Atheists Launch Super Bowl Ad Mocking Hail Mary

Doug Flutie the Hail Mary Pass

American Atheists must rolling in cash. They’re running an ad at the upcoming Super Bowl.

Don’t throw your rosaries in the trash yet. There’s nothing new. It’s just the usual jibe at Christians — in this case Catholics. The ad is a pun on the hail Mary pass. It shows a man wearing what looks like a clerical collar, holding a football. The words A Hail Mary only works in football are displayed next to him.

Yuck. Yuck.

The ad will also feature a link to American Atheist’s upcoming convention, where, presumably, there will be jibes, jokes and clever puns attacking Christians galore.

From The Huffington Post:

No country combines sport, politics and religion quite like the US. Just watch this weekend’s Superbowl for a barrage of chest-beating nationalism and religious iconography pumped out before, during and after the game.

Yet atheists, one of the quickest growing demographics in the US, according to recent polls, are striking back this year with a billboard at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium mocking those who turn to prayer during the game.

Superbowl

Nick Vujicic: Fully Living for Jesus Christ, Part 2

This is Part 2.  If you haven’t seen it, you can watch Part 1 here.

YouTube Preview Image

Our Pop Pope: What Does It Mean?

What does it mean when the Holy Father is Man of the Year for both Time Magazine and the nation’s number one gay publication?

What, pray tell, is the significance of a pope on the cover of Rolling Stone?

Two Things:

1. The Catholic Church is not irrelevant.

2. The Pope is showing us how to evangelize through love.

This adulation from the press won’t go on forever, of course. Sooner or later the media will figure out just how tough and immovable Jorge Bergoglio is when it comes to the Church and her teachings.

I think we should just roll with it and enjoy our Pop Pope’s popularity while it lasts.

And, in what is probably the most sincere of the bunch, the Holy Father has achieved super hero status in graffiti land.

West Coast Walk for Life: Archbishop Cordileone Asks Young People to Defend Life and Marriage

SJC photo resized

Archbishop Cordileone called on young people at the West Coast March for Life to defend both the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage.

His message is especially powerful, coming as it does from an area of the country in which much of the population appears to be hostile to traditional values.

I see Archbishop Cordileone’s statement as the first of what will grow into a movement in the future. Promoters of gay marriage often tell us that in a few years, people will look back on those of us who support traditional marriage and say that we were on the wrong side of history.

Not so, my friends.

In future years, the struggle for traditional marriage will still be on-going. Like the pro-life movement, it will grow stronger as the debacle we have brought on ourselves becomes more apparent.

The first step is for Christian people to reclaim the sanctity of marriage in their own lives. This means that Christian spouses should keep their vows to love and cherish one another, forsaking all others.

From The National Catholic Register:

SAN FRANCISCO — A massive crowd stretching out for a mile in sunny downtown San Francisco showed the growing momentum of the Walk for Life, which celebrated its 10th anniversary for participants from across California and neighboring states.

On Jan. 25, more than 50,000 people gathered in front of San Francisco City Hall, and the diverse crowd included a mix of ages and ethnic and religious groups, with songs and prayer in English and Spanish.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, during hishomily at the Mass proceeding the rally, congratulated the young people present for embracing the pro-life movement and for joining the hundreds of lay activists, priests, women and men religious and seminarians at St. Mary’s Cathedral.

“The steadily expanding presence of young people at the Walk for Life, he said, underscored a new generation’s awareness that abortion harms rather than helps women.

“Forty years and 58 million abortions later, the very painful truth has come to light: Yes, abortion does hurt women,” said Archbishop Cordileone.

The San Francisco Church leader credited an older generation of pro-life activists with helping to change the nation’s view of abortion and demonstrating “heroic virtue” during past decades when those who challenged the legalization of abortion were stigmatized. Now, he warned the students at the cathedral, they must help enlighten their own peers about the central role of marriage as the sanctuary of life.

“The pro-life movement is about more than saving the life of the baby,” said Archbishop Cordileone.

“It’s especially about connecting that baby to where he or she came from: the mother and the father. …There is no other institution that does that.”

