Archive

Archive for the ‘Marriage Redefinition’ Category

Married Rugby Buddies and the Point of Marriage

September 22nd, 2014 Comments off

Did you hear about the two young guys in New Zealand who got married to enter a contest to win rugby tickets? I wrote about them the other day. The contest was open to married couples. The two guys are not gay, but have been buddies since they were 6 years old.  They got married to be eligible to enter the contest.

Now some gay activists were indignant about this marriage. They claimed that it trivialized marriage itself and made a mockery of the efforts of gay activists to win marriage equality.  I agree with them, except for this point: removing the gender requirement already trivialized

BFF! Let's get married! Why Not?

BFF! Let’s get married! Why Not?

marriage.

But I will not press that point here. I want to ask a different question.

Q: Do you or I care whether these two rugby buddies stay married for a lifetime or divorce next year?  Does the public have any interest whatsoever in the success or failure of this particular friendship?

A: The public has no conceivable interest in what two men do together. Whether they are rugby buddies or golfing buddies or sodomy partners, the public couldn’t care less. (As a matter of fact, I don’t really want to know!)

Why then, does the public have any interest at all in the relationship called marriage? Read more…

Print Friendly

To Melanie Batley at HuffPo

September 16th, 2014 Comments off
Jennifer Johnson, Director of Outreach

Jennifer Johnson, Director of Outreach

 

Hi Melanie,

My name is Jennifer Johnson and I am the Director of Outreach at the Ruth Institute. Since you linked to an important document created by my organization in your post called, “Conservatives Can’t Be Pro-Marriage and Oppose Gay Marriage,” I would like to respond to you.

You said that you haven’t found a conservative to “give you a satisfactory answer” as to “how gay marriage tangibly undermines traditional marriage arrangements.” That’s unfortunate, and I’m not very surprised. However, this kind of answer is the kind of answer specialize in here at the Ruth Institute (which is no longer part of NOM, BTW).

Before I answer, let me pose a question, Melanie. Have you researched the precise manner in which gay marriage is implemented into the legal code? I would like to make a prediction: that you have not done this research. Very few have. What I have observed, instead, is that gay marriage supporters make an assumption. Their assumption goes like this: Read more…

Print Friendly

Rugby buddies get married: what’s the problem?

September 11th, 2014 Comments off

In this story from New Zealand, two male friends (who are not gay, by the way) are about to marry each other.  Part of their motive:

Engineering student Mr. McIntosh, 23, and teacher Mr. McCormick, 24, will tie the knot to win a “The Edge” radio station competition and a trip to the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England.

BFF! Let's get married! Why Not?

BFF! Let’s get married! Why Not?

Also, they really like each other. They have been best buds since they were six years old.  They expect the marriage to last at least 2 years.  Marriage has been an “easy in, easy out” proposition throughout the industrialized world since the advent of no-fault divorce. So why shouldn’t these guys get married for a chance to win a cool prize?

Gay rights groups are offended.

Otago University Students’ Association Queer Support coordinator Neill Ballantyne, of Dunedin, said the wedding was an “insult” because marriage equality was a “hard fought” battle for gay people. “Something like this trivializes what we fought for.”

Sorry Neill. No go. You evidently did not realize that when you changed the law, you changed it for everyone. Two men can get married for any reason they want.  The law does not require them to prove that they are actually “gay,” or that they “love each Read more…

Print Friendly

AB 1951, the “Gay Birth Certificate” bill

August 27th, 2014 Comments off

natural marriage limits the stateI have always tried to argue that there is a very serious civil outcome to redefining marriage, and it has nothing to do with religious liberty or the idea of “sacramental marriage.”

Since marriage is society’s primary way of acknowledging and understanding parenthood, redefining marriage redefines parenthood. Here in California, the affects of “SSM” and redefining parenthood are rapidly making their way through the legislature. Last year, Gov. Brown signed a bill allowing three or more legal parents for children, which was inspired by a “SSM” custody dispute.

Now we have this: AB 1951. This bill will change birth certificates to allow for a gender neutral option for parents. Gay couples will be able to list both of themselves on the child’s birth certificate. California recently did away with the terms “husband” and “wife,” because of “SSM,” and the lead legislator for that measure said that those terms were outdated and biased. I suppose we can infer the same thing for “mother” and “father.”  Read more…

Print Friendly

The Conservative Divide: It’s Deeper than Marriage

August 4th, 2014 Comments off
One man plus one woman = two legally recognized parents for children.

One man plus one woman = two legally recognized parents for children.

