Marriage on Trial: The Case for Marriage
If you live in the state of Washington, we are moving into the final week of collecting signatures for Referendum 71 which would strike down the recently passed law equating domestic partnerships with marriage (SB 5688). The deadline for mailing in the petitions is July 22. We need you to go into a full-court press of citizen activism to help us reach our goal of 120,000 signatures.
If you need more petitions for a last minute thrust, please call (360) 631-1894. When your petitions are filled up, please send then in by July 22nd to: Protect Marriage Washington, P.O. Box 501, Arlington, WA 98223.
The following article by Gary Randall, the head of the “Preserve Marriage–Protect Children” Coalition will fire you up to understand the issue and do the right thing. God bless you! RB
By Gary Randall
I want to address some of the questions and charges that are raised by those who want to redefine marriage. The primary source for my comments will be taken from a book titled, “Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting,” written by Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier. You can buy it from Amazon for $10.20 and if you buy it through our website Faith and Freedom Foundation will receive between 4% and 8% on your purchase. (Click here for details).
If not through us, please buy the book somewhere. Every family that cares about marriage and family and its future, should have this book in their home. Particularly in these days when marriage is under such assault. Every person of faith should read it–parent and child.
One of the questions often raised by those who want to redefine marriage is, “If heterosexuals can fall in love and form committed relationships called marriage, why can’t we?” Or, “If heterosexuals gain access to legal, tax and health benefits with their marriages, why can’t homosexuals have access to these same benefits when they commit themselves to one another?”
Marriage equality.
Here’s something to consider.
I watched as homosexual couples brought their children into the hearings on SB 5688 to testify and help make the case for same-sex parenting. The adults and children argued that kids need loving parents and two men or two women can love and care for a child as well as a mother and a father can. They often point to the failures in marriage as reason to redefine it.
Here’s the problem with that.
These arguments exclusively serve the interests of those making the argument. They are never about serving the common good.
Marriage is never only about the couple. It is always about the larger community. Marriage is an agreement between a couple and the larger society. Concern for the good of all society is the primary reason social institutions such as churches and governments get involved at all.
In the great debate about marriage we seem to have forgotten that marriage is not just about benefits for the couple. It always includes concern for the next generation.
Stanton and Maier expand on this a great deal and outline why every society needs marriage and how it contributes to the greater good. Among other things, they say the institution of marriage:
*Regulates sexuality, keeping it confined to committed, loving exclusive relationships.
*Socializes men, channeling their sexuality and masculine energy in community-building ways.
*Protects women from being exploited from men.
*Ensures that children grow up with a biologically connected mother and father.
The failure of some marriages is not a legitimate argument to redefine and deconstruct marriage.
The institution of marriage serves these purposes in all known human civilizations and it does so because it brings men and women together in permanent, exclusive relationships.
Same-sex marriage is incapable of doing any of these things.
Stanton and Maier conclude, there is simply no social need for same-sex “marriage”. But all societies need what they call natural marriage.
Consider this.
Could society be harmed by too much same-sex “marriage”? Of course, if all or a majority of “marriages” were same-sex, a society would disappear.
On the other hand, is too much natural marriage ever harmful? No. Actually, too little natural marriage can be harmful.
Natural marriage cannot be regarded as “equal” in social value and benefit. Society needs one, but does not need the other.
“Marriage equality” cannot be achieved by simply redefining or deconstructing natural marriage.
SB 5688 is not about benefits or children, it is the final incremental step to redefining marriage. If you are unsure about the issue of defending marriage, please consider these things.
To those in the faith community who have been persuaded to sit this out and not support the defense of marriage for whatever reason, please reconsider.
If you have been led away from supporting Referendum 71 because of political calculations and economic considerations, please reconsider.
We cannot wait two years to address the deconstruction of marriage.
Consider this:
“If you wait for perfect conditions, you will never get anything done.”
“God’s ways are as mysterious as the pathway of the wind, and the manner in which a human spirit is infused into the body of a baby while it is yet in its mother’s womb.” Ecclesiastes 11:4-6 Living Bible.
Strategy is a good and wise action. Being faithful in standing for righteousness and righteous purposes and principles is the higher calling.
There is a time for everything and this is the time to defend marriage.
Thank you for standing with us.
God bless you.
