More Dancing At The Foot Of Vesuvius

More dancing at the foot of Vesuvius. Pro same sex marriage demonstrators last week outside U S Supreme Court building.

The effort to redefine marriage as other than between a man and a woman is extremely aggressive. Besides sympathetic articles in the dominant liberal media it is clear that there is a concerted effort by “trolls” to dominate conservative blog sites comment sections with talking point propaganda distorting the issues and denigrating religion and cultural history. Herein, courtesy of Patriot Post, we are providing excerpts they identified of three insightful articles defending marriage as understood since time immemorial. In coming days we will  set forth a bibliography of links to recent articles we found that are also very worthy.   R Mall

Our Black-Robed Rulers

“The farce that is the Supreme Court of the United States has now taken up a new cause: same-sex marriage. To push that cause, the anti-Constitutional members of the Supreme Court prepared to declare that the federal government cannot define marriage for the purpose of federal benefits under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This is the same Supreme Court that declared last year that the federal government can force individuals to buy health insurance. To simplify, then: The federal government can’t define how federal cash gets spent, but it can define how your cash gets spent. There is no logical principle that undergirds any of this.”

–columnist Ben Shapiro.  The entire article is available here.

Bill and Hillary Clinton Embrace Gay Marriage

“No progressive 100 years ago could have conceived of gay marriage. In fact, merely a decade-and-a-half ago, the entirety of the Democratic Party supported traditional marriage, codified under law. … [F]or progressives, where’s their next redefinition in the ongoing process of redefining marriage? Does the evolution end with one man and one woman, or one man and one man, or one woman and one woman? Why could it not next progress to one man and multiple women? Could it involve an adult and a minor? Could their evolving redefinition include first cousins or a parent and child? Could it include multiple heterosexuals or homosexuals in single or even joint or group spousal relationships? The answer: progressives, by their very definition, cannot answer you. We do know, however, that progressives are happy to do with marriage what they do with everything: hand it over to the federal government. Render under government what is government’s. And what is government’s province? It’s anything progressives decide. … [Conservatives] can tell you our end-goal, our ideal. Progressives cannot. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a train-wreck of an ideology, with literally no end to its havoc. It is currently careening into the most fundamental building block of human civilization: the family . . .”

But here’s the kicker: How can the Clintons — or any modern progressive — know they’re right now? How do they know they’ve progressed to the “correct” point on marriage? Progress, after all, never stops progressing.

–professor and author Dr. Paul Kengor, entire article here

Faith and Family

“In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that it is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to intense emotional bonds. If marriage were just intense emotional regard, marital norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional union to be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive (as opposed to ‘open’). Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands. Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father.  . . . It would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter once it had redefined marriage to make fathers optional.”

–Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson, full article here.

0

0