… Archbishop Cordileone urged the young Catholics at the cathedral to stay “close to Christ” as they seek to present the truth about marriage.

“Future generations will understand that the natural truth of marriage benefits everyone and discriminates against no one,” he predicted.

“But prepare yourselves: It will require heroic virtue, for there is a lot of reverse bullying going on these days.”

 

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-cordileone-asks-young-pro-lifers-to-defend-life-and-marriage/#ixzz2riMUp6do

 

Book Review: Elvis Presley Never Grew Up

BC TheSeekerKing 1

To join the discussion about The Seeker King, or to order a copy, go here

Elvis Presley never grew up.

He hit the big time when he was still a relatively unformed young man, and based on what I read in Gary Tillery’s biography, The Seeker King, remained emotionally at that age for the rest of his days.

Sudden success on the scale that Elvis achieved can and often does become a prison for those who experience it. The constant hammering from well-meaning fans exerts enormous pressure to withdraw from normal life.

I think people underestimate the powerful talent possessed by artists such as Elvis. His ability to connect with and hold his audience through decades of ups and downs was not just a manifestation of press and hype. There is an ability to touch people on a visceral level in these great stars. They have something in them that reaches through the screen or down from the stage and connects with the people watching them in a way that those of us who are unaffected by it don’t really understand.

This kind of magnetism does not admit the normal limits that exist between performers and their audiences. It creates a fusion between the artist and his art that leaves no space for the person to exist.

Elvis was young and naive when he rocketed to fame. He was a high school graduate raised by adoring but impoverished parents in the rural South of the great depression. His parents’ love gave him the sense of self necessary to step out as an individual at an early age. Their unquestioning support was, in a very real way, the loft beneath his wings.

But nothing in his background prepared him to deal with the onslaught of fame that took over his life when he was barely out of school. He fell, as so many of these young talents do, into the habit of isolating with a group of paid cronies. Sadly, he was introduced to mood altering prescription drugs by physicians who were, to a great extent, just another part of his entourage.

Despite all this, he retained the generous and gentle spirit, the courtesy and spirituality, that were his trademark. Elvis was intelligent and sensitive enough to hunger for more from life than empty fame. Based on what I read, it sounds as if there was a bit of esp in Elvis’ family, and that he had a good dose of it himself.

He grew up in the Holiness church of the 1930s and 1940s South. The beliefs he found there didn’t leave him as an adult, but he seems to have hungered for an understanding of God that went deeper than that simple theology.

The book draws its name from Elvis’ constant seeking after spiritual truth. This quest ran through all the years of isolation that became his life after he achieved stardom.

From his first hit record, Elvis ceased to live as a free person. I think that his plight, including the increasing and ultimately fatal dependence on prescription drugs was, to a great extent, the product of surrounding himself with hangers on whose livelihood depended on keeping him caught.

It must take great self-awareness, courage and determination for a person this famous to build an independent, healthy life for themselves. Elvis came to his fame from a background that did not give him the skills or associates to handle what his life became. He was so young when he became The King that he was still figuring out who he was.

It’s to his credit that Elvis Presley stayed a nice person despite all this. He was, in many ways, an innocent until the day he died. That’s because Elvis Presley was hermetically sealed in the capsule of his fame and the entourage that formed a protective barrier between him and the outside world.

Elvis died from what amounts to medical malpractice by doctors that he trusted. It is bitter irony that this man who didn’t drink and who abhorred drugs was hooked on prescription drugs and ultimately died from that untreated addiction because he believed that if a doctor prescribed something, it had to be safe and medicinal.

I recommend The Seeker King to those who are interested in Elvis Presley. It is also a good case study in the deleterious affects of fame on the lives of public figures.

 

Oklahoma Lawmaker Files Bill to Ban Marriage

24543033 BG1

You gotta admit. I do have an interesting job. 

One of my colleagues in the Oklahoma House of Representatives has filed a bill that would make marriage illegal in Oklahoma. He says this is a way to keep gay marriage out of the state and satisfy the Constitution. 

