I am happy to report that we are done with the editing process and publishing Ring of Fire is now available for purchase! It is available in paperback on Amazon, in Kindle, and if you are a student we are offering a free e-book download. Thanks to everyone who helped with the process and who gave us feedback on the chapters posted her on The American Engineer. Visit the book website at www.RingofFireBook.com!
A marriage contract may be terminated for reasons of abuse, abandonment, and infidelity.
Physical abuse usually perpetrated by the husband is a direct violation of one of the key responsibilities of a husband’s role as protector. The grand bargain of marriage is that a mother risks her life in child birth and in return a father is obligated to defend his family up to, and including, giving his life. When a father turns himself into a physical threat to his wife and children there is no greater violation of the marriage contract.
Abandonment often results from one spouse becoming an alcoholic or drug addict. When either spouse has reached such a condition through choice or addiction that their condition seriously threatens the long-term physical, economic, and emotional well-being of the other spouse and children the termination of the marriage contract is allowed.
Infidelity is violation of the marriage contract. When a spouse cheats there is risk that a child may result with another partner. Thus the physical, economic, and emotional security of the family is threatened because the cheating spouse cannot be fully committed with their time and finances to the family and marriage while attending to the needs of a separate woman and child. Open marriages and all other forms of Western relational perversion are essentially anti-child and anti-woman.
A sham marriage is often an arrangement between a man and woman for the purpose of making immigration easier. On 7 Jan 2010 BBC reported on an investigation about sham marriages around London and found the price of bride to be around 20,000 pounds. One sham married couple was exposed because neither spoke the other’s language. Ironically the article talks about marriages being true “love” matches, but who can judge what true love is?
“Registrars at Brent Council in north London suggested in 2005 that a fifth of all marriages there were bogus, with officials able to spot couples who barely knew each other.” – BBC
As Western society has drifted away from traditional marriage and made divorce easy, opportunities for human trafficking have opened up. Marriage is easy, divorce is cheap, and true love is hard to define so what is to stop people from using sham marriages to get around immigration law?
Clearly two people who do not speak the same language cannot easily enter into a contractual relationship as a mother and father need to be able to communicate to raise children.
Two random people attempting to engage in a sham marriage need to bring mutual friends and relatives to witness a covenant marriage. These sham marriages do not often meet these requirements and so a covenant relationship could not go forward. If the scam was pulled off to such a level where multiple witnesses were gathered then more people would need to be paid off, more evidence would be generated, and the sham marriage would be more easily discovered and fewer would occur.
In summary, marriage is contract. The contract protects the man, the woman, and their future children. Any weakening or perversion of the contract results in broken families, child abuse, crime and economic problems.
End of the Secular Section
Legal Marriage Benefits?
I’ve often heard from liberal gay activists how unfair it is that heterosexual couples have all these legal marriage benefits that are denied to gays. After 23 years of marriage responsibilities as a husband and father, I was still trying to figure out what they meant.
Did they mean the marriage benefit of losing half your stuff if you cheat? Did they mean the benefit of having to pay the credit card bills of a financially out-of-control spouse? Did they mean being legally responsible for your juvenile delinquents? Confused, I turned to gay activists’ websites to find out what great legal benefits I had that was being denied them.
Here is what the liberal gay activists’ website state as “marriage benefits:”
Federal Employees are offered time off for the birth of their child: They want this spousal benefit even though gays can’t biologically be parents.
File Joint Tax Returns: The joint tax return was developed because a mother staying at home and raising the children is not earning a wage so there isn’t much point in having mom put in a separate return. Filing a joint tax return with two incomes is about the same difficulty as filing two separate returns. So one of the big benefits they want is about one hour of tax preparation effort per year.
Medicare, Social Security, Disability, and Veteran’s benefits: These benefits were constructed because the society has viewed being a stay-at-home-mom as an unpaid and valuable profession. If a woman works outside the home or is in the military, her benefits apply in full, married or not. A gay man does not need these benefits because he is presumably working and will have full benefits anyway. A stay-at-home-gay man doesn’t make economic sense.
