Alabama moves to destroy Children

gay marraige photoThis past Monday, some of the strangest things happened in Alabama, the alleged Bible belt. Out of fear that they were living the Wallace days again — Wallace the one who stood in the doors of the school to block the entrance of black children — many judges rushed to provide so-called marriage licenses to homosexual couples, but Justice Roy Moore of the state Supreme Court ordered them to stop pending further legal proceedings, not the least of which is an Alabama constitution provision that marriage is between one man and one woman. Unlike the Commandments issue, Moore got it right:  he swore to uphold the constitution, and that’s plainly what the Constitution says. They called him Wallace for it. The news was replete with controversy!

For the people here that fought for this and screamed loudest in favor of this, they think these poor unprivileged individuals are being denied status. Thus, by the illogic, giving them civil privileges otherwise afforded to baby-making spouses gives them equal rights, so on and so on. The proponents of gay marriage are so hyper-focused on not being perceived as enslaving people who want gay marriage, that they are unable to see that they are instead destroying children. See, the rights and privileges of marriage are there to provide for the raising of children, not to be sure that one’s paramour can collect life insurance.

Don’t take my word for it, though. In 2008, David Blankenthorn, who identifies himself as a liberal democrat, wrote fairly convincingly and accurately on the topic:

Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. […] But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I’ve come to a different conclusion.

Marriage […] across groups and cultures [has] one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

[…] Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

[…] until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it simply: “People wed primarily to reproduce.” The philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few decades earlier when he concluded that “it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.”


Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one.

via Protecting marriage to protect children – LA Times. (emphasis added)

Read the rest of Blankenthorn’s article, because it is well said.

The First Mistake:  Equal Right to Marry? They already have that.

The picture I selected above shows a man standing at the doors to a California courthouse holding a sign  that says “We all deserve the freedom to marry.”  Well, nobody said he couldn’t marry, and nobody is stopping him (unless he already has a wife). Provided he or she isn’t already married to someone else, almost any state will grant a so-called marriage license (why we still persist in this vestige of the eugenics movement is a different curiosity), and they can marry. Unlike divorced people, who when they remarry can have more children, these people aren’t asking for equality — they are asking to make marriage something different. Two men can’t make a child. Neither can two women. So, they aren’t asking for equality — they are asking us to make something different. To make marriage mean something different.   To make it about insurance benefits and estate succession instead of children.

The Second Mistake: If you don’t like it, don’t get one.

I was told this recently by someone who insisted that “Gay marriage doesn’t harm anyone, if you don’t like it, don’t get one.” My response was immediate: “that’s sort of like saying, if you don’t like the mustard gas, don’t breathe.'”  You cannot escape the effect so-called gay marriage will have on the already limping institution of marriage. It is the last element of marriage not legally destroyed.

How the Mustard gas works, both to Future Marriages and to Children

The elements of marriage are: (1) a man and a woman; (2) exchange vows to be spouses forever; and, (3) consummation. Additionally, that they are open to productivity of life (children) is a requisite for validity, and was always implied by consummation. Thus, in nearly any society, a couple that did not consummate the union, was deemed to have not gotten married.

First Comes Contraception

The first attack on the elements of Marriage was the legalization of contraception, and the forcible proliferation of contraceptives beginning in 1968, by George Bush Sr. through his work as the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. This one act alone caused the purpose of consummation to be perceived as mere expression of intimacy, and divorced (pun intended) the pleasures of marital consummation from the product, children. This effectively nullified the element of marriage towards productivity, let alone romance.

Then Comes No-Fault Divorce

Earlier than the full head-on onslaught of contraceptives in the United States, but not really in full swing until the 70s, came no fault divorce. The proliferation and frankly astonishingly common practice of divorce in America is unparalleled in the rest of the world. Rather than hash over the millions of implications here,  it is my point for this post that the element of “forever” was adequately destroyed in society. Annulment rates in the United States Church, commonly known among our readers, should be enough evidence that even among Catholics, the nature of marriage as permanent, that is “forever,” is gone. Destroyed. That leaves only one last element: man and woman.

Now comes a Man and a Man without a Baby Carriage

Legally, looking at the elements of marriage, there is nothing left once you say, by force of law, that two men or two women can marry. The most basic element, that which we started with, is truly as Jesus said: “From the beginning, God made them man and woman.”  Why? Because that’s how God made the world to work! Nature itself began with parents begetting children and there’s not a single person reading this that did not come from the union of one man and one woman. Even for an atheist, a heathen, or a pagan philosopher in the ancient world, they knew that children come from the union of a man and a woman. Now, we’ve defined that as meaningless. There is nothing left of that institution we have to protect children. In the ancient world, they’d have called such a thought insanity or lunacy. But, we are told it doesn’t do anything and doesn’t harm anyone. I think they said that about the pill and no fault divorce, too.

Politicians like to say they are “doing it for the children.”  Why then, are they pushing something so terrible for children?

The other bothersome question underneath all this is: at the end of the day, after all these states allow so-called gay marriage, what will all these social activists then move on to? They will have grown bored because they won’t be victims anymore, so they will need to find some new victimhood to exploit. What will their next fight for “equality” be?

May God save us!


Photo by davitydave

This article, Alabama moves to destroy Children is a post from The Bellarmine Forum.
Do not repost the entire article without written permission. Reasonable excerpts may be reposted so long as it is linked to this page.

John B. Manos

John B. Manos, Esq. is an attorney and chemical engineer. He has a dog, Fyo, and likes photography, astronomy, and dusty old books published by Benzinger Brothers. He is the President of the Bellarmine Forum.

Get VIP Notice

Have new blog posts delivered right to your inbox!
Enter your email: