Archive for category Marriage

RED ALERT: Don’t Let Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Advocates Institute Cultural Madness and Turn America on its Head

Sky Fall: Gender Ideology Comes to the Schoolhouse

by Adam J. MacLeod and Andrew Beckwith

The Witherspoon Institute

March 1, 2013

In our discussions with advocates of redefining marriage, we often hear that defenders of marriage and sexual difference are overreacting to cultural and legal changes. “You run around yelling that the sky is falling,” we’re told. “We’ve had same-sex marriage for a decade now in Massachusetts, and guess what: The sky is not falling.”

This is not an argument, of course, but an attempt to end any discussion of what it would mean to remove sexual distinctions from the law. As it did to James Bond’s psychiatric evaluation in the recent hit movie, the mention of the phrase “sky fall” is supposed to terminate the proceedings.

No serious participants in the current marriage discussion are running around like Chicken Little. Defenders of marriage are concerned primarily about the long-term implications of redefining the institution. We might not expect the redefinition of marriage to alter cultural practices dramatically right away. After all, it took nearly two generations to realize the full effects of the divorce revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. But strange things are nevertheless happening in Massachusetts, where sexual difference was eliminated from marriage laws in 2003.

Two years ago, the Massachusetts legislature enacted a statute prohibiting, among other things, discrimination in public schools on the basis of “gender identity.” The law defines gender identity as “a person’s gender-related identity, appearance or behavior,” which is not determined by “the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth.”

On the basis of that statute, the Massachusetts Department of Education (MDOE) has now eradicated sexual distinctions from public schools. MDOE’s new directive requires schools to let children use bathrooms and play on sports teams according to the gender they personally identify as theirs, not their anatomical sex. The directive also admonishes schools to eliminate sex and gender distinctions in graduation garb, physical education, and other practices.

Under Massachusetts law, the connection between gender identity and sexual distinction is now considered a historical accident, the result of arbitrary (at best) or mistaken documentation at birth. MDOE’s directive explains:

One’s gender identity is an innate, largely inflexible characteristic of each individual’s personality that is generally established by age four, although the age at which individuals come to understand and express their gender identity may vary based on each person’s social and familial social development. As a result, the person best situated to determine a student’s gender identity is that student himself or herself.

Because the child is solely responsible for identifying his or her own gender, the regulations require school officials to seek the student’s permission before disclosing the student’s gender identity to his or her parents.

That’s not all. The regulations suggest that students who don’t endorse a fellow student’s gender identity may be subject to punishment. After condemning bullying, the directive endorses a memorandum that a Massachusetts school principal sent to teachers instructing them to discipline students who intentionally refer to a transgender student by his or her given name, or the pronoun corresponding to his or her anatomical sex. Such behavior “should not be tolerated.”

MDOE justifies these regulations on pedagogical grounds: “All students need a safe and supportive school environment to progress academically and developmentally.” By “all students” MDOE must mean all students who share MDOE’s conception of sex and gender as an individual choice.

It is not difficult to imagine who will embrace MDOE’s conception. The regulations state, “A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl” (emphasis ours). The caveat that the student might want to be treated like a boy for some purposes seems an implicit admission that gender identity is not, in fact, an inflexible characteristic, as MDOE insists, but rather can adjust over time. And the directive states that the law “does not require consistent and uniform assertion of gender identity” (emphasis original).

While we doubt that teenage boys will take much interest in the provenance of gender personality, it’s not a stretch to suppose that they will welcome its implications for co-ed activity.

Perhaps this is why many parents in Massachusetts find these regulations shocking. We must confess that we are not so surprised. Massachusetts lawmakers have for many years been eradicating sexual distinctions from the law. This result seems to us the logical consequence of those efforts.

Redefining marriage to eliminate sexual complementarity as an essential characteristic doesn’t automatically commit a state to forcing girls to share locker rooms with boys. But there is a logical connection. One of the premises justifying the redefinition of marriage also grounds these new regulations, that is, the view that sexual difference is irrelevant to the practice of marriage.

But if sexual difference is irrelevant to marriage, then how can it be relevant to any practices? Once the state has determined that sexual difference is no longer a legitimate reason to extend special recognition to man-woman monogamy, there is no reason in principle to maintain sexual distinctions in less intimate practices. If one’s anatomical reality isn’t relevant to one’s marriage, it’s even less obvious why it should be relevant to one’s bathroom choice.

To be sure, there are prudential implications of eradicating sexual distinction from education laws. But if letting people identify their own gender is a matter of justice, then it’s the job of law to solve the practical problems of implementation. (That is a key lesson of civil rights legislation.)

Though future practical problems might seem obvious, the law makes it far from clear that there are any. If a boy who identifies as a girl really is a girl, as the law declaims, then any perceived harms resulting from his presence in a girls’ locker room are illusory. No wonder the Commonwealth exhorts school officials to discipline students who object to the arrangement.

There are other indications that those who perceive inherent differences between men and women will increasingly be marginalized from public life in Massachusetts. A few months ago, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled that the United States Constitution requires the Commonwealth’s Department of Corrections to pay for a sex-change surgery requested by an inmate who is serving time for murder. It is cruel and unusual punishment, the court reasoned, to force the prisoner to keep his anatomy intact while he is incarcerated.

This ruling might seem unrelated to removing sexual distinctions from law, but for the court’s reasoning. The court discredited the Commonwealth’s expert witnesses, who expressed doubt that a sex-change surgery is medically necessary, and who recommended treating the prisoner’s psychological and emotional disorders instead.

The court ruled that these recommendations are “not within the range that would be acceptable by prudent professionals.” In other words, the court decided that no prudent professional would deny sex-change surgery to a male prisoner who identifies himself as a woman.

The lesson is clear. If you think male and female are two distinct sexes determined by your anatomy at birth, then don’t bother serving as an expert witness in the United States District Court in Massachusetts. Nor can you in good conscience send your children to public school in the Commonwealth. A view of human nature that until very recently was understood to be obvious is becoming a source of disqualification from participating in public life.

As lawyers, we perceive the logic of this latest regulatory innovation. But as fathers, we think that those who are dismayed by MDOE’s regulations are the only Massachusetts residents who can plausibly claim to be in their right minds. If the sky is not falling then it is at least showing ominous fissures.

Adam MacLeod is an associate professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and a 2012-2013 Visiting Fellow of the James Madison Program at Princeton University. Andrew Beckwith is Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

The Obama Inaugural Address You Were Thinking!

Each time we gather to inaugurate a President we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution – which our “progressive” judges and justices are attempting to re-write.

We affirm the promise of our democracy – when it suits our needs.

We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Life when it is wanted. Unalienable rights with the exclusion of religious freedom.

Today we continue a never-ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time – revisionist reality according to secular humanists.

For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they’ve never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. – The people whose rights are trashed by my HHS mandate.

The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed. – until I arrived here to destroy that.

And for more than two hundred years, we have. – My mob friends with SEIU and other unions are enforcing my wishes.

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play. – The rules of socialism and excessive government regulation and control.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune. – Except for the preborn, the disabled, and the elderly (who should think about hospice).

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. – But they can be dictated by government, against the will of the people.

Our celebration of initiative and enterprise, our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, these are constants in our character. – But which we rejected in the last election campaign when we promised government control from cradle to grave.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. – Or better yet, collectivist actions at the expense of those founding principles.

For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. – Nor can the people be left alone to take initiatives through churches, ministries and charitable organizations to feed and clothe the poor, the destitute, the starving, and those whose lives have been uprooted by natural disasters. Nor can all meet the demands of today’s world with rising taxes and unsustainable debt, amidst excessive government regulation and control. Now you must overlook liberal fascism here at home.

No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. – No person has ever suggested building the transcontinental railroad or reaching the moon alone. And now innovation and achievement is being denigrated, discouraged, and hampered by the growing tentacles of big government.

Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people. – Actually, comrades, as one growing centralized government bureacracy.

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. – American and allied forces have substantially reduced the capabilities of Islamic terrorists. Yet no real recovery has begun except in the campaign mode mind of the president.