I believe that the divide between conservatives on the marriage issue runs deeper than marriage. Over on Ricochet, on Peter Robinson’s marriage thread, several times I asked a question that went something like this:

Does society have a duty to place a nature-based limitation on the number of legally recognized parents for children?

There is a specific reason I asked this question. When it comes to legally recognized parents for children, there is a divide between the socially conservative view and the libertarian view. In fact, I don’t believe there is a principled difference between the libertarian view and the extreme Left on this particular point. By “extreme Left” I am referring specifically to Melissa Harris Perry’s remarks that she made in about March or April of 2013: Read more…

Print Friendly

Debunking the “right side of history” claim

July 30th, 2014 Comments off

interracial marriage banIf you’re debating marriage with somebody and they bring up the interracial marriage ban (which was struck down by SCOTUS in a famous decision called Loving v. Virginia), show them this graphic and start talking about what the interracial marriage ban actually DID. 

The interracial marriage ban enforced the separation of men from women, based on race. It used marriage policy to keep the sexes away from each other, in certain instances.

Same sex marriage is doing something similar. It does not enforce a separation, but it does endorse  and foster a separation of men from women, based on sexual orientation. It is using marriage policy to encourage the sexes to separate from each other, in certain instances.

Same sex marriage supporters claim to be “on the right side of history.” But as Loving v. Virginia shows us, history did NOT side with those who were using marriage policy in order to separate the sexes from each other. Remind your debate opponent of this fact.

Print Friendly

My prediction about the Princeton Professors…

July 22nd, 2014 Comments off

Yesterday, I predicted that the debate between two Princeton professors would not broach what I consider to be the crucial questions on the marriage issue.

Princeton Professors duke it out over the definition of marriage.

Princeton Professors duke it out over the definition of marriage.

The opening salvo by Professor Emeritus James Doig seemed more concerned with catching Professor Robert George in some inconsistency than in really exploring what the redefinition of marriage might ultimately mean.

In my reaction to his article, I posed these question. I consider them the most crucial issues.

How will redefining marriage redefine parenthood? Are we happy with that redefinition? And do we really want to change the relationship between the State and the citizen in the way that this redefinition really entails?

And I predicted that the week-long exchange between the Princeton Professors would not address these issues.

Today’s response by Professor Robert George has many interesting arguments and ideas. But he does not remotely answer these questions.

Stay tuned. Maybe Professor Doig will take them up tomorrow.

I’m not holding my breath.

No one is doing what the Ruth Institute is doing: inspiring the Survivors of the Sexual Revolution to to recover from their negative experiences and share their stories with the young. Join us here.

 

Print Friendly

Porn addiction is as serious as drug addiction

July 2nd, 2014 Comments off

Is this what we have come to with the redefinition of marriage–that a man, a lawyer no less (not sure if that helps or harms my case) wants to legally marry his computer? The second part of this article speaks about the actual, physiological changes that occur in the brains of porn addicts. Spoiler alert: these changes are not good!

This article comes from Mercatornet.com.

BY NICOLE M. KING

The News Story – Florida man demands right to wed computer

A recent article in The Telegraph reports that a former lawyer, Chris Sevier, recently sought a marriage license to marry his Mac-book computer. In trying to argue his case, Sevier explained that he had become addicted to pornography via his computer, and so, “over time, [he] began preferring sex with [his] computer over sex with real women.” Read more…

Print Friendly

I had Masha Gessen’s dream of five parents… and it sucked

June 25th, 2014 Comments off
Around March of 2013 I came across the words of a prominent LGBT activist named Masha Gessen:
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

 

Imagine having five parents! Here’s what it means: it means going back and forth between all those households on a regular basis, never having a single place to call home during your most tender and vulnerable years. It means having divided Christmases, other holidays, and birthdays–you spend one with one parent, and another with the other parent, never spending a single holiday or birthday with both parents. Imagine having each of your parents completely ignore the other half of you, the other half of your family, as if it did not even exist. Meanwhile, imagine each parent pouring their energy into their new families and creating a unified home for their new children. These experiences give you the definite impression of being something leftover, something not quite part of them. You live like that on a daily basis for 18+ years.

Does this look like a fun way to spend your childhood?

As a child, would you choose a family structure advocated by Masha Gessen? Does this look fun?

 

I don’t have to imagine, because I had five parents. I had five parents because my mom and dad divorced when I was about three; my mom remarried once and my dad remarried twice. So I had a mom and two step-moms, and a dad and one step-dad. In this day and age children can already have five parents. That’s how badly marriage has deteriorated already. The main difference between what Gessen advocates and my experience is that my step parents were not legal parents; she advocates for all of the adults in her situation to be legal parents.

Read more…

Print Friendly

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…

Print Friendly