Read further here:
OK– I’ll open the floodgates–time for a ramble….
Marriage is a word used to describe a societal institution, and it means something–or at least it has, that something being a relatively permanent, committed union between a man and a woman. Yes, I know that people have historically taken their own marriages too lightly and the Hollywood left and others have treated their marriages in much the same manner as middle-school kids treat crushes; but the essential accepted definition of the term, “MARRIAGE” has nonetheless remained intact for the better part of 2000 years.
Now, however, we are being told that we, in a new ‘enlightened’ era, must arbitrarily re-define the longstanding societal institution of marriage, for better or worse, to include same sex couples, and that it should be so under the 14th Amendment, and upheld between States under the “Full Faith and Credit” clause.
Fine and dandy, I guess…BUT–
We’re also told that that’s as far as it will go– and if we (those who are against gay marriage and/or those who are on the fence) think that it is the beginning of a slippery slope ‘anything goes’ redefinition of the institution of marriage, we’re just paranoid neanderthals.. 10 or 15 years ago, we were also told that there was no need to pass a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution, because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) protected that traditional definition.
Fine and dandy, as well, I guess;
However, up to this point, no one has been able to adequately explain how, if the SCOTUS decision tilts the “gay marriage” way, that polygamists, incestuous couples, etc., will not also want equal protection under the 14th Amendment, and sue for the right to marry, and that the term ‘marriage’ will have so many meanings so as to render what has been a veritable societal institution meaningless.
In other words, what is to prevent the slippery slope we’re being assured will not happen?
Personally, I’m of the mind that it’s a State issue, and that ALL unions should be civil unions. But should the term “Marriage” be so malleable so as to become meaningless?
Are people really thinking things through on this issue? Or are many merely living in the zeitgiest of the moment, inconsiderate of and/or oblivious to the ramifications?
I’ve been thinking long and hard the past few days, and I can’t see any assurances that my worst nightmare regarding the institution of marriage, that it essentially becomes meaningless, will not come to fruition.
While many marriages have failed since time imemoriam, the institution of marriage on balance has unarguably been a net-positive as a building block for literally thousands of years into our civilization.
I guess all I’m saying is that we may be taking this issue a bit too cavalierly; jumping in the clouded pool without regard as to its depth and/or its potential consequences.
I await to be educated to the contrary.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan – Mark Steyn nails it:
…It came up at dinner Down Under this time last year, and the prominent Aussie politician on my right said matter-of-factly, “It’s not about expanding marriage, it’s about destroying marriage.” That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a “meaningless piece of paper” or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting it’s a universal human right…
The thing about liberals is that, at bottom, they are just downright nasty – doesn’t matter what the issue is, they will always take the worst possible position and if it contradicts their previous position its no matter…as long as hatred the destruction of our civilization proceed, they’re just pleased as punch.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” -Oath of office for Congress.
Just words– without one iota of consideration as to what those words mean.
I’m just getting more and more nauseated every time I think of this whole damned bunch of traitors, liars, opportunists, and career criminals.
I’ve lost every iota of optimism and faith in government.
They are no longer public servants, placed in a position of trust.
They–the lot of them– are self-serving, egotistical leeches who are in it for no one but themselves.
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
God have mercy on our nation, and please, drain the swamp, once and for all.
I’m so disgusted.
Well, the dutiful bubble-headed talking heads on the Alphabets, like clockwork, are busily carrying the democrat water, spouting off about how gun control is now the best thing since sliced bread; that it was the gun that killed the children at Sandy Hook Elementary, not the finger attached to the perp that pulled the trigger.
The bodies are cold enough. Let the politicization begin.
I’m really tired of having public policy dictated by the emotion du jour instead of by clear-thinking minds, just so some idiot politician can beat his or her chest, and say “Look at me!! See what I did?? I care!!” not to mention the lamebrained kneejerk reactions by some politically correct company board rooms afraid of their own shadows, putting their ears to the ground, just so they could follow the latest mindless lemming stampede.
Never mind that the only ones who will be disarmed are the law abiding citizens who would never otherwise visit harm upon their fellow man.
It’s all about EMOTION. Rationality, my friends, is over-rated.
What you are now witnessing is a textbook example of David Axelrod’s axiom in action; Big Government statists and willing media accomplices engaging in a coordinated “campaign of whispers” to whip the information-bereft Idiocracy into an unstoppable emotion-laden frenzy to do their bidding under the guise of “doing *something!*” little realizing (or simply not caring) that they are all too willing to give up freedom, for a false sense of security, only to be relieved of both.
As an educator, and as one who has lived through a school shooting incident, I’m not going to sugar-coat anything. What happened in Connecticut (as well as the school district in which I worked) is proof positive that there is evil in the world, and evil will continue to prey on the most vulnerable. The only way to combat this evil is to make the vulnerable less so. If there was an armed teacher or administrator at Sandy Hook Elementary school, there is a great chance that many if not all innocent lives would have been saved. This would have held true in the theater in Aurora, Colorado, and even in Fort Hood, where, ironically, there were strict gun control laws. To deny this is not only foolish, it continues to place our children (and other innocent, law-abiding citizens) in harm’s way.
A “No Guns Allowed” sign is nothing but an invitation for any low-life scumbag psycho-killer to enter what promises to be a target-rich environment.
Victims, no more. It’s high time we stop ignoring the dangers and put an abrupt stop to this madness.
Judge finds NC ‘Choose Life’ plates unconstitutional
RALEIGH, N.C. – A federal judge has ruled it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to issue pro-life license plates unless…
Here is the takeaway line…
“This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom,” said Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU-NCLF.