America’s possibilities are limitless, — with the freedom from excessive government regulation

…. for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands – Especially the southern U.S. border which I’m attempting to dissolve.

youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. – Especially for those industries moving out of the reach of tax monsters in California and New York.

My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it — so long as we seize it together. – Or I’ll seize it alone as I enact policies and executive orders unpopular with the people.

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. – Courtesy of tax increases and demonization of the achievers who take risks investing their wealth to create jobs allowing many to feed their families.

We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. – Micromanaged by my ever-growing administration, undermined by my demolition of America’s business climate.

We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; — Despite my demands that all be dependent on government their entire lives, “independent” people like Julia. For when I refer to America, I’m talkin’ big government, baby.

when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. – But not from overly burdensome taxation.

We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own. – If she is allowed to leave her mother’s womb without dismemberment, and to experience a life directed by the “god” of big government.

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. – Such as government programs encouraging dependency, teen pregnancy, and risky, life-altering behavior.

So we must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, reach higher. – So they can give more of what’s theirs to a government which will waste the fruits of their hard-earned labor on failing businesses. So they can more fully indoctrinate students in schools failing to educate, so citizens can settle for mediocrity while surrendering their God-given, Constitution-affirming rights to big government.

But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. – Yes, I thought this line would get a laugh!

That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed. – The creed I learned from Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. – Unless they oppose my secular worldview and my policies and executive orders. As long as you give more of your money to Planned Parenthood. As long as more of you substitute pain pills and hospice for medical treatment.

We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. – While I continue to raise the debt ceiling and put deficit reduction out of reach forever.

But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. – Wait a minute. I’m the first person to suggest this.

For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. – And now we proudly observe that 90 percent of preborn children with Down syndrome are not allowed to live.

We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. – Or those who take risks and invest their resources to create industries employing millions and feeding families.

We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us at any time may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. – Or job-killing fines for not funding abortion pill mandates.

The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. – Especially those of us raiding those funds!

They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great. – Though some would argue that those who took the risks, who employed people who provided for their families, now have a right to their social security as retired folks.

We, the – GOVERNMENT — people, still believe that our obligations as – CONTROL OF — Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, — No matter how well it’s been proven a fantasy.

knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. – And fail to increase tax coffers and close down the coal industry.

Some may still deny the overwhelming –UNDERWHELMING — judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging

fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms. – Fires caused by arsonists and by lightning. We still haven’t slowed the rise of the oceans and healed the planet; how can we control the weather?

The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. – And cost taxpayers billions to reward Solyndra and other green companies even though we knew they were going under.

But America cannot resist this transition, we must lead it. – We will lead by downsizing our military and economic capacities. By killing jobs and increasing food stamp rolls.

We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries, we must claim its promise. – I don’t care how many Solyndras I give your money to.

That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality – And sustain this slumping economy while repeating the myth of recovery ad nauseum.

and our national treasure — our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow-capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. – It’s okay to bring religion into this now, even though I’ve long entertained doubts about my faith.

That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared. We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. – But our Army has recognized conservatives as terrorist threats and we will stockpile bullets and take their guns and religious freedom away.

Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. – And the raging passions of homosexual lust in the barracks.

Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. – Not counting those Islamic forces I’ve befriended and given hundreds of millions of your dollars to.

But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war; who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends — and we must carry those lessons into this time as well. – Like my Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood buddies.

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. – Starting by gutting the United States Navy and refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act. By befriending the detainees at Gitmo.

We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully –-  After the election, since I have more flexibility now.

not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. – So don’t worry about any appropriate responses to future Benghazis.

America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe. – Except for the Middle East, Fort Hood, Pakistan and a few other strategic locations

And we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. – That would be the nation of Russia, which I’ve entrusted to take over as the world’s leading power.

We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. — And we’ll support communism in Cuba, Venezuela, and Kenya.

