don’t want to talk about sexuality. In the larger culture, support for life is growing, with the percentage of Americans identifying as pro-life now in rough parity (and sometimes exceeding) the percentage of Americans calling themselves pro-choice. And while there’s no question that the media has long exaggerated public support for same-sex marriage (marriage amendments keep winning in state after state), there’s also no question that general polling trends are decidedly negative."

I do believe that free speech bigots are doing a masterful job at cutting off public debate on the matter by utilizing the Big Lie approach when describing their opponents. So much so that in the linked article by French, there is a quote from Tim Dalrymple who states...

"As an editor and director for a large religion website now, I can tell you: It’s substantially easier to find Christians and evangelicals to write on the abortion issue than it is to find ones who will write on same-sex marriage. Academics in particular are terrified that anything critical of homosexuality or same-sex marriage will come up before hiring or tenure committees. One of the first subjects we addressed in our “Public Square” at Patheos was the same-sex marriage debate, and nearly every person I approached to write on the topic had to ask himself or herself: “Am I willing to give up the next job, the next promotion, the next award, because of my views on this topic?”"

French raises an interesting point towards the end of his article in which he weighs the influence of over a decade of 'no-fault divorce' has had over the traditional idea of marriage as being a covenant rather than a contract. Perhaps he is right when he says that we should begin with restoring marriage to it's rightful covenant status rather than merely a piece of paper. It's becoming more and more clear every day that the demonization of gay marriage opponents is drowning out the arguments that highlight the negative effects that gay marriage will eventually have. Based on what is happening in the arena of public debate on abortion, then perhaps, as French says, " courage, persistence, and truth can turn the tide."

Gay Marriage and the Soft Totalitarianism it Implies

I use the term "soft fascism" every now and again on this blog to denote the intolerance of those on the Left who, while they LOVE to spout off about how inclusive and tolerant they are, they themselves are the most hate-filled, INtolerant bigots on the face of the planet. As author Jonah Goldberg wrote in his landmark classic, Liberal Fascism, The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, (quoting comedian George Carlin) "When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will be in Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley."

For example, one way the closed-minded, uncritically thinking screech-monkeys that support gay marriage scarcely notice their strong resemble to their ideological cousins, the racist segregationists of the American south from several decades ago, is in their arguments that they so predictably invoke involving race to rally their cause. Or as columnist Glenn T. Stanton wrote, (paraphrasing David Blankenhorn), "..some Southern racists redefined marriage to make it something it was never supposed to be about — racial purity — when race is not any part of marriage. It was about making marriage do something it was never intended to do for the sake of their own narrow social ideals. Likewise, same-sex marriage advocates today are drafting marriage into their own narrow social cause, as a way to elevate the social standing of homosexuality. Like keeping the races apart then, marriage has no place in this special-interest-based re-engineering... If the Loving [v. Virginia] analogy is exact, we would have to conclude that our current laws on marriage as a male/female union stem from some effort to keep others in their place. Study the anthropological origins of marriage for as long as you want and you will find nothing of the sort."



Getting back to the Left's "soft fascism" resemblance on this particular subject, George Weigel writes of a couple that he knows from a former Eastern Bloc nation who are all too familiar with the coercive power of government to redefine reality and shape it into an imaginary construct of a bureaucratically-approved fairy tale...

"As analysts running the gamut from Hannah Arendt to Leszek Kolakowski understood, modern totalitarian systems were, at bottom, attempts to remake reality by redefining reality and remaking human beings in the process. Coercive state power was essential to this process, because reality doesn’t yield easily to remaking, and neither do people. In the lands Communism tried to remake, the human instinct for justice — justice that is rooted in reality rather than ephemeral opinion — was too strong to change the way tastemakers change fashions in the arts. Men and women had to be coerced into accepting, however sullenly, the Communist New Order, which was a new metaphysical, epistemological, and moral order — a New Order of reality, a new set of “truths,” and a new way of living “in harmony with society,” as late-bureaucratic Communist claptrap had it.

