The first lie is that marriage between husband and wife for the sake of their children is somehow a narrow religious construct. What a joke! Every historian and sociologist can testify to the universal character of this understanding of marriage -- one sanctioned by many religions but the ordinary domain of culture and society as a whole at least until most modern times! So only Christians and conservative (dare we say orthodox) Christians at that hold to this view? Reason posits the value of such a marriage and religion adds spiritual dimension to it but to suggest that Christians or only some Christians hold to such a definition is hogwash and a lie big enough to choke a horse.
The second lie is that this act protects marriage. The reality is that it does protect the changes to marriage modernity has been urgently making but it does not protect the traditional view of marriage or those who espouse what was and is and will always be. This legislation fails to protect a person's right not to be forced to act according to the beliefs of another, beliefs that person may not agree with. What this legislation actually does is create a minority of those who hold to traditional marriage. The false idea of creating tolerance for disagreement has moved to the sanctions against those who disagree and the sanction for those who wish to change what was and is and will always be. The legislation is poised to move to strip away the rights of those who would dare to believe differently and the cover of legitimacy from their ability to act according to those beliefs.
But the subject of the biggest lie of all is that this change is good. Good for whom? Not for children. Every study known to man has demonstrated the benefit and blessing of a stable home of a mother and father with their children. Every statistic has shown that this stable home of mom, dad, and kids is an ever decreasing slice of the total number of families. Every review of the problems of children and youth in learning, socialization, and growth has pointed out that the disintegration of the traditional family is at least partially to blame for the increase of those problems. But then again, this is from those who propose abortion up until delivery and who are waging a war against children or the advisability of having them -- ever. These are the folks who are eschewing marriage altogether and standing in line for vasectomies for males and whatever day after pill will take back a choice made earlier for women.
What is so strange is that somehow we woke up in a time in which the past was either forgotten or ignored or labeled as tragic. So the unique union of husband and wife has become the least desirable union of any marriage and their unique gift to create life and care for the baby that is the fruit of their union has become foreign to this law. The home created by this husband and wife, filled with their children, is no longer the best way for the child to grow up but one suspect and dangerous. What is so hard here? This marriage is a good thing, rooted in our every history, and in dire need now more than ever. So, it would seem, the best thing we can do for everyone is to undercut it even more -- perhaps on the way to outlawing it or persecuting it formally.
Biden and his cheerleaders will laud the legislation and its bipartisan support. What lies! Behind it all there is an enemy of the traditional marriage and its children lurking in the shadows but soon to be strong enough to live center stage. Until that day, progressives and liberals will make strategic and deliberate but slow moves against that traditional marriage and, as always for this group, the children are the victims. Senate Democrats introduced H.R. 8404 – the Respect for Marriage Act
(RFMA) on id to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) and enshrine into federal law Obergefell vs. Hodges, the 2015
Supreme Court decision that imposed a redefinition of marriage in all 50
states. RFMA goes further than Obergefell or its predecessor U.S. vs. Windsor
(2013). It repeals DOMA in its entirety and would therefore mandate
every state to recognize any and all marriages contracted in other
states -- if a state allows a person to marry a pet or their bridge club or an inanimate object all states would have to call it a legitimate marriage. But we are probably foolish enough to cheer them on the lie that this might do what its name says -- something which is seldom true of legislation anymore.
Post a Comment