Tag Archives: Gay Marriage

Polemics

Ryan T. Anderson presents the case for natural / traditional marriage

Leave a comment
Does government provide incentives for people to get married?
What effects does redefining marriage have on society?

I spend Tuesday night working through 3 chapters of Anderson’s book “Truth Overruled”, so I thought I would re-post this old post on marriage.

A must-read long paper from the Heritage Foundation. It’s a great concise presentation of the reasons why the United States should not redefine marriage. (H/T A tweet from Ryan T. Anderson)

Abstract:

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.

Excerpt:

Supporters of redefinition use the following analogy: Laws defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman are unjust—fail to treat people equally—exactly like laws that prevented interracial marriage. Yet such appeals beg the question of what is essential to marriage. They assume exactly what is in dispute: that gender is as irrelevant as race in state recognition of marriage. However, race has nothing to with marriage, and racist laws kept the races apart. Marriage has everything to do with men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers and children, and that is why principle-based policy has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. The color of two people’s skin has nothing to do with what kind of marital bond they have. However, the sexual difference between a man and a woman is central to what marriage is. Men and women regardless of their race can unite in marriage, and children regardless of their race need moms and dads. To acknowledge such facts requires an understanding of what, at an essential level, makes a marriage.

And a bit later:

If the law taught a falsehood about marriage, it would make it harder for people to live out the norms of marriage because marital norms make no sense, as matters of principle, if marriage is just intense emotional feeling. No reason of principle requires an emotional union to be permanent or limited to two persons, much less sexually exclusive. Nor should it be inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands. This does not mean that a couple could not decide to live out these norms where temperament or taste so motivated them, just that there is no reason of principle to demand that they do so. Legally enshrining this alternate view of marriage would undermine the norms whose link to the common good is the basis for state recognition of marriage in the first place.

Insofar as society weakens the rational foundation for marriage norms, fewer people would live them out, and fewer people would reap the benefits of the marriage institution. This would affect not only spouses, but also the well-being of their children. The concern is not so much that a handful of gay or lesbian couples would be raising children, but that it would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter when it has redefined marriage to make fathers optional.

And one last one:

In fact, much of this is already occurring. Heritage Foundation Visiting Fellow Thomas Messner has documented multiple instances in which redefining marriage has already become a nightmare for religious liberty.[48] If marriage is redefined to include same-sex relationships, then those who continue to believe the truth about marriage—that it is by nature a union of a man and a woman—would face three different types of threats to their liberty: the administrative state, nondiscrimination law, and private actors in a culture that is now hostile to traditional views.[49]

After Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles.[50] Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes.[51]

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission prosecuted a photographer for declining to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony.” Doctors in California were successfully sued for declining to perform an artificial insemination on a woman in a same-sex relationship. Owners of a bed and breakfast in Illinois who declined to rent their facility for a same-sex civil union ceremony and reception were sued for violating the state nondiscrimination law. A Georgia counselor was fired after she referred someone in a same-sex relationship to another counselor.[52] In fact, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty reports that “over 350 separate state anti-discrimination provisions would likely be triggered by recognition of same-sex marriage.”[53]

This article is long and comprehensive. It will take some time to read. It’s includes logical arguments as well as empirical evidence from research – with footnotes. I really recommend taking a look at the article. Even if it takes a long time to read, it will definitely expand your mind to think about why we had a definition of marriage in the first place, and what we would lose by changing that definition. When you debate people who want to redefine marriage, it’s very important to appeal to logical arguments and evidence from studies. Get the conversation away from emotions and instead introduce facts and arguments.

You can get an even longer treatment in the new book by Ryan T. Anderson and his co-authors Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George. This is *the* book to get on the marriage issue.

Commentary

Conservatives in Ohio don’t support John Kasich

Leave a comment
John Kasich: dependency on big government is "compassionate"
John Kasich: dependency on big government is “compassionate”

I see that some people are voting for John Kasich, and I just thought that I should let people know that John Kasich is very far to the left on fiscal, social and foreign policy issues – the left of someone like Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush across the board.

I was going to write something about it, but then I found this article by a leader of the conservatives of Ohio.