Special visas and citizenship benefits offered to foreign spouses, discounted rates for family auto, health, and homeowners insurance: This is a bogus issue. Gays can buy life insurance and name the beneficiary. There are gay insurance agents catering to gay people. Most health care plans are corporate group plans. The family plans are usually more expensive, not cheaper, for two people because they assume two or more children.
“Marriage benefits” as presented by gay marriage activists are contrived. The marriage contract is about RESPONSIBILITIES, not RIGHTS for the couple, to the benefit of the wife and, most importantly, the children.
What’s in the Marriage Contract?
The term of a marriage contract is for life.
The reason for a term of life is because a child is an 18 year commitment and with multiple children the commitment lasts far longer.
Furthermore, it is not biologically easy for a woman to avoid giving up a significant portion career if she chooses to have children. Thus, the marriage contract extends beyond the child-rearing years because it is economically fair that a mother continues to be supported for her economic sacrifice. “Easy” shameless divorce allows men to have an easy exit from their economic responsibility after the children leave the home.
A marriage contract continues in force despite health, emotional, and adverse financial conditions.
Children don’t disappear when negative health, emotional or financial conditions appear so the marriage contract is not cancelled for negative life circumstances.
A marriage contract allows a childless couple to adopt.
A marriage contract ensures legal paternity. Any child born to a married woman is the legal and financial responsibility of her husband.
A marriage contract conveys inheritance rights and extended family support. A woman and her children are given rights to the property of her husband in the event he dies. Grandparents, aunts, uncles are morally obligated to support the marriage and the children. The relatives are given first priority in adoption in the event of the death or unfitness of the parents.
Single artificial insemination
The practice of artificial insemination for single moms should be banned as it is a form of child abuse. Enough with societal experimentation on innocent children. Seeing octomoms on welfare is sickening. Celebrity single women who have and adopt children as upscale pets is grotesque.
Legalized Abortion was sold to the American public as a way to reduce out-of-wedlock births. Source: New York City: The Day, Oct 11, 1972 “liberalized abortion has helped … reduce the number of out-of-wedlock births for the first time since officials began keeping such records 18 years ago.” Apparently, they declared victory a little too early because here are the statistics.
In 1965, 26% of black babies were born out-of-wedlock and 3.1% of white babies.
In 1990, 64% of black babies were born out-of-wedlock and 18% of white babies.
In 2012, 78% of black babies were born out-of-wedlock and 29% of white babies.
Even with the wide availability of birth control and abortion, the percentage of out-of-wedlock birth continues to skyrocket.
Jennifer was pregnant with our first child when she was 19. Because she was young we were given the option of participating in a “Lamaze” class for teenage mothers. A Lamaze class teaches new parents about the stages of pregnancy, what to expect during the final months of pregnancy and delivery, and natural techniques to control pain during delivery. When the time comes, take the class as it is very useful.
I don’t remember the exact number of couples in the class but I think it was around 15 when the class started. At the first class most expectant mothers were accompanied by their boyfriends. The young fathers talked about how committed they were to the relationship and excited to be a father. But as the birth time approached one-by-one the boyfriends stopped attending class and were not heard from again. By the end of the class, only 2 or 3 young fathers kept their commitment. Our instructor said it was sad but typical.
If two gay men adopt a child, then this would be a valid reason to have “gay marriage” as a child is a significant financial commitment and a contract should be in place. However, gay adoption should be opposed for statistical and emotional reasons.
First, gays are far more likely to be involved in child sexual abuse than a heterosexual couple. I don’t support celibate priests in the Catholic Church being around young altar boys. I don’t support putting drug rehabilitation centers next to crack houses. I don’t support putting politicians near unspent money for the same reasons.
I don’t support two gay men in their 30’s adopting 12 year old boys. If you do, then you are statistically supporting sexual abuse. In fact the statistics are so bad that some activists are taking a new tactic and saying that sex between adults and minors isn’t abusive.