Brook said the government cannot create an avenue to express one side of a political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with an opposing view.”
This is quite interesting… and at once damning to all the government-sanctioned intellectual monopolies held by the Left.
Given the Federal Court’s decision, for instance,
Should the taxpayers support Darwinism exclusively being taught in schools, while at the same time denying equal opportunity and access for those who espouse Intelligent Design theory?”
Given the Federal Court’s decision, why should the taxpayers be forced to support Planned Parenthood, and at the same time not be forced to support Pro-Life organizations?
In their zeal to utilize the courts to push their agenda, it appears that ‘progressives’ have really stuck it to themselves this time.
I just figured out the insidiousness connected with what passes for policymaking in Washington D.C. and elsewhere:
There aren’t enough”so thats”
A long time ago I had a wise supervisor (in education, of all things) who said, “For everything you do in your job, as well as for every change you make in your procedure, you need to have a “so that” attached to it. In other words, I do this, so that________.” If you don’t have a good “so that,” then you have no good reason to keep on doing what you’re doing, or for implementing the change you’ve been contemplating.
So that what? So that we can decrease the deficit?
By all accounts, the tax hike currently being contemplated by the Democrats will produce enough extra income to run the government for a grand total of EIGHT MORE DAYS. And that is a liberal estimate. With the concomitant economic slowdown, more like FOUR extra days.
So raising taxes so that to decrease the deficit doesn’t wash.
So tell me, my Democrat friends- what is the “so that” connected to this grand scheme??
Let me first say that what I’m about to write probably in no way reflects the feelings of Matt, or Mark, or any other contributor to this blog. Hell, I don’t know if it even accurately reflects how I’ll feel a week from now. Call it a stream of consciousness as to what I’m feeling at the moment.
I understand the Democrats played a good ground game. I understand we were rope-a-doped. I understand that the Republicans could have done a better job of conveying why Conservatism affords the most people the most opportunity for prosperity.
My question is thus– how can you overcome an opponent who not only can raise as much as you do, but has the added advantage of literally hundreds of millions of dollars more in free advertising and cover, from a group of people ostensibly charged to serve as watchdogs for the people against the government? The media was clearly, demonstrably, more in the tank for the democrat side than I have seen in my entire lifetime. Fox News tried covering the other side. But they’re one network. Difficult when you’re competing against NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN New York Times, ad nauseum.
How do you overcome those kinds of odds? How do you get a fair shot at selling your message?
Something tells me if we ran Jesus Christ Himself as a candidate, he still would have gotten smeared in wall-to-wall negative ads. His Sermon on the Mount would have been misquoted and taken out of context, The networks would still have dutifully covered for Obama, stating that Jesus is just a poseur Messiah. Obama would promise more largesse, will have claimed to have lowered the rising seas, and would still have won the election yesterday. Seems the kind of world we live in right now. It may take a relatively long time, perhaps a decade, perhaps a decade in a half, until we are so far in the economic gutter that the economic Pridelands will have been picked of every life-giving force by the proverbial hyenas.
Only when the world has gone full Galt and the last of other people’s fruits wrought of productive enterprise have been sucked up and dried, will people understand the damage. By that time, I fear it will be too late. The United States, along with Egypt, Rome, Mesopotamia, Greece, Spain, Great Britain, and other great civilizations, will have been relegated to the books as just another flash in History’s pan.
Call me a negative Nelly, but at least at this point in time, I find it difficult to read the tea leaves any other way. Not that I won’t keep up the good fight, but right now I feel as if I’m taking the last stand at the Alamo.
I wrote this to NBC news earlier today, but it could be easily applied to any of the fellow-traveler networks:
Dear NBC News:
You no doubt have now heard the news that the Obama administration’s Situation Room had received word of the terrorist nature of the Benghazi attack no later than two hours after it began. They did NOTHING to protect the lives of those in the Embassy compound. President Obama went to sleep, then jetted off to Las Vegas to raise campaign cash, meanwhile, relying on a manufactured cover story of some locals being riled up over a YouTube video that wasn’t seen.
There wasn’t any report in the cables or emails about a protest preceding the attack. The attack lasted over 7 hours before the final two occupants of the compound were murdered. And the Obama administration did NOTHING to help. Instead, they continued their COVER-UP of the video story, for WEEKS afterward.
I listened to the NBC news top of the hour radio broadcast. Not ONE WORD of the above. Just Obama giving his “Romnesia” line, and something about his jetting 5000 or so miles today campaigning.
What– somehow you don’t think that these developments in Benghazi are NEWSWORTHY? That the administration not only knew of the attack, but refused to take action to protect the embassy occupants? And then, COVERED IT UP, LYING about the nature of the attack, and making his underlings spread his propaganda, FOR WEEKS, until the cover story collapsed under the weight of contrary evidence?
Not to mention that there remains an INNOCENT man still sitting in jail!! (Don’t tell me it had nothing to do with Obama’s cover story!!))
WHERE ARE WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN????
Are you SO enamored, so infatuated with this president, that you, the press, are willing to be derelict to your Constitutional First Amendment duty and to cover up for his abject malfeasance? They did that with State-Controlled media in Soviet Russia. They do that in China. They have no choice. YOU HAVE A CHOICE!!
Are you that devoid of conscience???
DO YOUR JOURNALISTIC DUTY
It took long enough, but ABC News is finally beginning to grow a pair:
NBC still doesn’t have word one about this story on their website.