by Ben Johnson
This article was first published October 31, 2014, at LifeSiteNews.com.
The New York state Court of Appeals has trimmed back a state law banning incestuous marriages, allowing an uncle and niece to marry one another. The decision allows the woman, a Vietnamese immigrant, to avoid deportation. Read more…
Proposal from the Ruth Institute:
Gender-Based Civil Unions
Since an essential public purpose of civil marriage in the United States has been to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, and since this essential purpose is being overwritten and therefore discarded due to gender neutral marriage and parenting laws, we propose the following:
To establish civil unions that are gender based–one man and one woman. With respect to taxation, parentage, federal benefits, etc. (reference), they will be legally equivalent to (now gender neutral) marriage in everything but the name. The legal doctrine that was formerly known as the marital presumption of paternity, which existed in order to attach the father to the family, was distorted into the marital presumption of parentage under gender neutral marriage and parentage. It shall be restored to its former function of attaching the father to the family for these civil unions. Gender based terms shall be used to describe the parties, such as male, female, mother, father, etc.
Male/female couples who were previously considered married under the gender neutral system may opt into a gender-based civil union. Churches who uphold marriage as the union between a man and a woman can perform these ceremonies under whatever name they wish. If they wish to call it marriage, they can do so. There will be no speech restrictions regarding what individuals, churches, or other private entities call these unions. However, with respect to the legal code, they will be called civil unions.
Regarding divorce: generally, we prefer the state to have a higher bar to overcome before getting involved in a divorce for these civil unions than it does currently for civil marriage. Michael J. McManus, in the Spring 2011 edition of The Family in America (reference), proposes what he calls “Three Achievable No-Fault Reforms.” They are:
We are open to discussion about any of these or other reasonable proposals. Our primary goals are to reaffirm sex differences in the legal code and to reaffirm the father’s attachment to the family. Secondarily, we see these civil unions as an opportunity to make long-needed reforms to divorce laws.
If you like this idea, we encourage you to share this post with your friends. You can also support our work by making a donation today. .
The Ruth Institute expresses sorrow but not surprise, at the Supreme Court’s decision to allow challenges to natural marriage to stand.
And thanks allies who labored to defend marriage.
Press Release from the Ruth Institute
October 6, 2014 San Marcos CA—The Ruth Institute expresses its sorrow but not surprise, at the Supreme Court’s decision to allow challenges to natural marriage to stand. President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse stated, “Here at the Ruth Institute, we have known for some time that the Elites of this society have both the desire and the power to create genderless marriage, so-called gay marriage. By refusing to hear the legal challenges to the courts that have overturned state marriage laws, the judicial Elites have taken another step toward gutting the institution of marriage. ”
Dr Morse predicted that this will not be the last step in the campaign to redefine and reshape the family, using the power of the government. “Redefining marriage redefines parenthood. Governments have already begun rewriting birth certificates and marriage licenses. Children can now have three legal parents. The government will no longer be constrained by biology in its determination of parental rights and responsibilities. How this will amount to more freedom or equality for anyone, I cannot imagine.” Read more…
Jennifer Johnson, Director of Outreach
Hi Melanie,
My name is Jennifer Johnson and I am the Director of Outreach at the Ruth Institute. Since you linked to an important document created by my organization in your post called, “Conservatives Can’t Be Pro-Marriage and Oppose Gay Marriage,” I would like to respond to you.
You said that you haven’t found a conservative to “give you a satisfactory answer” as to “how gay marriage tangibly undermines traditional marriage arrangements.” That’s unfortunate, and I’m not very surprised. However, this kind of answer is the kind of answer specialize in here at the Ruth Institute (which is no longer part of NOM, BTW).
Before I answer, let me pose a question, Melanie. Have you researched the precise manner in which gay marriage is implemented into the legal code? I would like to make a prediction: that you have not done this research. Very few have. What I have observed, instead, is that gay marriage supporters make an assumption. Their assumption goes like this: Read more…
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.
Imagine having five parents! Here’s what it means: it means going back and forth between all those households on a regular basis, never having a single place to call home during your most tender and vulnerable years. It means having divided Christmases, other holidays, and birthdays–you spend one with one parent, and another with the other parent, never spending a single holiday or birthday with both parents. Imagine having each of your parents completely ignore the other half of you, the other half of your family, as if it did not even exist. Meanwhile, imagine each parent pouring their energy into their new families and creating a unified home for their new children. These experiences give you the definite impression of being something leftover, something not quite part of them. You live like that on a daily basis for 18+ years.
As a child, would you choose a family structure advocated by Masha Gessen? Does this look fun?
I don’t have to imagine, because I had five parents. I had five parents because my mom and dad divorced when I was about three; my mom remarried once and my dad remarried twice. So I had a mom and two step-moms, and a dad and one step-dad. In this day and age children can already have five parents. That’s how badly marriage has deteriorated already. The main difference between what Gessen advocates and my experience is that my step parents were not legal parents; she advocates for all of the adults in her situation to be legal parents.
When marriage laws are amended to bring same-sex couples within their ambit, those couples become subject to the existing restrictions imposed by blood and family ties (consanguinity and affinity) which forbid people from marrying someone too close to them. So if a woman cannot marry her brother, uncle or nephew, neither can she marry her sister, aunt or niece. Simple, right? As far as it goes, yes. But not once we consider the rationale behind consanguinity restrictions and what the application of the “marriage equality” paradigm to them is likely to lead to. Read more…
from the Nom blog
In recent days, you might have read the news about the latest battlefront in the fight for marriage: a battlefront, this time, where real soldiers are involved.
I’m talking about the National Guard in Texas and Mississippi, whose leaders are choosing to obey those states’ marriage laws instead of a Department of Defense directive that would have the entire DOD recognize same-sex ‘marriages.’ The contention over that directive from Defense Secretary Hagel is just the latest fallout of June’s fateful Supreme Court ruling against Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act. Read more…
The Log Cabin Republicans did not address the central point I made, which is how same sex marriage changes the status between parents and their children. The claims for “marriage equality” pale in comparison to the vast transfer of authority from natural families to the state. It’s a case of the good being the enemy of the best. Read more…
This article was first published May 9, 2013, at americanthinker.com.
You have no doubt heard the news that gay marriage is inevitable. The New York state legislature redefined marriage in 2011. Rhode Island redefined marriage earlier this week. Delaware just removed the gender requirement from marriage. Minnesota is poised to vote on the issue this week. This steady drumbeat of state legislatures changing the definition of marriage as it has been known for millennia surely must show that so-called gay marriage is inevitable. Read more…
This week, we started something BIG… but we’re only getting started!
Click here right away to sign NOM’s Marriage Petition to the Supreme Court!
On Tuesday, thousands of people rallied in Washington DC, marching in front of the Supreme Court in support of the true definition of marriage: the exclusive and faithful union of one man and one woman!
NOM brought together a coalition of over 40 groups in support of this effort and it has already made a tremendous impact! We met our opponents on the street in front of the Supreme Court, but thanks to the brave individuals who came out in support of marriage on Tuesday, the UK Daily Mail was able to report that we “easily outnumber[ed] advocates for gay marriage.” Read more…
Loading ...
