Dear Bob Chapek: You'll Never Be Woke Enough For the Left

Dear CEO of The Walt Disney Company Bob Chapek:

As you'll see over and over again, you can never be woke enough for the Left.

I'm not talking about liberals. I'm talking about Leftists. There is a difference.

Like many business leaders, you are going to be forced to decide: Attempt to appease the Left (which is futile), or endure their vitriol & hissy fits, and focus on everyone else: liberals, centrists, independents, libertarians, conservatives, the politically disinterested.

Keep in mind the Leftists don't want your company to own anything, create value or payments for shareholders, make decisions about who you hire and how much you pay them, or make profits. No matter how much you try to appease them culturally or politically, they do not believe your company should exist independent of being an arm of centralized government.

The recent battle was over Florida's HB 1557, falsely labeled the "Don't Say Gay" bill by professional liars.

What did the legislation actually say?

• Parents have to be able to access to their child's school records, including health records
• School district staff can't be prohibited from telling parents about their child's health
• Third grade or before, no instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity
• Inform parents at the beginning of the school year what health services are offered and allow the parents to opt their students out of a service
• Third grade or before, any health questionnaire given to students must be approved of by their parent

That's it. What the problem with that? Who objects to that?

Leftists do. They want to be able to use taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate Kindergartners into the Leftist ideologies on sexual orientation and gender identity. So, they want to be able to encourage Kindergarteners to think of their penis as a problem they'll need to remove, and talk with them about sex. And they want to hide from parents that they are doing this. This is evil. This is insanity.

These students shouldn't be subjected to that. They should be learning how to read, write, speak, and understand English; mathematics; and hopefully some geography, history, science, and art.

On one side, you have people who want to be able so sexualize Kindergartners and promote mutilation to them.

On the other side, you have people who want parents to be able to object to this.

This shouldn't be a hard decision.

Yes, there are some very noisy people in your company, on social media, and in media who screech about how this legislation is bad. Perhaps you should do what you can to keep those in your employ from having access to children when they are on your dime? You should definitely not bend over for them.

It's time to stand up to them and say "No, I'm not going to bend over for you."

It is time to stand up to them and tell them the core of your corporation is about family entertainment and you're not going to push the agenda of people who want to sexualize Kindergarteners. If they stop coming to Disneyworld or Disneyland, if they quit working for you, then your company will be better off in the long run.

UPDATE: People who mock your groveling before them because they don't like the medium of presentation are proving my point. There is no appeasing this mob of unstable, unhappy people who are being agitated by people bent on sexualizing children and putting division between children and their parents.

Minor Children Are the Responsibility of Their Parents

Deferring to and respecting parental authority over minor children used to be standard for anyone taken seriously in public life.

Leftism has been chipping away at that.

The Left considers children to be property of the state, as long as they are in control of the state. This must be rejected.

Minor children are the responsibility of their parents (or legal guardians).

Anyone the parent employs, directly or by proxy, to instruct or care for their child should either defer to the parents and respect the will of the parents or shouldn't take the job.

If anyone has reason to believe the parents are abusive, there is already a process for making accusations, providing evidence, and having the parenting investigated.

A parent NOT being a Leftist isn't evidence of abuse.

Children do not belong to the state, including the state schools.

The parents made or legally adopted their child. They get to decide, short of actual abuse, what is best for their child, regardless of what anyone else likes.

Are some parents abusive? Yes. So what? So are some teachers and other state actors. Governments have killed more people than anything else.

When the children reach the age of majority, they still don't belong to the state. They belong to themselves. The people have a government. The government doesn't have a people.

Defeat Leftism. Support parental rights. Defend liberty.

Some Important Truths

In no particular order, here are some important truths...

• Not all problems are going to be solved in this lifetime.
• There are not only other - but better - ways to solve most problems, or at least improve the overall situation, than by a federal government program.
• The Constitution tells the federal government what it can do; otherwise, the federal government isn't to interfere. If you want the government to get involved in something not currently assigned to it by the Constitution, then amend the Constitution.
• Unconstitutional government involvement usually begets more unconstitutional government involvement.
• Capitalism is unavoidable. The more restrictions placed on it, the smaller the percentage of the population that will be able to use their resources to the fullest and enjoy the fruits of their work the way they see fit; only the elite, connected, wealthy, or criminal will be able to circumvent the restrictions.
• Some people are going to make more out of their resources than others, and they shouldn't be punished for doing so. People should be celebrated for making the most of the resources under their control.
• With free markets, the pie gets bigger for everyone.
• Someone else having more money than you is not automatically evidence of injustice.
• Disagreeing with a Democrat's proposals and decisions does not make someone a racist.
• People who judge other people on the natural color of their skin are being foolish.
• As long as they are minors, your kids are your responsibility. You chose to make them; they didn't choose it, and nobody else chose to make (or adopt) your kids. This means that some things you want will have to take a back seat to what your kids need.
• I don't blame women for the evils of men, but I don't blame men for the evils of women. I blame people for their own sins - including myself for my own.
• Having your genitals surgically altered, taking hormones, dressing differently, and calling yourself by a different name does not really change your sex.
• There are things more evil in this world than hypocrisy. Getting busted for doing an evil you have preached against means you should've not done that thing, not that you shouldn’t have preached against it. Someone who does that thing and fails to speak the truth by preaching against it is not more noble. This word is frequently misused, as it means saying one thing while believing something contrary. People do things they know are wrong all of the time. People also have done things in the past that they thought were OK but now they know better, and say so. In neither case are these people hypocrites, especially not in the second case.
• Not all cultures are equal. Some cultures are better than others. Migration can be one sign of this.
• The primary mission of American education should be to pass down American culture and values to the next generation.
• If you came to this country, then clearly you like something about our culture enough that you bothered to come here, and you should adopt our culture instead of subverting it; work to improve it rather than supplanting it.
• That you don't like the way the world seems to be is not proof that God doesn't exist.
• That God doesn't always do what you want, when you want, how you want is not proof that God doesn't exist.
• Whether or not Jesus Christ lives or is Lord is not determined by what any professor, politician, preacher, performer, or scientist thinks.
• Believing that some people will go to Hell is not the same as taking steps to hasten their arrival.
• Believing that some people will go to Hell doesn't mean knowing the eternal fate of any given person.
• I am not the final judge of any other person's heart.
• I will not try to force my religion down your throat, but I will represent myself with my vote and other political actions.

