Today’s Guest Saturday post is by Cheryl Pass of the My Tea Party Chronicle blog, where it was originally published on Wednesday, April 11, 2012.



Our State of North  Carolina has a primary on May 4th and on the ballot is a referendum  stating that marriage between one man and one woman will be the only  marriage recognized by North Carolina.  If passed, there will be an  Amendment to our State Constitution stating just that.  I think at this  time, there are 30 or 31 states that already have such a resolution and  Amendment passed.  Locally, the gays and liberals are kicking up a huge  stink because a County Commissioner has proposed a resolution in our  county to support the Amendment to our State Constitution.  The LGBT  lobbyists are geared up to protest….”Oh, the injustice of it all!”

Well, we would not be discussing  this except for socialist government interference in personal business.   I have Libertarian friends who, while they don’t like the idea of gay  marriage, can’t think of a Constitutional reason to deny gays  “marriage.”  Because the Constitution does not specifically address  marriage, they think we should just stay out of it and let them have  marriage.  I disagree.

Before I go further, I wish to  clue you into my thinking.  I am a Christian, a traditionalist, a  married woman, mother of two children, divorced once, and committed to  my family’s best interest.  I have no hate or bigotry against gays or  other anomalies of gender, but at the same time, I don’t celebrate them  either.  I frankly don’t care what is done in someone’s private bedroom  (assuming consenting adults) and have no interest in regulating that  beyond the protection of innocents.   So my interest has nothing to do  with inserting my beliefs into someone else’s life other than  recognizing the sky is the sky and marriage is between one man and one  woman.

However, while I am not attempting  to insert my views into their personal decisions, the LGBT factions  wish to insert their beliefs into my life by co-opting the definition of  marriage.  Their desire is to bend definitions of a cultural and  natural institution that will, with a doubt, confuse children and cause  more chaos in our culture.  If marriage is nothing more than a civil  government contract, then you can assume that a contract can be made  between several or any individuals who wish to call their relationships  “marriage.”  If marriage is a religious sacrament, ordained by Our Creator, the  question is settled.  Game over.   The traditional definition of  marriage is by nature, both literally and figuratively, exclusive. But,  even if it were just a civil contract, the reasons for keeping that  exclusivity are many.

The secular reasons have to do with cultural morés, psychological  influences on children, keeping the population healthy, providing  familial protection for children, genealogical respect for inheritances,  etc.   Financial reasons also exist. Illegitimacy rates increase  exponentially. (for those who like to think that gay marriage has no  effect on heterosexual marriage customs.)  Statistical  information here

No amount of factual information  will convince the LGBT proponents they  should not have what they want but cannot have, i.e. the kind of  marriage between a man a woman created through  nature and culture.   I don’t believe we should even be having this  discussion.  The entire premise is a travesty as far as I can tell from  logical and Biblical perspectives both.

The government we are suffering  through today wishes to replace the family with government.  They can’t  do it.  A government cannot replace the male and female parents of  children or teach the bonds therein.  Yet, cradle to the grave  government is what we are seeing manifest itself.  So why not gay  marriage?  Why not polygamy?  Why not all sorts of gender bending other  options?  As long as government is becoming the parents, who needs  biological parents?   And no, I don’t believe marriage is only for  procreation, but I do believe that marriage exists for two opposite sex  participants.

A  view of Marriage regarding the feminine identity

(The very word “marriage” comes from the Latin word for mother, mater.)  It exists for the gathering-in of a woman’s sexuality under the  protective net of the human or divine order, or both.
WHY SHOULD I not be able to marry a man? The question addresses a class  of human phenomena that can be described in sentences but nonetheless  cannot be. However much I might wish to, I cannot be a father to a  pebble–I cannot be a brother to a puppy–I cannot make my horse my  consul. Just so, I cannot, and should not be able to, marry a man. If I  want to be a brother to a puppy, are you abridging my rights by not  permitting it? I may say what I please; saying it does not mean that it  can be.
In a gay marriage, one of two men must play the woman, or one of two  women must play the man. “Play” here means travesty–burlesque. Not that  their love is a travesty; but their participation in a ceremony that  apes the marriage bond, with all that goes into it, is a travesty. Their  taking-over of the form of this crucial and fragile connection of  opposites is a travesty of marriage’s purpose of protecting, actually  and symbolically, the woman who enters into marriage with a man. To  burlesque that purpose weakens those protections, and is essentially and  profoundly anti-female.