I’m not going to comment about this right now. I may have to vote on it. And I definitely will be hearing about it in more detail in the next few days. 

In the meantime, I’m going to toss it out there for Public Catholic readers to chew on. Remember: No name-calling or verbal fisticuffs. 

Enjoy.

From Oklahoma’s Own News 9:

OKLAHOMA CITY -

State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.

The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it’s an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it’s what Oklahomans want.

“[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all,” Turner said.

Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

“Would it be realistic for the State of Oklahoma to say, ‘We’re not going to do marriage period,’” asked News 9′s Michael Konopasek.

“That would definitely be a realistic opportunity, and it’s something that would be part of the discussion,” Turner answered.

Such a discussion will be made possible by a current shell bill — something that can be changed at almost any time to react to upcoming rulings on Oklahoma’s same-sex marriage ban.

“I think that, especially with issues like this, [these lawmakers are] out of touch with most Oklahomans,” said Ryan Kiesel, ACLU Oklahoma executive detector.

Lock Up Your Babies and Little Old Ladies. It’s Killing Time in New Mexico.

 

8b45421bea39e2a42ea97b0eef253d2a

 

You know those magazine articles and internet blogs detailing the best places in America to retire?

You can take New Mexico off the list.

Judge Nan Nash, a family court judge from the New Mexico second judicial district, has decided it’s time to let New Mexico doctors legally kill their patients. Anyone with half a brain knows that, despite the judge’s contentions, that means primarily and mostly our old people.

You can read her findings here. If you do, you’ll notice that she makes quite a few unsupported assumptions to get to her conclusion, which is that doctors in New Mexico can now kill their patients.

You can dress it up all you want, but that’s what euthanasia is: A license to kill.

You can call it “mercy” and “compassion” and whatever nonsensical appellation you can dream up to hang on it. But it’s killing people who have become a “burden.”

I hesitate to reference Hitler, especially after my explication here, but sometimes, only a reference to one of the masters of Godless killing of the 20th Century fits the “progressive” things we are doing to ourselves in America today. Euthanasia of the sick and the elderly is just Hitler’s “solution” for what he called “useless eaters” one step removed.

Proponents of euthanasia describe a fantasyland world where we can give people the legal right to kill other people and it won’t ever be abused. They live in a world where euthanasia is palliative care to ease people out of the inhuman suffering that the same medical profession we are giving the right to kill them inflicted on them in the first place. They erect all sorts of pretty little fences around their medical killing fields, and then pretend that those fences actually serve to keep the killers out.

But the truth of the matter is that human beings will kill with impunity if you allow them to kill at all. The line between a doctor and a killer is the law. Doctors have the power to kill their patents in a thousand unseen ways. They do it by accident all the time. They always, from the time you submit yourself to their care, have the power to kill you.

But when we blur the lines around how they can use that power to allow them to deliberately and willfully kill their patients in one little “extreme” instance and another instance and another one over there, we have opened the door to the idea that it is permissible for doctors to kill their patients.

All the pretty little legal fences in the world cannot undo the bedrock change in philosophy and attitude that comes riding in on that permission. After you break down the barrier between healing and killing of patients, everything else is fine print.

I say this as someone who is “burdened” as the world sees it with an elderly parent: You don’t have to kill people. All you have to do is love them and take care of them. Life is worth living, even at its twilight. People are precious, even when they can’t do anything for us anymore and we have to do for them.

Every human being is made in the image and likeness of God Almighty and, with the single exception of self defense, you may not kill them. 

Human life belongs to God. It is His to give, and His to take. It is ours to live.

What a bunch of inhuman monsters we have become that our society allows this.

I could go off into long-winded explanations as to why euthanasia is wrong and unnecessary and (dare I say it) a mortal sin that can get you sent to flaming hell for eternity. I’ve done it before. And I imagine I’ll do it again.

But for today, I’m doing to repeat one statement that I think says it all:

What a bunch of inhuman monsters we have become.

Obama to Meet Pope. Will the Holy Water Boil Dry?