And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice –- not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity, human dignity and justice. – With the exceptions of the preborn, the Christian owners of businesses, my domestic enemies, and all who oppose the homosexual agenda.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths –- that all of us are created equal –- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall – Stonewall, where lawless homosexuals threatened the lives of police officers doing their duty

just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth. – And where people, even my white grandmother, should be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. – Unless they work for me and accept our pay scale: 18 percent less for women.

Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law –- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. – And our heterosexual brothers and sisters are treated equally as well, until anti-bullying laws and hate crime laws apply equally to all.

Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. – I promise an executive order allowing everyone voting for me to go to the head of the voting line, even if they arrived 10 minutes prior to the closing of the polls. And even if they can’t prove they are a citizen.

Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity – And who still come here legally and assimilate, unlike those cheating and flouting immigration law by entering the country illegally, or those who smuggle humans or drugs across our borders.

until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. – Never mind the law; I need voters now!

Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit – who escape the murder and violence

to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm. – Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, your guns. Your government will guarantee you a chicken in every pot and continued safety from all evil-doers.

That is our generation’s task — to make these words, these rights, these values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness real for every American. – Pursuant to the laws cheapening life and liberty and polarizing this great nation.

Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. – Especially the First Amendment.

It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness. – Certainly not us Alinskyites.

Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time. – And act with impunity against the will of the people.

For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay. – We must proceed with the worst possible “solutions” to the problems of our time. We cannot take the time to actually read the bills that will impact your lives for decades to come. We must pass them to see what is in them and then move forward and act upon them.

We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, — If you don’t count my refusal to negotiate with Republicans, grandstand, or diss Supreme Court justices to their face.

or treat name-calling as reasoned debate – Even if I do identify my opponents as ENEMIES. I’m justified doing that. You’re not.

We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. – I’ve never spoken truer words!

We must act, knowing that today’s victories – Well they are actually ATTACKS on life, liberty, Republicans and successful business owners.

will be only partial and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years and 40 years and 400 years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall. – And which were just rejected by about 99 percent of the voters from inner Philly.

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God – BUT AS MY OWN PARTY DETERMINED LAST SUMMER, IT WILL NOT BE THE GOD MOST AMERICANS WORSHIP. NO. IT WILL BE MINE: ALLAH — and country, not party or faction.

And we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. – Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar!

But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride. – The same flag I refuse to look at.

They are the words of citizens and they represent our greatest hope. You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course. – To set it correctly despite my radical agenda.

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – Though my friends and I actually know the debate is over.

not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals. – Those ancient values and enduring ideals I set into motion four long years ago.

Let us, each of us, now embrace with solemn duty and awesome joy what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom. – The freedom to worship your federal government. Long live the government!

Thank you. MY GOD, NOT YOURS  – ALLAH — bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America. – And the great downsizing project we are today embarked on today, some with us, many not.

Leave a comment

Conservative Base Declares Independence from GOP January 1-7, 2013

When in the course of political events it becomes necessary for the Conservative base to temporarily dissolve the bonds which connect them to the Republican Party and to assume the wisdom of the party platform and principles, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation of one week’s time.

We hold these truths to be self-evident that Conservatives represent the heart of and the majority of the Republican Party. That whenever any form of party leadership becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the Conservative base to institute demands for full respect and adherence to fiscal AND social soundness. That without the Conservative majority, the Republican Party is unviable and non-competitive.

When a long train of abuses and usurpations becomes pattern, Conservatives will not and cannot comply.

Party leadership has punished and demoted principled Conservative members from committees of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Party leadership is threatening to compromise with the opposition, putting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at risk for all Americans.

Party leadership indicates it is unwilling to do the job for which it was given majority power in the U.S. House of Representatives. That being to fight socialists and those standing in opposition to the social underpinnings of America’s founding principles – life, marriage, and liberty – and to the commonsense principles of fiscal responsibility. To reduce spending and impose a reasonable ceiling on the currently insane level of debt resting on the head of citizens living and yet unborn.

Party leadership is demonstrating weakness at a time when strength is needed to exert sensible and correct counter positions to the flawed and destructive policies of the radical Left.

Party leadership exhibits a willingness to comply with the radical left-stream media’s destructive demands for compliance with harmful principles preferred by Democrats.