The 21st-century state’s attempt to redefine marriage is just such an attempt to redefine reality — in this case, a reality that existed before the state, for marriage as the union of a man and a woman ordered to mutual love and procreation is a human reality that existed before the state. And a just state is obliged to recognize, not redefine, it.

Moreover, marriage and the families that are built around marriage constitute one of the basic elements of civil society, that free space of free associations whose boundaries the just state must respect. If the 21st-century democratic state attempts to redefine something it has neither the capacity nor the authority to refine, it can only do so coercively. That redefinition, and its legal enforcement, is a grave encroachment into civil society.

If the state can redefine marriage and enforce that redefinition, it can do so with the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, the parent-child relationship, the confessor-penitent relationship, and virtually every other relationship that is woven into the texture of civil society. In doing so, the state does serious damage to the democratic project. Concurrently, it reduces what it tries to substitute for reality to farce."

When viewed in this light, the term "soft fascism" doesn't seem far-fetched at all.

Exposing Hypocrisy in New York's Gay Marriage Law

"New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has compared the fight for gay-marriage rights to the civil-rights battles of the 1960s, visited the state's capital, Albany, twice in the past six weeks to help (Governor, Andrew) Cuomo in his lobbying efforts.

"It really is a historic triumph for equality and freedom," Bloomberg said after the vote.

"This really is a great day for New York and America." Link

The complete stupidity of morons who unflinchingly accept the blatant bait and switch of comparing skin color to sexual behavior is laid bare by Michael Medved who writes...

"Advocates for so-called “marriage equality” define their cause as a “civil rights” issue – equivalent to overturning bans on interracial weddings in the 1960’s. Then how could the New York law permit churches and other religious organizations to reject gay unions? Any church that discriminated against interracial marriages would violate civil rights laws. Preventing a white man from marrying a black woman is unacceptable, because there’s no legal difference between races. But saying a man can’t marry another man is a distinction based on gender, and the law allows different treatment –like separate restrooms, or draft status – based on gender. If gay advocates really believed discriminating against gay unions compared to discrimination against inter-racial unions, how could they possibly permit the religious exemption?"

And I doubt that we'll hear anything close to a coherent answer to this question from gay marriage supporters. Unless of course the end result of such legislation causes the state to compel churches to perform marriage ceremonies to whoever asks for it. This is a worry that is already being discussed by New York's Catholic bishops.

Nothing says 'Happy Easter!' Quite Like Radical Gay Activism

While many of us flocked to our respective churches to commerate out Saviour's resurrection, Clay Waters over at Newsbusters informs us that some people can't let go of the homosexual agenda for one minute, even on the holiest day of the year...

"The New York Times’s coverage of Easter Sunday was sparse, but the paper did mark the Christian holiday in its own inimitable way, by spotlighting anti-traditional gay rights activism.



Reporter Liz Robbins was at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan on Sunday morning to hear Archbishop Timothy Dolan delivers his Easter homily to nearly 3,000. St. Patrick’s also marked the “finish line” of the Easter Day parade. But her story Monday, “A Sermon Of Rebirth, And a Rally For Rights,” was pre-occupied by a tiny band of protesters in support of gay marriage, “A small group of about 25 people stood while temperatures soared near 80 degrees.” For Robbins, two dozen people standing outside in “near 80 degree” heat (was it really that onerous?) was worth both special mention and 364 of the story’s 634 words."

Really. Can't we give a rest on just ONE day out of the year? I can see the need to show off any newly aquired spring fashions but National Coming Out Day is just around the corner in early October and I hear tell that Tom Ford is pulling out all the stops and breaking new ground for his upcoming fall lineup.



This segues neatly into an earlier, unanswered objection raised by GS.....

