American Minute

A decade prior to the Civil War there were two major political parties in the United States:

Democrats, who favored freedom of choice to own slaves; and Whigs, who tried to be a big tent party to stem the loss of members to the Know-Nothing Party.

In Ripon, Wisconsin, anti-slavery activists met for the first time on February 28, 1854, then held their first State Convention in Jackson, Michigan, JULY 6, 1854.

This new political party took a stand on social issues regarding the value of human life, being against slavery.

Also, in response to a movement in Utah to redefine marriage, this new party stood for marriage being between one man and one woman.

They named their party "Republican."

The chief plank of the Republican Party was "to prohibit...those twin relics of barbarism: POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY."
Those attempting to redefine marriage were denounced by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, December 4, 1871:

"In Utah there still remains a remnant of barbarism, repugnant to civilization, to decency, and to the laws of the United States...

Neither polygamy nor any other violation of existing statutes will be permitted...

They will not be permitted to violate the laws under the cloak of religion."

On December 7, 1875, President Grant stated:

"In nearly every annual message...I have called attention to the...scandalous condition of affairs existing in the Territory of Utah, and have asked for definite legislation to correct it.

That polygamy should exist in a free, enlightened, and Christian country, without the power to punish so flagrant a crime against decency and morality, seems preposterous...

As an institution polygamy should be banished from the land...

I deem of vital importance out licensed immorality, such as polygamy and the importation of women for illegitimate purposes."

Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes stated, December 1, 1879:

"Polygamy is condemned as a crime by the laws of all civilized communities throughout the world."

President Hayes stated December 6, 1880:

"The SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE and the FAMILY relation are the cornerstone of our American society and civilization."

Republican President Chester Arthur stated, December 6, 1881:

"For many years the Executive...has urged the necessity of stringent legislation for the suppression of polygamy...this odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom."

Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Waite, appointed by Republican Ulysses S. Grant, rendered the Murphy v. Ramsey, 1885, decision:

"Every person who has a husband or wife living...and marries guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished...

No legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth...than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of THE FAMILY,

as consisting in and springing from the union for life of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization;

the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."

The stand against polygamy is in the comprehensive annotated John Quincy Adams-A Bibliography, compiled by Lynn H. Parsons (Westport, CT, 1993, p. 41, entry #194, Essay on Turks, 1827):

"Mohammed poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy."

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, appointed by Republican President Abraham Lincoln, rendered the Davis v. Beason, 1890, decision:

"Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries...

They...destroy the purity of the MARRIAGE relation...degrade woman and debase man...

There have been sects which denied...there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes as prompted by the passions of its members...

Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow."

Justice Stephen Field concluded:

"The constitutions of several States, in providing for religious freedom, have declared expressly that such freedom SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO EXCUSE ACTS OF LICENTIOUSNESS."

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt stated to Congress, January 30, 1905:

"The institution of MARRIAGE is, of course, at the very foundation of our social organization, and all influences that affect that institution are of vital concern to the people of the whole country."
American Family Association of Michigan