Playing Dumb About the Traditional Family

Note: I am reposting entries I made over at The Opine Editorials. This one is from mid-2011...

Under the headline of "How traditional a family?", Michael McGough blogged at LATimes.com...

When conservative politicians talk about the "traditional family," it's usually by way of denouncing same-sex marriage. But former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (though no supporter of marriage equality) uses the concept for another purpose: to critique contemporary child-rearing practices.

In 2005, Santorum was criticized for suggesting in his book "It Takes a Family" that working women should give up their jobs and stay at home with the kids.

Actually, the offending passage was gender-neutral: "In too many families with young children both parents are working when, if they took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them don't need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do."

Yes, that silly Santorum thinks that raising children actually means being present to parent, rather than letting hired help be the primary caretakers. Silly him! What's next? Expecting employees to actually work for their paychecks?

The idea that mothers are superior caregivers for young children is politically incorrect these days, but it's widely held by the social conservatives to whom Santorum appeals.

I don't know, I agree with the idea that is generally preferable that mothers do the early primary caretaking, but maybe it is because my breasts did not inflate with milk. Maybe it is different for other men? Seriously, there are many ways women are, literally, naturally more suited -  everything from bone structure to hearing to smell to hormones and so many more. You don't have to be a social conservative to hold such an idea, though when you realize that the social Left's insistence that there's no difference between mothers and fathers is a lie that denies such an obvious reality, it may lead you to social conservatism.

Those who fight against idealizing the traditional family play dumb or act like we can't define a "traditional family" or that only a minority of families were what we call traditional at any given time in history.

How Exactly Do We Get Government Out of Marriage

After years of saying that marriage was “nothing more than a piece of paper” or “oppressive to women”, the Left’s assault on the family has, as you are certainly aware, temporarily switched to insisting that it is vitally important for two lesbians be able to enter into such oppression by being able to legally “marry” without a groom, and if you don’t agree, it means you want to beat little girls to death for being tomboys.

Some on the Left, many libertarians, and some weary conservatives who mistakenly think it will get the whiny homosexuality advocates to shut up say, “Get government out of marriage!”

Oh, it may sound nice. However, what it really is, in addition to being the Left’s real goal in the matter (after they use neutered “marriage” to beat down anything that depicts heterosexual behavior as qualitatively different from homosexual behavior) is… impossible.

It is impossible to get government out of marriage.

Someone might say that government didn’t get into marriage until only a few hundred years ago, but they are neglecting to mention that before that, churches functioned as government, at least to some extent. With the secularization of government, the government has unavoidably retained involvement in marriage.

From a strictly legal perspective, what exactly is marriage? 



1) First and foremost, it is a financial partnership. Unless (and sometimes even if) there is an extensive, thorough, and valid prenuptial agreement that provides otherwise, marriage involves the mingling of assets and sharing of earnings acquired during the marriage. As such, in determining the amount of child support owed to a child of Spouse A, Spouse B’s income can also be taken into account. This financial partnership can also be evidenced in credit scores, judgments, etc. That marriage is a financial partnership is demonstrated severely in the event of a divorce. 

2) In most places, marriage provides default paternity. This is supposedly to protect children (and their mothers) from abandonment, but it also reduces the likelihood taxpayers will be on the hook to care for needy children and their mothers, and it also aids men who want access to their offspring and to include their offspring as dependents and beneficiaries.

3) Marriage provides default next-of-kin status. For example, absent a directive that says otherwise, if man gets into a car accident and is rushed to a hospital in critical condition, his next-of-kin makes medical decisions for him. If he has a girlfriend, but not a lawful wife, then his parents, siblings, or children will be making the decision, no matter how long he’s been seeing that girlfriend. However, if he’d married that girlfriend the year before, she is now next-of-kin. Our immigration laws also take kinship into account. As such, that same man can’t import his girlfriend as easily as he can import his wife. I frequently take and make calls on behalf of my wife, something I couldn’t do if she was not my wife.

4) Marriage provides default beneficiary status. This is much like the point above. 

5) Marriage is more intimate than a citizen's relation to the state. In certain circumstances, spouses can’t be compelled to testify against each other in court.

Marriage used to be a license to live together and have sex, but that has been almost entirely removed from the legalities of marriage. For the most part, people are now entirely free to associate in these ways without a marriage license.

Given these realities, how is it possible to get government out of marriage? 

Yes, the government can stop issuing and keeping marriage licenses, but all that would do is create more private paperwork and increase the involvement of courts, which are part of government. 

How would assets be split up in the event of a divorce or breakup? The same way as when there is a dispute between roommates - by courts, which are government. Some people will say spouses should not have joint accounts or community property anyway, but is that really the family culture we want to foster?

Yes, government can leave women entirely in control of their newborns, forcing men to sue if they want to be involved or women to sue if the man does not want involvement, and again, that would involve the courts, which are government. 

A lot of people don’t have wills, trusts, advanced directives, and other paperwork they should, and without a state marriage license, courts will have to get involved more. One of the arguments of marriage neutering advocates has been that brideless or groomless couples shouldn’t have to do all of that extra paperwork. Marriage abolitionists want EVERYONE to have to do all of that extra paperwork.

So spouses would no longer be exempt from testifying against each other? Do you want someone to have to walk on eggshells in front of their spouse for fear that the government could compel their spouse to rat them out for even thinking about the most minor offenses, or blowing off steam with figures of speech?

Why should the government “get out of marriage” but not “get out of birth”? Or, why are there government birth certificates? If you say birth certificates help protect a child’s rights, I maintain that a marriage license also does this. The natural process of birth is almost always preceded by a natural joining of a man and a woman, no matter how temporary. The paperwork deals with these realities.

No state in the union created marriage. States have simply recognized and recorded something that already existed, because such unions bring together both sexes, create a new unit that is the basic building block of families and society, usually join two families, and usually create the next generation of citizens. Abandoning state marriage licensing would only “get the government out of” an extremely tiny percentage of marriages - ones that never involve children, last until both spouses die simultaneously, never involve one spouse being unable to make their own medical decisions, etc. In reality, getting rid of state marriage licenses would bring more government into our lives, because marriage licenses are a paperwork shortcut.