"you'd (JD) withhold marriage from monogamaous and disease-free lesbian couples in Ohio because 46% of gay men (in San Francisco) say that they prefer open relationships"

My first point would be to let me ask you a question GS. Are you aware of any coordinated effort whatsoever amongst the gay community to uncouple those who advocate multiple partners with the minority that are more monogamous? I'm not aware of a single one at all and it seems like there is this sort of "all-or-nothing" attitude among gay partners. Feel free to point out where I am wrong though.


Secondly, what benefit would endorsing such lesbian "marriages" have on a society? One could argue that such a lesbian coule could raise a child, through artificial semination or adoption. However this author slaps down that idea as something much less than favorable...

"One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female...



Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.




The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos."

So you'll have to pardon me if I give pause to the notion and I consider it's eventual effects on society rather than succumbing to full support for it out of blind emotionalism to do what I at first may think would help the group in question and society in general. I would rather approach such wholesale change with careful thought.


While your "Ohio lesbian" couple may get along fine, statistics paint a very different picture...

"Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners. A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation." Link

I'll let Ann Coulter have the last word on this one...

"Liberals don't care. Their approach is to rip out society's foundations without asking if they serve any purpose. Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards -- why not make heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!"

Is Failure to Support Gay Marriage Immoral?

I recall last week that a certain blogger named Justin seemed to think that opposition to same-sex marraige is immoral. I don't recall how they laid out exactly how such opposition is "immoral" or even if he tried to at all, but as with other commenters in the blogosphere, perhaps he thought that just saying that it was just made it so.

Robert Knight's recent article mentions a couple of reasons that may suggest to the average reader, that a case could be made that gay marraige could be viewed as "immoral".

"Utah, which had a Mormon population that advocated polygamous unions, was denied statehood until it passed a law ensuring that only one man, one woman marriages would be legally recognized.

The key case was Murphy v. Ramsey (1885), in which the Supreme Court upheld Congress' right to make polygamy and bigamy illegal in U.S. territories and a requirement for statehood. The court said:

"For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."

WORLD magazine culture critic Gene Edward Veith notes that the homosexual drive to gain marital benefits is destroying marriage itself as people abandon commitment and embrace the "gay" notion of serial monogamy with "sex partners": "This sort of reductionism -- a spouse is nothing more than a sex partner, so a sex partner is the same as a spouse -- misses the point of what marriage is and what its role in society amounts to....Marriage is being defined down..."

Hoover Institute research fellow Stanley Kurtz has chronicled the acceleration of societal uncoupling from marriage in Sweden:

"Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock....Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood."

Knight links to a report by the group Mass Resistance which chronicles an extensive list of questionable outcomes since gay marraige was instituted in the state of Massachusetts. Some examples from the list might be debatable insofar as if they're "immoral" or not. However, who among us could possibly argue with the following?

"Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000. As the homosexual lobby group MassEquality wrote to their supporters after successfully persuading the Legislature to spend that money: "With the rate of HIV infections rising dramatically in Massachusetts, it's clear the fight against AIDS is far from over."

Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.

Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year."

I don"t mean to throw too much information out there at this time, so I'll stop right there. I believe that a good starting point would be to entertain explanations as to why the opposition to a practice that has seen AIDS cases rise in it's wake, increased domestic violence, increased levels of illegitimacy in countries where it was adopted and has led to questionable subject matter to students that is arguably not age appropriate could in any way be considered "immoral. What are your thoughts on the matter?





And please, I don't want this discussion to devolve into an accusation that those who are not supportive of the idea of gay marraige are trying to keep people who love each other apart from one another. We're talking about the effects of such a sweeping change as it relates to society. For example, what are some of the benefits to a society that redefines monogamous marraige to that of the "notion of serial monogamy "?

