GOP Should Invite Social Liberals to Leave
I must admit I became angry when I read Edward Hudgins' op-ed in The Christian Post, entitled, "GOP Should Invite Social Conservative 'Extremists' to Leave." People like Mr. Hudgins already agree with Democrats on social issues, so I propose that they take their fiscally conservative views and register as Democrats. After all, many fiscal conservatives believe that the fiscal issues are more important than the social issues. So why are they demonizing people like me on issues that are of (supposed) lesser importance?
Besides, unlike what Mr. Hudgins and others like him assert, social liberals are the true extremists. Here's why.
Social liberals probably think that by supporting gay marriage, they are supporting a policy that is based on limited government and freedom. Almost none of these can explain the exact legal changes that must be made to accommodate gays into marriage. It is these legal changes that are so highly problematic, and are so extreme.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
What we call the "family structure" is based on the idea that sex between men and women makes babies. Because sex between two men or two women does not make babies, the "family structure" must be completely changed in order to accommodate gays into marriage.
We must remove the objective foundation of family in the legal code. Words such as bride, groom, husband, wife, mother, father are all words all based in the objective facts of biology. Brides, wives, and mothers are all female. Grooms, husbands, and fathers are all male. This foundation must be replaced with essentially nothing in order to accommodate gays into marriage.
When I say nothing, I mean replacing those objective words with new terminology that has no basis in biology or objectivity. Gender-neutral language is employed, and it's a concept that does not actually represent anything real or tangible. Gender neutrality is subjective, which means, "open to interpretation."
These changes will be disastrous for the family structure over time. It will take a full generation for the negative effects to be felt, much like what we saw with "no fault divorce." But lucky for us, we don't have to wait an entire generation to get a foretaste of this breakdown. Here some examples.
1. In both of these examples, gender neutrality allowed judges to give parental status to people who were not related to the children by blood, and who had never adopted the children. Gay sex and gay marriage can never lead to babies, yet the "marital presumption of paternity" was changed to the "marital presumption of parentage" to make these outrageous situations happen:
2. In both of these examples, we see how gay marriage is leading to multiple legal parents. This is clearly an unnatural situation, because nature says, "Two parents."
- Measure Opens Door to Three Parents, or Four
- Florida Judge Approves Birth Certificates Listing Three Parents
All of these were caused by same sex marriage and gender-neutral language, and all of them are unheard of under a policy of man/woman marriage. It's clear that, like abortion, same sex marriage sets aside the interests of children to accommodate adult preferences.
If I still have not persuaded any skeptics who are convinced I'm extreme, I'd like to leave them with this thought:
Any conservative or Republican should be suspect of gay marriage if for no other reason that it was proposed by the Left. Research the Left's historical view of marriage. As Mark Steyn said recently:
"...the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a "meaningless piece of paper" or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting it's a universal human right. They've figured out what, say, terrorist-turned-educator Bill Ayers did - that, when it comes to destroying core civilizational institutions, trying to blow them up is less effective than hollowing them out from within."
I hope it's clear that weakening marriage has been on the Left's agenda for a long time, and that gender-neutral language is how they're accomplishing it.
For the sake of our Republic and future generations of children, please support marriage as only between a man and a woman.
