Archive

Archive for the ‘genderless marriage’ Category

No more husbands and wives

July 9th, 2014 Comments off

Under California law, there are no longer husbands and wives. Only spouses.

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. I have been saying this in debates for some time. A few years ago, I was in a debate at UCLA, with Prof Gary Gates of the Williams Institute. He took offense at the fact that I referred to his partner as well, as “partner.”  “He is not my partner. He is my husband!” Dr. Gates said indignantly.

To which I replied, “Dr. Gates, under the laws you advocate, there will be no husbands or wives. I won’t have a husband. No one will have a husband. Everyone will have generic “spouses.”  (His comment is around 42 minutes. My response is around 52 – 55 minutes. You can’t see his facial expression, but he did seem to be surprised by this news.)

Today it happened: Governor Jerry Brown signed into law, a bill that would remove the gendered terms from the law and replace

No more husbands and wives: thus saith The State, through the pen of Jerry Brown.

No more husbands and wives: thus saith The State, through the pen of Jerry Brown.

them with generic “spouse” terms.

Sex radical Mark Leno, is of course, delighted.

“I am pleased Governor Brown has recognized the importance of this bill, which makes it explicitly clear in state law that every loving couple has the right to marry in California,” Leno said. “This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender.”

Outdated and biased language. Sorry Gary Gates, you don’t get to have a husband and neither do I.

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.

 

 

Against religious liberty (arguments)      

June 28th, 2014 Comments off

I like religious liberty just fine, thank you very much. But I must say, I am tired of hearing the pro-family movement making religious liberty their primary argument against the Sexual Revolution. Too many of us have done this with the HHS Mandate (which amounts to creating a Contraceptive State) and Gay Marriage (which amounts to creating Genderless Marriage.)

I realize that we are poised for the US Supreme Court’s decision on the Hobby Lobby case on Monday. Still, I want to share my

I want YOU to take your FREE contraceptive pills!

I want YOU to take your FREE contraceptive pills!

objections to this rhetorical strategy:

First, religious liberty arguments do not address the underlying issue we are fighting about. We can make good rational, natural law arguments for our position, arguments that should be comprehensible to intelligent people of good will.

If we do not make such arguments, we sound as if we are dodging that issue. Some people on our side would rather talk about bakers and wedding photographers, than the real issue of why
marriage is the social institution that links the generations to each other, and that children have genuine rights that adult society ought to strive to respect.  Some people frame the HHS Mandate issue in terms of the harm to Christian employers and institutions, when the real question is HOW THE HECK DID THE STATE EVER GET IN THE CONTRACEPTION BUSINESS IN THE FIRST PLACE??!?!?!?!

Second, religious liberty is a losing argument. The Sandra Flukes and Dan Savages of the Read more…

Maybe childbearing will be outsourced?

June 27th, 2014 Comments off

Found this on Twitter today. Question: if there are really no gender roles, who will bear the children? Maybe that will be outsourced?

 

who will bear the children

If there are no gender roles, who bears the children?

 

Men and women are different. You can learn more about why men and women are different by ordering our brochure, “77 Non Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage.” It’s available as a PDF download, as well as a physical brochure. Learn how to counter the lies of the Sexual Revolution and order the brochure today.

Gender beyond the binary: implications for marriage

June 5th, 2014 Comments off

The legal recognition of new gender identities will further distance marriage from the natural family unit.

by Barend Vlaardingerbroek

A binary classification is one in which there are two, and only two, states in which a given entity may exist. Sex has long been such an entity, the two states in which it may be manifested being male and female. Nature occasionally presents us with individuals who do not fit in well with the binary schema in the form of genetic anomalies and morphogenetic quirks resulting in indeterminate sexual appearance; the standard response has been hormonal treatment and/or corrective surgery to assign such individuals to one of the two members of the binary set. Read more…

Dissecting Sexual Revolutionary Propaganda

May 29th, 2014 Comments off

As I have said many times in my speeches (available at the Ruth Institute podcast page), the Sexual Revolution is irrational and its goals are impossible.  Therefore, those committed to the Sexual Revolution must also commit themselves to a steady stream of propaganda to over-write the basic facts of reality. This sometimes includes the subtle or not-so-subtle rewriting of history.

