Bride-and-Groom is the Right Side of History

Marriage neutering advocates have taken to either feigned outrage or genuine delusions of confusion that anyone thinks that the term "marriage", when being used literally, inherently involves the union of a bride and groom. They act like such a definition for marriage, either generally or legally, is absurd. Instead, most of them insist (for now, anyway) that everything else about the definition of marriage is right – that it is a personal union[1] of two living human beings who are of age[2] and able to consent, neither of whom is currently married to others, who are not too closely[3] related to each other. It is just that the part about… you know… uniting bride & groom is wrong, according to them. So both marriage defenders and marriage neutering advocates believe that marriage is a certain kind of relationship and that other relationships are not marriage, and should not receive legal sanction as marriage.

Just try changing the definition any other way, such as asking about polygamous or incestuous marriages (which, unlike brideless or groomless pairings, have historically been recognized as actual marriages by various cultures) and most of them do everything from scoff to foam at the mouth, and insist that those are an entirely different matter from what they're talking about. So much for "consenting adults" and "love is love" and "look how long we've been together" and "we're raising kids" and "it makes people better off" and all of that. For some yet-to-be explained reason (size/power of lobby group is not a principle), the bride+groom part of definition of marriage is not inherent to marriage, but restrictions on the number or relation of the participants is... at least according to marriage neutering advocates.

Again, so both sides of this debate argue that marriage is a certain kind of relationship and that other relationships are not marriage, and should not receive legal sanction as marriage. Discrimination against those other unions is A-OK, according to what most marriage neutering advocates (currently) say.

How did marriage defenders arrive at their definition? Well, without considering any supernatural origin, every culture that has ever existed in the world for thousands of years has recognized that the union of a man and woman is different from other relationships – even cultures that celebrated homosexual behavior. Biology, sociology, and just about everyone's personal experience confirm this. History and various religions have agreed. Everyone who wrote and adopted the Constitution of the United States of America understood marriage as uniting a bride and groom. None of them is ever cited or quoted as having said that a marriage can exist without a bride or without a groom, or that there a right to have brideless or groomless unions recognized as "marriage" by the states nor the union. Every major dictionary has, historically, defined marriage as between a man and woman.

Fourteen Will Get You Twenty

Just about every young man has heard some variation of this caution against statutory rape. Having sex with a 14 year-old could land you a prison sentence of 20 years, or so the saying implies. The age of consent for sex in the USA varies by state, but I think it ranges from 18 in some states (like here in California) to 16 in some other states. In some states, parents can sign off on someone under the age of consent marrying, and statuory rape laws would no longer apply.

I have seen many Leftists, especially those who advocate the neutering of marriage, express outrage over a criminal case in Florda. Here is an Associated Press report by Kelli Kennedy.

An 18-year-old Florida cheerleader is facing felony charges that she had sexual contact with her underage, 14-year-old girlfriend, leading gay rights advocates to say the teen is being unfairly targeted for a common high school romance because she's gay.

Wrong. She's being unfairly defended because she's homosexual.

The criminal case against Kaitlyn Hunt is unusual because it involves two females, not an older male and a younger female. But advocates say older high schoolers dating their younger counterparts is an innocuous, everyday occurrence that is not prosecuted — regardless of sexual orientation — and not a crime on par with predatory sex offenses.

The law says otherwise, and we must have equal application of the law, right?

Hunt played on the basketball team with her younger girlfriend and shared the same circle of friends, said Hunt's mother, Kelley Hunt Smith. The two had a consenting relationship that began soon after Kaitlyn Hunt turned 18, and Hunt Smith said she assumed the younger girl's parents knew that.

When you're dealing with someone else's minor child, you can't assume. Oh, if only modern humans had some ability, some technologies, that would allow them communicate with each other.

Kaitlyn Hunt, who hopes to become a nurse, declined to be interviewed and is scared, her father said. However, the family has received support from all over the world, with messages coming from as far away as New Zealand, the Netherlands and Canada, Steve Hunt said. He said he reads them to her to keep her spirits up, but she feels like she has let everyone down, he said through tears.

Yeah, convicted child molestors get letters of support from all over the world, too. There was a time a parent would have been ashamed of what their child was doing in cases like this.

Prosecutors have offered a plea deal to Kaitlyn Hunt that would allow her to avoid registering as a sex offender if she pleads guilty to lesser charges of child abuse. State Attorney Bruce Colton said he would recommend two years of house arrest followed by one year probation if she takes the deal.

I wonder how many heterosexual males get that generous offer?

