Category: culture

Posted on

The Respect for Marriage Act disrespects marriage and family

Respect for Marriage
Photo by Drew Coffman on Unsplash

At first blush, the Respect for Marriage Act seems reasonable and fair—even needful. After all, its decency is in its name. What’s in a name? In this case, everything. When you read the bill, you’ll realize its name smacks of a marketing trick, a Machiavellian ruse.

In truth, the Respect for Marriage Act will federally force respect, not for marriage, but for the redefinition of marriage, created by the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing gay marriage .

In their rush to rush to codify gay marriage federally and force states to recognize same-sex marriages, the bill’s backers fundamentally disrespect the institution. Worse, they further fray the tenuous fabric of the family, which will surely hurt children the most.

The Respect for Marriage Act, known as the RFMA, was named and written to assure quick passage before democrats lose the House of Representatives. Its disingenuously clever nomenclature makes it more difficult to vote against. After all, if one does, isn’t he or she disrespecting marriage?

Apparently, 12 republican senators considered this question and chose to support the bill. To be fair, they may actually think the RFMA is fair and needful legislation and that it respects marriage. Does it?

Is marriage respected when one of its most essential functions is removed?  If one views marriage as simply a way to seek happiness and not necessarily for procreation and family building, a redefinition makes sense logically, but not practically—or morally.

This is not all the Respect for Marriage Act gets wrong—or right—depending on one’s cultural goals.

Targeting traditionalists

The RFMA green lights litigation against virtually anyone who opposes the redefinition of marriage. For example, photographers, cake makers, church leaders, and faith-based nonprofits who refuse to participate in same-sex weddings can be sued despite their conscientious objections.

Concerning nonprofits, those that operate based on traditional marriage values stand to have their tax exempt status revoked for discrimination.

What about states that do not accept any other definition of marriage other than between men and women? When this bill becomes law, they could face federal repercussions because the RFMA requires that all states recognize same-sex marriages regardless of their positions on traditional marriage.

The RFMA also endangers faith-based social-service organizations that work with the federal government. If they challenge provisions of the act in court, the hill to winning their he cases based on religious freedom and free speech will become that much steeper.

Additionally, objections need not be faith-based. A secularist can respect several millennia of precedent for traditional marriage, based on common sense and the complimentary natures of men and women, and consider same-sex marriages far less beneficial to society. Is this disrespect for marriage?

What the RFMA is not

The Respect for Marriage Act is not a codification of Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Supreme Court invented a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage—as they did for the “right” to abortion in Roe v. Wade.

Backers of the bill portray it as such in order to ensure smooth sailing through the house and senate. They hold that the Obergefell decision settled the argument. It did not. Many Americans, as with Roe v. Wade and abortion, are not in favor of same-sex marriage.

Because the constitutionality of same-sex marriage is founded on a phantom, the issue isn’t any more settled than the right to abortion was. If it is indeed settled, why the rush? The RFMA is being whisked through congress out of fear that the Supreme Court could overturn Obergefell.

Who will suffer most?

Children. Eons of human history bear witness to the essential importance of traditional family for the healthy development of children. Science, common sense and millennia of experience unequivocally show that children do best with fathers and mothers.

The family is vital to any healthy society. Is it any wonder that crime, drug use, poverty, and now gender confusion—virtually any and all relatively recent ills of American culture—stem from the denigration of the family?

The undeniable truth is that a man and woman, designed and created with complimentary strengths, give children the best shot to grow and develop into healthy, happy adults. All one need do to affirm this self-evident truth is to honestly contrast and compare the health of society from decade to decade.

Sadly, the Respect for Marriage Act is a further slide down the slippery slope. It’s dishonest and destructive. A more apt and respectful name would be the Redefinition of Marriage Act.

No matter its name, if the RFMA becomes law, its provisions will endanger those who hold traditional marriage values and deeply hurt families and children. It’s is simply a misguided attempt to ensure “fairness” based on yet another redefinition of an institution that underpins all healthy societies.

Posted on

Beyond the lies and talking points, abortion is nothing more than a sexual safety valve

My body, my choice. A woman’s right to choose. Planned Parenthood. Reproductive health. Family planning. Pro-choice. Safe, legal and rare. Bans off our bodies.