Celibacy came to Catholic Church formally in 1139 because many “Holier than God” folks were taking 1 Cor. 7:1 “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” a little too literally. Early in Church history unmarried men and women often emulated Paul. Over the years, these men and women started organizations. The organizations started making rules. And after a few centuries those rules became Catholic doctrine. Paul’s original point was this – if you find yourself unmarried don’t stress out. Christianity wasn’t going to view a woman without a husband as a bad thing or shameful as many religions before Christianity. Instead a single person should consider going into God’s work full-time. It is amazing how a nice encouragement became a perverted doctrine that has broken the lives of young boys and broken the hearts of their parents. Celibacy for celibacy’s sake was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now. The Catholic Church needs to repent over this one and change their ways. Repentance is a good thing and they would not be the first Church that had to correct an error or two.
There are a number of studies that show at-risk children placed in gay homes doing as well as at-risk children placed in heterosexual homes. However, these studies and their conclusions carry a fatal “activist flaw.” Here is an illustration of what I call the “activist flaw.” Over the past decades dozens of educational programs have been proposed as the answer to America’s poorly performing primary education system. The programs are proposed by highly motivated educators who have done a great job in a district with documented positive results. As the new program is rolled out in other districts the same great results are rarely duplicated and the program ends up in failure along with the prior initiatives. This is because the real reason for success was not the program but rather the highly motivated teachers. The original teachers could have successfully run any program. Likewise, any program run by an unmotivated teacher results in failure. So the point is this: two highly motivated gay activists, according to some studies, do as good of a job raising an at-risk child as an average heterosexual couple. On the other hand, broad studies comparing gay and heterosexual parenting report a strong correlation between a gay parent and sexual abuse. The highly negative results are very alarming.
Second, statistically children benefit greatly from having both a male and a female raising them. A mother is better able to relate to, set proper expectations, communicate female emotions, and explain biological changes to a daughter. A father becomes a better parent when discussing child rearing with the mother and vice versa.
It is time to stop socially experimenting and begin the hard process of cleaning up the societal wreckage caused by the atheistic left over the past 100 years.
 How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study by Mark Regenerus of the Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A1700, Austin, TX 78712-0118, United States
American school children are often required to read the Scarlet Letter Novel as an example of Puritan anti-sex extremism. Most school children are taught that the Puritans started Thanksgiving, hated sex, and falsely killed witches at the Salem Witch trials. The Big State has no interest in glorifying or giving a balanced view of the days when America was not one big Debt Plantation. In the novel, a single mother is forced to wear a Scarlet Letter to publicly humiliate her for having a baby out-of-wedlock.
The Puritans of the 1600’s were not anti-sex, they were anti-child abuse.
It was considered child abuse to bring a child into this world without an identified father who was physically and financially responsible for the child. In New England during the 1600’s famine, disease, hard manual farming, and Indian attacks were all very real issues. Bringing a child into this environment without an identified father put a huge burden on relatives and neighbors and hurt the future life prospects of the child. Thus, it was shameful to have a baby out-of-wedlock. In 2013, due to Uncle Sam’s subsidy of out-of-wedlock births, extensive welfare, and Hollywood and the left’s glorification of sex outside of marriage, there is very little shame bringing a child into the world without a committed father.
While society is now far removed from the issues of the 1600s, the importance of intact healthy marriages has not diminished as evidence by numerous studies.
Various forms of birth control were available in the United States long before the birth control pill was introduced. However, the pill, abortion, and the 1960’s sexual revolution dramatically changed the marriage landscape in a few short years. The Left promised sex without consequence, women’s liberation, a reduction in out-of-wedlock births, less crime, and wealthier inner cities. Instead, America experience skyrocketing divorce and out-of-wedlock births, increased abuse, more inner city crime, and increased poverty.
As early as 1975, Dir. Swartz of Crittendon in Baltimore noted, as she served single mothers, how birth control pills and abortion were not lowering the rate of out-of-wedlock births.
“What we are seeing happening, I think is the creation of as much as two-thirds of tomorrow’s generation that has nothing going for it. Many will be raised indifferently, or brutally. Many will be nutritionally and medically deprived. Many will lack the benefit of a father, without conscience, without meaningful relationships, without impulse control and mostly violent.” She also asked “How can we have much hope?”
Let’s look at the single parenting statistics from the numerous studies.
University of California – Santa Barbara 1996: Children raised without fathers are more than twice as likely to become juvenile delinquents or single mothers.
University of Pennsylvania and Princeton University 2004: Young men raised without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail … even when all other factors are taken into account such as race, income, parent education, and urban residence.