If you recognize gay coupling as  described in that quote, as it is actually, you might wonder what gay  marriage does to the standing of women in society.  I would say it  diminishes the standing of women with regard to natural law.  Absolutely.

But isn’t that the point?  The  legal standing of natural law is what is being shredded in the instance  of gay marriage.  Natural law is the basis for Jefferson’s assertions in  the Declaration of Independence.  Site on Constitutional Law

“Nature                  has written her moral laws on the head and heart of every rational                  and honest man, where man may read them for himself. If ever you                  are about to say anything amiss, or to do anything wrong, consider                  beforehand you will feel something within you which will tell                  you it is wrong, and ought not to be said or done. This is your                  conscience, and be sure and obey it… Conscience is the only                  sure clue which will eternally guide a man clear of all his doubts                  and inconsistencies.” Thomas Jefferson

Again, I would rather not be  having this discussion.  It’s ridiculous on its face, and greatly  damaging in all aspects to our society.  The socialists in our  government have been trying to rid our nation of our common natural law since  the Progressive movement started over 100 years ago.  This is but one  more evidence of that.  Gay marriage is not a right that can be given by  a socialist government.  Our rights don’t come from government.  It is  nothing more than another tool to take down our natural rights as given  by Our Creator as stated by Jefferson in the Declaration.  But even if you don’t subscribe to that substantiation, you can see there are many other considerations making gay marriage a very bad idea.
Other sources: Pew Research on Religion and Family Life In August 2010 The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life conducted their annual “Religion and the Issues: Results from the 2010 Annual Religion and Public Life Survey.”  The survey revealed that only 35% of the population considers religion the main influence on their opinion about same-sex marriage.  Of this number, 60% are opposed to same-sex marriage.  That means only 21% of the population is opposed to same-sex marriage primarily on religious grounds.  The other 27% of the population that is opposed to same-sex marriage is opposed to same-sex marriage primarily on other grounds such as education, personal experience, and the views of family and friends.  Put another way, the majority of those who are opposed to same-sex marriage are motivated primarily by reasons other than religion. Orthodoxy Today “The laws of marriage do not create marriage, but in societies ruled by law they help trace the boundaries and sustain the public meanings of marriage. . . . Without this shared, public aspect, perpetuated generation after generation, marriage becomes what its critics say it is: a mere contract, a vessel with no particular content, one of a menu of sexual lifestyles, of no fundamental importance to anyone outside a given relationship.” Gulag Bound “If  marriage is simply a business arrangement, subject to regulations, then the products of the business are also open to inspection and regulation, correct? So the government can regulate your children? Is this where family social service agencies  get their authority to go into a home and confiscate the children, when any unproven accusation is made?
Is this why schools can decree that all children will be taught about sex, beginning in kindergarten, and that “no parental option to decline is allowed”? Or the school staff can take a young woman from her school to an abortion clinic and never inform the parents that she was even pregnant?” Orthodoxy Today ‘We do know, however, that it would radically change the customs, laws, and moral expectations embedded in millennia of human experience. Marriage and family law reflect the historically cumulative complexities of necessarily public concerns about property, inheritance, legal liability, and the legitimacy of children–the latter entailing a host of responsibilities for which parents, and especially men, can be held accountable.”

14 thoughts on ““APPLES, ORANGES, AND OXYMORONS – GAY MARRIAGE” an essay by Cheryl Pass

  1. All I can say is that we best leave these issues alone until after the election. We are taking up the air with exactly what the left wants. This week it was stay at home moms. We were set up and we took the bait. No hits taken on Obama. Conservative Hideout has a good piece on the topic. Congrats Jim on a post of yours as well included. 🙂 I did appreciate the thoughtful post byCheryl. But I wish the States would leave this alone at this time.

  2. I believe that there is not a reason why gays and lesbians should be united. However, I don’t believe that that union should be called ‘marriage.’ Marriage is the word I feel should be used for unions between a man and a woman.

    There needs to be ANOTHER word for unions between gays, which bestows the rights/privileges that our laws afford, like hospital visitation. Call that commitment, call the commitment, I don’t care so much, call these unions ‘apples’. I don’t care. But marriage is the ‘word’ we use for unions between a man/woman. Use another word for unions between gays.

    1. Annie, all contracts and things such as hospital visitation are already afforded to anyone. Marriage or “civil unions” or as you say “apples” does not solve the problem. They’ve done that in the Scandinavian countries and the out of wedlock birthrates have gone through the roof. Google Stanley Kurtz on that issue…and you will see what I mean.