All of this is wordplay. All are marketing phrases. Every single one is cynical, illogical and useless in a serious conversation about abortion.

Why even have the conversation? Because Roe V. Wade and its natural result of abortion on demand is built on lies and talking points. Isn’t it past time for honesty about a “right” that isn’t, yet was created to enable sexual freedom without consequences?

The lie

In 1973, proponents assured us that abortion would be “safe, legal and rare.” Rare as in a million abortions per year, plus or minus a few hundred thousand? Rare as in 62,502,904 abortions since 1973? These numbers are not from a pro-life source; they’re from the Guttmacher Institute—and the CDC.

What about rape and incest victims?

According to a 2004 Guttmacher Institute study, the percentage of women who said they were seeking an abortion after being raped was one percent. Those seeking abortion as a result of incest was .05 percent. The study also found that these numbers haven’t changed appreciably between 1987-2004.

The reason

Why do most women get abortions? They don’t do it for their health. They do it for their freedom. When asked why they wanted an abortion by the Guttmacher Institute, the number one reason was that, “Having a baby would dramatically change my life.”

Why do women use Planned Parenthood? According to Planned Parenthood’s own 2019-2020 Annual Report, 96.9 percent of pregnant women use their services to get an abortion. 0.7 percent seek adoption referrals, and 2.4 percent go for prenatal care of any kind.

The sad truth is that most women who abort their pregnancies do so not for family planning, not for their reproductive health, and not to show the world that they are in control of their bodies and their choices.

Most women use abortion as safety valves for their sexual freedom.

Before Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court’s legal gymnastics and creation of the aforementioned nonexistent right out of thin air, American men and women had children because they would change their lives.

Children were built-in to the marriage arrangement. And if a couple decided not to have children, there was effective birth control. Pregnancies were prevented, so babies wouldn’t be aborted.

The revolution

Prior to the sexual revolution, pregnancy and children were seen as normal and genuine family planning. Yet as in any revolution, norms were discarded, so that so-called freedoms could be enjoyed without consequences.

My body, my choice is a legitimate right. Legally and constitutionally, we choose with whom we have sexual relations. Rare instances of rape and incest aside, once we choose, we’re responsible for the consequences of our sexual choices.

Our control over our bodies does not include control over others’ bodies. Morally, we have no right to kill our unborn. Their bodies are their own.

If and when conception occurs, a new life begins, and another human being’s body becomes part of a new equation. He or she too has a right to life. Sadly, thanks to Roe v. Wade, this right has been stripped away to make room for sexual freedom.

Here’s the dilemma: Sexual freedom is incompatible with the sanctity of human life. As Americans, we are free to choose sexual activity with any other adult—how are we free to end life that’s born from our freedom?

The war

AG Merrick Garland held a press conference to announce his Justice Department’s lawsuit against Texas and its heartbeat law. He said the law makes it too risky for abortion clinics to operate.

He said nothing about it helping to make life less risky for a virtually unprotected people group. Garland bases his lawsuit on the assertion that it violates a nonexistent constitutional “right.”

To explain, this phantom right to abort one’s pregnancy was created by the Supreme Court for their majority ruling on Roe v. Wade. The court based their decision on a contortion, alteration and expansion of the rights to privacy in the Constitution.

This creation of a woman’s right to abort her pregnancy in the name of privacy is actually a pivot point at which sexual freedom goes beyond choice to dehumanize human life.

In truth, Texas did what other states should do. They enacted commonsense legislation that provides unborn babies some level of protection. Their heartbeat law protects an unprotected people group against those who believe the lie that a fetus isn’t a person and that their freedom is more important than someone else’s life.

The Texas law also provides a check on an industry that values profit over people. The president and his party’s outrage against legislation that values life and seeks to protect it is proof positive of the efficacy of nearly fifty years of lies and talking points.

It’s high time we as a nation of rights and freedoms extend those rights and freedoms to those who, when unwanted, have neither.

Posted on

Are cops racists or victims of a new revolution?

revolution

Racism or revolution? It’s a fair question in any honest assessment of our current chaos. Cop shoots black man, people cry racism, protests turn into lawless looting and destruction. What isn’t talked about is the key to the entire mess—personal responsibility. And what lurks in the background is a new revolution.