National Institute of Justice 1998: 63% of suicides are from fatherless homes, 85% of children exhibiting behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes, 71% of high school dropouts are from fatherless homes, 70% of juvenile delinquents are from fatherless homes.
These statistics are sad and overwhelming and are just a small sample of the large secular studies that have been conducted on the American Family.
Statistically broken homes equal broken children.
It is right to try to encourage single moms while offering hope and support. While this is the secular section of the book: Christians are instructed that “True Religion” is not just a pair of jeans – “it is to look after the fatherless” James 1:27.
In recent years more fathers are gaining sole custody of their children after divorce. New research shows that children in these homes statistically do poorly as well. Having biological mothers raise their children is important.
Children living with just their father or their father and his girlfriend are more likely to abuse drugs and be physically abused .
A lot young people will say these statistics do not apply to them. “I can live with my boyfriend and see how things work out,” “I’m on birth control,” “The guy I’m with is super nice, he’d never leave me if I got pregnant,” “I’ll get married when I get serious about a family.” If any of these statements reflect your thoughts and you think that none of the awful social statistics will apply to your situation, then please consider the following. There is a whole field of study called “Illusory Superiority.” It reveals how the majority of people think they are above average, which of course is statistically impossible. Statistics do apply to you and you are taking a big risk when you fail to heed warnings.
Before dismissing these statistics as not applying to your situation, consider these humorous statistics: 87% of Stanford MBA students considered themselves be above the average of their peers; 68% of faculty at the University of Nebraska considered themselves to be in the top 25% of teaching ability; 93% of US Student drivers thought of themselves to be above average! So in other words –
Don’t let a call from the police about your son or daughter be the first indication that your broken home is indeed a family and societal problem.
As soon as the atheist Lenin and Bolshevism took over Russia they also confiscated church property and made divorce “easy.”
So you may ask why an easy divorce does damage to marriage. Let’s go back to our original point that marriage is a contract.
If a contract is very easy to get out of, then the contract is not as valuable.
The marriage contract protects children first, thus if it is easily cancelled we are sending the message that children are not valuable.
The reason America traditionally held that divorce is supposed to be difficult is – a contract that is hard to get out of is one that should not be entered into lightly.
“The best way to compel young people to consider marriage seriously is to impress them that it cannot be dissolved for trivial reasons.” – Painesville Telegraph, Nov 1, 1921
Before “No Fault Divorce,” marriage contracts had traditionally been economically skewed in favor of woman as they should be. Women have the biological burden of child birth and early childhood nurturing. As a result of their greater time, economic, and physical commitment to the budding family, the mother and wife should and would continue to be compensated after a divorce. Thus any weakening in the marriage contract disproportionally hurts women economically. Feminists should be for a strong marriage contract, but most feminists are God-haters first and foremost.
Divorce makes men, particularly fathers, significantly richer. When a father separates from the mother of his children, according to new research, his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman’s income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years.
– London Observer January 24, 2009
An article from The Sunday Chronicle May 2, 1919 writes about easy divorce in Lenin’s Russia and how it resulted in the abuse of women. As the quality of marriage deteriorated more infants were given up for adoption and the Communist State was more than happy to take control in the State run orphanages. However, in a few short years the homeless child situation grew so bad in Russia that the communists were forced to repeal some of these laws and revert back to more traditional marriage.
In America the weakening of the marriage contract has been slow and steady allowing the public to get used to the new immoral standard, thus limiting the outcry and opposition. Imagine what the outcry would have been if American would have gone from a child rarely being raised without a father, as was the case in 1900, to the 30% fatherless statistic in 2013, all in a few short years.
“Easy” or “No Fault Divorce” was sold to the American public as a way for women to escape abusive marriages. Those opposing the “No Fault Divorce” advocates were the traditional marriage advocates. The traditional marriage advocates were accused of being uncompassionate and pro-abuse of women while their critics ignored the fact that abuse has always been a valid reason to seek and be granted a divorce.