Leftists who say “get the the government out of marriage” are like abortion advocates who want to implement King Solomon’s “solution” of cutting the baby in half. Are we, as a society, to say that people who do not want to be married by clergy or are unable to find willing clergy (perhaps Atheists or noncongregants of whatever sort) should not be able to get married? No more marriages by judges, justices of the peace, or other secular officials?

As written by DarwinCatholic:

The state cannot duck the situation, because arbitrating property disputes is one of its most basic purposes, and determining who constitutes a household is one of the basic elements of resolving property disputes.

As James Joyner put it:

Now, I suppose we could replace it with a set of complicated contracts:  wills, powers of attorney, adoptions, and so forth.  But that would be much more burdensome than a single legal act that solves the issues.  And there’s always the chance of sudden death that puts things into legal limbo before the parties would have an opportunity to execute a particular contract.  Say, one parent dies during childbirth or just before.  Now, custody is a non-issue if the couple is married.   If the parents were in a mere business relationship consecrated by a series of contracts, it would be murkier and require legal wrangling at a particularly emotional time.

Presumably, all of that’s solvable.   But, essentially, you’d be re-creating civil marriage under another name.   Which seems rather pointless, since we already have it.

The state gets involved in marriage because it unites a man and a woman in the kind of a relationship that naturally creates new citizens, even if not every single relationship does. The state is involved because of biological realities, not because of claimed attractions or love. The state and society simply do not have the same interest when there is no bride or there is no groom, and that is why brideless or groomless pairings were not considered or recognized as marriage in any culture in history, even ones where homosexual behavior was openly accepted and celebrated. 

Why a Gay Man Would Vote Republican

Something Leftists Democrats will often say is "Why would a gay person vote Republican?"

I can think of many reasons why.

Maybe the person cares more about...

1) American values and the American Trinity (Liberty, E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust)
2) the economy
3) government (taxpayer) debt
4) government employee pension reform
5) rewarding instead of punishing private sector success
6) free markets
7) fiscal responsibility and sustainability
8) monetary policy
9) decreasing dependency on the government
10) economic liberty
11) private property rights
12) tax policy and reform
13) Constitutionally-limited government
14) Federalism
15) judicial restraint and strict constructionism
16) tort reform
17) education reform
18) protecting human life
19) protecting crime victims and holding criminals accountable
20) reformative and restorative justice and reducing crime
21) personal defense and Second Amendment rights
22) national defense
23) religious freedom
24) strong families and parental authority/responsibility

...and any number of other things than:

1) voting as part of a lockstep groupthink support for pandering politicians who divide the American people into different groups based on skin color, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

2) making sure that everyone is comfortable with - and affirming of -  everything a homosexual person does

3) reorganizing everything to make sure homosexual behavior is depicted and affirmed in each and every area of everyone’s life

4) neutering all state marriage licensing through judicial intrusion

In short, they care about other things more than whether or not a politician cheers the fact that a man gets his jollies with another man.

If our nation goes into decline because of fiscal irresponsibility, too much dependency rather than productivity, too much federal government micromanaging of our lives and businesses, identity politics balkanization, or ineffective national defense, things like whether Harvey Milk has enough space in grade school textbooks is going to be the least of a homosexual person’s worries.

The original question presumes that Republicans or Republican policies are "anti-gay". There are some Republicans who do not like people because they are homosexual, but there are some Democrats like that, too. Where in the national GOP platform is anything that is against homosexual people? Affirming that marriage = bride+groom and that such marriages are the ideal for raising children is in no way a knock on homosexual people – it is simply recognizing the difference between men and women and therefore a difference between the pairing of a man and a woman and the pairing of two men or two women. Are there any more Republicans than Democrats elected to major office (Congress, Governor) who have expressed hatred for homosexual people?

Republicans are against bullying and against violence to an innocent person or their property, regardless of their sexual orientation. I’m not aware of any prominent Republican with any power who wants to prevent homosexual people from having the freedom of association.

There are homosexual Republicans, and there are heterosexual Republicans who support many parts of the Leftist homosexual agenda. There are Republicans who want to improve things for "the gay community" through other means than judicial fiat.

So there shouldn't be anything confusing about why a homosexual person would vote for Republicans.

But the Leftist Democrats do this with all of the groups to which they pander with identity politics, including African Americans, Latino Americans, and Vaginal Americans. They identify someone by one aspect of their personal identity and tell that person they have to support Democrats... as if that person can't think for themselves and the only thing that matters about that person is what someone else is going to do for them based on their skin color or genitals or their genitals being the same as their partner's.

What Is the Harm of Neutering Marriage?

Why should I care about "protecting marriage?" Who cares if a couple of guys want to marry each other? What’s the harm? How does this hurt my/your marriage? They've had same-sex marriage licensing in [a state our country] for [x] years, and isn’t the place still there? Have things fallen apart? When has a member of the clergy ever been forced to perform a wedding against his or her will?
These are questions that are often asked of those who stand up to defend marriage from being neutered.

However, in most places, it isn't up to us to demonstrate that there will be harm. The burden of convincing falls on the people asking for change. The federal government and all but a handful of states recognize marriage as uniting the sexes, so in those cases, it is those who want to neuter marriage who must demonstrate why doing so would be of overall net benefit to society. While a marriage license may solve practical challenges for a brideless or groomless couple, those issues can be addressed without neutering state marriage licensing.

The universal understanding of marriage has been that it unites a bride and a groom. Only recently, in a few places, has there been deviation from this concept.

With that in mind, let's examine the questions.

Why should I care about "protecting marriage?" 

Married People a Smaller Percentage of the Population

It's all over the news that there are supposedly now more "single" adults than married adults, or something worded similarly, and this is the first time in the history of the country things have been this way.

First, we need clarity of what actually exists. The statistics include the population down to sixteen years of age. Those are "adults"? Really? And what counts as "single"? Someone who is shacking up is not really single, are they, especially if they have children and financial accounts with their partner?

I'm sure most the change that has created this snapshot has to do with things like 1) people getting married for the the first time at older ages, 2) divorce, and 3) people living longer divorced or widowed.

Some of it, though, no matter how small, has to come from men who've gone on a "marriage strike", and I expect that to have an increasing effect on the statistics, even if in the end, many of the men end up with their strike just being a delay and not a lifelong standoff. The men who've joined the marriage strike are a diverse group, ranging from hedonists to devout conservative Christians who have come to the conclusion that legally-sanctioned marriage is something to be avoided.