For immediate release: Wed., June 26, 2013
Statement by Gary Glenn, president, American Family Association of Michigan:
Michigan's Marriage Protection Amendment remains in place, and marriage in Michigan remains only between one man and one woman, at least until the next lawyer in a black robe decides he has the power to overturn the vote of millions of Michigan citizens, including the two-thirds of black voters and two-thirds of union households who voted in favor of that amendment.
We regret that the court upheld the decision of one openly homosexual judge to overturn the vote of millions of California voters, including 70 percent of black voters in that state, to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.
We also regret the court's opinion on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan majorities and signed into law by President Clinton.  Five unelected lawyers purport to overturn the vote of hundreds of the people's elected representatives in Congress and the White House.
Unless Congress exercises its Constitutional authority to ignore the court's opinion, American taxpayers will be forced to pay for hundreds of millions of dollars in increased federal spending to give spousal-type government benefits to the new category of beneficiaries the court thinks it has the power to force Congress to legally recognize.  We hope Congress refuses.  If not, this will be yet another instance in which tens of millions of Americans are forced to violate their conscience by subsidizing behavior they believe is immoral and wrong.
We also fear the increased threat to the religious liberty and rights of conscience of individuals and churches who may find themselves joining the ranks of Christian photographers, bakers, florists, bed and breakfast owners, and churches across the country who have already been sued and fined thousands of dollars for refusing as a matter of conscience to service homosexual "weddings."
We agree with Justice Antonin Scalia that the Supreme Court has "no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.”
We agree with Thomas Jefferson, the first Democratic Party president, who said the Constitution does not give five members of the Supreme Court any more power to decide what is and is not constitutional than the president or Congress, and that allowing the court that power would be a 'very dangerous doctrine' and a threat to our liberties. 
We agree with Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, who said that if the Supreme Court is ever allowed the power to instantaneously make law in all 50 states, affecting all Americans, we no longer have a government of the people but instead have surrendered our entire government to five unelected lawyers.  Thankfully, the court stopped short of an illegitimate attempt to strike down voter-approved marriage amendments in Michigan and 30 other states in one fell swoop.
And we agree with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who said we have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, which he defined as any man-made ruling that is at odds with God's laws, and that refusing to obey a law that our conscience tells us is unjust is in fact showing the highest respect for law.  Again, tens of millions of Americans believe that any ruling that legally recognizes so-called homosexual "marriage" is at odds with the definition of marriage offered by Christ Himself: "For this reason shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife."  And that wasn't a multiple choice question.
President Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence:
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." -- Letter to Mrs. John Adams, Nov. 1804 

"You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves." — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820 
President Abraham Lincoln, author of the Emancipation Proclamation, in his first Inaugural Address, March 1861:
"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit...  At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 1963:
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'  Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. ...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. ...If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws." 
# # #
The publisher of this site, Tom Hoefling, is one of the signers of the letter mentioned in the article.


Matt Barber

“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day to release opinions on two landmark cases (Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor) that, should the court overstep its authority, threaten great violence to the age-old institution of marriage – society’s fundamental cornerstone.

Also at stake is the high court’s already fragile legitimacy.

Lest there be any doubt as to where the Bible-believing Christian community stands, scores of Christian leaders and clergy – Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant alike – have released a statement in anticipation of these rulings entitled: “We Stand in Solidarity to Defend Marriage and the Family and Society Founded Upon Them.” I was honored to have my name included among the list of signatories that, collectively, represent tens of millions of Christians.

The Marriage Solidarity Statement was drafted jointly by Deacon Keith Fournier, editor of Catholic Online and chairman of Common Good Alliance, and Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel Action. It was then vetted and approved by dozens of the aforementioned signers. Personally speaking, I have never seen a document that better captures and illustrates the certainties of legitimate marriage and family, as well as the inevitable consequences of tampering with either.

The central reality behind the statement is this: Marriage is what marriage is, has always been and always will be. Marriage predates civil government. Mankind can no more transmute marriage to something it is not than can we reverse the earth’s rotation or gravitational pull. Despite an evidently contagious delusion to the contrary, not even the United States Supreme Court is capable of overruling the laws of moral and biological physics. Any attempt to do so is illegitimate. It’s moral alchemy.

“Like other natural laws or laws of physics that govern our lives, marriage predates government, and civil institutions have no authority to redefine marriage,” observes the statement. “Marriage cannot be redefined into something it is incapable of being. …”

“If the Supreme Court were to issue a decision that redefined marriage or provided a precedent on which to build an argument to redefine marriage, the Supreme Court will thereby undermine its legitimacy,” it notes. “The court will significantly decrease its credibility and impair the role it has assumed for itself as a moral authority. It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time.”

Indeed, according to the unequivocal precepts of moral truth – reflected explicitly throughout both the Old and New Testaments – homosexual behavior is sin. Sin is evil. Homosexual behavior is the central, defining characteristic of so-called “gay marriage.” Therefore, “gay marriage” is evil.