Today’s exhibit in understanding Revolutionary Propaganda comes to us from the Religion News Service, which describes itself this way.

The Religion News Service aims to be the largest single source of news about religion, spirituality and ideas. We strive to inform, illuminate and inspire public discourse on matters relating to belief and convictions.

So I find it odd, to say the least, to find an organization with this mission, taking for granted the arguments of Sexual Revolutionaries in an article, described as an “analysis.”

Let me confine myself to one particularly noticeable re-writing of history.

Written by Kevin Eckstrom, the Editor in Chief of the Religion News Service, the article claims in the section called, “A problem of overreach:”

Conservative groups resisted moves to compromise on a half-measure like civil unions; (Tony) Perkins’ organization (Family Research Council) calls civil unions nothing more than “a slow-motion surrender.” And that, said veteran gay marriage proponent Jonathan Rauch, was a critical mistake.

The author provides no context for cultural conservative Perkins’ comment, and he gives pro-gay Jonathan Rauch the last word. By doing this, the author suggests that Perkins’ assessment is incorrect, without actually taking responsibility for proving this, or even stating that his assessment is incorrect. Read more…

Protect trees – but not the family tree?

January 10th, 2014 Comments off

by Helena Adeloju

Strange as it might seem, I would count wandering the graveyards of the evergreen Irish countryside with my best friend as one of my fondest memories of 2013. A trip, which possibly had its roots in our Irish dancing childhood, finally became a reality when we made it to the Emerald Isle together in July last year. Our shared fascination with our Irish heritage is what took us there, as well as a love all things Irish. Read more…

How redefining marriage threatens freedom of speech

August 14th, 2013 Comments off

by Alistair Nicholas

A pioneer of gay liberation has made it clear that the real goal is an assault on religious values.

Some months ago I somewhat reluctantly wrote on the subject of gay marriage. I argued at the time that the agenda of the gay lobby was not simply marriage equality but that the lobby (not individual gays) was preparing for an assault on religion. My concern has been borne out by an article by Dennis Altman, an internationally renowned academic and gay activist. In “Queer push for marriage”, which appeared recently in the Australian Financial Review, Altman makes it clear that the real target for the gay lobby is religion. Read more…

To the Log Cabin Republicans: Natural Marriage Policy is Best

August 8th, 2013 Comments off
By Jennifer Thieme, CP Op-Ed Contributor and Director of Finance & Advancement for the Ruth Institute.
This article was first published August 8, 2013, at ChristianPost.com.
Note: Ms. Thieme’s initial column on Log Cabin Republicans and Abraham Lincoln can be seen here. Gregory T. Angelo of the Log Cabin Republicans responded with a column that can be read here.

The Log Cabin Republicans did not address the central point I made, which is how same sex marriage changes the status between parents and their children. The claims for “marriage equality” pale in comparison to the vast transfer of authority from natural families to the state. It’s a case of the good being the enemy of the best. Read more…

New York Times Profiles Young Marriage Activists!

March 22nd, 2013 Comments off

The New York Times covers an often ignored story — the young men and women who are active in the fight to protect and promote marriage in politics and culture! Ryan Anderson, co-author of “What is Marriage?” and our Communications Director Thomas Peters were interviewed for this article, as were many inspiring young pro-marriage voices: Read more…

If two lesbians, why not two sisters?

March 19th, 2013 Comments off

by Carolyn Moynihan

If marriage is all about love, commitment and stability, why can’t I marry my sister?

New Zealand’s Marriage Act 1955 does not define marriage; no-one then thought it necessary to define what was self-evident, anywhere. As the agitation for same-sex marriage grew, however, the United States federal government passed the Defence of Marriage Act in 1996 defining marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, a move ratified by the majority of states. Read more…