Bothered by Butker? Is it what he said or what others say he said?

Harrison Butker

Here are Harrison Butker’s words to women during his commencement address at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas:

“For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.”

Translation: Butker guesses that most of the young ladies graduating are more excited about marrying and having children than in pursuing business careers.

Distortion: Butker thinks women should be more excited about making babies, happy husbands and homes than making bank. They’re made to be make dinner, beds and homes, not deals.

More from Butker:

“I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. I’m on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation. I’m beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.”

Translation: Butker’s wife feels most fulfilled as a wife and mother. How does he know this? Because she says so. He credits all his success in life to his wife and to her commitment to their family. He praises her for her influence on their children and for her ability to build a loving home.

Distortion: Butker thinks his wife didn’t have a life until she met and married him. Her life really took off when she bore their children. His wife’s true vocation as a woman is as a supportive wife and mother. If not for those roles, she’d be lost and unmotivated (and unqualified) in the working world. Why? Because she’s a woman.

Even more:

“Our own nation is led by a man who publicly and proudly proclaims his Catholic faith, but at the same time is delusional enough to make the Sign of the Cross during a pro- abortion rally. He has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I’m sure to many people it appears that you can be both Catholic and pro-choice.”

Translation: As a professing Catholic, President Biden must be delusional to think his catholicism is compatible with his pro-choice beliefs.

Distortion: Butker thinks that real Catholics are only pro-life and want to strip women of their reproductive rights.

A bit more:

“I am certain the reporters at the AP could not have imagined that their attempt to rebuke and embarrass places and people like those here at Benedictine wouldn’t be met with anger, but instead met with excitement and pride. Not the deadly sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it, but the true God-centered pride that is cooperating with the Holy Ghost to glorify him.”

Translation: Pride in self is sinful. Godly pride—the pride that results from being faithful to God—is good.

Distortion: Butker thinks LGBTQ folks who are proud of their sexual preferences are unholy sinners whose sins lead to death and judgement. He hates homosexuals and lesbians because he fears them and their pride. He’s holier than thou (and them) because he’s heterosexual.

Thoughtful analysis

Translations and distortions aside, can we agree that Harrison Butker’s opinions would be considered mainstream 40 years ago—or 400 years ago—and in any healthy culture in any time in history? His views on marriage and family reflect Catholic, Christian and Judaism and other religions’ values and are bedrock foundations of any civilization.

Or conversely, you may think Butker’s opinions are archaic and best left to sexists and religious extremists.

If so, ask yourself this:

Is there a correlation between stratospheric levels of crime, children without fathers, cultural and political strife, abortion, drug abuse, homelessness, etc. and the devaluation of traditional families?

Do you think American culture—or any culture—is better off embracing nontraditional same-sex relationships, unlimited sexual freedom and abortion on demand, the blurring of gender roles, and embrace of gender delusion?

Do you think the NFL was right to stray outside its lane by condemning Harrison Butker’s opinions while claiming his words run counter to their commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion? Yet they have nothing to say about unmarried players who father children with multiple women.

Kneeling at the wrong altars

Remember Colin Kaepernick? He coopted the culture by kneeling during the national anthem. He divided fans and fellow Americans with his perception of racial inequity in a league whose stars are overwhelmingly African American. The NFL then jumped on his bandwagon and fully embraced BLM and DEI.

Harrison Butker, a committed Catholic and Christian, is guilty of the sin of sharing deeply personal opinions on marriage and family to other Catholics at a Catholic college. He’s vilified as a hater, sexist, misogynist, and religious extremist. His speech is being compared to The Handmaid’s Tale.

According to voices on The View, in media and social media, Butker and his wife are hyper-religious bigots who hold outdated and destructive views that are harmful to women, gay and trans people, and culture and country.

Question: Are their views better for our future? Should marriage and childbirth be secondary to cohabitation and the pursuit of fulfillment with multiple partners and a belief in more than two genders?

Centuries of success backs one view; the other became a thing five minutes ago.

If Harrison Bukter bothers you, ask yourself if it’s what he said or what people say he said. His words are personal and reflect his opinions. Your reaction to them reveals your values.

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.