Over the past few weeks, the War on Marriage has turned into a Blitzkrieg.
It’s all designed to sway the Supreme Court, which will be hearing arguments Tuesday and Wednesday on California’s voter-approved constitutional marriage amendment and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
A day doesn’t pass without another bomb dropped on the oldest human institution. If it’s not another slanted poll, negatively worded to elicit the “correct” response, it’s a politician sharing his sudden revelation that God didn’t know what He was doing when He created marriage as the union of male and female.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, one of many formerly credible professional associations compromised by political correctness and junk science, has announced that children no longer benefit from a mother and a father in the household. Any two adults will do. Mothers and fathers provide no unique influence.
If you believe that, ask yourself: if your father had been replaced by a lesbian, would your upbringing have been any different? Did your mother provide anything unique to you that your dad didn’t? In the best interests of children, why create motherless or fatherless households by design?
Washington Post columnist George Will on Thursday wrote that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it tramples states’ rights. If you substitute “slavery” wherever Mr. Will uses the word “marriage,” you’ll quickly see the absurdity of his argument.
DOMA defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and woman, but it also says states can’t be forced to adopt faux marriage from other states.
Mr. Will also ignores key Supreme Court cases, such as Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) in which the Court held that Utah could not be a state until it abandoned polygamy. By Mr. Will’s reasoning, that should be overturned.
In Baker v. Nelson (1972), the high court upheld the Minnesota Supreme Court’s rejection of a comparison to the Loving v. Virginia (1967) ruling that struck down a ban on inter-racial marriage: “In commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”
Recently, Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican, announced support for same-sex “marriage” because his son is homosexual.
Wife of US Pastor Held in Iran: 'I Never Thought I’d Have to Battle My Own Gov't For My Husband’s Freedom' | Leah Barkoukis
Politifact: On Second Thought, Obama's 'Keep Your Plan' Pledge is 2013's 'Lie of the Year' | Guy Benson
Conservatives Clash as House Prepares to Vote on Ryan-Murray Budget Deal -- UPDATE: House passes 332-94 | Guy Benson
New White House Push: Sign Up For Obamacare Because It Will Give Your Mother "Piece of Mind" | Daniel Doherty
Heartbreaking: Dad Gives Up Trying to Obtain Health Insurance For His Ailing Son on the Exchanges | Daniel Doherty