National Politics

You are currently browsing the archive for the National Politics category.

marriage under fireI am a short term pessimist about the future of western civilization in general, and the United States in particular.

The culture war was lost in the 1960s & 1970s. Everything since has been a rear-guard, fighting retreat.

The Obergefell decision was not the Rubicon. We crossed the Rubicon 50 years ago.

The normalisation of sexual amorality and promiscuity began in the 1960s. Marriage was the primary target, and sustained shock after shock.

Promiscuity, unfaithfulness, abandonment, abuse, all contributed to the destruction of marriage. Sneering at it, demonizing it, jeering at it, and refusing to take it seriously all came long before the beginning of the new millenium.

Abolishing marriage legally came only after a substantial portion of the population had been persuaded to abandon it.

And this should not have been surprising. Marriage was and is the first institution. It is the institution upon which all other institutions, and indeed civilization itself is built.

Marriage precedes the state, in time, in the created order, and in importance. God did not say, on the 6th day, “Behold, I have created government, and it shall look after you and provide for all of your needs.”

To add the capstone of God’s gift of marriage, Hosea in the OT, and Paul in the NT, tell us that marriage is a picture of God’s relationship with his people and Jesus’ relationship with his church.

God, of course, knew what he was doing. Marriage is a great gift. It is for our good. It blesses us, it blesses our children, it blesses our community.

Those committed to the biblical view of marriage are an increasingly embattled minority. And that is why I am pessimistic about the short term future of civilization. The attacks on marriage, its abandonment and eventual abolition have left us in a dire situation.

men and marriageThe most imporant book you should read about the current collapse of civilization in the west (and in the USA in particular) is George Gilder’s Men and Marriage (original title: Sexual Suicide).

Gilder makes a compelling case that marriage is the tool that women use to civilize men. Take away marriage and young men remain uncivilized barbarians. Take away marriage, and older, rich men will commit serial polygamy – abandoning the wives of their youth and the mothers of their children for younger playthings – whom they will eventually abandon as well (after thoroughly exploiting them). Hint to women: The Sexual Revolution is not your friend.

In our current circumstances, marriage will not and cannot be restored by a political victory.

Christians are going to have to learn how to live as an oppressed and despised minority. We have once again been tagged as “haters of mankind.”

What to do?

I suggest reading the history of the persecuted church – across time and across geography.

The church converted the urban population of the Roman Empire, from 33AD to 300AD. It took several centuries. Constantine, the first Christian emperor, was not the cause of the conversion of so many Roman citizens. He was the result.

The church converted the barbarian tribes from 400AD to 600AD.

The church converted the Vikings, from 750AD-900AD.

That’s why I’m a long term optimist.

Committing to a biblical marriage may well be the most revolutionary thing you can do.

How do we then live? I would call you, my brothers and sisters, to commit to marriage. Honor it as an institution. For those who enter in to it, take the vows and the promises seriously. Committing to a biblical marriage may well be the most revolutionary thing you can do. Model for your children what love and commitment look like. Deny yourself for your spouse, and for your children. Be the living model of Christ’s love for his bride, the church.

Unless and until we do these things, we will have little impact on the culture.

We should not cease to have an answer for the hope that is in us.

We should not cease to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of Jesus, the Christ.

But we must show by our lives, as well as proclaiming with our lips, the good news of the kingdom.




Tags: , ,

marriage game overDOMA was doomed from the start, as many (including the Red Hat) pointed out when it was passed back in the 1990s, and signed into law by President Clinton. He probably knew at the time that it was doomed as well, and cynically signed it anyway.

A federal judge in Ohio today ordered state officials to recognize the marriage of two men that was performed in Maryland. This, in spite of the fact that the constitution of the state of Ohio forbids the recognition of any marriage other than that between “one man and one woman.” Such a ruling was inevitable. And, though it may be appealed, it is inevitable that it will be upheld by the federal courts.

In these matters, it helps to have some acquaintance with the text of the Constitution. In this case, specifically, the “full faith and credit clause,” found in Article IV, Section 1. Recall that Articles 1, 2, &3 outline the functions and powers of the 3 branches (Legislative, Executive, Judicial). Article 4 defines relations between the states.

The “full faith and credit” clause is a fundamental principle of US law. It explains why, when certain states adopted no-fault, no-waiting, divorce statutes in the 1960s, it spelled the end of any legal discouragement of divorce. A divorce granted in Reno must be accepted as a binding official act by the state of California (or any other state), because of the “full faith and credit” clause.

In the same way, once any one of the 50 states began to recognize homosexual marriages, it became inevitable that they would have to be recognized in the other 49 states as well.

The state of Ohio adopted an amendment to the state constitution in 2004 defining marriage as “one man and one woman.” It was ratified by a vote of 61.7% to 38.3%. That will not matter.

Tennessee adopted a state constitutional amendment in 2006 defining marriage as “one man and one woman.” The amendment was approved by 81.25% of the voters. That will not matter.

Both states will be forced by the federal judiciary to recognize homosexual marriages.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine how states with such diametrically opposed views on key matters of public policy will remain peacefully in union with each other.