"One of the reasons this case has gotten people's attention is because it's being publicized as a person being persecuted because she's gay, and that has nothing to do with the case, nothing to do with the law, nothing to do with the sheriff's office filing the charges," Colton said. He said the law is designed to protect younger children from older children who might be more aggressive in starting a relationship.

"The law doesn't make any differentiation. It doesn't matter if it's two girls or two boys, or an older boy and a younger girl or an older girl and a younger boy. Whatever the combination, it doesn't matter."

Ain't equality grand?

However, gay rights advocates aren't buying that. The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida said Kaitlyn Hunt is being criminalized for behavior that "occurs every day in tens of thousands of high schools across the country, yet those other students are not facing felony convictions ... and potential lifelong branding as sex offenders."

What the ACLU is saying is that because some parents are derelict in their duty to protect their minor children, all parents should be. Because some parents let 18 year-olds do their 14 year-olds, every parent should!

Her support extends beyond the ACLU. A "Free Kate" Facebook page has generated more than 30,000 followers so far, and an online petition urging that the charges be dropped crashed at one point because it got so much traffic. It now has more than 100,000 signatures. And during a press conference Monday, dozens of supporters showed up outside of the Indian River Sheriff's Department, many wearing T-Shirts that read "Stop the Hate, Free Kate" with rainbow hearts.

All of these people  apparentlysupport statutory rape. Remeber this the next time someone experesses outrage that someone else seems to be linking homosexuality advocacy with pedophilia.

The family said Kaitlyn Hunt had been demonized by some, and they disabled her personal Facebook account to protect her from negative comments. At school in February, her 17-year-old sister spent a half-hour cleaning a mirror where someone had written a slur against women and other words including "rapist" and "disgusting," Steve Hunt said.

Is that all? That's rather tame.

Is there any reason why a Kaitlyn Hunt shouldn't be prosecuted as strongly as a Mike Hunt for having sex with a girl?

Never forget that ACLU and other groups are spending time, money, and effort trying to decriminalize an adult having sex with a 14 year-old.

Every Child Naturally Has a Mother and a Father

A short but sweet video defending the bride+groom requirement:

Deftly Defending DOMA

The fate of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton with the backing of both Democrats and Republicans before any state had neutered marriage licensing, is currently in the hands of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Some conservatives reject the Constitutionality of DOMA based on federalism, which some of the Left have cited as well, inconsistent with most of their positions. I support federalism, too, but as we'll see below that doesn't mean DOMA is unconstitutional. I have wondered ever since DOMA has been an issue if, because some states mess things up, everyone else should be forced go along, especially given that there are many examples of states issuing other licenses and other legal designations that other states don't have to accept. A neutered license is no longer a "marriage" license, it is a "two people who are not legally married to others, of age, and not too closely related" license, and as such, should states be forced to recognize them?

I don't know of any legal analysts who expect such a move, nor do I think any notable briefs submitted to SCOTUS call for it, but although I recognize that certain powers are reserved to the state, I do think it is possible a credible case could be made that the right of a child to a mother and father could justify federal involvement in restoring bride+groom requirements to state marriage licenses.

For now, though, let's see what some others have said about why DOMA does pass the Constitutional test.

Paradox Now – Marriage Neutering and Gender Distinctions

Marriage neutering activists seem indignant when I write that their position degrades masculinity and femininity. Yet, discuss the issues with them for any length of time, and they prove my point for me by insisting that there really is no significant difference between men and women.

What’s even more interesting to note is that these very people who insist there really is no significant difference between men and woman swear they could not share their lives with someone of the opposite sex, and so bride+groom marriage licensing excludes them by virtue of their inability to desire or enjoy a life with someone of the opposite sex.

So... there is a big enough difference when it comes to their choice in life partners – but not a big enough difference to make a sex-integrated union different from a sex-segregated union, or to matter to a child?

This is the crowd that claims to be all for diversity, but doesn’t think it is important for marriage to have the diversity of both sexes or a child to have the diversity in their own home of a mother and a father.

The demand for the neutering of marriage is built on the mutually exclusive claims that men and women are interchangeable and that men and women are not interchangeable, and thus is bankrupt. The hope of the marriage neutering advocate rests in appeals to emotion.

Neutering Marriage is Not a Conservative Position

Hilary Jane Margaret White blogs "Hey gay people! you're being used".

And it's not about rights, either the rights of gay people to get "married" (according to the new definition) or about the rights of religious people to "freedom of worship".

It's about the state increasing its power.