I used to joke that the reason I never took holy water to my office at the Oklahoma House of Representatives is because I was afraid it would boil dry in the elevator on the way up.

I have much the same whimsical opinion about the news that our president is going to be visiting Pope Francis in March. When our Catholic-Church-attacking President steps foot on Vatican soil, will the Holy Water in the founts boil dry?

I don’t know of an American president who has been as aggressively anti-Catholic as President Obama. From his HHS Mandate, to the government’s many moves  to close down Catholic adoption agencies, ministries to trafficked women and on to closing the American Embassy at the Vatican, this president has been an all-in anti-Catholic politician.

The fact that he’s got a Catholic Vice President and a Catholic Secretary of State, cheering him on, only makes the plot sicken.

Catholics who appear to take their moral guidance from the Democratic Underground, Daily Kos and the Christian-baiting atheist blogosphere seem to occupy all the Catholic-faith-based podiums in this country. From the Governor of New York and his prejudicial anti-life rants, to mush-minded Vice President Joe Biden and his revolving moral understandings, the big public voice of big public Catholics is a veritable Greek Chorus for the Church-is-wrong-long-live-relativism viewpoint.

The question is, do they speak for more than themselves and their upper crust cronies? Do they speak for the priests in Catholic parishes, the presidents of Catholic universities, and, maybe even more to the point, do they speak for pew-sitting Catholic people?

Based, completely unscientifically, on the comments I see here on Public Catholic, I’m guessing that the answer to that question is mixed. For some, absolutely not. For others, sometimes yes; sometimes no. We have the occasional blip of a commenter who is all in for the secular culture, but they are, at least in the Public Catholic universe, pretty much standing alone.

Personally, I think President Obama’s visit to meet our Pope is a good time for us to pray for the man. Who knows? Maybe God will get through to him.

It is also a good time for us to take a look at ourselves, as Catholics.

The real question, and the only question that any of us can answer with authority, is: Who do you follow?

Do you follow the fallen Catholics in high places who appear to have a total and absolute contempt for the requirements of our faith? Or, do you follow the Church, which has, in spite of the many failings of its clergy and people, held true to the teachings of the Gospels for 2,000 years?

When you die, who will say to you, You belong to me?

Will it be Jesus?

Or,

Will it be someone else?

If you want it to be Jesus, you need to follow the Church.

It is really as simple as that.

 

Are Gay Rights Activists Nazis, and Other Coffee Through the Nose Questions

Hitler4

 

I love the commenters here on Public Catholic. You are an intelligent and thoughtful group of people. It touches, educates and amazes me to read the things you say and the honesty with which you say them.

However, every so often you get into a hairball of an argument and all I can see from the outside is a giant wroth of confusion with waving arms and a few feet sticking out.

The question in the title of this post is the result of one such hairball/wroth in the making.

It is an internet adage that if a combox conversation goes on long enough, somebody is going to call somebody else Hitler. I don’t think that people are referring to the failed Austrian painter, Iron Cross wearing, vegetarian occultist who caused the worst war in human history and masterminded the extermination much of Europe’s population of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Catholic clergy, liberals, mentally ill, mentally challenged, disabled and various what not (deep breath) when they say this.

I’m not sure that Hitler, whose resume reads like half new-ager and half serial killer with one of the most advanced societies in history at his disposal, rises (or falls, as it may be) to the level that we give him.

First all, Hitler wasn’t and isn’t an evil god. He wasn’t and isn’t a demon from hell. Hitler was evil. But he was not Evil. Hitler was a man. He was killed by a bullet to the brain.

Hitler, by himself, could never have been more than a lone serial killer, knocking off individual people in the alleys and by-ways. Hitler, alone, was just another John Wayne Gacy wannabe.

What made him different was the confluence of the rise of nihilist philosophies and movements such as eugenics, a first World War that no one anywhere can explain, the fall of Russia into Communist hands, an unjust and vindictive peace that heaped all the blame and crippling punishment on Germany, and a worldwide economic depression that sucked the hope out of ordinary people all over the globe.