Hedonists are increasingly realizing that they can get more sex, and with a variety of women to boot, if they do not marry, often without any obligation or jumping through any hoops. Hedonists (or anyone who has no moral/spiritual concerns about unmarried sex) can now get literally everything they want without ever marrying, without suffering (and often benefiting) professionally and socially. Others, such as the religiously devout, would rather be chaste and go through life "alone" than take on what they see as the risks, harms, restrictions, and burdens of marriage. Marriage strikers range from those who try to have as little interaction with women as possible (including in the workplace) to those who will do everything with women except legally marry them.

No small part of why these people have gone on a marriage strike has to do with the family laws and courts:

• unilateral no-fault divorce
• community property laws combined with the fact that most men do/will earn the majority, if not all of the income during the marriage financially punishes men for marrying
• alimony requirements (lifetime, in some places!)
• child custody and support issues
• presumed paternity and paternity fraud
• domestic violence response by law enforcement being at the point where a man can get physically assaulted by his wife and be the one to go to jail and permanently kicked out of his own home while still required to pay for it

Strictly speaking legally, if a husband earns more than his wife, as most husbands do, the only benefit a man gets from marrying is, in most places, default paternity status over his children. This, of course, is assuming he wanted children in the first place. Such automatic assignment of paternity saves him a little effort/expense as otherwise he'd have to sue for the designation. However, how many men have been unjustly denied access to their children by the mother moving away or orchestrating false abuse allegations? Meanwhile, a woman gets certain financial benefits/guarantees for being a wife, via the force of law.

There is probably some legislation that could ease at least some of the concerns of marriage strikers. The problem is, it is a certainty that introducing such legislation would be met with shrill shrieks of being part of some nefarious conspiratorial "war on women". That's a great fundraising tactic for certain politicians and abortion advocates.

Especially since it is increasingly becoming a legal principle that marriage is about the feelings of adults rather than what benefits children or society, I expect the statistical trends to continue, meaning we'll see the percentage of the adult population legally married at any given moment continue to shrink. After all, why bother to get or stay married to raise your own children, since marriage "isn't about children"?

This is not a matter to be ignored by Republicans. Married women are far more likely to vote Republican than women who aren't married. One reason is that many unmarried women, while claiming to be "independent", are very dependent on government programs and thus male taxpayers they don't even know, and Democrats promise more government programs. I suspect another reason is that Republican women are generally far more attractive and thus more likely to attract a husband.

Time For Education to Evolve

Maybe you've heard of a recent poll about how a significant percentage of the American population "rejects evolution". I'm wary of polls, especially in the matter of origins, because the same words mean different things to different people. Anyway, it reminded of this piece I wrote many years back:

= = = = =

Every once in a while, the elites in the scientific circles give a "reminder" to the elites in the academic circles, and the drive-by media barely touches on the story. The portrayal of the story comes across as simply something along the lines of "Don't teach religion in science classes" and that "Evolution is true, and anything that sounds a little different is bogus."

This is happening again right now.

The problem is that the news media stories are too short to fully describe the situation and to define terms. This latest round referred to a report that seemingly stressed how we need to educate students in a way that will allow them to effectively fight mutating diseases, and that's why we have to present a unified philosophical naturalism in science curriculum in order to do that.

When the term "evolution" is used, it needs to be defined.  Are we talking microevolution?  Are we talking macroevolution?  Are we talking philosophical naturalism, which is a philosophy?  We we taking about homo sapiens emerging from  less advanced hominids?  Are we talking about living organisms arising from nonliving materials?

When using the term "creationism", do they mean young-earth Biblical creationism?  Do they mean the idea that something outside the universe could have been responsible for some things within the universe - Biblical God or not?  Defining "intelligent design" as synonymous with Biblical creationism does a disservice to students. While Biblical creation could be considered a form of intelligent design, not all intelligent design constructs fall within a straightforward interpretation of Biblical descriptions of origins.

The term "intelligent design" should not be banned from serious consideration in public schools.  We engage in intelligent design all of the time these days, such as with genetic engineering. Nor should the reality of "irreducible complexity" be ignored. While presenting macroevolution as true, the schools should at least boldly own the fact that "since" it is true, irreducibly complex organisms and systems must have therefore evolved via punctuated equilibrium, and that this phenomenon happened many, many times. All the interconnected parts must have emerged fully developed (or at least developed enough to provide a beneficial function) in an instant. So what if that would make philosophical naturalism seemed far-fetched? These are science classes, not philosophy classes, and we need to be true to the empirical evidence, right? Finally, both the major disputes between various evolutionary hypotheses and the serious unanswered questions about some or all of these constructs should also be presented.  After all, aren't we trying to inspire the students to move science forward?

I recall biology and life science curriculum up through high school to be mostly about the present-day functions of organisms and organs, life cycles, reproduction, and so forth. I hardly recall any teachings about mutating diseases. That belongs in higher education, it would seem. However, the reality of mutating diseases is in no way contradictory to supernaturalism, creationism, intelligent design, or irreducible complexity. In fact, mutating diseases fall right in line with many of their constructs. So, in theory, it would be entirely possible for a student to graduate from higher studies a creationist and still be effective at fighting mutating diseases.

So really, the latest hubbub seems to be pointless to me. And since I believe in separation of state and school, we really shouldn't need to spend so much time debating what should be taught in the schools.  Send your own children to the schools you think best. Keep your hands off of my children.

What Neutering Marriage Did to Massachusetts

It's the state with the longest time of having marriage licenses neutered.

We're Freaks - We Want a Decent Education For Our Kids

Have you ever noticed that homeschoolers are portrayed as freaks for homeschooling?

Yeah, I'm a freak.  I'm a freak because my wife and I are homeschooling our kids.


I'm a freak because I think it is better for my children to be educated and supervised by an R.N. who is smart as a whip, loves them more than anything else in the world, and can immediately and effectively discipline them without red tape. We don't want them sitting in a room with a teacher who is a pervert, or burnt out, or powerless, overwhelmed and a captive to a union, or worse yet, believes all of the junk the union promotes and hasn't been fired because of the union. We don't want them sitting a room with a bunch of disruptive kids who have no parental supervision and were "raised" by hired help, such as a "day orphanage", or have chaotic home lives involving stepparents, stepsiblings, or a revolving door of their parents' lovers.