"The central problem with the gay marriage agenda is not that at some point in the future an unwilling man of the cloth might be strongarmed into giving his blessing to a gay union, but rather that it allows the state to do something that was traditionally considered beyond its purview…

Some have sought to depict the drive for gay marriage as a continuation of the struggle for civil rights that exploded in the mid-twentieth century; it’s better understood as a continuation, and intensification, of the modern state’s desire to get a foot in the door of our private lives and to assume sovereignty over our relationships."

More here, here, and here.

Expanding government intrusion into personal relationships and families is not a good thing.

Elizabeth Warren Can’t See the Forest Through the Trees Planted by Capitalists

Elizabeth Warren certainly is popular with my Leftist connections on Facebook. They proudly copy and pasted her comments:

I hear all this, you know, 'Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No.

Yes, it is class warfare to target the "rich" – by definition.

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own -- nobody.

Well, no, there isn't, because someone else has to buy the good and services provided by the rich. The fact is, nobody really does ANYTHING on their own, but we still need to have boundaries. There still needs to be some level of personal autonomy, private property and ownership, and personal responsibility. Should Warren be elected to Senate, she will not have done it on her own, yet she will not be forced to let more than a third of her votes be cast by someone else.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

The rich paid for those roads, too. All of us - who buy gas, anyway - paid for those roads, all of us can use them. Even the people who don't buy gas.

You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

Property owners, a group which definitely includes the rich, paid to educate them. But I'm for separation of state and school anyway.

You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for.

Again, the rich pay for them, too – more so than other people.

You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory -- and hire someone to protect against this -- because of the work the rest of us did.

Uh, is there a factory that doesn't have private security?

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless -- keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

And why does that have to be through the hands of D.C. politicians? Who is it that is funding charities, anyway?

No doubt unwittingly, Elizabeth Warren actually makes our point for us – that by letting free markets work, people who build wealth employ other people to mutual benefit. The wealthy got wealthy, in part, through providing jobs.

The people the wealthy hired were compensated as agreed. The customers who bought the goods or services provided by the wealthy were given that for which they paid. Now, people like Warren want to ignore the fact that the mutual, voluntary transactions were completed and use government force to make the wealthy pay more not only to those already compensated for their work, but to uninvolved people who refuse to work at all.

Are we to believe that someone who studied hard and stayed clean and involved through high school, college, and medical school to become a doctor and works long and odd hours saving lives and then practices good financial habits has less right to enjoy the fruits of her labors and risks than someone who goofed off, dropped out, abused substances, caused trouble, watches the clock at his entry-level job to make sure that he never appears to be working a minute more than 40 hours per week (minus breaks), and blows his money?

All of the things Warren lists have been available to all. It is the wealthy that used them in ways valued most by society.

You can find some good responses to Warren here, here, and here.

A Test For Marriage Neutering Advocates

Rhode Island became the most recent state to neuter its marriage licensing.

Rhode Island has no existing laws whatsoever against consensual incest.

Based on these facts (and you can check them out for yourself if you don't believe me) I'd like to know from marriage neutering advocates what their reaction would be to this situation:

Two unmarried women approach the counter at the appropriate government office in Rhode Island and ask for a license, saying "We very much want to get married." They have been living together for many years now, and are raising two children together. The clerk examines the paperwork and realizes that the women share a biological father, who has never been in either's life. As it turns out, the women were not raised together and only met for the first time as adults.

Should the law instruct the clerk to issue them a state-recognized license, entitling them to all of the legal aspects of marriage?

If not, why not? Is it Constitutional to deny them a license?

Remember, their relationship is not criminal in any way.

Greg Koukl on Secular Religious Division of Marriage

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason on "Can Marriage Be Divided into Secular and Religious Institutions?"

The Left and Moral Equivalence

I like getting the perspective of Tammy Bruce and her friends. Tammy has been a voice for audio content for a long time. She also writes books and columns, blogs, and appeared on cable news as a talking head. Shifra blogged on Tammy's site something called "Liberals and Moral Equivalence".

First, some definitions of terms, as “moral relativism” and “moral equivalence,” are, it seems, sometimes used interchangeably. But, while related, they are, in fact, different.

“Moral relativism” refers to the notion that, in our diverse, multicultural world, no one culture is better than another culture, so that no judgments can be made about a specific culture.

For example:

In the U.S.A., a day off may be spent having a picnic with family and friends, enjoying a barbecue, tossing a Frisbee, or maybe catching a ball game, while, in some Islamic countries, a day off might entail having the village gather to watch a woman being shoved waist-deep into a hole in the ground, while everyone throws boulders until she is stoned to death, all because she is suspected of having committed adultery.

