The Right Opinion

Downward

By Ken Blackwell · Aug. 24, 2012

The progressive mindset is set. It believes that whatever it pursues at the moment must be progress. Think Progress is one of the groups that is convinced progress is achieved by the right people thinking the right thoughts. Or, the right people thinking the left thoughts. “We are the people we've been waiting for,” said candidate Obama four years ago. Better to wait for Godot.

The president's re-election slogan is an expression of this mindset. Forward. Just that one word. It's not as bad perhaps as MSNBC's “Lean Forward.” Imagine you're on a cliff, looking over into the vast chasm below. And someone at MSNBC gets the bright idea: Lean forward. We are all on that cliff. The combination of the largest tax hikes in history with the most draconian federal spending cuts is confronting us with what many have called “Taxmadgeddon.”

The most fatuous application of Forward. has to be the Democratic Convention's plans to end marriage as we know it. Determined to do follow what is “inevitable,” very liberal delegates will embrace platform proposals that will spell the end of marriage. Do they fully realize what they are doing?

Jonathan Turley may not be a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, but he understands something about constitutional law. This George Washington University law professor told an overflow crowd at the Newseum in 2008 that granting marriage rights to same sex couples would lead to polygamy. “And I'm for that,” he said. He was wildly cheered by the hundreds of progressive congressional staffers, government attorneys and journalists in attendance. To understand how the one leads ineluctably to the other, we have only to consider the LGBT designation. If two persons of the same sex can marry, how can you fairly stop a person who identifies as bisexual or who has undergone a sex change operation from marrying persons of both sexes?

If your only requirement for a marriage is that people love each other, have a committed relationship to each other, and that they give their consent, then you cannot bar twins from marrying. Once you've permitted identical twins to marry, how can you bar twin brother and sister from marrying? They love each other. They have a committed relationship. None of us has had such a biological bond since before birth with our own spouses.

Vice President Biden voted for the Defense of Marriage Act as a U.S. Senator. Now, of course, he says that he is not influenced by his many years as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead, he takes his guidance on marriage from Hollywood, specifically from the comedy series, Will and Grace. If Hollywood producers are to set the standard for constitutional law in our country, then marriage will be ended, to be sure. For Hollywood has given us another series, Big Love. It's an HBO production about polygamy. It's pretty favorable toward polygamy, they tell me. Following in the train of Hollywood is The Advocate, America's leading gay publication. The Advocate in 2006 featured a cover story titled Big Gay Love. It was a knockoff of the HBO series.

Is this really where Democrats want to go? Do their very progressive delegates think the voters at the grassroots will approve their lurch to the progressive extremes? Democratic delegates will be meeting next month in Charlotte. The state of North Carolina voted in May to uphold true marriage. All the polls said voters in the Tarheel State might give true marriage a 55%-39% affirmation. Actually, when the real votes were cast, the strength of true marriage was even greater – 61%-39%. This is a pattern that holds up all over America. True marriage has consistently won over counterfeit marriage. And the margin when voters vote is consistently greater than when pollsters poll.

Minorities give strong support to true marriage. In North Carolina, black and Hispanic voters provided the winning margin for marriage. Something else Democrats should consider before voting to end marriage: In North Carolina, 49% of Democrats voted for true marriage. The polls could not measure voter intensity, but imagine how strong must be the pro-marriage sentiment at the grassroots if 49% of Democrats defy such party bigwigs as President Obama, Vice President Biden, and former President Bill Clinton.

True marriage is a lot more popular than either of our political parties. We have urged Republicans to stand firm for marriage and applauded them when they do. But we also urge them not to hide their light under a bushel. Marriage is not a wedge issue, it's a bridge issue. It's the way Republicans can embrace minorities and immigrants. We appeal to Democrats to step back from that brink. If you care about the poor, don't end marriage. Marriage is the best social program for economic and educational uplift for the poor. Even the liberal Brookings Institution tells us if a young person will avoid having a child out of wedlock and graduate from high school, the chances of that young American living in poverty are only 4 percent!

Is ending marriage really Forward? Or is it Downward? This is not the first time our parties have dealt with the marriage issue. The Republicans wrote their first party platform in 1856. In that earliest appeal to voters, the party termed Slavery and Polygamy the “twin relics of barbarism.” Pretty tough language for a new political party. They didn't win that year, but they did take their place as America's second party. And with a strong pro-marriage plank, they were poised to capture the White House with Abraham Lincoln just four years later.

Earlier this year, the Presbyterian Church-USA and the United Methodist Church – two very liberal denominations – voted to uphold true marriage. It was something of a surprise. Many commentators thought ending marriage in these denominations was “inevitable,” too. But African, Korean, and Latino affiliated churches and minority delegates at home pulled the church groups back from the brink.

Democrats can do this, too. Ending marriage is not Forward. It's Downward. Pull back in time.

Appeal_patriots_day_7
16 Comments

Bill in Texas said:

Ken - Long time reader and big fan. I personally think that the Democracts and the republicans are both backwards in this. I know the Bible states that a marriage is one man and one woman. From this definition, and with how our country has its laws, My personal position is that a Literal marriage is protected by the First Amendment as an act of the church. Government cannot touch it. However, I also know that those who go for a Civil Union (go before a Justice of the Peace with a government issued license to be joined in the eyes of the law) also call this marriage. To me they are the same in making two people into one. The government can try to touch the civil unions, but those are protected by right to happiness under the foudning documents. As a married man, I personally don't care that they want it. When I married my wife, those vows were to her and god. All other parties lost any say when her father gave me her hand and no one spoke up to object. Because of that the santity of my marriage is great and no one can compromise it. Thats me. Call me a lib if you want, but I am a proud independent.