Why the Press Hates Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin’s surprise announcement during the 4th of July weekend that she will step down as the governor of Alaska once again took the national media by storm. Her resignation, just two-and-a-half years into her first term, was greeted with the usual off-color jokes, over-the-top criticism, and elite scorn. As she had done both during and since the 2008 presidential campaign, her retreat into a “higher calling” took center stage over such notable stories as North Korea firing off seven ballistic missiles and the on-going saga of Michael Jackson’s death.
Our regional newspaper–The The Seattle Times–carried a large “Happy 4th of July” banner at the top of its masthead, and below in large letters their lead story declared “Palin Creates Political Stir with Sudden Resignation.” The article described her announcement as a “mostly rambling speech” and then went on to largely question the former vice-presidential candidate as being reckless and unconventional. The Times also “happened” to mention a recent Vanity Fair article that was critical of the governor. Their glee over the announcement and disrespect for Sarah Palin was clear.
My oh my, how perspectives can differ! My wife and I watched the entire Palin speech and were nearly in tears at the end. It was actually one of the most heart-felt political speeches we have ever heard:
- It oozed sincerity and honesty–such a missing quality in most politicians.
- She mentioned her faith numerous times, her principles, her policy perspectives, and each one brought a responding “yes” in our spirits.
- Her decision made sense. She had already decided not to seek a second term and could have easily stayed around as a lame duck for the next eighteen months and taken junkets on the public dime and reveled in the power and position. But because of the unfair and relentless liberal attacks on her governance that was costing Alaskan tax-payers millions of dollars to defend, she had decided to do the right thing for the state of Alaska. How novel. How refreshing.
A couple of days later on her blog, she again stated her future goals: “I am now looking ahead and how we can advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint.”
Yet, despite her explanations and candor, the press continued to question and ridicule her. That prompted this response from Governor Palin: “How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country.. And though it’s honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make.”
How true. Sarah Palin is the most media-brutalized politician of my life-time. Only George W. Bush is comparatively close–but still a distant second. Barack Obama left halfway through his first term as US Senator to run for president without a peep from an adoring press. No criticism–no questions. Not Sarah Palin.
The press absolutely hate Sarah Palin. Why?
Before I answer that question, let’s review with honesty the unfairness of the 2008 campaign coverage against vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. How was she mistreated and mis-characterized? Just a few examples:
- She was labeled “inexperienced”– even though she was the only candidate on either presidential ticket that had executive governing experience, both as a mayor and as a governor. Not a peep was said about Barack Obama being the most inexperienced candidate in the history of the United States.
- She was labeled as lacking detailed policy knowledge — That’s true of every candidate that steps onto the national stage. She was an expert on energy policy but needed a crash course in foreign affairs. Barack Obama was experienced in nothing–and made numerous gaffes when away from his tele-prompter. Joe Biden was a gaffe-a-minute–with no outrage from the national media.
- She “blew” the interviews with Katie Couric & Charlie Gibson – They weren’t her best moments, but both were rigged to trip her up. Totally unfair. Gotcha questions. Barack Obama was given softballs for an entire year. Major media bias.
- Criticizing her looks and ward-robe – What’s wrong with being pretty? Do we criticize Hollywood stars for their beauty–and the money they spend to have it artificially created? And the $150,000 clothes? Please. How come we never got a monetary figure for Hillary’s pant-suits or Michelle’s sleeveless dresses? Totally one-sided bias.
- The tabloidization of her family – This was really low. Most families in presidential campaigns are off-limits–and for good reason. And to imply that her eighteen year old daughter’s getting pregnant out of wed-lock was a stain on her family values is to say that Jimmy Carter was responsible for Billy Carter. No–people, children, siblings, make their own choices–regardless of parental input. Everyone knows that–except the jaded national press.
Yet, despite the media machine that pummelled her daily, Sarah Plain drew bigger crowds in many cities than Barack Obama, and probably added three-to-five percentage points to John McCain’s losing campaign–an unheard of accomplishment for a VP nominee.
So why do the national press and political elite hate Sarah Palin?
It’s very simple. She’s a threat to their future power because:
1. She’s the wrong kind of woman – In the age of feminism, only liberal feminists are tolerated by a supportive press. Geraldine Ferraro was a media darling in 1984 and Hillary was the establishment choice in 2008. Barack Obama was embraced because he is a liberal African-American. Sarah Palin? “Why she even made the “horrific mistake” of having a Downs Syndrome baby. She didn’t abort Trig! The audacity of being pro-life!”