  3. The ball was dropped here when churches relented to let the state decide who could be married via license (just like they said who could be a teacher in the last post). This originally was all part of the eugenics hygiene movement and was codified through tax breaks that no one is willing to give up. The Bible is clear that Christians should not take their disagreements amongst themselves to public courts. I can only think that it is understood that our marriage covenant/sacrament would apply as well. They can call it whatever they want to, but real marriage will always be something that fruits can’t have.

    BTW, check out the Ford Foundation’s hand in the gay movement – I have a hunch they’re really involved.

  4. I’m with Bunkerville…as much as I think Cheryl’s right, I hope that the Right doesn’t talk this up too much right now. But, I disagree that Obama took no hit on the WORKING MOMS thing…I think he did. Now we have to get Romney to STOP….his campaign’s even begun a stupid push called something like I’M WITH ANN. Gad, they get one bright ray of sunlight that makes Obama finally look bad, and they milk it to death! I hope that stops!

  5. I agree with Bunkerville… Let’s leave the social issues alone for now. To me, the best of all worlds would be that world in which the federal government wasn’t involved in social issues at all. (Yes, I appreciate that Cheryl is talking about something taking place in the states.) The problem is that political wins are always going to be temporary, so a victory on a social issue in the political realm for conservatives today actually becomes the permission (if they did it, we can do it the other way) for a reversal when liberals have power. In fact, I think the argument can be well made that the conservative desire to impact social issues politically now IS the backlash against decades of liberals impacting social issues politically. The only way to stop the back and forth is to stop making these things political issues. The “gaying” of America overstepped with the marriage issue and now the conservatives (in a center right country) are swinging back.

    My personal view on gay marriage is that the government should not be involved in marriage at all. It is a spiritual thing, a commitment made on a spiritual level. The government’s job is to enforce contracts. If two people want to enter into a contract, I have no opinion on it. It’s none of my business. What people do in their own bedrooms is none of my business. If two people want to form a spiritual bond and not have a contract, that is also none of my business.

    Eventually, what gets sorted out is what works and what doesn’t, if there’s no government intervention–just like with crony capitalism, the cronies will go out of business without the subsidies. Marriage between one man and one woman generally works. They can do things like have children. There is a beautiful thing in the yin and yang of male and female that creates a whole.

    At the same time, being gay is not a choice, as far as I can tell. I have a gay cousin, and he was gay from the day he was born. I’ve known gay men who tried not to be and it didn’t work out well at all. On the other hand, I couldn’t be gay if I tried, because I am just not at all attracted sexually to other men, and I find women to be extremely alluring. I am simply unwilling to judge people who are what they are.

    The thing is, the argument is about a small percentage of the population (what’s the figure? less than 5%?) and an even smaller number than that who want to be married. If it wasn’t for aggressive politics by the left, causing the backlash by the right, this would be a non-issue.

    For the politics of the moment, however, it is an issue that I’d just as soon we put on the back burner. What will happen is that every middle of the road, non-political, uninformed, person in the country will have a gay brother, sister, cousin, friend, cousin of a friend, etc. and the party that appears to want to make that person’s life harder (difficulty being defined by not allowing them to do something they REALLY want to do) will be considered mean and not fit for power. That’s just how it is, folks. We need to pick the hill we’re willing to die on, and to me that hill had better be the economy this time around. We only have the luxury of arguing about social issues because we’re not struggling for survival… YET.

  6. Bunker, Z, and Pat….I would have gladly left it alone and wish the entire issue were not being shoved into our faces. However, I live in North Carolina and because of lawsuits pending in our state on this issue, our legislature put the referendum up on the May primary ballot here. So truly, the issue is of current importance to my state of North Carolina.

    Pat, on the idea that this is none of our business…it becomes our business because of family law issues. You can say you would like the government to get out of it altogether, but #1. when has the government gotten out of our business lately?.and #2. the legal rights of parents and children are very much involved. This isn’t about what people do in their bedrooms. I also don’t care about that.

    On the point of two people making a commitment to each other, I will copy for you what my county commissioner has said:
    “Myth: Marriage is simply about loving couples making a public commitment of their love.

    Fact: Marriage certainly provides an opportunity for a couple in love to declare their commitment to each other, but the government doesn’t regulate marriage to provide a forum for public commitment simply because two people love each other. Marriage is unique because it is the social institution we recognize to channel the biological drive of men and women with its inherent capacity to produce children into the ideal family units. Marriage provides the best opportunity of ensuring that any children produced by that sexual union are known by and cared for by their biological parents, and that benefits us all. It is because of children that government regulates and licenses marriage.”