The thing that everyone knows about Kasich is that he is a huge proponent of spending taxpayer money to “help” poor people. He’s never met a big government solution to a problem that he didn’t heartily embrace. He thinks that the right way to help the poor is not to use his own money to do it, it’s to take money from the private sector and redistribute it to others, after the unionized government workers take their cut out first.

Here’s an example, John Kasich supports expanding the role of government in providing health care:

  1. Governor Kasich on Obamacare: You advanced Obamacare in Ohio, turning over 600,000 healthy, working age adults into government dependents, costing taxpayers billions of dollars and expanding the largest long term obligation in Ohio history – all against the will of the Republican controlled Ohio House and Senate.

Given that these 600,000 Ohioans would not be government dependents had you not bypassed the legislature and vetoed their wishes so you could accept Obamacare funding and conditions – how can you say you oppose Obamacare while unilaterally championing its single biggest component?

[…]Ohioans, let’s be brutally honest about this Kasich decision to expand Obamacare in Ohio. You and your children are being indebted by billions of dollars all to redistribute this money to healthy, working age adults. Not children, pregnant mothers or truly medically fragile people, no. The people Kasich added as government dependents were healthy adults.

Kasich likes to talk a lot about helping the poor through big government, and he does that by increasing spending:

2. Governor Kasich on Spending: You talk about balancing the state budget, but every Ohio Governor balances the budget every year as it’s a Constitutional requirement in your state. Democrat or Republican – every Ohio Governor does this, as it is regular and expected. This is not a unique accomplishment.

Of greater interest is that Ohio’s job and economic growth has lagged behind the national average during your time in office. As we all know, the national economy has improved since the crash of 2008, so tax revenues have increased in both Ohio and across the US. But, as Ohio state tax revenues increased, curiously, so did your spending at a much faster pace.

Governor Kasich, how can you justify increasing spending by greater amounts than any Ohio Democrat or Republican Governor since 1990, outpacing both inflation and population growth, but still call yourself fiscally responsible?

If there is one thing that conservatives stand for, it’s limiting the power of the liberal labor unions to influence government. But John Kasich loves unions, and opposes right-to-work legislation:

3. Governor Kasich on Unions and Big Labor: Every US state with a Republican Governor and Republican controlled Legislature has ended compulsory payment of fees to unions and become a “right to work” state with the exception of Ohio.

As the Ohio border states of Indiana, Michigan and West Virginia have all become “right to work” states during your time as Ohio Governor, not only have you failed to make Ohio a “right to work” state, but you actively pushed Michigan’s Governor Snyder to oppose right to work legislation, you have killed Ohio right to work legislation in committees multiple times and you proactively worked to stop Ohio donors from funding a citizen’s initiative to make Ohio a right to work state through a vote of the people at the ballot.

Ohio’s current ranking is a dismal 38Th in job creation, so while you fought against ending forced union dues payments, right to work states dominated job growth across the country. How can you call yourself someone committed to an environment conducive to job creation when your actions and results  in Ohio have protected unions and inhibited job growth?

The rest of the article talks about many other minor problems with Kasich. Initially, it seemed to me that he was going to champion the same kinds of things that Governor Walker championed in Wisconsin, or that Governor Pence championed in Indiana, or that Governor Bevan championed in Kentucky, or that Governor Snyder championed in Michigan. But he’s been nothing like them – he’s been more like a big-spending, pro-dependency Democrat.

Religious liberty

Kasich considers same-sex marriage to be the law of the land, and he opposes legal protections for Christians who are sued by gay activists.

He gets an F on marriage from pro-marriage activist Maggie Gallagher for his stance on same-sex marriage:

The Supreme Court overturns the marriage laws of your state and many others by inventing a new right?  That gets a big yawn from John Kasich: “I do believe in the traditional sense of marriage—that marriage is between a man and a woman.  But I also respect the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Supreme Court of the United States made the decision, and as I have said repeatedly we’ll honor what the Supreme Court does—it’s the law of the land.”

And he opposes protections for Christians who are sued by gay activists:

What will you do, Gov. Kasich, to protect the rights of gay marriage dissenters?

The other three men on the stage have all indicated support for the First Amendment Defense Act, which protects gay marriage dissenters from discrimination by the federal government, including by the IRS (Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio strongly, Donald Trump half-heartedly).