God help us.

Hat Tip: Stand Firm | Gay Marriage Goes National, Act 1.

Tags: ,

Suppose that the federal government decided to over-reach and do something illogical about the national epidemic of childhood obesity. Bear with me while I set up the scenario.

Because it’s “for the children,” the Department of Health announces a sweeping program to require a national, standardized breakfast menu. Frosted flakes, cocoa puffs, and honey nuts are all out. All children, under the age of 18 will be required to have a nutritious breakfast using only items from a federally mandated and approved list of foods. Muesli & granola are in. Fruit and yogurt are in. Everything else, not so much. And suppose further that the federal bureaucracy came up with some obnoxious and intrusive schemes to monitor and verify what all of our [ahem, excuse me, THEIR] little darlings were eating for breakfast.

There would of course, be a predictable outrage from parents (and probably teen-agers, if not toddlers). The federal government would be denounced for taking liberties with the constitution. There would be rallies denouncing the Common Breakfast Scheme. The idea of enlarging the federal government and allowing its intrusion into suburban kitchens would be anathema.

Of course, there would be those who saw opportunities. Some of the major breakfast cereal manufacturers might rush to re-design their cereals and packaging to announce that they were Common Breakfast compliant. Some big corporations might even see great advantage in having their products endorsed and approved, while their rivals’ products were banned. Big Breakfast Corporations might even publicly support the Common Breakfast Scheme.

But ponder, for just a moment, the small local family run business who makes homemade granola. They’ve been careful with their ingredients. They have a loyal customer base. And they certainly have nothing to do with any big government initiative that wants to compel everyone to eat granola.

And suddenly, they find themselves denounced as either “supporting”, “accidentally aligned”, or “coincidentally aligned” with the Common Breakfast Scheme. Citizen activists from The Breakfast Freedom Coalition (which sprang up out of nowhere), take it upon themselves to compile lists of any and all companies who produce any product which is listed as approved by the Common Breakfast Scheme. Websites are started, activists are dispatched urging consumers to demand information about the local granola companies stance towards the Common Breakfast.

And through a network of self-appointed experts, small companies are told that their products are going to be boycotted because they are Common Breakfast Aligned. Indeed, at least one of the activists writes and publishes an opinion piece denouncing them as the equivalent of Tories during the American Revolution!

And all they really wanted to do was to continue making and selling the same homemade granola that they’d been making and selling for twenty years. They wanted nothing to do with the Common Breakfast list of approved foods. They certainly didn’t support a federal mandate telling people what they could and couldn’t feed to their children for breakfast.

Math problem #1: How much time, energy, and goodwill would have been wasted by The Breakfast Freedom Coalition, tracking down all of the local granola companies in order to publicize which ones were making Common Breakfast aligned food before they came to their senses?

Math problem #2: How much impact would The Breakfast Freedom Coalition have on the implementation of the federal government’s Common Breakfast Scheme by targeting small granola companies?

But of course, this is simply a highly improbable thought experiment.

The federal government would never consider a scheme so poorly conceived and so universally intrusive (and so unconstitutional).

And there really aren’t any citizen activists so benighted as to think that the way to oppose the federal government would be to go after small homemade granola companies.

Are there?

businessman-sitting-in-corner-with-dunce-hatCommon Core Standards have become the backdoor to a standard national curriculum.

There is some slight chance that they will prove useful in a few small areas – the sequence of instruction for mathematics, perhaps. But this will likely be due to the broken clock phenomenon. The experts who brought us “New Math” in the 1960s were never discredited, just recycled.

I can guarantee you that they will militantly require the instruction and acceptance of the evolutionary model.

And I can guarantee you with 100% certainty their objectives in social studies will be an abomination of political correctness.

A national curriculum is a terrible idea – for public, private, and homeschoolers. It presupposes that there are “experts” who understand child development with such precision that they can prescribe what every child needs to know when.

And this initiative comes from those who have devised and imposed a system of public education that is a patchwork of occasional, in-spite-of-themselves successes and a succession of overwhelming tragic failures of epic proportions.

The schools of education lack any true appreciation or understanding of human nature. They refuse to acknowledge the simplest, common sense observations of the difference between boys and girls or the variations of ability and interest within each gender. The do not respect children as unique persons.

They lack understanding, credibility, or any track record of success.

Why should they be consulted about curriculum, or paid the least bit of attention again?

/rant off


Facts are stubborn things.

Robert Oscar Lopez is a fact. And a very brave man.

Ph.D., Asst. Prof. of English at Cal State-Northridge.

He also describes himself this way:

“I am the gay community’s problem without a solution.  I don’t fit any of their narratives.  Through no fault of my own, I explode every one of their myths, from the narrative of idyllic same-sex couple parenting to the supposed fabulousness of post-Stonewall New York to the insistence that gay people are born a certain way and sexual orientation can never change.

I feel like walking around with a sign on my chest saying, “Dear Gays, Please Forgive Me For Existing.”  Their instinct would be to do what they usually do, which is ignore me.  Anyway, I am conservative.  That makes me Satan.”