    Social issues impact a great deal in government economic issues…so while you don’t like this as a subject for our discussion at this moment, it happened to be something on the table in my state. I wish it would go away, but as long as LGBT proponents are going to push their agenda down our throats, we have an obligation to step up to the plate.

    I stand by my decision that LGBT “so called” marriage is a very bad idea for our society. And by the way, we got here through Marx, into the Frankfort School, and then into our universities, and on down into our political and cultural institutions. It took them over 60 years to rip the family structure apart, but they are doing a bang up job of it.

    Hope that explains why I wrote about this issue.

    1. Cheryl, I understand that it’s an issue in your state and that’s why you wrote about it. If it’s an issue in a state (where it belongs) that is current, of course you should express yourself. I was just taking the opportunity to say that we should stay away from such things on the national ticket and stay focussed on the economy this year regarding national politics.

      I also understand that the marriage issue has to do with legal rights especially regarding children, inheritance, etc. Read the “Fact:” part of what the county commissioner said, and what he’s talking about is social engineering. Especially his last line, “It is because of children that the government regulates and licenses marriage.” I don’t disagree with the fact that a child is better off being raised by two parents of the opposite sex. As I said, I think the balance of a marriage of male and female not only works better, but is a beautiful thing in general (the yin and yang, and all of that). However, you have to admit that is “it’s for the children” argument opens a can of worms that the state can use to catch all manner of different fish. Good lord, what DOESN’T the left say is for the children? The state should regulate education, for the children. The state should regulate carbon, so the children don’t live in global warming. It seems all social engineering gets to use the “for the children” argument, including the LGBT folks who argue that young LGBT children should be able to learn all about LGBT lifestyle issues in school so that their feelings are normalized and they don’t feel wierd about who they are.

      That the left utilizes the breakdown of social structures to create even more dependence on the state is not at all lost on me. The most militant want to throw away all tradition and social structure, from marriage to religion to patriotic displays, knowing that the stability those things give a society has to be undone to turn us to something new, like worship at the alter of the state.

      It’s a tough one! I’d like to fight and win every conservative fight. I’m intentionally narrowing my focus right now because I think the first step to restoring the country is getting Obama and his appointed leftist the hell out of Washington. Where they are most vulnerable is in their failed economic policies and spending. That is where I see our wedge to say that in general statism doesn’t work at any level: economic, education, social issues… The leviathan state is ill equipped to deal with any of it, not to even mention the fact that Constitutionally it has no business trying.

      Sorry if it seemed that I was disparaging your writing about the issue. I have the utmost respect for you and love your writing. I do understand that it’s an issue in your state and that that is why you wrote about it (eloquently as always). I was making a different point regarding bringing social issues (marriage, contraception, abortion, etc.) into the national debate. What I’d love to see in the national debate, however, is the distinction between what is a federal issue and what should be left to “the states, or to the people.”

      1. Thanks for all of that, Pat. I’m with you on the feds staying out of this and the other social issues you mention. I’m also very much with you on focusing on getting Obama the hell out of Washington, along with every vestige of socialism coming out of DC. As I read your last post over again…I can see nothing we disagree about. This same-sex (so-called) “marriage” issue is just a sad distraction, but still is critical to saving our nation from destruction. It’s just one piece of it…..along with hundreds the left has shoved in our faces. Again, I wouldn’t have gone near it right now except for the Amendment on our ballot in May. Even so…it’s out there for us to tackle, along with everything else.

        Keep up your great writing, too! And thank heavens that Jim is back with us in the fight!!

  7. Interesting….it’s hard to see the forest for all of those trees…. “So my interest has nothing to do with inserting my beliefs into someone else’s life other than recognizing the sky is the sky and marriage is between one man and one woman.” Technically, that is your belief. You may share it with many. You may share it with your church, but it remaims your belief, and it has been “inserted” upon others with this editorial. But you become frazzled when ” the LGBT factions wish to insert their beliefs into my life by co-opting the definition of marriage. ” No one really wants you to believe anything other than what you believe. We’re not lawyers trying to persuade you. We’re people who, despite your poor judgement in suggesting that being gay is only about what happens behind the bedroom door, love, respect and covet those we love. I think that the real question is if we want to be fair to all or just to some. I also read your references concering Gay marriage. Not certain anyone could buy into that, especially considering the divorce rates in the US. Divorce rates. You couldn’t be more incorrect when you actually responded to a post stating that “hospital visitation are already afforded to anyone.” Someone needs to pierce that bubble over NC, that state needs some oxygen.