There are studies that show the rate of abuse dropping 16% after “No Fault Divorce” legislation was passed. The studies indicate that many women would stay in abusive situations as they did not want to go to court and publicly air all the embarrassing dirty laundry so often associated with divorce. Even though domestic violence in marriage dropped, it was sadly more than compensated by rise in domestic violence in non-marriage relationships. Many abusive men no longer found it necessary to marry in the first place, thus skewing the statistics. Overall, domestic violence against women increased.
Policy: Reform was needed to prevent domestic abuse and public humiliation, but the answer was not “No Fault Divorce”, the answer is less fault for women, more fault for men, and a private divorce executor(s) in the same manner that will’s have executors.
The State and marriage
The state has at least three interests in marriage: one, the enforcement of the private marriage contract; two, the prevention of child abuse; three, granting citizenship to foreign spouses and children.
In the first case, meaningful legal contracts have a dispute resolution process that is enforced by a judge or arbitrator. The marriage contract is no different than any other contract in this regard. The government must be involved in either the dissolution of the marriage or ensuring that a pre-nuptial agreement is followed.
In the second case, a government prevents close relatives from marrying to prevent birth defects as government is responsible to protect the interest of the innocent and not burden the community with significant costs due to the irresponsible behavior.
In the third case, the state has interest in granting the benefits of citizenship to a foreign parent and children. Deporting a foreign parent and breaking the family unit harms the citizen spouse or child.
Birth Control and Marriage
Do you need a marriage contract if you are using birth control? Answer: Yes. Just because a baby is less likely does not mean that there is zero chance of a baby. Birth control can be forgotten and occasionally fail. We protect ourselves financially with legal contracts for rare events. For example, if you participate in school sports every child’s parent must sign a legal medical release form in the rare event their child is injured. For example, financial advisors still recommend life insurance even though death is a once in a lifetime event.
Even when taking birth control a marriage contract is still advised because the birth of a baby is a significant commitment even if it is less likely.
Abortion and Marriage
If you plan on getting an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy would marriage still be necessary? Answer: Scientifically speaking, abortion ends the life of human being with unique DNA. A man should not marry or continue to have sex with a woman who would end the life of her child for reasons of convenience. If a woman places a low priority on her offspring, how can she be a partner in a caring relationship with her spouse?
An abortion for convenience is a woman’s statement on the priority she places on children.
Comments on Abortion
The government’s fundamental role is the protection of innocent life. Abortion for convenience should be illegal. Sadly in Jan 1973 the US Supreme Court decided in Roe v Wade that abortion for convenience would be a legal method to end of the life of a baby up to the point of birth.
Marriage involves acknowledgement of the right of life that is to come into being, a right which is not subject to the disposal of the married couple. Unless this right is acknowledged as a matter of principle, marriage ceases to be marriage and becomes a mere liaison. Ethics by D. Bonhoffer (killed by the National Socialists)
Most people do not realize that Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate the black race in North America and limit the population of poor whites and often referred to them as “human junk.” In the late 1910’s, Ms. Sanger opposed laws that prevented the public dissemination of birth control information without going through a doctor. Ms. Sanger as part of her information campaign started a magazine whose motto was “No Gods, No Masters” illustrating the atheistic Marxist root of this movement. Later in life she would claim to be a Methodist as she learned to hide the wolf in sheep’s clothing – remember the comment about atheists often seeking to appear religious. The United Methodist’s were pro-choice even before abortion became legal in the USA. Margaret Sanger also spoke to the Ku Klux Klan and other white racists groups. Don’t believe that? Well I have a photo of her at the Klan rally but don’t want to contaminate this book with it. While we don’t have the transcripts of these meetings it is safe to assume she was not talking how her plans were a positive for the black community. After her death, the organization she founded took up the cause of legalizing abortion for convenience.
A trial of an abortion doctor, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, is on-going as I write this. Marxists made the case that abortion needed to be legal to prevent “back alley” abortions. This case exposes how horrible these sick abortionist can be and what a lack of valuing every human life results in. The case is so sick as to defy description so feel free to google “Abortion Gosnell” if you have the stomach to read about murder and the execution of full term babies. It took the American liberal media four weeks to begin to report on this case. In many states, abortion clinics inspections are not conducted and in some states the inspections are illegal. “Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.”