On Gay Marriage

One of the followers (and once-in-a-while commenter) on this blog, Ben-Peter Terpstra, wrote an interesting article that appeared recently in The Daily Caller. His story gives account of the plight of gays who are opposed to gay marriage in getting their viewpoint heard through the cacophany of noise coming from the mainstream media which only allows Good Comrades who tow the part line of 'Gay Marriage Good-Opposition Bad, Bigoted and Mean-Spirited'' to express themselves openly and freely, or as Terpstra so eloquently puts it... "is Katie Couric ready to hear politically-direct voices opposed to same-sex marriage? Is Oprah willing to open her heart and therefore her ears to marginalized trans-people and their journeys? Or does “tolerance” mean ignoring critical-thinking minority voices?".

Terpstra's article focuses on a new book out titled Against Equality: Queer Critiques of Gay Marriage and some of the arguments raised by gays who really don't care for gay marriage are as follows..

"Kate Bornstein writes.."When lesbian and gay community leaders whip up the community to fight for the right to marry, it’s a further expression of America’s institutionalized greed in that it benefits only its demographic constituency,” argues the passionate activist. “There’s no reaching out beyond sexuality and gender expression to benefit people who aren’t just like us, and honestly… that is so 20th Century identity politics."

Kenyon Farrow wonders if Gay Marraige is anti-black..."I, as a black gay man, do not support this push for same-sex marriage,” he asserts. “Although I don’t claim to represent all black gay people, I do believe that the manner in which this campaign has been handled has put black people in the middle of essentially two white groups of people, who are trying to manipulate us one way or the other.”

One of the better quotes comes from Yasmin Nair who muses... "I don’t get why a community of people who have historically been f….d over by their families and the state now consists of people who want those exact same institutions to validate their existence."

All of this is in addition to a point raised by our resident gay conservative, Coco Loco who writes, (and I wholeheartedly agree)..."since it [gay marraige] is symbolic, one must consider the symbolic effect. If there is no word, in language, to delineate a same-sex from an opposite-sex couple, then why have words to delineate anything that's different? Why not give everyone who goes to school after college an MD, whether they were getting a JD, a PhD, or an MFA? Why not call everyone Reverend? Why not give me twenty bucks and a gold ribbon for being gay? I want it. I'm asking you for it. I am willing to blockade your office building if I can't have it."

The shortsightedness in the attitude of those in favor of gay marrage is reminiscent of a recent Ann coulter article in which she asks... "Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards – why not make heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls [of civilization] and just see what happens!"

I think we could all agree that a rational discussion is in order before sweeping changes in a society are made with the stroke of a pen. That discussion is not well served by such empty arguments as playing the homophobe or bigot card just because there is disagreement over the matter. If one were to define bigotry as either "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" or as "the expression of hatred or aggression towards those who are different", it's quite clear who is the complete bigot in this discussion. It's the one who exhibits such complete intolerance to an opinion different than their own that their actions include an accusation of such an extremely negative stereotype like homophobia or bigotry in order to stifle rational discussion on the topic simply because someone doesn't agree with them.

If someone wished to show gay marriage to be such a great thing, they should start by negating the above objections raised by gays themselves and then address the void of arguments that are just brimming with such good reasons to redefine a term upon which much of Western civilization was built.


From Gays Against Gay Marriage, "I’d like at least all heterosexuals, if not their loudmouth gay friends, to shut the hell up on the matter. It does not impress me that you have compassion for gay people; I simply do not think you are a mouthbreathing dingbat for finding anything at all wrong with homosexual behavior. That’s the expected default, get it? Now stop trying to force your oppressive, frilly, and boring traditional institutions meant to ensure monogamy on my hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex."



"With regard to "gay civil rights," what makes them problematic is that there is an inherent clash with religion and the natural order. For example, "gay marriage" warps the very understanding of what marriage is in a way that polygamy cannot since marriage has always been a union between man and woman. This is a universal fact about marriage, as no civilization has defined marriage as simply a union between [nn>1] people. There are a number of sensible homosexuals who have realized that this is a problem, but unfortunately, they're politically irrelevant." Mike, from Code Monkey Ramblings

.