2. She has the wrong political philosophy. She’s a conservative on almost every issue. Gad zooks! That makes her non-enlightened, a red-neck nutcase, out of touch, terribly old-fashioned and worthy of late night TV ridicule and scorn.
3. She has the wrong kind of faith. She is a born-again Christian. “She’s one of those religious bigots.” There is a sinister move in this nation to label “all things Christian” as not only out-dated but in need of some hate speech laws. This was the number one reason for trying to damage her. The “progressives” now in control of the media and academia are trying to stamp out the Christian foundations of this nation. Sarah Palin is the type of political leader that stands in the way of their plans.
4. She’s the wrong kind of American. She’s one of us–an average person who worked hard and rose to become mayor of a city and governor of a state. But she never forgot her origins. She shares simple American values of faith, family, hard work, personal responsibility, and freedom. She wasn’t educated at an Ivy League School or born into a weathy family. She’s a “little guy” who still acts and thinks that way. That puts her at odds with the liberal elite who really don’t care too much for the Average Janes among us.
Sarah Palin is the number one target of the liberal media and elite because she is the greatest threat to their dreams since Ronald Reagan in 1980. She has to be destroyed. The devil–the Destroyer–is very much in play here. So whenever you hear Sarah Palin being called a “Caribou Barbie” or described as a “Slutty Flight Attendant” you can know you’re hearing a demonic echo.
In a few weeks she will step out of office into a new future–one she will have to craft herself. There will be no trappings of power around her, just her faith, family, principles and passion. Let’s pray for Sarah Palin that she will be is used by God to raise up many people like her in all the fifty America states. There’s great darkness on the immediate national horizon. We need, as Ronald Reagan used to say, a “new morning in America.”
Will Sarah Palin ever run for office again? I don’t know. But based on her past record, I know she’s going to do what’s right for America–regardless of what the media says.
Why Liberals Want Moral Freedoms and Business Restraints
Or “Why Conservatives Want Moral Restraints and Business Freedoms.”
Both of these statements could be the title for today’s subject. I was tempted to put both in one long sentence, but that would have only worked two hundred years ago when titles were long. This article is also about “Freedom and Form” in human societies. That also could have been the title.
So, I rolled the dice and chose the “liberal” title to catch your attention. Now, that I’ve got you thinking, let’s discuss a possible Best Explanation of this seeming contradiction. First, let’s define the terms liberal and conservative.
Two worldviews are currently fighting for supremacy in America and other nations around the world. One is the Christian worldview upon which this nation was founded that finds its roots in the teachings of biblical revelation. Generally speaking, a conservative political and social philosophy is consistent with the Christian view of life. That’s why in 2000 a high percentage of Christians voted for George E. Bush because he was generally known as a conservative politician. Christians, or traditional values people, vote conservative if they’re consistent with the Bible’s perspective.
The other worldview that has gained ascendancy in American life in the past forty years could be described as atheist, secular, or progressive (that’s what they like to call themselves). These words are all synonyms. Generally speaking, a liberal political or social philosophy is consistent with the atheist view of life. That’s also why in 2000 a high percentage of secularists voted for John Kerry–because he was known as the liberal politician. Secularists or progressives vote liberal if they’re consistent with their worldview.
Thus conservatives share a Christian view of reality. Liberals share an atheist view of life. That’s not an opinion–it’s just a fact. Not all conservatives are Christians; Not all liberals are atheists. However, Christians tend to be conservative and secularists tend to be liberal. It can be no other way.
Now back to the seeming contradiction. Have you ever wondered why liberals always want freedom, liberty or lack of constraints in moral areas (such as sex, marriage, abortion etc.), but on the other hand they strongly favor governmental controls, restraints or regulations on business and all forms of the free enterprise system? That doesn’t appear to be consistent. Why not freedom in morals and freedom in the marketplace? Or why not restraints on morality and restraints on business?
On the other side, conservatives want restraints, controls, or regulations on personal morality in society such as sexual immorality, the sanctity of life and marriage (between a man and woman), but on the other hand seek freedom, liberty, and a lack of constraints in the realm of business and commerce. We might ask again: Why don’t conservatives want either freedom or controls in both categories?
Not only are both camps inconsistent on freedom and regulation, but also choose opposite realms for liberty and control. Conservatives want morals to be regulated and enterprise to be free. Liberals want businesses to be regulated and morality to be free. Some examples will make this point clear.