Read this story at ... 
Education Freedom Ohio

The following is a rebuttal to Jeb Bush’s Op-Ed about Common Core, offered to the Columbus Dispatch, whose editor passed.  Please share if you are so inclined.

Common Core: The Worst of Both Parties

Unfortunately, Jeb Bush’s recent OpEd only parroted false talking points about national Common Core standards, especially given the failure to disclose the millions that his “Foundation for Excellence in Education” received from Common Core developers (like Fordham, Business Round Table and others).  This is just further proof that Common Core represents the worst of both political parties:  Big business crony capitalism and overreaching, big government progressivism.

Common Core was not a state-led initiative; it was the brain child of [Alleged] President Obama’s education advisers, DC-based trade unions and special interest think-tanks.  With 2009 Stimulus money, the feds earmarked $4.35 billion to the US Dept. of Education, that in turn offered states a chance to compete for the money via “Race to the Top” Grants (RTTT).  Consultants were deployed from the heavily-funded National Governor’s Association and Chief Council of State School Officials (DC-based trade unions) to help the states comply, and as a mere condition of submitting the RTTT application, governors agreed to adopt a set of national standards sight unseen, before they were completed or had the name “Common Core.”

Sadly, only a handful of governors realized that they had neither the authority nor desire to bypass the people, and surreptitiously adopt a set of standards so they could find out what was in them.  The process is in violation of three federal laws.  Still, Ohio was granted $400 million.

The legislature (and by extension Ohioans) were bypassed.  Legislatively, Common Core is a set of RTTT compliance points inserted under various names (the more points in place, the more money Ohio was eligible to receive).  This is why Speaker Batchelder’s aide has sent out two sets of [false] talking points to inform House members befuddled by all the calls about Common Core.

So most legislators are funding a program about which they know nothing, or how much it will ultimately cost.  That $400 million is a high price to pay for our state sovereignty and local control, and a drop in the bucket compared to the wholesale replacement of local resources, training, and technology infrastructure for testing and data mining.  Ohioans pay nearly $7 billion for K-12 education each year, and the feds come in with $400 million and call the shots?

Per the Ohio Revised Code, our State Board is supposed to prescribe and develop standards, curricula and assessments organically, with local input and actual teachers, not relinquish that responsibility to national, unelected, unaccountable entities who hold the copyright for Common Core.

Mr. Bush said, “Common Core standards will challenge students to read critically, write extensively and solve real-world math problems at greater capacity.”  If this were about standards, we wouldn’t be having a debate…

Members of Common Core’s own validation committee refused to sign off on the standards because they put our kids at least two years behind those of other industrialized nations.  No Algebra until high school and a 50% slash in Classic Literature to be replaced with “non-fiction informational” reading just scratches the surface.  That’s not the way to “American Exceptionalism” Mr. Bush, and regardless, the greatest standards in the world aren’t worth ceding local control to national, unelected, unaccountable entities.

Another concern is the P20 Student Longitudinal Data System designed to track 400 data points on our kids from “cradle to career” (their words).  Not just academic information to be shared with other schools, but thanks to holes punched in the federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, all types of information may be shared with the US Departments of Education, Labor and HHS, as well as outside “for profit” entities who may want to market to your child.  SLDS information even trumps HIPPA.  Good luck going through the feds to change a mistake made on your education record; it will be easier to get a felony removed.

The ideas behind the P20 stem from big government micro-managers, and were seeded by big business cronies who will benefit greatly from the very expensive technology, training and resource material.

Corporate Ed meets Fed Ed.

The expanding movement to roll back Common Core is fueled by intellectually consistent folks on both sides of the aisle.  Traditionally, a national one-size-fits-all approach to education yields the very opposite of high standards.  Ohio lawmakers and education officials need to stop funding and implementation of Common Core, roll up their sleeves and develop standards organically instead of imposing this top-down approach.