Don’t forget President Obama when he was an Illinois State Senator voted against Born Alive Infants Protection Act as any good Marxist would. Our President voted against legal protection for a baby who survived an abortion! You might think for a moment that this never happens well think again. Google “Douglas Karpen.”
Rape and Abortion
Anti-God folks love to bring up extreme cases to morally confuse an issue. For example: Should abortion be legal when a pregnancy results from a rape? The anti-God folks couldn’t care less what the answer is what they want is the Pro-life supporter to fall into a moral trap. The Pharisees and Sadducees in Bible times did the same thing to Jesus. The key to avoid the trap is to frame the problem correctly.
Ironically, there is a difference in how a believer in God views rape and how the liberal views rape. Believers in God view the sexes as different. Liberals views the sexes as identical. When men and women are viewed identical then rape is not nearly as serious of a crime as men are rarely subjected to it and the consequences are not as serious. De Tocqueville writes about this difference once again in his book “Democracy in America”. France in this case represents the liberal European mind.
“The legislators of the United States, who have mitigated almost all the penalties of criminal law, still make rape a capital offense, and no crime is visited with more inexorable severity by public opinion. This may be accounted for; as the Americans can conceive nothing more precious than a woman’s honor and nothing which ought so much to be respected as her independence, they hold that no punishment is too severe for the man who deprives her of them against her will. In France, where the same offense is visited with far milder penalties, it is frequently difficult to get a verdict from a jury against the prisoner. Is this a consequence of contempt of decency or contempt of women? I cannot but believe that it is a contempt of both.”
It is these same coward liberals who now attempt to claim Pro-lifers as being uncompassionate because we don’t want to visit another crime on an innocent unborn.
Clearly rape that results in pregnancy is outside the marriage covenant, the woman did not willingly agree to the $250K in rearing cost associated with a child not to mention the time and emotional commitment, nor the constant reminder of the rape that a pregnancy entails. Pro-life folks correctly point out that the child is innocent. Innocent life has a higher priority than money, time, and emotional issues.
If we say that abortion should always be illegal including in cases of rape, then the anti-God person will say “You want to require a women to have a baby with all the cost and emotional damage. You are sick. You only say that because you aren’t the one who was raped.” If we say we provide an exception for rape and incest, then the anti-God person will say “you are not consistent and you don’t really believe life begins at conception” opening ourselves up to a debate about what life is protected and what life is unprotected and we have committed sin (acting as God over the lives of others).
We, pro-lifers need to turn the table on this debate. Today, there is no compassionate offset in public policy to attempt to reduce the costs associated with babies who are the product of rape. My opinion on the matter is this:
Policy: The State has an interest in the protection of human life as one of it’s fundamental roles and that includes babies in the womb. Thus the State should:
Pay $150K tax free for every mother who carries her baby as a product of rape to term and gives it up for adoption at birth. The mother will also receive an additional $200K tax free to raise the child. She’ll also be given 1 year paid medical leave.
As much of this money should be recovered from the rapist as possible. Rules on DNA testing would apply.
Re-institute the death penalty for rape by a stranger.
Pro-life supporters while we support a ban on abortion we first need to start pushing for compensation for pregnant rape victims. The compensation should be so high that there is no question that as a society we are showing both our support for life and a strong understanding of the trauma a woman goes through.
Paying for Live Birth
The hate-God folks have now managed to get Americans to start paying for abortion services. Well turnabout is fair play, it’s time to get Liberals to start paying for live birth. Each American child is worth about $1.6M to the US Economy over their lifetime. Why should married couples who raise children, thus benefitting the US Economy not be compensated for their trouble.
Policy: Married couples with bio mom and bio dad should receive an annual tax credit of $2000 per child.
We need to start putting our money where our values are and rewarding parents who stay together. Children raised by their bio parents are better for the US Economy. If Liberals are going to state that marriage has all these supposed benefits, well let’s give marriage some real benefits and let them have a real point to grouse about.
So how do we pay for all the new pro-family entitlements? Answer: with Taxes on Liberals, of course. Tax union dues, government pensions, abortion, Hollywood movies, companies that take more than 30% of the revenue via government contract, high crime areas, a liberty tax based on the level of local taxation (so the higher taxes, the higher the Liberty tax).
