Marriage Is Not a Water Fountain

by  Anthony Esolen     September 29th, 2014
within Marriage  The Witherspoon Institute, Public Discourse

  

Segregation was based on irrational, peculiar prejudice. By contrast, protecting marriage between one man and one woman is based on universal truths about our human nature.

... Human beings do need friendships, but we do not register friendships with the State. Human beings do need a mother and a father; but the movement for homosexual pseudogamy, like the sexual revolution generally, cruelly denies that need. The person at the water fountain needs a drink. But no one needs sodomy, in part because no one, as an individual, needs any sexual activity at all. If you keep your clothes on, you are not going to shrivel up and die. You may want the activity. You may want it very much. But it is not a necessity. 
Click here for the entire article

Utah gay marriage case first in line at Supreme Court

By Dennis Romboy, Deseret News 

Published: Saturday, Sept. 27 2014 6:50 p.m. MDT

The U.S. Supreme Court will start considering Monday the cases it will take in its upcoming session, including the challenge to Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.

“It's not a typical decision for the justices because they have numerous petitions presenting essentially the same issue, but they're postured slightly differently.”

Troy Booher, Salt Lake appellate lawyer

SALT LAKE CITY — The U.S. Supreme Court will start considering Monday the cases it will take in its upcoming session, including the challenge to Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.

The state's case, Kitchen v. Herbert, is among gay marriage cases in Virginia, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Indiana the justices will look at before deciding which, if any, to hear in their term starting Oct. 6.

"Ours is the lowest number, so we're at the top of the pile," said Utah Federal Solicitor Parker Douglas.

Typically, the court grants, denies or defers the petitions it receives. The multiple same-sex marriage cases, however, create a unique situation.

Click here to read the entire article

Love One Another!

September 29, 2014 by Dan Peterson 1 Comment

 

“What people mean when they say that God is love is often something quite different: they really mean ‘Love is God.’”
(C. S. Lewis)

 Rumor has it that thousands of these look-alike pass-along cards will be handed out at General Conference this next weekend.

We shall see.

 Is “love” a synonym for “sex”?  Do people have to be married in order to love one another?  What principled argument, based simply on the imperative to “love” and used to support a redefinition of marriage in favor of same-sex couples wouldn’t also support same-sex trios or heterosexual triads?  And, in that case, why stop at threesomes?

Janna Danelle: Redefining marriage hurts women, children

By Janna Danelle

For the Deseret News

Published: Sunday, Sept. 28 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Summary

The push to present a positive image of same-sex families has hidden the devastation on which many are built. My children and I suffered great losses because of my former husband’s decision to identify as a gay man and throw away his life with us.

Every time a new state redefines marriage, the news is full of happy stories of gay and lesbian couples and their new families. But behind those big smiles and sunny photographs are other, more painful stories. These are left to secret, dark places. They are suppressed, and those who would tell them are silenced in the name of “marriage equality.”

But I refuse to be silent.

I represent one of those real-life stories that are kept in the shadows. I have personally felt the pain and devastation wrought by the propaganda that destroys natural families.

Click here to read entire article

Op-ed: Stand up to elites who undermine traditional marriage

By Jennifer Roback Morse

First Published Sep 19 2014 05:18 pm • Last Updated Sep 19 2014 05:18 pm

Why should we stand for the family, or for marriage, or for life or for any of the culturally-conservative issues?

Living in California during the Proposition 8 debates, I had a front row seat watching the "elites" mangle the meaning of marriage. The judicial elites have handed down a disastrous series of federal court decisions, solidifying governmental commitment to the ideology of the sexual revolution. The entertainment elites seem to celebrate every family form except the natural family of a loving father and mother married faithfully to one another and raising their own children together. The media elites continue their shameless manipulation of public opinion. The economic elites pour money into political and propaganda campaigns designed to prop up the structure of the sexual revolution. Academic elites continue behind-the-scenes scribbling, advocating for recreating marriage, the family, and even the human body, in their own image.

  0  0

	Join the Discussion
	Post a Comment

In the face of all these cultural, legal and social headwinds, why should we stand for the family?

We should stand for the family precisely because the situation seems dire: we must build a record for posterity.

Our responsibility at this time and in this place is to show future generations that the ordinary people of America do not want the dismantling of marriage. These policies were thrust upon us by the elites.

We hear demands for "marriage equality." But we never hear about equality for children. Why do some children have a legally recognized right to the care and support of both of their parents, and other children do not?

We hear about adults and their desires to have children. Why don’t we ever hear about children and their desires to have their own biological parents?

We hear that children will be fine with any combination of adults, so long as they love each other and love the child.

But isn’t this just an updated version of the old lies we were told about divorce? "Children will be fine as long as their parents are happy. After all, kids are resilient."

By separating sex from procreation and separating both from marriage, by claiming that men and women are completely interchangeable, the ideology of the sexual revolution has brought misery to millions of people.