Party leaders insist on nominating presidential candidates who are unwilling to fight for and model Conservative principles which have stood the test of time and which have enabled the greatest times of prosperity in American history. These candidates are repeatedly unable to defeat flawed, corrupt Democrat incumbents who are substantially damaging America’s culture and committing generations of citizens to unsustainable debt while condemning millions of preborn children to death.

All the while, party leaders insist that those willing to compromise with the extreme demands of the Left are the answer to America’s most severe problems. This is not in the best interest of Americans.

We Conservatives therefore resolve to separate from the Republican Party, to demonstrate the seriousness of the problems existing within the party, for the period of January 1 to January 7 of the year 2013. If party leaders respond in good faith and restore a genuine, healthy respect to the Conservative base and the accompanying principles, relations will be fully restored. If not … a longer period of independence shall be declared until the leaders of the Republican Party come to restoration of good senses. For without the good will and full participation by the Conservative base the Republican Party cannot continue to pursue its questionable course, let alone compete with the opposing party.

Leave a comment

Viva Loss Vegas! Suit Fails to Overturn NV Marriage Law

By Tony Perkins, Family Research Council

Nevada is willing to gamble on a lot of things, but marriage isn’t one of them. In federal court yesterday, Judge Robert Jones dealt a big setback to state activists hoping to redefine marriage. His opinion, which he issued just days after oral arguments, may be one of the most compelling yet on the question of “equality” for homosexual couples. The lead plaintiffs in the case are two lesbians, both grandmothers, who argued that Nevada’s 10-year-old marriage amendment is discriminatory. Judge Jones emphatically disagreed in a 41-page masterpiece that thoroughly dismantled the Left’s legal logic. Homosexuals aren’t being denied the right to marry, Jones explained. They simply have to abide by the same criteria as everyone else.

“Like heterosexual persons, they may not marry members of the same sex.” In fact, Jones wrote, “A homosexual man may marry anyone a heterosexual man may marry, and a homosexual woman may marry anyone a heterosexual woman may marry.” In other words, this isn’t about discrimination or equal protection. “Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property,” he pointed out. “The protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction in this case, is a legitimate state interest,” he said, adding that if the state recognized same-sex couples’ marriages, heterosexuals might “cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently… because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined.”

Then, in perhaps the most pivotal part Jones’s opinion, he highlighted the recent success homosexuals had at the ballot box. “It simply cannot be seriously maintained, in light of these and other recent democratic victories, that homosexuals do not have the ability to protect themselves from discrimination through democratic processes such that extraordinary protection from majoritarian processes is appropriate.”

In other words, our Election Day losses might actually be the key to future victories in court. Now that three states have actually voted for same-sex “marriage,” liberals can no longer claim the court as their only avenue to “equal protection.” Even lesbian activists like Nan Hunter, a Georgetown professor, admit that judges might be less likely to intervene on marriage if homosexuals no longer seem “powerless” to advance their agenda. It could even, Hunter argues, change the way the Supreme Court sees the issue–if, as it’s expected, the justices agree to hear at least one of the marriage cases in their hopper.

The high court planned to meet today to decide which marriage case it would take. Thanks to the growing number of lawsuits, the justices have their pick of cases–from challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or federal benefits laws to California’s Proposition 8. Given the high profile of any marriage case, the court would likely hear a suit in March and rule in June. That ought to give the bench plenty of time to absorb Judge Jones’s decision!

In St. Louis, Arch Rivals Square off

These days, it’s unusual to have one good news story from the courts–let alone two! But conservatives seem to be swimming in successes this Friday, as yet another judge blocked ObamaCare’s abortion drug and contraception mandate from taking effect. Missouri’s Frank O’Brien, the trailblazer for these lawsuits, was the first businessman to sue the administration back in March. He joined a crowd of plaintiffs from religious to academic fields who all share the same complaint: the president’s war on conscience rights is a direct attack on their First Amendment freedoms.