    1. Last thing first, Daniel. I am not incorrect about hospital visitation. Since 2010, when a federal edict went out from HHS to all hospitals receiving any medicare or medicaid funding, there is no longer any rejection of gay partners with regard to visitation in hospitals. While I don’t like the federal government involving itself in that decision, I think that is a good thing and the humanitarian thing. If you think marriage is something other than one man and one woman then you don’t hold the same historical, sociological, or physiological beliefs that I have…and that is your decision. I didn’t say that marriage is only what happens behind closed doors. I said I don’t care what happens behind closed doors. I do, however, hold the belief that family law and children, in particular, are very much at risk if the definition of marriage is to be diluted to mean that marriage has nothing to do with raising a child by his or her biological parents.

      In short, marriage between one man and one woman is about an ordered civilized family life based on biology. Same-sex “marriage is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. LGBT proponents are creating a man-made construction out of theatre, where a man must play a woman or a woman must play a man in a pretense of the sex act. So as I said before ….the sky is the sky and marriage is between one man and one woman, thereby no pretense is necessary and truth of sexual identity remains intact. This truth is good for society, and for men, women, and children. I’m sorry if the truth of sexual identity is confused in some people, but that does not give them the right to redefine marriage.

      And yes, you are trying to persuade the rest of society that the sky is the ground and the moon is made of green cheese…I might add. So you are trying to redefine something and, therefore, inserting your definition into my life. I resent that and I reject that.

      1. ” I think that is a good thing and the humanitarian thing. If you think marriage is something other than one man and one woman ”

        Cheryl, this is part of a response you made to Daniel. What if I don’t think marriage is intended to be between anyone other than a man and a woman? The jury is still out-in my mind-that being gay/lesbian is a choice one makes or one’s genetics or environment; but I feel strongly that the ‘thing’ that we call ‘marriage’ is meant for unions between MEN and WOMEN.

        I’m for same-sex unions, but the name for a union between 2 people of the same sex should be determined by the sexes involved. Lesbian unions? But not marriages.

        Children of these unions bear the brunt. Until society becomes more tolerant, there will be jeering. Granted, the children are likely to grow to be more resilient, but the ones who don’t have a resilient bone in their bodies are doomed to be wallflowers.

        Unfortunately, I’ve seen more than one couple split up. The love for the 2nd mommy is still there, but she’s not. Granted, straights split up, but there’s less drama involved in my experience.

  8. Annie, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. On hospitalization and the humanitarian aspect, I think a person who is ill in the hospital should have anyone they wish visit them and should be able do that through hospital directives. On healthcare power of attorney, I also believe that anyone should be able to designate whomever they wish for that.

    I have stayed away from the argument re: nature or nurture because it could be either, or, or any combination thereof. No one has nailed that one down for certain. However, this is more than a semantic excersize. You can call a pot a plate? Or you can name something anything? What is that? What you are proposing promotes gender confusion. If the situation proves to be only “nature” (which no one has proven), then you are saying that the natural state of homosexuality (or any variation) can be used as criteria for marriage?

    As I stated in the article, I have suffered through a divorce. Further, I realize the impacts of that on children. Add to that !!! a confused gender role of either parent and I believe you are increasing the pain and confusion of children to a greater extent. If you look at the statistical evidence from Scandinavian countries where same-sex unions are “normalized” by governments there, the instance of out of wedlock births is even worse than we are seeing here. It that causation? I would say so. If marriage between a man and a woman is not valued by society, then the cultural pressure to have an “anything goes” attitude becomes prevalent. Why have any cultural structure for family at all? Just allow the state to raise children and leave the parents out of it altogether?

    The LGBT coalitions say they would still allow restrictions on marriage such as age restrictions, polygamy, and “cousins” etc…but how long before those restrictions are also under attack? You may not like that “slippery slope” argument, but I absolutely believe that once the definition becomes fluid to the whims of any group, then the door is open for a lot of stretching the definition. This already is being promoted as ‘transgender’ and ‘bi-sexual’ inclusion. If this is o.K. for bi-sexuals, then how do you restrict it for only 2 people? By definition, bi-sexuals want to have it both ways (sorry to be graphic) but how can you do that with only 2 people of the same sex? Consequently, you would have to go to a three party marriage to fulfill the sexual desires of the bi-sexual.

    All of this is about the selfish desires of people who only want what they want, affirmation and government benefits for their sexual activities. I disagree with you totally that semantics will solve issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s