See? Different strokes for different folks.

In The New Thought Police, Tammy wrote about the danger of such a world-view:

Multiculturalism is not about exotic restaurants and charming street fairs. It is a code word for moral relativism. Accepting the notion that all ideas and systems are equal precludes a willingness to think critically about what surrounds us. It is the cornerstone of our inability to come to judgments about events…. (p. 150)

Moral equivalence, on the other hand, is a deceptive device used by Liberals to “prove” their points by taking the focus away from the obvious evil, and focusing on what they  perceive to be the more “immediate problem.”

Go read her examples of moral equivalence.

Leftists do not have to be consistent or coherent, have priorities or perspective, because their whole way of looking at things is based on feeling and emotion.

Also, a question I like to ask partisans is, "If the other party's guy/gal did what you party's guy/gal just did, would you think that is OK?" I'm not necessarily talking about taking a position, but about the principles or actions. For example, is filibustering OK or not? That sort of thing.

David Russell Explains Marriage Defense Well

David Russell writes at The Poached Egg on his case for marriage. He touches upon what's going on in Christian circles:

We live in a culture where sensationalism wins the day and scriptural illiteracy runs rampant in the pews. To assume Christ would change his mind undermines the truth of his divinity and if the apostles got it wrong the inerrant word of God is no longer inerrant or it is basically ignored. The scriptures couldn't be more true when it says, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6)

 

One need not be Christian to see that marriage unites the sexes, but any follow of Christ should not deny what He affirmed. Then Russell moves on to the larger issue of society:

 

Civil rights is not the issue. There is no discrimination except in basic behavior, which all laws are based around. The truth is, we are all entitled to marry in the same way, we all share the same rights and restrictions equally. I am a heterosexual male and have the same right to marry as the homosexual, I also have the same restrictions the homosexual has. Greg Koukl gives a beautiful illustration in a past issue of solid ground, he puts it like this, “Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither are allowed to vote in France. Jones, however has no interest in U.S. politics, he's partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained?" Simply put NO! both he and Smith have the same rights to vote in America Smith chooses to exercise that right, so for Jones there is only inequality in desire not in legality. 

Basically, the marriage law applies to each citizen in exactly the same way, the Homosexual wants the right to do something neither person can do. So all those with equal signs posted to their profiles are drastically misinformed, or they simply like being part of the crowd.

Right. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have EQUAL rights now, and they would still have them under neutered licensing. This is not about equality, but that word is a useful emotional hook.

Natural marriage produces the next generation, the government has a vested interest in the next generation, so, naturally it promotes the carrying on of the civilization. The government needs to be somewhat involved in this process due to the behavior of humans and their inability to commit. Also, imagine what a man would do if there was no accountability, he could leave and bear no responsibility to his mate or children; the government makes sure the women and children are protected. The government doesn't get involved because you're in love, it reigns in that aspect of commitment and furthermore, deals with inheritance intrinsic to natural marriage, It also provides relief to promote the family in regard to the very nature of child rearing, something also inherent to natural marriage. Tax relief is given to lighten the load for fathers who have out of work mothers and children you now have to feed.

That is a excellent way of boiling down the truth of the matter.

With examining the benefits of natural marriage, why do I think it should be the only one promoted by government? First, it is the natural foundation of society and yields benefits to everyone, no other relationship can do that. Second, a study by J.D. Unwin concludes out of eighty six civilizations spanning the course of five thousand years the most prosperous were the ones with a strong marriage ethic, he includes that every civilization that abandoned this ethic and liberalized their sexual practices experienced demise not long after. (Joseph Unwin, Sex and Culture: London Oxford press, 1934)

I'm sure some Leftist has written a response to that work by now that blames economic inequality for the demise of those civilizations.

Is Jesus a Republican?

My short answer is "no".

But he certainly isn't a Democrat, either.

The GOP is a U.S. political party, and as such, is a man-made organization, the main purpose of which is to get members elected and appointed to government offices. It is a flawed organization founded and comprised of flawed people.

I do believe, though, that conservatism can be consistent with Christian principles, and in fact I maintain that my own conservatism is consistent with my Christian worldview. And, in the U.S., it is the GOP that is a home to the conservative movement and is one of the two dominant, effective political parties, hence my support for the GOP.