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM

India in GA replied:

"When I married my wife, those vows were to her and god"

Right on, Bill!

Saturday, August 25, 2012 at 12:49 AM

rippedchef in sc said:

I couldn't agree more with mac

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Joel in Ohio said:

For them it is "Forward", to me it is "FORWARneD.

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 2:33 PM

India in GA replied:

LOL... Good one.

I was thinking it should be, "Forward, MARCH!"

Saturday, August 25, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Torp44 in Ione, Wa. said:

I say if the Dems want to make Sodomy a plank in their platform at the convention, I'm all for it! They should be encouraged to put as many outrageous planks in it as they possibly can. Hopefully, enough people ion this country who so far have been too asleep to notice what the Democrats have come to represent will wake the hell up and boot them all out of office.
Mac, I recently submitted a negative comment to a Pacific Northwest newspaper (The Kitsap Sun) regarding a recent "Gay Pride" parade that had taken place in their area's largest local city. This "newspaper" refused me the use of the word "Sodomy" or "Sodomites" to describe the participants of their parade. I found that to be a chilling example of the insidious nature of the growing threat that the sodomites represent to our traditional Americn way of life. (I was stunned that I had been censored out in an American newspaper's public commentary section)

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM

wjm in Colorado said:

FORWARD was also the slogan of Stalin, see where that ended?

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Linda in Akron, Ohio said:

It's about the benefits. And 30yo grandson can marry Grandpa and get his GM benefits for another 50 years. Or Auntie can marry cousin and get SS benefits etc etc. Heck Dad can marry son. What's to stop any of it? And we are not allowed to express any dislike for the naked displays that are OK if its gay, but not OK if its heterosexual. Not to mention we have to pay for the increased health care costs since statistically HIV IS a homosexual disease, as well as the diseases that originate from placing body parts in places that expel waste.

Friday, August 24, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Kathy in West Texas said:

Downward is right. Downward spiral straight into the fires of hell. They don't want 'fair' treatment; they want 'special' treatment. For being queer. They're not gay, they're queer, and I wish they'd go back into the closet and shut up. It's disgusting to me that we were ever tolerant of this, let alone being beaten over the head with it now. Every day there's a new headline about some queer whining about unfair treatment. Why would they expect otherwise in a basically sane & Christian country? The transgenders are the worst; standing in defiance to God because they think they know better than He did. News flash - God didn't make a mistake.

If our government continues to approve this downward spiral of morality, it will be the end of America as we knew it.

Saturday, August 25, 2012 at 10:25 AM

pete in CA said:

"Forward" is just another way of saying, "bend over!"

Saturday, August 25, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

Marriage, to me, is a union, blessed by God. It is a sacrament, and a Holy union. the vows exchanged, are witnessed by man and by God (Providence).I do not see how a Holy God could bless a "union" between Two women, or two men----Yesterday, by the way, was our 16th wedding anniversary! I took her out to Il Fornetto, in Sheepshead Bay.

Saturday, August 25, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Becki Jameson in PA, USA said:

More FROWARD than forward, say I.

Monday, August 27, 2012 at 1:39 AM

Kat in Grand Rapids, MI said:

The founding fathers of our country, when drafting the Treaty of Tripoli, stated unequivocally that "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The context of this statement was that because ours was not a nation founded and ruled by the enmities and prejudices of the Christian religion, there would be no concerns of pre-existing conflict with the nations in question. Since The Patriot Post seems to like quotes so much, here's a few to chew on:

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ." - Thomas Jefferson

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. - James Madison

The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty. - Thomas Paine

Monday, August 27, 2012 at 5:07 AM

JT in Texas said:

I am appalled at the number of people in this country who "accept" this choice that those type of people make. I say choice because it is a choice, you aren't "born this way" nor is it in your genes. It's clearly a sinful act that two people choose to make. If you doubt this, go back and study your Bible...but then again, those who accept this lifestyle would not be able to discern truth in the scriptures either.

Go back 30 years and see how much was heard about this lifestyle. I guarantee that it wasn't much, if at all. During that time (or ask your parents if you weren't around 30 yrs ago) this choice of lifestyle was not acceptable, nor was it spoken about so openly and you sure didn't hear of homosexual marriage in the public. LOOK at what has transpired in this short period of time people! It's not only spoken about with frequency in public but we are barraged with this in television, radio and everywhere in the media...hmmm...media...I think that's a clue people. But the general public uses the television as our "babysitter" for our kids on a daily basis and then we wonder why our kids turn out the way they do?

Their agenda, has been promoted and is obviously winning. Don't think so? Just look at the posts on here who accept this choice of lifestyle as "normal." I guarantee that 30 years ago, this wouldn't have even been mentioned.

If this continues, God help us all to see what the next 30 yrs will be like in this country. But thankfully, I'm sure I won't be around to see how far this country has dove for the pits of hell...IF this country will even be around by then.

Monday, August 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Mac in Arizona said:

But doent lisen too mea - eye jus a dumm teebagger

Monday, August 27, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Nick in Vancouver said:

Is there history here, of which we should take note?

http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html

Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 6:14 AM