This welter of confusion and rage left people ready to listen to anybody who could give voice to their emotions and who sounded like he knew what he was doing. Germany had fallen into the hands of an ineffective government after World War I. The people were suffering on many levels. It was an easy and obvious march for a vegetarian, occult-following serial killer with a gift for driving oratory and a willingness to lie to take charge.

Hitler didn’t begin by telling the German people that he was going to kill everybody except the ones he deemed worthy of life. He certainly didn’t tell them that he was going to start a world war on three fronts. He told them that he was for peace and prosperity. He made up obfuscations and propaganda about how doing away with those who were, in his movement’s words, “useless eaters,” “life unworthy of life” was a kindness; a means of putting them and society both at the same time out of their respective miseries.

Hitler lied to the German people about his intentions and appealed to their baser instincts about other human beings, and, for their part, the German people colluded with him in committing crimes that were, before then, beyond imagining. By his lies and obfuscations, he was able to conjure a political spell that beguiled an advanced and Christian nation into following him down to the mouth of hell.

That’s how he killed the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Catholic clergy, liberals, mentally ill, mentally challenged, disabled and various what not.

He lied to a lot of people and got them to give him a lot of power. Then, when he got the power, he repudiated the hated peace agreement and put Germany on a war-time economy, which in turn brought jobs and prosperity. He also used his power to consign those who opposed him to camps. Prosperity and the snuffed out silence of fear bought him the power to do his worst.

Most people in our modern America are too uneducated about history to know how Hitler really functioned or who he really was. All we know is what we see on tv, and what we see on tv is, at best, edited for ratings and, at worst, edited for propaganda purposes. Still, there remains the conviction that Hitler is the last great evil-doer that we can safely conclude in this relativistic and intellectually stifled world we inhabit was in fact an evil-doer and not just the misunderstood product of a bad upbringing.

Hitler, because he is dead, and because he has become for us a safe repository for our cultural moral indignations, is the bogey man we drag out when we want to chide one another for our excesses. The “Nazis,” which is a sort of group code-name for Hitlerian cruelties and excesses, is has become a working synonym for Hitler himself.

Regarded this way, calling someone Hitler, or likening a group of people to the Nazis in an internet combox is the verbal equivalent of kids yelling “Oh yeah? Sez you!” at one another on the playground. It’s right up there with the slurs about their mothers that opposing teams in football games hurl at one another before the play starts.

Just for the record, let me state categorically that gay rights activists are not Nazis.

By the same token, people who believe in the sanctity of marriage are not “haters” or “homophobes.”

I will also add in defense of a combox slur that was directed at me, that opposing the farming of women’s bodies for eggs and also opposing the use of women as for-hire pregnancy surrogates does not mean that a person “hates gays.”

There is, to be sure, an ugly totalitarian thread running through the new next step that comes after redefinition of marriage wherever that event has occurred. It is the trammeling of the rights of conscience and religious freedom of churches, individuals and small businesses by using government force to coerce them into complying with a whole host of activities that violate their deeply held beliefs. This totalitarianism is supported by a bogus application of the principles of the Civil Rights movement of the late 1950s and early 1960s. That is, in turn, supported by an equally bogus equating of sexual preference with race and the discriminations homosexuals have faced with the slavery and Jim Crow sufferings of black people.

We can talk about these things. We have talked about them over and over again on this blog.

But we can talk about them without calling each other Nazis, Hitler, haters, homophobes or any of the other verbal claptrap that blocks out reason and bastardizes our mental capacities. We can do it because we are — all of us — better than that.

There is not one person who comes to comment on this blog who lacks the capacity for rational thought and intelligent argument. They just need to  learn to employ those capacities.

Feel free to discuss things on this blog. But use your higher thinking capacities when you do it. That way, you’ll walk away from the experience a bit better for it and will not degrade either yourself, your beliefs, or the many readers who come here.

 

Gay Marriage, the Rights of Children, and Religious Liberty

I’ve received permission to reprint Ryan Anderson’s testimony concerning gay marriage in full. The video of his testimony is below the printed version of it.

