Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Obama on Marriage’

PennsylvaniaSealA column in the Philadelphia Daily News reports that the State of Pennsylvania, like nearly the rest of the United States, is taking a stand for marriage and children. According to recent polling, support for legal protections of the biological family in that state crosses race and religion, as a majority of Catholics, African Americans, seniors, and evangelicals stand in solidarity for natural marriage. 

Indeed, the Keystone State may be soon be joining states like California that have by democratic processes granted marriage constitutional protection as a unique contract between men and women only. Republican state Sen. John Eichelberger is reportedly introducing an amendment to the state constitution that would prevent a small panel of anti-democratic judges from imposing their same-sex marriage preferences upon the vast majority of citizens, as tragically occurred in Iowa last April.

The polling trends in Pennsylvania, while consistent with those across much of the United States, are driving some anti-marriage activists into a slanderous tizzy. “Clearly, Pennsylvania is among Alabama and Mississippi in terms of gay rights,” said Malcolm Lazin, who heads up a gay group in Philadelphia.

Dishing hateful spite on marriage supporters is standard rhetorical strategy for gay activists, and, in one form or another, the Philadelphia Daily News column labels Pennsylvania’s stand for families and children as a view of the uneducated, the aged, or the bigoted. 

Far from ignorance and bigotry, reason and common sense prove over and over that marriage is a unique contract among complementary sexes. The need for this long-range contract arises from the fact of biological fertility and the long-term project of raising families. If humans reproduced asexually, or if children were born as mature self-sustaining adults, the contract of marriage would never have come into existence. Contracts pertain to partnerships involving grave economic risk, and heterosexual sex, with its wildly reproductive orgasms, presents long-range economic risk to active heterosexual partners. In contrast, gay sex is infertile and does not produce the citizenry–and thus requires no social contract.

Sadly, gay activists are left with only name calling. But rhetorical bullying is not only a losing strategy, it’s a strategy of losers. It’s a train wreck when a fumbling debater proves desperate and resorts to ad homimen, bad logic, and venomous hatred.

So long as haters like Perez Hilton and Malcolm Lazin continue to disparage good Americans with whom they disagree, it is likely that the public will grow increasingly impatient with the gay marriage movement and its bitter spokespersons.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

In the media flood surrounding Miss California’s tsunami-like defense of marriage at the Miss USA pageant, many anti-marriage pundits seem to have forgotten–or conveniently overlooked–comments made by another high-profile supporter of traditional marriage. In an May 16, 2009 article on NPR.com (“The Difference Between Listening and Hearing”),  commentator Scott Simon lists the following quote and asks readers to identify the source:

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.

After setting up readers to suspect that the comment might be tied to some mindless bimbo or bigoted spawn of TV caricature Archie Bunker, Simon drops the bomb that the source of that statement was none other than President Obama. The NPR personality went on to observe that while Ms. Carrie Prejean is “mocked as some kind of beach-blonde California airhead, or worse, a bigot,” Obama received no vocal opposition for his nearly identical statement on marriage.

Noting the media’s hypocrisy in lampooning Prejean while giving Obama a pass, Simon concludes that people “hear what they want to.” Apparently unsympathetic to such blatantly selective and politically motivated attacks, he adds: “People who are sure they would never slur someone because of religion or race will belittle a 22-year-old because she’s a beauty queen and cannot possibly hold the same opinion as someone they admire.”

The fair-minded observations by an NPR journalist couldn’t have been more timely. This week Obama’s own senior advisor, David Axelrod, quipped on NPR show “Wait! Wait! Don’t Tell Me” that the Obamas considered Miss California as a possible candidate for the White House dog.

Such hateful and classless attacks on Carrie Prejean by Obama’s top advisor can’t possibly boost the administration’s reputation in the minds of the American public. Fortunately for Obama, Axlerod’s adolescent rants against Prejean were dwarfed by the ringing endorsements of Miss California from stars ranging from Donald Trump to Nick Lachey and Vanessa Minnillo, who in an interview with MTV News rallied behind Prejean’s rights to free speech.

“Of course she should have kept her crown,” Lachey said. “This is what makes America America. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and you should be able to say your opinion and not be criticized or penalized for it.” He added,”If you don’t want to know someone’s opinion, don’t ask the question. How is someone’s opinion wrong?”

In related news, Miss California Pageant Director Shanna Moakler quit her job over the Prejean flap, saying she believed that the National Organization for Marriage—a nonprofit group that backed Prejean and advocates for the time-tested benefits of marriage—was a hate group. Given the perplexing confusion of mind Ms. Moakler demonstrated with such statements, it appears to be a positive development that the Miss USA pageant now has the opportunity to fill the post with a more skillful spokesperson and administrator.

Read Full Post »