H/T to The American Thinker. Read the full Articles: The Soul-Crushing Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage.


Marriage: Just a Piece of Paper? [VHS]My irony meter has been pegged for a long time by the spectacle of the leftist intelligentsia’s hypocrisy on marriage. I’m a boomer. I cut my teeth on the denunciations of marriage as oppressive and outmoded. “Why do we need a piece of paper, man?”

Ladies, you may not have noticed, but these were the arguments advanced by men who wanted to have sex without having to make a commitment.

But in the last 15 years, the same leftists who denounced marriage have now demanded, as the sine qua non of social justice, the right of gay couples to get married.

As justification, they often cite the maudlin examples of gay lovers denied access to their partner’s side in a hospital, while husbands and wives get automatic access. It’s not fair!

Or the right to name a same-sex partner as a beneficiary for health insurance or retirement benefits the same way in which husbands and wives can. Also not fair!

There are, of course, easily implemented policy changes to deal with both those situations.

And, Surprise! – both of these situations are already easily dealt with.

The first is resolved with a “durable power of attorney for healthcare,” which I recommend for all adults, straight, gay, married or single. You should clearly designate who you want to be in charge of healthcare decisions should you be incapacitated. That person then has full rights to request and receive information on your status from hospitals & doctors and to visit you.

The second situation is also already resolved for the vast majority of citizens. You can designate a domestic partner (spouse, friend, room-mate, what have you) as your beneficiary. In fact, the ridiculous canard about Sally Ride’s widow being unjustly denied any access to her federal benefits is completely false.

OPM's Beneficiary Form

OPM's Beneficiary Form

Everyone, including Sally Ride, is/was perfectly free to name whomever they want as beneficiary on their insurance policies.

In fact, here’s the spot on the Federal Office of Personnel Management form for federal employees, with the helpful example of how to fill it out for a “domestic partner.”

Are we supposed to believe that Sally Ride deliberately chose NOT to list her partner as her beneficiary? And that is somehow the fault of those who are opposed to gay marriage?

But it’s not really about the practical details, is it?

Gay marriage stands for the symbolic triumph of approval.

The activists do not want tolerance, or accommodation. They demand approval – or silence.

They are pursuing gay marriage not for its practical or spiritual benefits – but because in achieving it, they will be forcing society at large, and the religious institutions who perform marriages to give their approval.

I think this explains the disproportionate response to the Chick-fil-A, “we support traditional marriage” imbroglio.

What the gay activists are after is the demonizing of anyone who would speak anything but praise & approval of homosexuality.

Americans, by and large, are (and have been) tolerant. And I expect they will remain so.

They are, however, not likely to be cowed or bullied into giving their approval to anything under compulsion.

Tags: ,

“a heretofore neglected pocket of resistance to the gender revolution in the workplace: married male employees who have stay-at-home wives.”

via Marriage Structure and Resistance to the Gender Revolution in the Workplace by Sreedhari Desai, Dolly Chugh, Arthur Brief :: SSRN.

Didn’t realize I was so easily identified as part of the resistance, but I guess so.

Note to all: the inflammatory, culture war rhetoric comes directly from the article.

The publication of this article paints a bullseye on every one of us husbands whose wives do not work.

Make no mistake. We are targeted for elimination and will be excluded from consideration for jobs in corporations of any size.

Two immediate reasons:

    • One: If I am in a management position, any female subordinate who files a gender discrimination complaint now has an immediate bit of scientific evidence to buttress her case. What corporation will want to assume the risk of allowing me to supervise employees?
    • Secondly: In any more broadly drawn complaint of gender discrimination, corporations will be asked how many of their male managers are married to stay-at-home wives? And were they aware of their propensity for bias and discrimination? And what steps have they taken to deal with this problem? Again, what corporation will want to assume the risk of employing any of us?

The last pockets of resistance to the gender revolution must be eliminated, comrades!

Up against the wall, traditional men!

God help us.


A response to the tired and tortured canards of the religious left.

a sample:

“Jesus’ values” had nothing to do with what the state was supposed to do for the poor or disadvantaged. They were about what you and your religious community were to do for the poor. “Jesus’ values” were the ethics of the Kingdom, and had to do, not with generalized principles for good conduct, but for the way His disciples were to live their lives in obedience to God. Getting the government to “perform the corporal works of mercy” is a way of shifting the burden from one’s own shoulders to those of the state, and to the polity as a whole, but Jesus never expected that non-disciples would follow His commands or do His works.

Very much worth your while to read…

David Fischler dissects Anthony Stevens-Arroyo’s distortions of the Bible and Theology in the Washington Post.

a hat tip to



or, “Shouldn’t any competent climatologist be able to answer this question?”

Science Quiz | Daily Pundit:

(read it all!)

My interview with Senator Santorum (conducted week before last) has been published in Home Educating Family Magazine, and online!

Click below to read the full text:

Eavesdrop on a Chat with Senator Rick Santorum | Home Educating Family Association Blog.


« Older entries