I think Mr Anderson makes excellent points in this testimony.

Several commenters who responded to links to it in an earlier post made claims that gay marriage doesn’t change anything. In truth, wherever gay marriage has been legalized, there has been a concomitant attack on the conscience rights of small business people and individuals. We’ll explore that a bit next week.

In the meantime, the links Mr Anderson gives in the written version of his testimony also address those assertions.

From The Witherspoon Institute, courtesy of The Heritage Foundation:

I will be speaking today from the perspective of political science and philosophy to answer the question “What Is Marriage?” I’ve co-authored a book and an article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy with a classmate of mine from Princeton, Sherif Girgis, and with a professor of ours, Robert George. Justice Samuel Alito cited our book twice in his dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case involving the Defense of Marriage Act.

The title of that book is “What Is Marriage?” An answer to that question is something we didn’t hear today from people on the other side. It’s interesting that we’ve had a three-hour conversation about marriage without much by way of answering that question.

Everyone in this room is in favor of marriage equality. We all want the law to treat all marriages equally. But the only way we can know whether any state law is treating marriages equally is if we know what a marriage is. Every state law will draw lines between what is a marriage and what isn’t a marriage. If those lines are to be drawn on principle, if those lines are to reflect the truth, we have to know what sort of relationship is marital, as contrasted with other forms of consenting adult relationships.

So, in the time I have today, I’ll answer three questions: what is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what are the consequences of redefining marriage?

Marriage exists to unite a man and a woman as husband and wife to then be equipped to be mother and father to any children that that union produces. It’s based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary. It’s based on the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman. It’s based on the sociological reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Whenever a child is born, a mother will always be close by. That’s a fact of biology. The question for culture and the question for law is whether a father will be close by. And if so, for how long? Marriage is the institution that different cultures and societies across time and place developed to maximize the likelihood that that man would commit to that woman and then the two of them would take responsibility to raise that child.

Part of this is based on the reality that there’s no such thing as parenting in the abstract: there’s mothering, and there’s fathering. Men and women bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise. Rutgers sociologist Professor David Popenoe writes, “the burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.” He then concludes:

We should disavow the notion that mommies can make good daddies, just as we should the popular notion that daddies can make good mommies. The two sexes are different to the core and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being.

This is why so many states continue to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, many doing so by amending their constitutions.

So why does marriage matter for public policy? Perhaps there is no better way to analyze this than by looking to our own president, President Barack Obama. Allow me to quote him:

We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

There is a host of social science evidence. We go through the litany and cite the studies in our book, but President Obama sums it up pretty well. We’ve seen in the past fifty years, since the war on poverty began, that the family has collapsed. At one point in America, virtually every child was given the gift of a married mother and father. Today, 40 percent of all Americans, 50 percent of Hispanics, and 70 percent of African Americans are born to single moms—and the consequences for those children are quite serious.

The state’s interest in marriage is not that it cares about my love life, or your love life, or anyone’s love life just for the sake of romance. The state’s interest in marriage is ensuring that those kids have fathers who are involved in their lives.

But when this doesn’t happen, social costs run high. As the marriage culture collapses, child poverty rises. Crime rises. Social mobility decreases. And welfare spending—which bankrupts so many states and the federal government—takes off.

If you care about social justice and limited government, if you care about freedom and the poor, then you have to care about marriage. All of these ends are better served by having the state define marriage correctly rather than the state trying to pick up the pieces of a broken marriage culture. The state can encourage men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children while leaving other consenting adults free to live and to love as they choose, all without redefining the fundamental institution of marriage.

On that note, we’ve heard concerns about hospital visitation rights (which the federal government has already addressed) and with inheritance laws. Every individual has those concerns. I am not married. When I get sick, I need somebody to visit me in the hospital. When I die, I need someone to inherit my wealth. That situation is not unique to a same-sex couple. That is a situation that matters for all of us. So we need not redefine marriage to craft policy that will serve all citizens.

Lastly, I’ll close with three ways in which redefining marriage will undermine the institution of marriage. We hear this question: “how does redefining marriage hurt you or your marriage?” I’ll just mention three in the remaining time that I have.