In 2008, those who supported Barack Obama cast their votes for the liberal (atheist) view of life. Barack Obama is not just a liberal–he’s a radical liberal–the most liberal senator in the US Congress form 2006-2008. As a liberal president, Obama believes in freedom in morality such as abortion and lesbian, gay, bi-sexual transgender values such as the White House LGBT “Party” that was held this week.
On the other hand, he strongly believes in controlling business and free enterprise as seen by his strong arm tactics in the “Cap & Trade” legislation passed by the House. He shows this tendency in other business areas such as the take-over of various banks, government ownership of GM, his new stable of “czars” and the coming vision of government controlled health care. Obama and his followers want moral license to do anything they want; They also work hard to place mammoth controls and regulations on the American free enterprise system.
George W. Bush represented the polar opposite as president. He wanted restraints and controls on embryonic cell research, abortion, and did not support the homosexual liberation agenda. On the other side, he gave tax cuts to business, encouraging growth and creativity, and put his trust in the free enterprise system and liberation of the markets.
So WHY do liberals want moral freedom and business control–and conservatives desire moral controls and freedom for businesses?
I believe there are two best explanations for these differences.
First is the reality of form and freedom in human existence–the need for balance in life. Human beings have been designed by God to need both order and flexibility in their lives. We need “form” for stability and continuity, and we need “freedom” for creativity and expression. If all we have is “form,” our world is stable but robotic. If we are simply “free” then life becomes flighty and unsure. A balance of form and freedom are need to give wholeness to life.
In fact, true freedom cannot exist without wholesome constraint. For example, if everything in the room in which I’m writing was “free,” then chairs would be floating in the air, tables wouldn’t hold together, my computer would dissolve and there would be chaos. The “form” in the materials around me allow me as a human being to move “freely” through the room without being decked by a levitating table. My freedom is dependent on necessary form.
All of us live our lives in a balancing act of form and freedom. We have life habits such as homes in which to live, jobs to do, alarm clocks for wake up– i.e. patterns that are necessary for stability and security. But we also need the spontaneous and free side of life where we can call a friend, take a trip, do something crazy–i.e. acts of freedom and creativity that bring a zest and joy to life. If life has too much form, we get bored. If there’s too much freedom, we probably won’t live very long.
So these dual realities dictate our pursuit of both form and freedom in life. Liberals balance it out with freedom in morality and form in business. Conservatives strike the balance with order in morality and freedom in business and vocation.
And here’s the second reason why they choose what they do.
I believe it’s the truth of spiritual warfare. There’s a God and there’s a devil. That’s the Best Explanation.
Here’s how it works. God is the perfection of moral character. He is the standard of morality–what is right and what is wrong. He is righteously and justly for sexual purity, honoring marriage, respecting life, and moral self-control which is foundational to happiness and holiness. He knows that all immorality is both self-and-socially-destructive–and will separate a person from his holiness for eternity. God requires “form” in our moral relationships for our good.
He is also the Creator of the universe and all it contains. He wants man to take dominion over the earth–to steward and improve it. This can only be done through freedom, creativity, innovation, and few restraints on industry and enterprise. God’s “invisible hand” of freedom is the key to invention, prosperity and success. And God desires his creatures to be moral so that they can be productive.
So followers of God are for controls on morality and freedom in business.
It’s the equation for success.
But there is also a devil, impacting the hearts and minds of people who do not believe. This being–called Satan or Lucifer–influences non-believers in his direction. Satan wants to destroy people (John 10:10), and the easiest way to do this is to blind them to right and wrong. That’s why he’s for free sex, fornication, pornography, homosexuality, killing babies, altering marriage–and anything else that cripples the human spirit and separates them from a holy God. He also desires to bring them to poverty of life and health through government controls of commerce and industry. Satan wants people immoral and poor.
So followers of Lucifer (either consciously or unconsciously) are for freedom in morals and controls on business.
It’s the recipe for destruction.
Thus, the Best Explanation for this contradiction is that there are two primary spiritual forces in the world shaping people’s thoughts and positions. There is a God and there is a devil.
That explains it best.
Now you know what conservative and liberal mean. You know where each idea comes from. The genius of America was the power of morality producing freedom and prosperity–through faith in God. The downfall of America will be achieved through the decay of immorality that produces poverty–through faith in men (devil-inspired).
As we -approach the 4th of July–I pray that we will choose faith, morality and liberty–for our good and God’s glory.