Gov. Kasich has refused to say whether he would support FADA.

And while we can all applaud the fact that at last night’s debate Kasich no longer actively sided with those stripping Christians (and other traditional believers) of their family’s livelihoods, he also refused to commit to doing anything about it.

No wonder, as he said last night, he’s the Democrats’ favorite Republican.

I do have to say that the one issue where Kasich does perform as expected is on the pro-life issue. There, he has a moderate record of pro-life actions. Nothing as good as people like Rubio or Cruz, though. We can do better than John Kasich.

Commentary

Where does Bernie Sanders stand on gay rights vs religious liberty?

1 Comment
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

Here’s an article from Robert Gagnon from the American Spectator. Dr. Gagnon is someone I trust on the gay marriage / homosexuality / gay rights issues. In this post he makes a list of all the things Sanders is doing and intends to do on the gay rights vs religious liberty issue.

He writes:

I have encountered a fair number of persons holding a more or less traditional view of marriage who are warming up to Sanders because Sanders strikes them as a “nice man” who just wants to “help the poor.” Pay attention, please, for Sanders has told us exactly what he would do to you as President (rest assured that Hillary Clinton would do the same):

First, Sanders will kill any sort of religious liberty legislation, such as the the “First Amendment Defense Act”:

1. “Veto any legislation that purports to ‘protect’ religious liberty at the expense of others’ rights” (the scare quotes are his). In other words, he is going to get you, you hateful, ignorant bigots who have a problem with supporting directly with your talents, goods, and money the full homosexual and transgender lifestyle.

Second, if anyone in your office finds out that you oppose gay marriage, Sanders is authorizing your pro-gay co-workers to have you fired on the spot:

2. “Sign into law the Equality Act,” of which he “is currently a cosponsor,” “which would expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other anti-discrimination laws to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.” This would include a so-called “employment nondiscrimination” legislation that renders you the moral equivalent of a racist should you utter in or out of the workplace the view that homosexual activity is harmful or immoral. Think of it as anti-Christian (and anti-Muslim and anti-Orthodox Jewish) employment discrimination legislation.

Expect lots of firings and terminations to take place. Imagine your workplace as a sort of “secret police” state, except the policing won’t be so secret. Expect there to be a full-court federal push to punish with hefty fines those who do not want to contribute their talents and goods directly to “gay weddings” (bakers, florists, photographers, caterers). Churches that allow non-parishioners to use any of their facilities will have to offer these to “gay weddings” and any other homosexual or transgender activities. In some cases white-collar employees who outside the workplace write in favor of a male-female foundation for marriage (even on a Facebook post) could be charged with creating a hostile work environment and terminated.

Pro-gay indoctrination of police officers into the gay agenda:

4. “Require police departments to adopt policies to ensure fairer interactions with transgender people, especially transgender women of color …, and institute training programs to promote compliance with fair policies.” This is a mandate to indoctrinate forcibly police departments along the lines of “progressive” sexual ideology. Either they learn to advance the transgender cause or face discipline and termination. That means converting law enforcement into the most active enforcers of a homosexual and transgender agenda against the citizenry. You have no rights, except the right to remain silent.

Pro-gay  indoctrination of young children in the schools:

5. Pass “anti-bullying” legislation requiring indoctrination of children in the schools into the LGBT agenda. Your children will be taught to regard you as a “bully” and a “homophobic bigot” if you don’t affirm homosexual and transsexual identities. Your children will be given exercises that will urge them to declare their affinity with the LGBT cause. “If you believe that sexual orientation is not a choice, walk across the room to us, where these treats are waiting.” If your children don’t comply, they will be ostracized.

Dr. Gagnon lists a few policies favored by Sanders, and takes a look at his record on gay rights issues in Vermont. Suffice to say that if this man is elected President, religious liberty and freedom of conscience for Christians will be finished. Some voters think that forced redistribution of wealth by a secular government is more important than the right to live by Biblical sexual ethics. For myself, I’m not for redistribution of wealth by a secular big government. I believe in Biblical sexual ethics, and I believe in natural marriage. I don’t want to elect someone who would punish me for being supportive of natural marriage and traditional morality.