We want our kids to be "socially retarded", by denying them the opportunity to fornicate in a full classroom or at a school dance on the dance floor, or to learn the latest combination of derogatory terms, or the latest lies, excuses, and techniques kids are employing to subvert teacher and parental authority. We want  them to have a little more trouble contacting the drug dealers in the schools.


We don't want to fight over uniforms or no uniforms, or dress codes where our child can't wear a t-shirt reflecting his or her religious beliefs but is ineffective at keeping girls from dressing like "hos".


We don’t want to deal with endless appeals for money or employing my child as a shill to raise funds, even though we're already paying plenty in taxes to fund the school.


We don't think "one size fits all" or even very few sizes fits all. Frankly, my kids are smarter than most their age.


We don't want our kids to have to deal with bullies who are not removed from the school after proving themselves to be thugs. In the adult world, the bullies get fired from the workplace.


We don't want to deal with endless PTA and school board squabbles.


We don't want to fight over class placement.


We don't want to fight with administrators over testing methods, or the content or method of textbooks or curricula, including material that attacks our faith, asserts philosophical naturalism, promotes pagan or New Age concepts and practices, embraces environmental alarmism, twists history, bashes America and its founders, denies the positive Judeo-Christian influence in this nation's history, or denies the Bible's influence on government, law, and the arts.


We don't want to fight over which languages will be taught, or the emphasis, funding priorities, or other decisions applied to electives, sports, physical education, arts courses, etc.


We don't want to fight over the content of assemblies.


We don't want our kids to have to use substandard facilities, especially dirty restrooms.


We want our children to know that getting the right answer the right way and applying it to the right uses, and other accomplishments is the key to self-esteem, not touchy-feely motivational programs about how they're "okay" no matter how badly and often they screw things up when they should know better.


We want to be able to let our kid know when he or she gets a wrong answer – with a red marker even, and help them figure out how to get the right answer instead of telling them the wrong answer is okay.


We don't want to fight over the food offerings and quality at the school.


We don't want to fight over reading selections and whether or not they include enough works from obese disabled crossdressing lesbian Buddhist Marxists of color.


We don't want to fight over the nature and amount of homework.


We don't want to have to structure our lives around the school's schedule, or fight over extending the school year or school day. We want to spend time with our kids.


We don't want to fight over what to call vacations and activities clearly scheduled around Christian holidays, or struggle to allow our kids to express their celebration of those holidays.


We don't want our children prevented from citing, referencing, or mentioning the Bible or Jesus Christ in their schoolwork.



We don't want to fight over school prayer, or the even the school mascot.


We don't want our children being taught the bogus notion that disapproving of a behavior or disagreeing with an opinion makes someone intolerant or bigoted. We don't want them subjected to speech codes with which we disagree.


We don't want our grade-schooler accused of sexual harassment for hugging someone.


We don’t want someone else teaching our children in a way that normalizes fornication when we're raising them to value the sacredness of marital lovemaking.


We don't want school officials aiding and abetting statutory rape by taking our daughter to get an abortion without our knowledge.


We don't want our children being taught that homosexual sodomy is no different from heterosexual coitus, or that there is no difference between a couple of both sexes and a couple missing one of the sexes.



We don't want our children being taught that if they have some sort of emotional or psychological difficulty, that they must be homosexual or are really the opposite sex and should have body parts lopped off.


We don't want our children taught relativism, postmodernism, or multiculturalism, or otherwise subvert what we're teaching them.


We want to teach our children with an integrated, logical, consistent worldview, to judge people based on their actions as individuals, that it is good to have traditional values and to make moral judgments, that not all religions, customs, or cultures are the same or equivalent, that some actions AND ideas are evil or just plain stupid, and that feelings can change, can be managed, and don't necessitate action.


We know better what's best for our child than lawmakers in Sacramento and Washington D.C, who want to micromanage.  I see all of these battles over every aspect of public schooling as arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  The government should get out of the education business, and I vote against using any more tax money (including bonds) for public schools.


I respect school teachers, I really do.  I had some great ones myself and I have family members who are or have been school teachers. Almost all of my formal education was in public schools. But times have changed too much, and especially in California, the public schools have far too many problems.


Plus, I know my kids will not get shot at home.

The Heart of the Marriage Neutering Issue

David Whiting of the Orange County Register wrote a piece on neutering marriage and that prompted some letters from readers which the paper was willing to print.

Russ Neal of Huntington Beach:

Legalizing same-sex marriage means that people objecting to this transgression will be compelled to treat it as legitimate.

This is at the heart of the issue. It isn't just that someone who objects to homosexual behavior will be forced to endorse it. We will all, whether we have a moral objection to homosexual behavior or not, be forced to treat brideless and groomless pairings and marriage identically. State marriage licenses are issued on our behalf. The marriage neutering advocates don't want us to even have a word that notes there is a difference. It would be official government policy that there is not. Public schools (and many other schools, if not all) would be prevented from teaching that marriage is different from this pseudomarriage, and homosexuality advocates would be unrestrained in pushing their worldview in the schools as official curriculum. Parents would have no ability to opt their child out. Adoption agencies would not be able to give preference to placing children with a home that is inclusive of both sexes. No government agency, nothing associated with a government program or funding, would be allowed to make a distinction, unless of course it was to somehow provide a targeted advantage to same-sex couples. Soon after, no business, private employer, or private property owner would be allowed to make any distinction.

If California's constitutional amendment (Proposition 8) was allowed to stand, and California's domestic partnership and other laws were kept in place, same-sex couples would retain their treatment as spouses by the state government and everyone else, including businesses, could treat them as spouses. They're free to draw up legal paperwork, have ceremonies, change names, exchange rings, live together, share a life, and call themselves married. But the rest of us would not be forced to ignore the inherent difference between marriage and pseudomarriage.

Neutering Marriage Devalues and Discourages Marriage

 ...and that is bad for children and therefore bad for society.



Some marriages are arranged. Most in our country aren't. Some are about love, some are about lust, some are about money. Some are about class. Marriage is about many things, but from a societal interest, it is – and always has been - about forming a microcosm of society for the purpose of perpetuating it. It is about joining the two sexes and providing any offspring with both a mother and a father – and that has been the universal core of marriage throughout all of human history.

In other words, licensed marriage on its most basic and level is about children.