Local control, choice and strong parent-teacher relationships breed the innovation and best practice models necessary to set and attain high standards. Implement Common Core, and we destroy the very mechanisms vital to success.

Exclusive: Stephen Baskerville advocates using 'masculine courage' to confront divorce


Steven Baskerville

The fight to save marriage, as current being waged, is largely pointless. It simply cannot be won on these terms. If defenders of marriage can let go of their own politically correct fixations and squarely face some harsh but incontrovertible facts, it is still possible to stop the impending destruction of marriage by the courts.

First: Marriage exists to attach the father to the family. It is not a gender-neutral institution. Marriage breakdown produces widespread fatherlessness, not motherlessness. (Motherlessness often follows, but fatherlessness begins the process.) The father is the weakest link in the family chain, and without enforceable marriage bonds, he is easily discarded. This is glaringly obvious: American inner cities, native American reservations, northern England, Parisian banlieues, Africa – all are impoverished, crime-ridden and drug-infested matriarchies. Fatherlessness – not poverty or race – predicts social pathology among the young. Without paternal authority, adolescents run wild, and society descends into chaos.

Once this principle is recognized, same-sex marriage makes no sense. Judge Vaughn Walker’s finding of “fact” in the Proposition 8 case that “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage” is rendered preposterous. Same-sex marriage simply mocks true marriage. Homosexual parenting marginalizes children still further from their fathers (and sometimes mothers), who lose their children to homosexuals usually through divorce.

Thus the second unpleasant fact: Homosexuals did not destroy marriage; heterosexuals did. The demand for same-sex marriage is a symptom, not a cause, of marriage deterioration. The major threat is obviously divorce. As Mike McManus of Marriage Savers writes, “Divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.”

Same-sex marriage would not be an issue if marriage had not already been debased by heterosexuals. Though gay activists cite their very desire to marry as evidence that their lifestyle is not inherently promiscuous, they also acknowledge that that desire arises only by the promiscuity permitted in modern marriage. “The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” Andrew Sullivan observes. “All homosexuals are saying … is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly – and a denial of basic civil equality.” Homosexuals are correct that heterosexuals first devalued marriage, though they then use that to rationalize devaluing it further.

Thus the third undeniable truth: To save marriage divorce must be confronted. It is not a private matter. We cannot wash our hands of it by (so to speak) wagging our fingers at immoral people and cultural decay. A lucrative government machine forcibly imposes divorce upon unwilling and innocent people, who are then evicted from their homes, separated from their children, expropriated of everything they possess and incarcerated without trial. It is the greatest violator of constitutional rights in America today. It generates the social ills that rationalize almost all domestic spending and are bankrupting our economies. And it is promoted ideologically by the same sexual radicals who are now promoting same-sex marriage.

Read this story at ...

Stephen Baskerville is professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of “Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family.” He is writing a book on sexual politics.

Freedom Outpost

Evalyn P. Bennett

Freedom Outpost contributor Evalyn Bennett recently sent an open letter to the United States Supreme Court over the issue now before them to redefine marriage as something other than what it is; between a man and a woman. She pointed out not only that is a ruling to redefine marriage against the moral law of God, but it strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. We present this letter for your consideration.

Dear Supreme Court Justices:

The DOMA and Proposition 8 cases you heard last week are unprecedented in the history of this nation. I urge you to make a ruling to affirm traditional marriage in both cases. The reason you are having difficulty reviewing the cases is because the premise for their consideration is found in God’s moral law (natural law), not the Constitution. Your interpretation of DOMA and Proposition 8 must be based on the cultural and moral context of the United States at the time the Constitution was written and ratified.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not define or assert traditional marriage as an inalienable right because it was inconceivable to the Framers of the Constitution that any other type of relationship would be considered marriage! That view, which is based on the Old and New Testament teachings of our Judeo-Christian heritage, has prevailed in our nation until very recently. Until 1973 homosexual conduct was considered deviant behavior by the American Psychiatric Association. Sodomy was also banned in many states until your court inappropriately applied to American law a decision by the European Court of Human Rights!

