Before We Leap

There seems to be a rising chorus—even among some on the right—that marriage is over and we need to give up on the civil institution of marriage. I’m reminded of the blonde starlet, Mae West. This Hollywood celebrity was asked why she didn’t marry one of the handsome young men who always followed her around. “Marriage is a great institution,” said Mae, “but I’m not ready for an institution.”

Married or not, Mae West understood marriage better than some federal judges and some policy analysts.

When we hear them say “let’s privatize marriage,” what they are really saying is let’s abandon the children. And let’s abandon America’s future.

The pages of history Former HHS official Wade Horn tells us that as late as 1941—the year of the attack on Pearl Harbor—fully 89% of black children in this country were born to mothers and fathers who were married.

A quarter century after that, however, the great sociologist and later U.S. diplomat and senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan raised an alarm. He saw an out-of-wedlock birthrate of 22% in the black community and knew that trouble was coming.

Today, that out-of-wedlock birthrate in some urban communities is greater than 70%. Do we think this is not a problem?

We know that poverty is the lot of many children born out-of-wedlock. Dr. Patrick Fagan worked with Dr. Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation in a classic study. These respected analysts “married” the parents of the four million children living in poverty. Fagan and Rector did this by computer. If their parents were married, only 750,000 of those children would still live in poverty.

Even the liberal Brookings Institution concurs to this extent: If a young couple will finish high school, avoid having children out-of-wedlock, and then marry, the chances are only 4% that their children will live in poverty.

Are we concerned about crime? The National Fatherhood Initiative informs us that three-quarters of the teen rapists and two-thirds of the teen murderers in our prisons are fatherless young men.

We can see this sad reality in the newspaper headlines. Consider the mass shooters we have seen all too often in our troubled land. Most are young. Virtually every one is male. They may be of different races, but they have one thing in common: they are all unmarried.

Do we care about the economy? Children with married parents do better in school and have better outcomes for employment. But when conservatives argued for cutbacks in federal outlays for Medicare, President Obama’s Treasury Sec., Tim Geithner, slapped them down. Forty percent of all children born in America today, Geithner said, qualify for Medicare. That would be, of course, the 40% (actually, now 42%) who are born out-of-wedlock. And fully 48% of first births are out-of-wedlock.

Those who want to reduce the size of the federal government and think we can overturn marriage are deluding themselves. Ending marriage is the HOV lane to government dependency.

President Obama knows this. That’s why the White House created “Julia” in 2012.

Julia is their fictional character who goes through her entire life wedded to government programs. No other marriage is mentioned. At 29, Julia “decides” to have a child. No husband is in this picture. Julia has no father, no brothers, no male friends. The only man in her life is Barack Obama.

Leftists eroded marriage by a thousand cuts.
- Welfare. Rewards irresponsibility. Does NOT require MEN to shoulder the burden of the children they spawn.
Anecdote:
In most cities, one can observe (mostly obese) wimmen loudly corralling their clutches. No men are present to help. Unless it’s “that time of month” (not that one). When the checks are distributed (pre-EBT). THEN males are in evidence. WHY? To get PAID for the attention these slovenly, beastly wimmen bestow upon them.

- No Fault Divorce
Spread like a cancer from Californicate through the nation in the ‘70’s with little to no debate (much like abortion).
It has spawned an entire movement - the manosphere - which abjures the institution. (it’s cool to pump em and dump em, or MGTOW, or...)

- Abortion.
Life is meaningless anyway.

- Taxes
To pay for it all. Mom now HAS to go out and work.

The left has been set on destroying marriage and family since Satan.

One of the most poignant and powerful stories from the Civil War era tells us that freedmen and women walked to Tennessee in 1866 to have their slave marriages recorded and recognized in law. Many of these ex-slaves were illiterate—kept so by unjust enactments. Many of them had to walk barefoot. But so great was their yearning for marriage that they made that great sacrifice.

The pages of history Former HHS official Wade Horn tells us that as late as 1941—the year of the attack on Pearl Harbor—fully 89% of black children in this country were born to mothers and fathers who were married.

Democrats worked to destroy marriage among our most vulnerable groups first... now they're moving on to the rest of us...

When we hear them say “let’s privatize marriage,” what they are really saying is let’s abandon the children. And let’s abandon America’s future.

First, no. That's not what those of us who have suggested the state get out of the marriage business are saying. Quite the contrary.

Because this is the United States we can't discuss marriage with people who default to the side of "fairness," with those who see no reason "why gays should not be allowed to marry," etc.

We have to return the argument to the fundamentals. Government based on enumerated powers must demonstrate a compelling state interest for regulating marriage in the first place. It's not an argument homosexualists want to engage in.

Obviously, the primary and compelling state interest in regulating marriage is the safety and welfare of children. If it isn't, what is it that remains these days?

But every defender and attacker of traditional marriage has almost completely removed the debate over to a discussion over free association, the realm of "civil rights."

Homosexuals live together and they adopt children, and when the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law forbidding sodomy, sexuality, even monogamy, was all but completely removed from the debate.

If the safety and welfare of children is no longer related to the state's interest in protecting the safety and welfare of children, where is the compelling state interest for regulating marriage.

Especially when polygamy enters the question, as well, what kind of "marriage" is the state defending? It certainly not something I care to defend.

The problem seem to be that many, mostly, though not exclusively on the Left, confuse the State with "Society," and court decisions, regulation and legislation as the dictates of a secular idolatry.

If no one is willing to defend marriage from the standpoint of child protection and welfare then defenders of traditional marriage have already lost the debate. If this debate is only a civil rights issue, why should my tax dollars be confiscated to support the state's sanctification of the profane?

Make no mistake. The homoosexualists want sanctification of what is not sacred. Beyond this, some, not all, but certainly a vocal bunch, want to remove all who would question this perverse sanctification into a kind of state-heresy.

So, I'm all in favor of the state defense of traditional marriage, with the safety and welfare of children being the compelling state interest for that enforced defense. Unfortunately, too many who agree with me have surrendered the child safety and welfare defense and have no leg to stand on in when the debate is solely one of individual civil rights.

"The pages of history Former HHS official Wade Horn tells us that as late as 1941—the year of the attack on Pearl Harbor—fully 89% of black children in this country were born to mothers and fathers who were married."

Dr. Wade Horn is very much in favor of old fashioned family values and morality. Obeying the demand of Republican feminists, the Bush Administration fired him soon after he was appointed.

How's that feminism and romanticism working for you? Honest moral conservatives are the only real conservatives. Eventually, even political folks on the contemporary feminist/romanticist bandwagon will be uncomfortable enough to see what lack of moral conservatism can do to an economy and realize that this era in history is not the first instance of such decline.

The Lawyer Party (Libertarian, AKA libertarian, whatever) is not trying to get government out of marriage. That faction is really pushing to get government benefits for the homo associates of fake marriages and provide for more litigation by homosexuals against moral people.

The Lawyer Party lies and is pushing for bigger government and more control for officers of courts against freedoms, as it does with its other issues. The Lawyer Party doesn’t need to get its own members into political seats. It’s a Party of only constituents hiding behing politicians of both parties. Republicans and Democrats have both been doing its bidding.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.