Ruth Institute Blog

I have always tried to argue that there is a very serious civil outcome to redefining marriage, and it has nothing to do with religious liberty or the idea of “sacramental marriage.”

Since marriage is society’s primary way of acknowledging and understanding parenthood, redefining marriage redefines parenthood. Here in California, the affects of “SSM” and redefining parenthood are rapidly making their way through the legislature. Last year, Gov. Brown signed a bill allowing three or more legal parents for children, which was inspired by a “SSM” custody dispute.

Now we have this: AB 1951. This bill will change birth certificates to allow for a gender neutral option for parents. Gay couples will be able to list both of themselves on the child’s birth certificate. California recently did away with the terms “husband” and “wife,” because of “SSM,” and the lead legislator for that measure said that those terms were outdated and biased. I suppose we can infer the same thing for “mother” and “father.”  Read more…

I believe that the divide between conservatives on the marriage issue runs deeper than marriage. Over on Ricochet, on Peter Robinson’s marriage thread, several times I asked a question that went something like this:

Does society have a duty to place a nature-based limitation on the number of legally recognized parents for children?

There is a specific reason I asked this question. When it comes to legally recognized parents for children, there is a divide between the socially conservative view and the libertarian view. In fact, I don’t believe there is a principled difference between the libertarian view and the extreme Left on this particular point. By “extreme Left” I am referring specifically to  that she made in about March or April of 2013: Read more…

Have you ever seen a dog race up to the boundary of a yard, and abruptly stop?  It looks very odd, until you realize that the dog is wearing a fancy collar.  You surmise that there is an invisible electric “fence” embedded in the yard. The dog has been shocked so often that it stops itself before it actually touches the invisible fence line.

This image flashed in my mind as I was reading “Home Economics: The Consequences of Changing Family Structure,” by Nick Schulz. Mr. Schulz does a fine job laying out the harmful effects of the deconstruction of the family, both to individuals and to the larger project of the free society. This nice little book lays out the economic consequences of family breakdown.  But he studiously avoids anything that might have even the remotest chance of getting him tagged with the label of “moralizing.”  Or perhaps I should say, anything that would “zap” him with such a label.  

He throw out the obligatory protective covering right at the beginning of this small paperback by promising to refrain from “passing judgment about divorce or out-of-wedlock births.”  I think this is rather an odd position to take while describing such  socially destructive trends.   But that is where we are as a culture, due to the systematic strategy of the Life Style Left of zapping anyone who dares to challenge their Orthodoxy. You know the Orthodoxy, don’t you?

• The kids will be fine as long as their parents are happy.  Read more…

Recently I had an exchange on Facebook about redefining marriage to include gay couples. I mentioned something about conservative gays against gay marriage, and a friend replied to me, saying:

“I for one have never heard of a conservative gay … so that’s a new one on me.”

I wasn’t surprised when he said it, because I didn’t know that conservative gays existed either until the past couple years. Like him, I thought all gays were liberals.

But conservative gays do exist. There are .

I keep wondering why liberal gays get all the media attention. Why are liberal gays the only gays you see on TV with signs and banners? Why are they the ones who get interviews and publicity, and not the others? Isn’t the marriage issue a gay issue? Read more…

In case you missed my prior posts about the components of marriage located here and here, here are the components of marriage again:

1. The duration component. (for life)

2. The number component. (two people)

3. The blood relationship component. (not closely related by blood)

4. The age component. (not too young)

5. The human component (human beings rather than animals or other non humans)

6. The gender/procreative component. (both genders required)

Six states and Washington D.C. have smashed the gender component, and there are marriage ballot measures going on in four states in November to see if they will retain this component or not. Clearly the gender/procreative component is taking a beating. But it’s not going down without a fight.

If this component gets destroyed, other components may be up for grabs pretty quickly – after all, if marriage is only about love or equal rights, those who want to alter or remove the remaining marriage components can use the same reasoning to get what they want. The duration component was smashed via no fault divorce starting in the late 1960s. So of the four that remain, which component will be next on the chopping block? Here they are: Read more…

I just saw this quote on a liberal facebook page that I follow:

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” ~Abraham Lincoln

I like arguments pointing out “something” depending on “something else,” because the “something else” came first, and the “something” is built on the “something else.” I’m going to use this same logic in regards to marriage.

“Man/woman marriage is prior to, and independent of, the state. The state is the fruit of man/woman marriage, and could never have existed if man/woman marriage had not first existed. Man/woman marriage is superior of the state, and deserves much the higher consideration.” ~Jennifer Thieme

In other words, this:

came after this:

Not only did it come after, it absolutely needs it. The state should not be messing with the definition of marriage!

Read more from this author:

Why Everybody, Including Gays, Should Support Traditional Marriage

“Marriage Equality” Creates Equality for Whom?

”Marriage Equality” – What’s Love Got to do With It?

Some of my Friends With Wrong Ideas (FrieWIs) keep a very close watch on me.  I don’t feel a need to respond to every post.  Every once in a while, however, they do me a favor.  Take this audio clip posted over at Equality Matters, for instance.    Posted with a breathless headline, “NOM’s Morse: Hate Crimes Laws are Anti-American, Limit Free Speech.”  This headline is designed to brand me, before you, the reader/listener, even hear what I have to say. This is from an hour long interview I did with a blog radio host called Stacy Swimp. Equality Matters went to the trouble of pulling out this 5 minutes and making it into its own little post. Read more…

Honestly, you really ought to stretch and warm up a bit before jumping to conclusions. You guys jumped so far and so hard, I’m worried you might hurt yourselves!

I am referring of course, to my now notorious anal sex post. You will recall I made a simple statement: Read more…

Tomorrow on my regular Issues Etc segment, I will talk about David Cameron’s recent speech on the importance of the family.

Some of the worst aspects of human nature tolerated, indulged – sometimes even incentivised – by a state and its agencies that in parts have become literally de-moralised. So do we have the determination to confront all this and turn it around?  I have the very strong sense that the responsible majority of people in this country not only have that determination; they are crying out for their government to act upon it.

I will be drawing on these sources:

My book review of Patricia Morgan’s book, The War Between the State and the Family.  This is still a good and timely book, which you can purchase through the IEA in the UK.

A 2011 Report detailing the taxpayer cost of out of wedlock childbearing in the UK.

Tune in, and listen live!

The response to my post, A Word on Terminology has confirmed my intuition that I am correct to abstain from using the term “same sex marriage.”  Three things have led me to conclude that my instincts are correct about this:

1. The wailing, weeping and general indignation meeting being held all around the Left side of the Blogosphere.

2. My friend, Bill May, of Catholics for the Common Good, confirms my opinion. (I always listen when Bill talks.) He pointed me to a tract that his organization has written on the subject, a tract which I highly recommend to all Regular Ruth Readers, Friends with Wrong or Right Ideas.

3. Finally, and most importantly, in the aforesaid wailing and indignation, advocates of the redefinition of marriage have, perhaps inadvertently, revealed just how radical they really are.  See for instance, comment #12, which states  in part: Read more…