Wednesday, a federal appeals court agreed. A panel of 8th Circuit Court became the first judges from the appellate level to deliver a victory to challengers. Although the injunction is a temporary one, it is significant because the order reverses a victory that Health and Human Services had in the lower court.

“Once again,” Ed Morrissey points out, “this case doesn’t involve an explicitly religious organization. Cases involving religious schools, health care organizations, or charities have yet to come to court. So far, HHS and the Obama administration keep losing on what should be their best ground.” Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who was proud to witness a victory for his home crowd, applauded the decision as “another important victory as we fight to preserve the fundamental religious freedom that Americans have enjoyed for more than 220 years.” And that freedom, regardless of what the President says, isn’t exclusive to individuals. It applies to organizations and businesses too.

Come Back for Moore!

How many of you knew that November is National Adoption Month? Next week, FRC is doing its part to carry that theme through December with a special lecture called “Adopted for Life: Orphan Care and the Christian Mission.” As believers, we have a special stake in the issue. Jesus is the one who reminds us that His Father is also “Father of the fatherless” (Ps. 68:5). He is also the one who insists on calling “the least of these” his “brothers” (Matt. 25:40), and who tells us that the first time we hear his voice, He will be asking us if we did the same. In this lecture, Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, will consider what it would mean if Christians were known, once again, as the people who take in orphans? Don’t miss this important lecture at noon on Tuesday, December 4. For more information or to register to view it online or attend in person, click over to FRC’s events page.

** Washington’s problem isn’t taxing too little–it’s spending too much! Congressman Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) will explain why when he joins us on this week’s show. Later, Dr. Arthur Goldberg will drop by to talk about an unprecedented suit from the Southern Poverty Law Center that aims to destroy the ex-gay movement. For more information or to find a radio station near you, visit FRCRadio.org.

*** FRC’s Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison offer their take on this week’s U.N. vote in a new column, “Getting It Wrong about the Palestinians.” Check it out on CNSNews.com here.

Leave a comment

How Did Marriage Fare in the 2012 Election?

by Ryan T. Anderson and Andrew Walker

Until Tuesday, no state had redefined marriage by popular vote. Indeed, 32 out of 32 states that put the issue to a vote defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

But in this week’s election, citizens in Maine, Maryland, and Washington State all passed ballot initiatives redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. Meanwhile, citizens in Minnesota failed to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a man and woman. (It remains so defined, however, by statutory law.)

But a little perspective on the setback is in order. The results were close, and marriage did better in these deep blue states than Mitt Romney did. Of the four states that had marriage questions on the ballot, traditional marriage outperformed the presidential candidate in each and every one:

  • In Maine, Romney received 41 percent of the vote, while marriagereceived 47 percent.
  • In Maryland, Romney received 36 percent of the vote, while marriagereceived 48 percent.
  • In Minnesota, Romney received 45 percent of the vote, while marriagereceived 48 percent.
  • In Washington, Romney received 43 percent of the vote, while marriage received 48 percent.

Factor in also that pro-marriage forces were outspent by more than four to one, and the battle for redefining marriage is much tighter than headlines might make it appear.

The exit polls also revealed that young Americans are more likely to support same-sex “marriage.” This should motivate conservatives to redouble their efforts to explain the nature and public purpose of marriage—what marriage is and why it is such a significant factor in maintaining civil society and limiting government.

Our marriage law should reflect the truth about what marriage is: a pre-political institution springing from human nature itself. Government should not redefine or recreate marriage, nor should it obscure the truth about what marriage is. Recognizing same-sex relationships as “marriages” would weaken marriage as a social institution. It would redefine marriage as essentially an emotional bond, thus rendering marital norms arbitrary and less intelligible. It would further delink childbearing from marriage and deny, as a matter of law, the importance of a mother or a father in a child’s life. The outcomes associated with such absence are far from promising.

If the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the issue of marriage this term, as is widely expected, the coming months would offer an important opportunity to focus on the ramifications of redefining marriage. The potential clashes with religious liberty and the realities for educational norms for children is already evident, and they will become more so as three states move forward to recognize same-sex “marriage” as a result of Tuesday’s votes.

Leave a comment