First, who’s responsible for George Floyd’s death? Daunte Wright’s? One could say former Officers Derek Chauvin and Kim Potter, respectively, but this would be lazy thinking and dishonest. Here’s a better question: Who’s responsible for their lives?

Before we poke the hornet’s nest, let’s consider facts.

Both men had criminal records. Both were known by local police. One was an addict; the other had a warrant out for his arrest. Both men chose to commit crimes; George Floyd tried to pass off a counterfeit bill; Daunte Wright illegally possessed a firearm. He also drove with an expired license plate. Keeping one’s vehicle current is a basic responsibility for all licensed drivers. Wright failed to do so, which led to his being pulled over. This is when he made his fatal choice.

Choices and consequences

Imagine yourself in his situation. An officer is arresting you. Your choices are: A) allow yourself to be handcuffed or B) break free and get back into your car or run or fight or anything other than acquiesce to arrest. Any rational and honest person has to know that he alone is responsible for his actions. Everyone is responsible for his or her choices—personally responsible. 

What did Daunte choose to do? He chose flight. This triggered the arresting officers, which prompted Officer Potter to use what she says she thought was her taser in order to subdue Wright. The fact that she used her firearm and then expressed shock and dismay afterwards indicates incompetence, not racism.

George Floyd and Daunte Wright chose to commit the crimes that invited police attention. They had criminal records because they chose to be criminals. They alone bear responsibility for setting the stage for negative interaction with law enforcement. We can debate the culpability of the officers, and a jury is deciding whether Derek Chauvin is guilty of anything more than excessive force.

They may find him guilty of much more, but the inconvenient truth for Black Lives Matter is that George Floyd and Daunte Wright would likely both be alive today had they not chosen to commit crimes. Their lives would truly matter because they’d be alive to make better choices. They could choose to become ex-criminals.

Personally irresponsible

In any era prior to our present age of victimhood and “systemic racism,” both men would bear personal responsibility for making choices that led to their deaths. This is not to say that Derek Chauvin isn’t guilty of manslaughter or murder.

The truth is that George Floyd and Daunte Wright and Michael Brown and others are solely responsible for their life choices—especially those that put them at odds with law enforcement. We all are. Rather than confront this truth, opportunists (and true believers) cry racism. The reality is that the vast majority of police aren’t any more racist than you or I. Many are simply weary and wary of the same people saying the same things in order to avoid personal responsibility. And now they’re called racists and badgered and beaten down as they try to do their jobs.

The beatdown manifests itself in rising crime and resistance to arrest, anti-cop antagonism, calls for defunding, accusations of racism, vilification and worse. Our legal system, which also isn’t racist, found no truth in claims like, “Hands up. Don’t shoot.” Sadly, race hustlers like Al Sharpton and the Black Lives Matter founders have weaponized these words to further an agenda that doesn’t help the people they claim to champion. They seem more interested in self-enrichment and political change than in equality.

The revolution

The Black Lives Matter grifters value equity over equality and revolution in place of our republic. Black “victims” of police racism and brutality are mere pawns in a new race war as the means to their end—a Marxist Utopia. Hatred, chaos and division are their weapons.

Why do we see looters presented as peaceful protesters by corrupt media? Why do young white anarchists participate in BLM protests after police shootings of black suspects and criminals? It’s opportunity.

What better way to usher in a new reality than with a new revolution? America rebelled against an English tyrant because of inequities involving class and representation. Because America was built on visions of equality, freedom and the merits of hard work and opportunity, class warfare has no legs here. Race is the ticket. Marxists tried it in the ’60s, but were thwarted by reform. Inadvertently, an entire ethnic group in America were turned into victims and semi-wards of the state.

The result? Critical Race Theory, white privilege, reparations, the vilification of police, and reverse racism. The racist oppressors are our justice system and law enforcement. According to the revolutionaries, slavery is our original sin, and we have yet to fully repent of it.

In reality, we’ve made great steps toward equality. America is like any other republic—flawed and imperfect. America is also a beautiful experiment in self-governance. Rather than transform it, we should hold one another responsible for our choices and encourage each other toward unity and true equality.