But when laws are passed (or, in California and some other states, a court decision is issued) neutering marriage licensing, so that two men or two women can legally be designated as “married”, this is a statement that marriage, as an institution, can't be about children – because it takes both a woman and a man to make a child. Some marriages may be about children, but marriage in and of itself can't be about children - if there is a right for any two people to have a licensed marriage. Court rulings neutering marriage make the statement that licensed marriage is about feelings, or benefits, or hospital access, or any number of things that have been cited by marriage neutering activists - all of which can be addressed without a marriage license.

If marriage can't be about children, a disconnect is created in the public consciousness between marriage and raising children. Even libertarian atheist Tom Leykis, who insists that there is no benefit for a man to get married - that men can get everything they want without marriage - states that marriage benefits children. Do we really want official public policy that makes it clear that marriage is not about children?

Although we are already experiencing a significant level of illegitimacy (thanks to a disconnect between sex and marriage), divorce (thanks to a disconnect between commitment and marriage), blended families rife with jealousy, insecurity, and confusion, and a disconnect between coitus and reproduction (thanks to IVF), we still have a society that expresses that it is ideal to raise children within a marriage that created or adopted them and associates marriage with children. Except in gay circles, when someone says "We got married," one of the first questions people ask is "When do you plan on having children?" Paternity is, in many places, assigned to husbands by default when their wife births a child, even if she could have conceived the child by another man. Ex-husbands often pay child support for children that where there before he ever met their mother. Child support is expected from an ex-spouse even if the other ex-spouse is financially capable of providing for the child without assistance. Even many people who cohabitate and procreate out of wedlock get married, in large part, “for the sake of their children.”

Why?  Because children do best with a both a mother and a father, even more so if they are married to each other, and it takes both a male and a female to create children. Whether by design or as a consequence of evolution, children do best in having both that male and female parental authority as a model and with whom to bond. That child will, throughout her life, interact with both males and females. Even if you believe that our existence and the way we reproduce are sheer meaningless accidents, that socialization is important to perpetuating society in the best conditions.

Most, if not all, of the people who deny this appear to be motivated not by what is best for children or society, but what is wanted by some homosexuality advocates, fornicators, and divorced people politically and socially. Someone who wants a child but doesn't have a spouse (of the opposite sex) will try to justify their actions, and those who think a marriage license will bring their relationship and themselves whatever (approval, benefits, etc.) they are seeking will likewise deny the importance of having both a mother and father (1).

If marriage is about children, then it ought to be restricted to the kind of unions that can produce children (2). If it isn't about children, then it should be about whatever else benefits society.  Marriage neutering advocates say that purpose is creating stability in "sexual" relationships.  But that is in conflict with their own insistence that sexual behavior between two consenting adults is a private matter in which the state should not be involved.

If we are going to continue down this path of neutered marriage licensing, we should expect higher illegitimacy rates and perhaps increased divorce rates and/or lower marital rates (3), because there will be less of an association between child-rearing and marriage. If marriage is not about children, then a husband should feel no guilt in leaving the mother of his child if he feels she has neglected her vows. If our statistical analyses do not make the distinction between bride-groom marriages and other unions, then we can also expect a statistical increase in "marital" domestic violence, substance abuse, infidelity, and physical and mental health issues, as these are acknowledged issues of increased frequency in the "homosexual community". That would be something else that would make licensed marriage less attractive, along with the presence of or desire for children being less of an incentive.

If we are going to continue down this path where marriage isn't about children, then we should at least be consistent and not assign default paternity to husbands, or require child support if the custodial parent earns enough to provide for a child, or require stepparents (almost always fathers) to provide child support in the event of a divorce. This can probably have applications to inheritance laws, too.

I agree that the government should not be policing the bedroom. I can understand why we have no-fault divorce laws. But the government does have an interest in licensing bride-groom marriage that it doesn't have with same-sex couples. Citizens are better off if they have been raised within a lasting marriage with both a father and a mother, and less likely to commit crime or be dependent on welfare. We must not yield this beneficial construct to be sacrificed on the altar of homosexual esteem for those who seem to neurotically need the endorsement of their relationships by others. We must not allow marriage to be devalued by denying the core universal thread that has made marriage what it is.

Marriage may be about love, but it is primarily about children, and giving them a mother and a father.

(1) Neutered marriage licensing under the guise that same-sex couples have a “right” to marry will make it impossible for adoption agencies, social workers, fertility clinics, laws, and courts to give any preference to bride+groom couples over same-sex couples in placing children (or academia or others from presenting bride+groom couples as the norm or ideal). The advocates of this “equality” cite flawed studies to support their claim that there is no difference to children if they are raised by two men, two women, or a man and a woman, as long as it is two "parents". There are two ways to demonstrate that this must be false: A) If “two parents”, regardless of sex, are better than one, then point out that surely three parents would be preferable to two, and four preferable to three, and so forth, and ask if preference should be given to the largest group parenting arrangement over “couple parenting”, and; B) The homosexual person knows there is a difference between men and women - and therefore mothers and fathers - when it comes to personal relationships. Otherwise, the homosexual personal could just as easily be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.

(2) Yes, not all bride+groom couples choose to or can create children, but they are the only kind that can without the aid of a third party, while no same-sex couples have ever been able to create children alone. Regardless, bride+groom couples still form a microcosm of society by uniting the sexes, and we do not check fertility status of marriage license applicants as that would be a violation of privacy.  Indeed, sexual orientation is not a criterion either.

(3) The countries that have neutered their marriage licensing tend to be countries where marriages don't last as long, fewer people bother to marry, and children are more likely to be born out of wedlock. Although correlation does not prove causation, it is clear that the culture of these societies don't esteem marriage or raising children within marriage as much as ours - should we be striving to be more like them when it comes to marriage licensing? Results from marriage neutering are likely to be generational, and since no country had neutered their licensing as of 15 years ago, we have yet to fully experience the social effects.

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.

Schools Aren't Required to Teach Marriage

That was the response given by the "No on Prop 8" side in their ads, trying to counter the "Yes on Prop 8" ads saying that same-sex "marriage" will be taught in public schools. (Proposition 8, of course, WAS passed and thus amended the California constitution.)

If you wanted a case study in bad argumentation, "schools aren’t required to teach about marriage" would be a good one.

I originally had considered this more in light of polls that predicted Prop 8 would be defeated, and wondering how we can hold the marriage neutering and homosexuality advocates to their word should Prop 8 fail.  After all, they said over and over again that they won't interfere with churches and freedom of religion (but well after Prop 8 was voted up, they did attack churches, including the Crystal Cathedral) and that they won't push marriage neutering ideology in the schools.