"Gay marriage" really means removing the gender requirement from marriage. This will not be a single, stand-alone policy change. In other states, including California, the next moves have included:

• Replacing the words "husband and wife" with the gender-neutral "partner" or "spouse" in the law.

• Replacing "mother" and "father" with generic "parent" in the law.

• Changing birth certificates to reflect the wishes and intentions of adults rather than the actual genetic heritage of the child.

• Children being assigned three legal parents.

We do not want the systematic redefinition of parenthood.

I am not optimistic about immediate success in any particular court or legislature. But I am optimistic about the long-run future of marriage.

There is no future without marriage.

We intend to stand for the family.

Will you stand with us?

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is founder and president of the Ruth Institute. She was a speaker at the Stand for the Family conference Friday in Provo.

Mapping America 133

These statistics were presented at the Stand For the Family Conference in Provo, Utah on September 19, 2014    Click Here to go to the original site and get downloads

Religious attendance: Religious attendance was inversely related to cheating on one's spouse or cohabiting partner. Those who worshiped weekly were least likely to have ever been unfaithful (12 percent), followed by those who worshiped less than weekly but at least monthly (12.4 percent), those who worshiped less than monthly (16.5 percent), and those who never worshiped (19 percent).

Marital status: Those in always-intact marriages were least likely to have ever cheated on their spouse or cohabiting partner (12.8 percent). A history of infidelity is more prevalent among those in non-intact family structures and among singles: 25.5 percent of those who were divorced and remarried were likely to have ever cheated on their spouse or cohabiting partner, and 30.5 percent of those who were divorced or separated had ever been unfaithful.

Religious attendance and marital status combined: Those in intact marriages who worshiped weekly were the least likely to have ever cheated on a spouse or cohabiting partner (10.6 percent), followed by those in non-intact family structures or who are single who worshiped weekly (12.3 percent). Those in intact marriages who never worshiped (17 percent) and those in non-intact family structures or who are single who never worshiped (19.8 percent) were more likely to have cheated on their spouse or cohabiting partner.

Related Insight from Other Studies

Data from the 1991- 2004 General Social Survey found that both attending church and holding to Biblical beliefs were associated with lower odds of marital infidelity,[1] and another study found that individuals who said they were in "very happy" marriages exhibited strong religious behavior.[2]

A different analysis of nationally representative survey data found higher likelihood of sexual infidelity among married or cohabiting couples with "stronger sexual interests, more permissive sexual values, lower subjective satisfaction with their union, weaker network ties to partner, and greater sexual opportunities."[3]

Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. and Althea Nagai

Pat Fagan is senior fellow and director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI) at Family Research Council.

Althea Nagai is a visiting fellow with the Family Research Council.

---

[1] Amy Burdette, Christopher Ellison, Darren Sherkat and Kurt Gore, "Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?" Journal of Family Issues 28, no. 12 (December 2007): 1553-1581.

[2] David Atkins, Donald Baucom, and Neil Jacobson, "Understanding Infidelity: Correlates in a National Sample," Journal of Family Psychology 15, no. 4 (December 2001): 742.

[3] Judith Treas and Deirdre Giesen, "Sexual Infidelity Among Married and Cohabiting Americans," Journal of Marriage and Family 62, no.1 (February 2000): 48-60.

Same-sex marriage: Why should Utahns even care?

By DAVID HUNSAKER

Guest columnist

On September 18 at 7 p.m. supporters of man-woman marriage will gather at the Utah State Capitol for a public rally where they will listen to family experts from all over the country about preserving the definition of marriage. The purpose of the rally is to thank Attorney General Sean Reyes and Governor Gary Herbert for defending Utah’s definition of marriage and taking Utah’s case to the Supreme Court. Because Utah’s case is the furthest along in the legal process, Utah will be leading 31 other states who are desperately trying to maintain their definitions of marriage. All eyes are on Utah’s case to see if the Supreme Court will leave the question of marriage to the states.

With all of the money and time being spent on this issue, it makes sense to ask, “Why should Utahns even care about same-sex marriage?” Many still think that the answer to redefining marriage is that we should just “live and let live.” If you’re still carrying the “live and let live” banner, here are some people you should talk to:

Brendan Eich — one of the founders of the Mozilla Firefox Corporation was fired from his position as CEO because he donated $1,000 to preserving the definition of marriage in California. Don Mendell — a school counselor in Maine with a 36-year career who essentially lost his position and had to defend his license before a board because he said that he believed kids should have a mom and a dad. Dakota Ary — a grade school student who was suspended because he said he was uncomfortable with an explicit homosexual photograph posted in his classroom. And finally, David and Tanya Parker — parents of a kindergartner in Massachusetts who was taught about homosexuality in his kindergarten class. They were not given the choice to opt their son out of the instruction. These individuals can tell you what “live and let live” may look like for your family.
Click Here to read entire article