Feminist Internet: Men Proposing to Women Is Rape Culture

According to a piece in the feminist blog Bustle, the tradition of men proposing women is “problematic” because it “perpetuates rape culture.” Yes — not “problematic” because it perpetuates recklessly emotional social media posts, but because it “perpetuates rape culture.”
Read more at National Review Read More......

Oregon judge refuses to perform same-sex marriages

Marion County Judge Vance Day is being investigated by a judicial fitness commission in part over his refusal to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds, a spokesman for the judge said.

When a federal court ruling in May 2014 made same-sex marriage legal in Oregon, Day instructed his staff to refer same-sex couples looking to marry to other judges, spokesman Patrick Korten said Friday.

Read more at the Drudge Report

Read More......

15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality

Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.


Read more at The Federalist

Read More......

Politico: Has not the time come for polygamy, social liberals?

This didn’t take long, did it? Faster than one can say “slippery slope,” quicker than the echoes of Chief Justice John Roberts’ warnings on the subject could dissipate, Politico Magazine published a rather lengthy appeal to the leaders of social liberalism to use the Obergefell decision to push for a constitutionally-recognized right for plural marriage.
At least Frederick deBoer eschews the phrase the right side of history. He does conclude, however, that “it’s time,”


Read more at HotAir.com Read More......

Religious leaders defy U.S. government: We stand with Bible

Prominent Christian and Jewish leaders are warning the U.S. Supreme Court justices in a full-page ad in major newspapers that they will not honor any decision that violates the “biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman.” --The statement by the leaders — who include Franklin Graham, James Dobson, Frank Pavone, Don Wildmon, Jerry Boykin, Alveda King and Alan Keyes — appears in a full-page ad in the Washington Post, USA Today and other papers.

Read more at WND Read More......

When 8 Adults And 3 Children Are A Family

During the recent Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage, Justice Samuel Alito questioned if finding for the plaintiffs would open the door to marriages of multiple partners. Most considered the rejoinder more quip than question, a reduction ad absurdum of the marriage equality position.
But why can’t four (or more) consenting adults form a family together—perhaps not as a marriage, but as a family unit recognized by the state? Such cases have been brought for decades, especially in the 1970s heyday of communes, and have almost always lost. But a case currently working its way through the Connecticut court system may reopen the issue.


Read more at the Daily Beast Read More......

Why Not Separate Marriage and State?

There is no question that the media, political, and cultural push for gay marriage has made impressive gains. As recently as 1989, voters in avant-garde San Francisco repealed a law that had established only domestic partnerships.   But judging by the questions posed by Supreme Court justices this week in oral arguments for two gay-marriage cases, most observers do not expect sweeping rulings that would settle the issue and avoid protracted political combat. A total of 41 states currently do not allow gay marriage, and most of those laws are likely to remain in place for some time. Even should the Court declare unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes, we can expect many pitched battles in Congress.

Read more at National Review Read More......

The Best Argument for Marriage I’ve Ever Heard

Testifying before the Indiana House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 13, Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, argued to a room full of policymakers:  “If the biggest social problem we face right now in the United States is absentee dads,” he paused, “How will we insist that dads are essential when the law redefines marriage to make fathers optional?”

Read more at Encourage & Teach Read More......

Gresham bakery: example of why people mistrust the media

By Dan Lucas
Gallup reported a year ago that distrust in the media had hit a new high, with 60% saying they had little or no trust in newspapers, TV and radio when it came to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly. ✧ A recent example in Oregon shows why there is that distrust. ✧ The example involves the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham. In January the bakery said they wouldn’t bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple for a same-sex marriage, as it violated their religious beliefs. The bakery had previously sold a wedding cake to the same lesbian couple when the wedding cake wasn’t for a same-sex marriage, and the bakery does sell their cakes to gays and lesbians, just not for same-sex marriages. Find out what the press 'didn't report' at Oregon Catalyst... Read More......

Fox Nation: Scalia Blasts ‘High-Handed’ Justices in Scathing Dissent of DOMA Ruling

Dissenting from [Wednesday's] opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back. ✧ In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race." See Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA.

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today's Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.

Source: Fox Nation Read More......

Lesbian Activist’s Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a ‘Lie’ to Destroy Marriage

A 2012 speech by Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community, is just now going viral and it includes a theory that many supporters of traditional marriage have speculated about for years: The push for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry – it is about diminishing and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the “traditional family.”

Read more at The Blaze Read More......