Oops – no they didn’t.  They’ve said "schools aren’t required to teach marriage".  That’s a far different thing than "schools won’t be teaching same-sex marriage".

Now, none of their ads could be used in a court cases as binding promises, so they could misdirect, use weasel words, and lie up and down, because when it comes down to it, none of it would matter – in court – after the election, nor would it matter after SCOTUS rules. With Prop 8, the California Marriage Amendment in place, and other laws like it on other states, it will be easier for parents to shield their children from marriage neutering propaganda. Without it, it will be much more difficult, if not impossible.  However – we can still socially shame the marriage neutering side by exposing them as liars, and that might help in some future battles. Although, they seem to have no shame.

The most honest response the "No" side (the marriage neutering side) could have given to the "Yes" side's playing of the "school" card is: "Of course same-sex marriage will be taught in schools – why shouldn’t it be? We think that is a good thing."

But the "No" side knew that too many voters would be persuaded to the "Yes" side if they made that admission. So they were misleading people, knowing that all they needed was the "No" vote (or an activist court) and they wouldn't have to bother with as many costly court fights, and wouldn't be held to their word in a legal sense. The fact that they are liars and deceivers will have no legal consequences for them.

Let's consider how ridiculous it is to say "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage."

Let’s assume that the statement is factually true to the letter of the law. There’s no requirement that I put gasoline or any fuel into my automobile. There is no requirement that I earn income. There is probably no requirement that our schools teach that George Washington was the first President under this Constitution. But if I want to drive my automobile anywhere, I need fuel.  If I want to pay my bills, I need to earn income. If we're going to teach history, it would absurd not to teach about George Washington.

The sentence could also be considered incomplete. "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage…unless they teach sex education."  Ninety-six percent of the schools in California did in 2008.

How could schools not teach marriage?  Marriage is the basic building block of society.  There are going to be mentions of marriage in civics, political science, history, economics, home economics, health, social studies, sociology, psychology, biology, literature, comparative religion, art – and who knows what else.  Should the example of marriage not be used in any word problems in mathematics, in learning languages, in grammar instruction? Are the personal lives of teachers and school staff never going to be discussed – as in a teacher mentioning his wife?

Well, maybe the mention of marriage will be removed as much as possible. Notice that the "No" side didn’t use the words "gay" or "homosexual" or "same-sex" in their statement that "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage." So they weren’t saying that "Schools aren’t required to teach same-sex marriage." Because if marriage is discussed in a public (state) school, of course the marriage neutering activists are going to make sure that it is discussed according to official state policy – which, with the state marriage licensing neutered, is that there is no difference between natural marriage and neutered marriage.

The only way to get around that is to not discuss marriage at all.  They could offer to do just that – essentially ban the word "marriage" from the classroom. For some of the Left, that might be exactly what they want anyway. After all, doesn’t promoting or esteeming marriage hurt the feelings of those who choose not to marry, or have been unable to find a willing spouse?  And so, "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage" seems to me to possibly be a veiled offer to "compromise", like when someone is counterfeiting your branded merchandise and they offer to "compromise" with you.

We do want marriage taught in our schools – natural, historic, bride+groom marriage. Why?  Because strong marriage correlates to a strong society. The more children raised within marriage, the better off society is.

Finally, I’ll focus on the word "required".  Since when have the homosexuality advocates – or just about anyone on the Left - ever waited for permission, let alone a requirement? They go ahead and do everything they can to indoctrinate anyone else – including children – unless they are somehow barred from doing so. They think it is better to beg (often insincerely) forgiveness than ask permission. Actually, they think it is better to accuse you of being a bigot than beg forgiveness.

That is one reason why we argued in favor of Prop 8. It The California Marriage Amendment, like laws in other states, gives parents more of a possibility of barring the indoctrinators from lecturing their child, at least when it comes to marriage.

Since I first wrote these thoughts on the day that Proposition 8 was voted up and the California constitution amended, the Leftist California lawmakers adopted a requirement that school textbooks highlight the "contributions" of "LGBT" persons. Apparently, if someone invented something, it makes a difference whether he was attracted to women or men. I'm certain that one of those "contributions" will be the drive to neuter marriage. So, Judge Walker, who it appears to me and many others, acted unethically to attack the California constitution, would be featured positively for his work in neutering marriage. This legislation alone proves how dishonest the marriage neutering advocates were and still are.

Why Marriage Matters

What is the purpose of licensing marriage?

Why Just Two?

Many marriage neutering advocates tell us, even though they insist that marriage isn't about children, that all that matters is that a child has two parents in the home.


Where do they get this number?

Is it Possible to Truly Achieve "Marriage Equality"?

Much of existing family law is predicated on marriage being something that involves both a husband and a wife, as it has been throughout history. If we are truly to have "marriage equality" so that the voluntary association of two men or two women must be treated, under law, exactly the same as natural marriage, I'm curious as to how this would work in the following areas:

Adoption – Same-sex couples would have just as much standing to adopt as a bride-groom couple, correct? Some people who devalue either masculinity or femininity, fatherhood or motherhood, and devalue sex-integration don't see this is a problem, but I think most people do, even if they support neutering state marriage licensing. This reality has meant that Catholic adoption agencies, in order to be true to their convictions, have had to cease operations in states with neutered licensing.

Paternity Assumption – In a bride-groom couple, for the protection of the child (and to keep the state from being on the hook for child support), the groom is considered the legal father by default of any child born to the bride. Would the non-carrying lesbian be considered the default parent of a child her partner carries, whether or not she agreed to the pregnancy, and regardless of how that pregnancy was accomplished? If not, then neither should a groom. Would a lesbian woman be held accountable if it turns out that her partner is secretly bisexual and turns up pregnant?

Child Custody - Women are often given preference over men in child custody matters, even when the man begs for custody. How would this work when it comes to same-sex couples who are being divorced? Would fathers being divorced from mothers gain more from this? Would the biological parent, if any, be favored? If not, what implications would that have when it comes to traditional stepfathers and stepmothers?

Child Support – Would the spouse who is not biologically related to the children still be forced to pay child support? It happens with bride-groom couples, but couldn't someone argue that they've never engaged in reproductive behavior and thus shouldn't be saddled with child support? If so, how could that argument be accepted while treating a groom being divorced from a bride equally (or will courts be forced to admit that homosexual sodomy and heterosexual coitus are not equivalent - and invade our bedrooms)? If there are two men, and one turns out to be bisexual or donates sperm, resulting in a pregnancy, is the other man's income to be included in figuring child support as happens when a bride and groom marry? (Yes, sperm donors have been held liable for child support.)