In an ideal situation, the perfect form of government is a benevolent dictatorship - an absolute monarchy, actually – with the monarch being eternal, unchanging, unequaled, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, holy, loving, merciful, and just. (That’s God, to those of you who are slow on the uptake.) But since He has given us the freedom to govern ourselves for now, and we are a mix of unrepentant sinners and repentant-but-still-unperfected sinners, I do not believe there is a better governmental system than the brilliant one devised by our mostly Christian-influenced founders – our union of states in a capitalist, constitutional, democratic, representative, republic with separation of powers and checks and balances.

It is that system that recognizes that people will generally look out for their own self-interests and in doing so will cooperate where mutually beneficial, and will also engage voluntarily in private charity. It is that system that recognizes that since sin has marred each of us, none of us should have too much power. It is that system that recognizes that people will do wrong, and some of those wrongs demand a collective response from the people as a whole. So, it is a system that understands that true nature of people.

This is a system worth conserving.  Hence - conservatism.

Conservatism generally (if not all individual conservatives) promotes respect for human life; defending and esteeming marriage; respect for authority; personal freedom, responsibility and accountability; punishment and restitution for wrongs; private charity; and encourages acknowledging God in all areas of life. These are all very much part of what Jesus taught and affirmed.

Leftists, including some Democrats, cite God as Creator and Jesus' acceptance of prostitutes and others marginalized by society during his earthly ministry, His message of forgiveness, His "cast the first stone" and "take the plank out of your own eye" statements, His commands to take care of the needy, His "turn the other cheek" statement, and His willingness to be beaten and crucified as examples of why Republicans and conservatives are wrong and why Christians should support Democrats in their efforts to:

-expand government social spending (including allowing illegal aliens to come here, stay here, and receive such spending)

-socialize health care

-implement "environmental protection" legislation that is really about forced wealth transfer and infringing on private property rights

-promote pacifism

-promote licentiousness, especially in sexual behavior

Such applications take Jesus' words and actions out of context and twist His words.

It is bizarre to me that people who so stridently promote and defend philosophical naturalism (claiming that we and everything else in the universe are the products of nothing more than natural processes alone) appeal to our belief in a Creator to promote their "environmental protection" agenda. Many of these people are the same people that see nothing wrong with dismembering babies in the womb. Many of the same people who promote government-funded (meaning taxpayer-funded) health care for seniors by appealing to our compassion would just as soon put our seniors to death, claiming it is for dignity and pain-relief, but in actuality because the seniors would become an expensive inconvenience.

Yes, Jesus accepted and forgave people who admitted and repented of their sins. You can't repent of sins if you don't recognize them as sins in the first place. The phrase "Go and sin no more" comes to mind. He saved their souls but did not necessarily protect them from the earthly consequences of their sins. The repentant thief on the cross comes to mind – Jesus told him "Today, you will be with me in Paradise," indicating he was forgiven, but Jesus didn't use His power to remove the man from the cross and stave off death.  And yes, people should take the plank out of their own eye before trying to remove the speck in someone else's eye, and if you have repented of your sins and turned to Jesus, then the plank has been removed.

He'll judge the world in the future, but Jesus certainly wasn't "nonjudgmental" during His earthly ministry.  According to the written accounts of His teachings, He talked a lot about Hell and had some choice words in public for certain people, and don't forget what He did to the money changers.

Jesus ordered His followers to take care of the poor, not the government. He didn't advocate stealing from the rich to "care for the poor".  He told a rich man to sell everything he had and give it to the poor himself, not to sell all he had and give it to Rome for redistribution.

Jesus did not teach pacifism, either.  As Greg Koukl points out, "turning the other cheek" likely refers to dealing with insults. Jesus sent His disciples out with swords. I'd agree that Jesus would be against using force unjustly, but not all use of force is unjust.

(Oh - and despite what PETA would say, Jesus was not a vegetarian, either.)

I'd like to note that nowhere does Jesus command us to spread Christianity by force. He commanded us to make disciples, true, but everything about His earthly ministry teaches us to make disciples by preaching the Gospel through our words and living the Gospel in our actions. Promote clean living. Care for those in need, including telling them when, where, and how their sins are causing their problems (IF their own sins are causing those particular problems).

So, while I wouldn't say that Jesus is a Republican, I would say that being a Republican is entirely compatible with being a Christian. Being a Christian is much more than just being involved in politics, however. It also includes living a moral life and giving of your time, talent, and treasure to those who need it. We can't insist that the government get out of social spending and then not pick up the slack ourselves by tending to the legitimate needs of others. That is all part of having a relationship with Christ as your Lord and Savior.