The institution of marriage between one man and one woman is defined by God, and it is not man’s prerogative to change God’s moral law. His law is codified in the numerous statutes recorded in the Old Testament. The Constitution does not grant homosexuals a fundamental “right” to marriage, because no such right exists.

Same-sex unions are not marriage, no matter how you might want to redefine the term “marriage.” (A skunk does not stop being a skunk just because you might call it a black and white house cat!) Marriage can never be truthfully defined in any way other than as a legal union between one man and one woman. “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked” (Galatians 6:7). What God has unequivocally deemed wrong, man’s law can never make right.

In a recent Newsmax article, Justice Kennedy is quoted as follows: “Prior to expressing his doubts about whether the court should decide the case, Kennedy pressed Cooper on the “imminent legal injury” facing almost 40,000 California children being raised by gay and lesbian couples.” It is tragic that 40,000 children are in this situation. But it could have been prevented if either the “parents” or the legislatures of the states they live in had been obedient to God’s commands and not insisted on allowing homosexuals to marry and adopt children! Through Proposition 8, California’s citizens have rightly sought to correct the wrong done by their legislature and governor. Should the Supreme Court fail to rule in favor of upholding God’s definition of traditional marriage, millions of children in decades to come will succumb to the social experimentation of California and other states that have allowed same-sex marriage and adoption. If you fail to assert the traditional definition of marriage, you leave our society wide open to ALL sexual immorality expressly condemned by God in His Word: adultery, fornication, bestiality, incest, and homosexuality.

Ruling against DOMA would also violate an inalienable right that is stated in the Constitution: the First Amendment right of religious freedom. Bible-believing Christians would be forced to pay taxes to provide benefits to same-sex “marriage” partners of federal employees. Like the Affordable Care Act’s tax on abortion services and mandate to provide abortifacient drugs, redefining homosexual unions as “marriage” would force millions of Americans to violate the teachings of their faith. Christian pastors would also be forced to choose between performing same-sex “marriage” ceremonies in direct violation of their deeply held religious convictions and the (as yet undefined) consequences for refusing to do so.

These violations of our Constitutional right to religious freedom are just two examples of the drastic implications for our nation if you fail to uphold traditional marriage. If you do not defend traditional marriage, you have normalized aberrant sexual behavior. If homosexuals want the “right” to marry, they can conduct themselves in a manner that accords them the right to marry! What DOMA, Proposition 8, and the marriage amendments enacted by a large majority of the states affirm is that only one standard of relational conduct is marriage and that standard is God’s standard.

Really, God’s moral law does not need the defense of DOMA, Proposition 8, or the states’ amendments, for despite our nation’s wandering in the field of moral relativism, God’s standards are true and absolute (Psalm 33:4; 119:142, 160). He will furthermore always have the “last word.” I don’t think we want to oppose His statutes against sexual immorality and reap the consequences of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16-19:25) or the Midianite nation (Numbers 25 and 31).

As leaders of our nation, God will hold each of you accountable for your decision, so choose carefully. Nine Supreme Court justices went against God’s moral law forty years ago, condemning millions of unborn American citizens to death by abortion. Please do not repeat their mistake by fabricating a fundamental “right” to immoral behavior (in that case, murder), when no such right exists. End our country’s “season” of social experimentation with marriage and affirm both Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. In so doing you will affirm the commandments of the Lord God Almighty, earn His commendation, and set our nation back on a path of righteousness.

Evalyn P. Bennett

“Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD. Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart.” (Psalm 119:1-2; NIV)

“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” (Proverbs 14:34; NIV)

Robert Rector

Abstract: Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware that its principal cause is the absence of married fathers in the home. Marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon, yet it continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result. Since marital decline drives up child poverty and welfare dependence, and since the poor aspire to healthy marriage but lack the norms, understanding, and skills to achieve it, it is reasonable for government to take active steps to strengthen marriage. Just as government discourages youth from dropping out of school, it should provide information that will help people to form and maintain healthy marriages and delay childbearing until they are married and economically stable. In particular, clarifying the severe shortcomings of the “child first, marriage later” philosophy to potential parents in lower-income communities should be a priority.

Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware of its principal cause: the absence of married fathers in the home. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2009 was 37.1 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.8 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82 percent....
Gregg Jackson

In today’s Washington Post Ralph Reed states:

“Look, if the Supreme Court does with marriage what it did on abortion, which is to impose the laws of New York and Massachusetts and impose them on the rest of the country by judicial fiat, it will make this issue more divisive and contentious, not less so,”

Reed makes the often-made mistake by conservatives of assigning powers to the Supreme Court that it doesn’t possess.

The Supreme Court didn’t “impose” any laws on any states since the judiciary possesses no law making powers. Individual sovereign states merely treated a toothless, unconstitutional, immoral court opinion as if it were actual law. In other words, individual sovereign states ceded law making power and authority to the court which the court DID NOT POSSESS in the first place. (As Romney did when he falsely asserted the court forced him to sign in $50 co-pay abortions and pass out marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Massachusetts).

This is what I believe Christian and conservative leaders should be proactively saying now in anticipation of the Court’s likely ruling that barring same-sex “marriage” is unconstitutional:

“If the Supreme Court rules that the exclusivity of male-female marriage to be unconstitutional they will have issued an anti-Constitutional, illegal, immoral and legally null and void administrative opinion (as Roe v Wade was) that each individual sovereign state has the Constitutional and moral obligation to ignore since any law or court opinion contrary to God’s Divinely Revealed Law is no law at all and since the judiciary possesses no law making authority. As President Lincoln once famously said, ‘..if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’ May that not be the case in our nation.”

When conservatives perpetuate toxic liberal lies by ceding their illogical, specious and faulty premises and pre-suppositions, (in this case that court opinions become the “law of the land” the moment they are issued) we always lose…

The Heritage Foundation

By Ryan T. Anderson

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
At the heart of the current debates about same-sex marriage are three crucial questions: What is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what would be the consequences of redefining marriage to exclude sexual complementarity?

Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father. Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes. This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children. While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing.

Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This reduces marriage to a system to approve emotional bonds or distribute legal privileges.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is the culmination of this revisionism, and it would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds. Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that a child needs both a mom and a dad. Decades of social science, including the latest studies using large samples and robust research methods, show that children tend to do best when raised by a mother and a father. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and expand welfare programs. Redefining marriage would legislate a new principle that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage. It rejects the anthropological truth that marriage is based on the complementarity of man and woman, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage to abandon the norm of male–female sexual complementarity would also make other essential characteristics—such as monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency—optional. Marriage cannot do the work that society needs it to do if these norms are further weakened.

Redefining marriage is also a direct and demonstrable threat to religious freedom because it marginalizes those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. This is already evident in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., among other locations.

Concern for the common good requires protecting and strengthening the marriage culture by promoting the truth about marriage.

What Is Marriage? Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.

At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed to both the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.

Marriage connects people and goods that otherwise tend to fragment. It helps to connect sex with love, men with women, sex with babies, and babies with moms and dads.[1] Social, cultural, and legal signals and pressures can support or detract from the role of marriage in this regard.

Read this story at ...
Contributed by Guy Stevenson

"Marriage is more than your love for each other. It has a higher dignity and power, for it is God's holy ordinance, through which he wills to perpetuate the human race until the end of time. In your love you see only your two selves in the world, but in marriage you are a link in the chain of the generations, which God causes to come and to pass away to his glory, and calls into his kingdom. In your love you see only the heaven of your own happiness, but in marriage you are placed at a post of responsibility towards the world and mankind. Your love is your own private possession, but marriage is more than something personal—it is a status, an office. Just as it is the crown, and not merely the will to rule, that makes the king, so it is marriage, and not merely your love for each other, that joins you together in the sight of God and man."

-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1943