Some of my Friends With Wrong Ideas (FrieWIs) keep a very close watch on me. I don’t feel a need to respond to every post. Every once in a while, however, they do me a favor. Take this audio clip posted over at Equality Matters, for instance. Posted with a breathless headline, “NOM’s Morse: Hate Crimes Laws are Anti-American, Limit Free Speech.” This headline is designed to brand me, before you, the reader/listener, even hear what I have to say. This is from an hour long interview I did with a blog radio host called Stacy Swimp. Equality Matters went to the trouble of pulling out this 5 minutes and making it into its own little post. Read more…
The Catholic Bishops of Maryland have issued a statement, “The Most Sacred of All Property: Religious Freedom and the People of Maryland.”
Despite its title, the principles it lays out and the examples it uses are applicable to the entire United States. People of all faiths, not just Catholics, will find it a helpful defense when faced with marriage and family issues.
Read it here.
Every October, sure as the leaves fall from the trees, pink ribbons and products blossom virtually everywhere you go. Breast Cancer Awareness Month has all the hallmarks of an effective public health campaign; people going about their regular routines can’t help but notice all the pink and – especially while shopping – be encouraged to contribute to the cause. During a friendly gathering last year, an acquaintance of mine wondered aloud why football players on the TV in the background were wearing pink on their uniforms. The answer soon came. Awareness had been raised. Everyone in the room voiced approval; who wouldn’t want to turn the tide on breast cancer? Read more…
Back in July, the California legislature passed SB 48. It mandates that all public schools must include positive discussions of the sexual orientations of transgender, bisexual, and gay Americans when teaching their contributions to history. This includes rewriting text books and using supplemental discussion materials. Read more…
by Charlie Butts
Yet another major corporation has fired a well-known leadership and teambuilding trainer for writing a book on how same-gender “marriage” causes harm.
Dr. Frank Turek is the author of Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone. First, Cisco Systems canceled a training contract with Turek even though the sessions had nothing to do with his views on same-gender marriage. Now, Bank of America has done the same — and in both cases, because one person complained. Read more…
Honestly, you really ought to stretch and warm up a bit before jumping to conclusions. You guys jumped so far and so hard, I’m worried you might hurt yourselves!
Vulgarity alert: don’t read this post out loud in front of your kids or your grandmother.
The news of a popular teacher in Florida losing his job over Facebook comments could have a chilling effect on free speech. As one of our commenters pointed out, the people of Florida do not agree that marriage is the union of any two persons. They voted quite decisively to protect the definition of marriage as the
union of a man and a woman. In other words, this teacher may lose his job for saying that he agrees with the legal definition of marriage in his state. Go figure.
So, let me say a couple of things that may one day, become illegal. In my humble opinion:
1. Kids need a mother and a father. Read more…
I’ve noticed that writing about symbols is a sure way to generate a lot of hate mail from my “feel the love” Friends With Wrong Ideas. But here goes anyway.
Regular Ruth Readers have heard me say many times that “equality” is not a stand-alone concept. The term “equality” needs a referent: who is equal to whom and in what context? If you don’t specify those basic parameters, the concept of equality means exactly nothing. It is similar to saying “mine’s bigger,” without saying “what exactly of yours are we talking about?” or “bigger than what?”
Evading this elementary problem of context is the heart of the rhetorical strategy of the advocates for so-called marriage equality. I have argued elsewhere that the “marriage equality” concept is nonsense. I’m convinced that treating same sex couples identically at law with opposite sex couples will create new forms of inequality in all the relationships that depend on or derive from marriage. Fathers of the children in lesbian relationships won’t be equal to other fathers; children of same sex couples won’t be equal to other children. And most recently, we’ve shown on this blog that biological mothers in sexual relationships with other women will not be treated equally with other mothers.
This is why “marriage equality” is impossible. The newly redefined institution either won’t be really equal for everyone, or it won’t be marriage.
But this is a complex set of arguments. They are time-consuming to explain and not easily amenable to sound bites. This is a big disadvantage for our side. But, as it happens, one of the leading marriage redefinition groups has come up with the perfect symbol for making this very point. Allow me to explain.
In mathematics, one never sees an equal sign standing all by itself. An equal sign will have something on either side of it, as in “2+2” on one side of the equal sign, and the numeral “4” on the other. Or, one might see a scientific law or formula using an equal sign, such as f=ma or MV=PQ. But an equal sign standing alone, with nothing on either side, means exactly nothing: a pair of horizontal lines of no special significance.
This naked equal sign is the perfect symbol for marriage “equality:” both are meaningless concepts. Both fail to specify the terms that would allow the concept to contain any meaning.
This is why I am grateful to the marriage redefinition organization that gives its supporters equal signs for bumper stickers. I’m sure they think they are striking a symbolic blow for “marriage equality.” But in fact, they are driving around with their mathematical and logical ignorance “proudly” on display.
There will be a hearing next Wednesday, June 22, on SB 48–the bill that would require California schools to teach, not merely the accomplishments of historical figures, but their sexual preferences as well. It would apply to students in kindergarten on up.
If you can’t attend the hearing, call your legislator.
From Bill May: Read more…