First, it fundamentally reorients the institution of marriage away from the needs of children toward the desires of adults. It no longer makes marriage about ensuring the type of family life that is ideal for kids; it makes it more about adult romance. If one of the biggest social problems we face right now in the United States is absentee dads, how will we insist that fathers are essential when the law redefines marriage to make fathers optional?

Much of the testimony we have heard today was special interest pleading from big business claiming that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would make it hard for them to appeal to the elite college graduates from the East and the West coasts. We heard no discussion about the common good of the citizens of Indiana—the children who need fathers involved in their lives. Redefining marriage will make it much harder for the law to teach that those fathers are essential.

Second, if you redefine marriage, so as to say that the male-female aspect is irrational and arbitrary, what principle for policy and for law will retain the other three historic components of marriage? In the United States, it’s always been a monogamous union, a sexually exclusive union, and a permanent union. We’ve already seen new words created to challenge each and every one of those items.

Throuple” is a three-person couple. New York Magazine reports about it. Here’s the question: if I were to sue and say that I demand marriage equality for my throuple, what principle would deny marriage equality to the throuple once you say that the male-female aspect of marriage is irrational and arbitrary? The way that we got to monogamy is that it’s one man and one woman who can unite in the type of action that can create new life and who can provide that new life with one mom and one dad. Once you say that the male-female aspect is irrational and arbitrary, you will have no principled reason to retain the number two.

Likewise, the term “wedlease” was introduced in the Washington Post in 2013. A wedlease is a play on the term wedlock. It’s for a temporary marriage. If marriage is primarily about adult romance, and romance can come, and it can go, why should the law presume it to be permanent? Why not issue expressly temporary marriage licenses?

And lastly, the term “monogamish.” Monogamish was introduced in the New York Times in 2011. The term suggests we should retain the number two, but that spouses should be free to have sexually open relationships. That it should be two people getting married, but they should be free to have sex outside of that marriage, provided there’s no coercion or deceit.

Now, whatever you think about group marriage, whatever you think about temporary marriage, whatever you think about sexually open marriage, as far as adults living and loving how they choose, think about the social consequences if that’s the future direction in which marriage redefinition would go. For every additional sexual partner a man has and the shorter-lived those relationships are, the greater the chances that a man creates children with multiple women without commitment either to those women or to those kids. It increases the likelihood of creating fragmented families, and then big government will step in to pick up the pieces with a host of welfare programs that truly drain the economic prospects of all of our states.

Finally, I’ll mention liberty concerns, religious liberty concerns in particular. After Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, DC, either passed a civil union law or redefined marriage, Christian adoption agencies were forced to stop serving some of the neediest children in America: orphans. These agencies said they had no problem with same-sex couples adopting from other agencies, but that they wanted to place the children in their care with a married mom and dad. They had a religious liberty interest, and they had social science evidence that suggests that children do best with a married mom and dad. And yet in all three jurisdictions, they were told they could not do that.

We’ve also seen in different jurisdictions instances of photographers, bakers, florists, and innkeepers, people acting in the commercial sphere, saying we don’t want to be coerced. And that’s what redefining marriage would do. Redefining marriage would say that every institution has to treat two people of the same sex as if they’re married, even if those institutions don’t believe that they’re married. So the coercion works in the exact opposite direction of what we have heard.

Everyone right now is free to live and to love how they want. Two people of the same sex can work for a business that will give them marriage benefits, if the business chooses to. They can go to a liberal house of worship and have a marriage ceremony, if the house of worship chooses to. What is at stake with redefining marriage is whether the law would now coerce others into treating a same-sex relationship as if it’s a marriage, even when doing so violates the conscience and rights of those individuals and those institutions.

So, for all of these reasons, this state and all states have an interest in preserving the definition of marriage as the union—permanent and exclusive—of one man and one woman.

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the Editor of Public Discourse. He is co-author, with Sherif Girgis and Robert George, of the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, and is a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Notre Dame.

 

YouTube Preview Image


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X