What Marriage Isn’t

In the opinion of five people on the US Supreme Court

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

That’s what the Defense of Marriage Act, Section 3 claimed for almost 17 years.

And what humanity claimed from the beginning of time.

And what God declared from eternity.

And what the Supreme Court of the United States today said isn’t so.

Well, what five members of that court said.

Actually, just one that mattered (if you want to look at it that way). If one of those five had voted differently, the outcome would have been different.

I wonder how those five propose to define marriage.

On what basis would they say these aren’t valid marriages:

  • Three or more people without regard to gender?
  • Two people sharing one or more spouses but not married to each other?
  • An adult and a teenager?
  • Two adult siblings?
  • Any two adults without regard to marital status or family relationship?

And how is denying such arrangements not a manifestation of bigotry, hate, phobia, and so forth?

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil — God says so.

Well, here’s another book for your consideration: Reforming Marriage

Welcoming Daddy Home

I think it was a Google Alert that (somehow) brought this to my attention earlier today (I’m giving only the titles of each little section):

I want to share with you for just a moment, an excerpt out of an actual 1950’s Home Economics textbook. You might have read this before, but take a moment and read it again:

How to be a Good Wife

HAVE DINNER READY

PREPARE YOURSELF

CLEAR AWAY THE CLUTTER

PREPARE THE CHILDREN

MINIMIZE ALL NOISE

SOME “DO NOT’S”

MAKE HIM COMFORTABLE

LISTEN TO HIM

MAKE THE EVENING HIS

After quoting from the old textbook, the author details what she learned from it and how she’s applying it in her home.

Read the whole piece at Joyfully Living.

Any Credit for Him?

The White House has scrubbed President Obama’s central pledge to the homosexual community from its website – his promise to quash the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The president unveiled his pro-homosexual agenda on the White House website on Inauguration Day. Under the “Civil Rights” section, he called for the repeal of the act signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 after an overwhelming bipartisan vote in Congress 342-67 and 85-14.

The Defense of Marriage Act provides that federal laws must be interpreted in accord with the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife.

The following is the original language posted on the White House website as Obama took office….

HT: Unhitched White House scrubs marriage promise

Life and Freedom Today

The Game of Life

The online version of a popular board game from many Americans’ childhood includes an option for players to choose homosexual marriage and child-rearing as a way of life.

Through the Shockwave.com website, even children can download and play a free trial version of The Game of Life, the first game ever created by Mr. Milton Bradley in 1860.

The player’s first option in the online version is to choose a persona based on pictures that clearly depict men and women. Shortly thereafter, the game invites players to choose a spouse, regardless of the potential spouse’s sex.

So that’s life.

But do they also create the option for skipping marriage altogether and just shacking up with your “significant other” (I despise that expression!)?

And the option to divorce?

Or have an abortion?

For the record, the board version of the game also allows taking a same-sex spouse.

So…add another point to freedom’s score. 🙄

And speaking of freedom….

Freedom in the 50 States

Index of Personal and Economic Freedom

This paper presents the first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres. We develop and justify our ratings and aggregation procedure on explicitly normative criteria, defining individual freedom as the ability to dispose of one’s own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on other individuals’ ability to do the same.

[…]

We find that the freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending and middling levels of regulation and paternalism. New York is the least free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode Island, California and Maryland. On personal freedom alone, Alaska is the clear winner, while Maryland brings up the rear. As for freedom in the different regions of the country, the Mountain and West North Central regions are the freest overall while the Middle Atlantic lags far behind on both economic and personal freedom.

As I recall, Oregon ranks #27 overall.

For perspective, I expect many people in the world would say we don’t have anything to fuss about regarding freedom here in the States. Even if they would have to live in New York or Maryland.

Above all, love God!