Abortion Rights - One woman gets pregnant, there is a split, the other woman - who has paid for the reproductive medical treatments, perhaps donated the eggs, and wants the children - sues to block abortion. Currently, a wife can get an abortion even if her husband objects. Will "gay rights" trump abortion rights? Oh, I can see the dilemma now! I suspect abortion rights will win that battle, especially if feminists realize that men could also use any precedent set.

Community Property was based on the idea that a marriage was creating a cooperative microcosm of society with a division of labor, more likely than not to raise children biologically related to both spouses, thereby perpetuating society. In order to treat all couples equally, would the concept of community property be diminished?

Alimony – Largely based on community property and division of labor, the concept has lost some importance with the equal access of women to the workplace. Again, would the concept of alimony be weakend? Surely, a man should not have to pay alimony because he married a woman while another man avoids paying it because he married another man? That wouldn't be equal.

Marriage Statistics - Would government agencies be allowed to collect, compile, and release statistics that distinguish between natural and neutered marriage? If not, marriage statistics could show marriage as being less favorable than they have in the past in terms of longevity (of the participants as well as the marriage), fidelity, domestic violence, poverty, mental health, positive effect on children, etc.

What has changed in Massachusetts and states that have subsequently neutered their licenses, and is the law still catching up? I don't see how we can neuter marriage licensing nationwide without it changing marriage for all, even those bride-groom couples who have been married for decades.

Remember – true equality works both ways. If highly noisy, persistent, and effective activist groups accomplish their goal of neutering marriage nationwide, what happens if they need to direct their energies to something new, especially if they discover things about state-licensed marriage that are not friendly to their subculture? I think we could kiss goodbye any hope of moving away from no-fault divorce. It would not surprise me if the "equality" groups were to subsequently demand taxpayer funding on-demand for all third-party reproduction. After all, many bride-groom couples can conceive for free. Shouldn't we correct this "inequality"?

I do not believe that the voluntary association of a man and a woman is the same kind of voluntary association as two women or two men, and I do not see a moral or legal obligation for the state to treat all three as the same. I see a state interest in licensing and encouraging natural marriage that is not met in either of the other two kinds of unions. It is obvious to me that what keeps same-sex "marriage" and natural marriage from being equal has less to do with state licensing requirement and more to do with the nature of the sexes and the differences between them.

The rights of children must be protected, as they do not consent to the circumstances of their birth, or the relationships their parents have. Whether marriage neutering gains or loses ground, we still have third-party reproduction, and something else should be put in place to protect the right of a child to both her mother and her father. Of course there will be instances in which, for the child's protection, access to one or both of her parents would have to be restricted or terminated, and redirected to an adoptive mother or father. But third-party reproduction has already deprived, by design, children of a mother or a father, and neutering marriage can only reinforce that.

Finally, is it really equality if there are still people who are prevented from marrying the other adults they love due to the circumstances of their birth or their sexual orientation? There are polyamorists who swear they are just as much polyamorist as they are gay, and cousins, who certainly didn't choose the circustances of their birth, who are not allowed to marry in many states. If marriage is based on the desires/feelings of the adults rather than the kind of union that can be procreative, what is the basis for limiting marriage licensing to just two particpants, or denying marriage licenses on the basis of consanguinity? Or, is marriage really based on the amount of hounding done by a lobby group?

(This is a modified version of a posting I originally published at The Opine Editorials.)

Hope For Anna Drive in Anaheim?

I haven't made a secret of my opinions on current events in Anaheim. I did see something I like from residents of Anna Drive, however. They told outside agitators By Any Means Necessary to stop hijacking their issue. Greg Hardesty and Eric Carpenter reported on this at the Orange County Register. If the people of Anna Drive have enough sense integrity to rebuff BAMN, maybe they can and will help kick out the gangs.

A planned march organized by a Los Angeles-based group from the Anna Drive neighborhood where a man was shot and killed by police July 21 fizzled Wednesday evening, with about 12 participants instead exchanging words with some residents who didn't want them there.

With TV cameras rolling and no police presence apparent, the group from BAMN, which advocates for social issues such as immigrant rights, started gathering about 5 p.m. near the spot where Manuel Diaz, 25, was shot after fleeing from officers, touching off days of civil unrest.

BAMN's lead organizer, Adam Lerman, 42, led his sign-carrying group off Anna Drive shortly before 7 p.m. after some locals said the neighborhood wants peace and quiet and that BAMN's presence was not welcome.

If they encourage illegal aliens, then they actually trample on the rights of immigrants, who should never be confused with illegal aliens.

"What are they doing here?" resident Yesenia Rojas said. "They don't even live here."

Good for her.

Community advocate Gloria Alvarado did not want BAMN members to interfere with a 7 p.m. prayer and rosary for Diaz.

Good for her.

Following a Latino and Catholic tradition, rosaries are being held for him for nine consecutive days that began Sunday.

And Diaz, from what should be clear from his behavior and statements about himself, was clearly a devout Catholic. </sarcasm>

Lerman told Alvarado, Rojas and other residents that his group wants to continue putting pressure on city leaders to get to the bottom of the shooting, which is being investigated by local and federal agencies.

Lerman wants attention more than anything. The investigations are going to take their course whether or not anyone else whines at this point.

We're Freaks - We Want a Decent Education For Our Kids

Have you ever noticed that homeschoolers are portrayed as freaks for homeschooling?

Yeah, I'm a freak. I’m a freak because my wife and I are homeschooling our kids.

I'm a freak because I think it is better for my children to be educated and supervised by an R.N. who is smart as a whip, loves them more than anything else in the world, and can immediately and effectively discipline them without red tape. We don't want them sitting in a room with a teacher who is a pervert feeding them semen-covered cookies or doing worse, or burnt out, or powerless, overwhelmed and a captive to a union, or worse yet, believes all of the junk the union promotes and hasn't been fired because of the union. We don't want them sitting a room with a bunch of disruptive kids who have never had parental supervision because their parent(s) is/are never around, stuck them in day orphanages almost from birth, and values material things more than raising their child or has made poor life decisions that has left them alone to earn for the child.