The Republican Party has made a strategic mistake in becoming the Party of no New Taxes. The Government is too big. The way to make the Big State smaller is not by giving tax immunity to those who support the Big State. If they want a Big State, then they should also pay their fair share. The Big State is not nearly so much fun when you share in the joy of paying for it.
On a radio talk show the other day, I heard a gay activist saying “How can you prevent me my right to love another person?” in response to his support of Gay Marriage.
From a secular perspective Marriage is NOT the right to love.
Notice how these activists appeal to love, but from an evolutionary basis love is a chemical reaction that has evolved because it is beneficial to the passing along of genetic material. How does a court control a hormonal reaction? How is a court supposed to grant a right to love? Is pretending that a marriage exists between two gays going to create love or change the expression of love?
What they are seeking is something that they cannot be granted by the court. What they need is Real Love, the Living Water, and the Gospel – the Love that no court can grant. Jesus died for a gay person every bit as much as he died for me or any other sinner. Ironically, it wasn’t a gay that the Bible uses to show how far the love of God extends to the lost – it was a tax collector. J
Every person on earth has a right to love and be loved – no one has a moral right to prevent love. The political left often changes the meaning of words in order to win debates and they have done this extensively in their effort to destroy marriage.
Marriage is a legal CONTRACT that your community, your church, your family, and you should want to have in place before engaging in sex with a member of the opposite sex.
Why should there be a contract in place before engaging in sex with a member of the opposite sex? Answer: Sex may result in conception of a baby. A baby is, at minimum, an 18-year commitment to provide food, clothing, shelter, and education. In 2009 the USDA estimated it costs between $11,650 to $13,530 each year to raise a middle class child in the USA.
When you loan money for a new $20,000 car – you sign a contract and documents that are often ¼” thick. When buying a $200,000 home you sign contracts and documents that are at least ½” thick covering every detail of the home, property, and home loan. In business virtually every transaction has a legal contract.
A baby being a significant financial and time commitment – requires a marriage contract that outlines the responsibility of the couple.
Gay “sex” cannot result in a baby, thus there is no need for a marriage contract.
It is really that simple.
In the day of home automation women should have equal opportunity in the work place, but not careers that are fundamentally against the dignity and superiority of a women such as learning to kill enemy combatants. In addition, women should have the special right and ability to fill the highest role of a mother in the context of marriage.
Policy: pregnant women and new mothers should be guaranteed time off, aggressive tax benefits for raising children in an intact home, corporate subsidies for hiring mothers who are returning to the work force, subsidies for education while raising her children and after her children leave the nest
Policy: All people on welfare programs for more than 1 year must be on a long-term birth control especially men.
The preference would be that government get out of social engineering entirely. Interference and subsidy from government eventually breeds dependence. Given the existing interference, we need to start from a negotiation position of demanding our money back equal to the economic value of raising children in a good environment. We need to honor strong mothers instead of giving subsidies for destructive liberal values.
Today, with the Big State in ascendency the nation-states now seek to redefine and weaken marriage as a competitive institution pushed by God-hating socialists. Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Atheists, Fascists, yada yada are the same for all intents and purposes which means they love Big State and hate God. Yes, they are sort of like a Baskin Robbins 31 flavors of nefariousness with some even pretending to be religious. For example, there was a Democrat Pro-life group in the US Congress ran by Rep. Stupak. The day came that President Obama wanted his health care plan to cover abortion. This fake Christian Democrat Pro-Life group sold out for nothing to ensure passage of Obamacare. Now, thanks to Stupak, the Big American State requires everyone to pay for the abomination of the personal choice of abortion. Those who support abortion call themselves pro-choice but they are not supportive of my choice to not pay for the killing of a child. You can never trust a believer in the Big State even when they pretend to be religious. Their religion is atheism and the Big State is their church and the growth of the Big State trumps all. The Big State wants our kids molded to their liking on their evil potter’s wheel instead of Potter God’s wheel.
Organizations and men will always seek more money and control – in a church, union, congress, or club. We are all quite pathetic in our desire for control. The framers of our US Constitution understood this pernicious human desire for ever greater money and power. After much debate these men of God designed a beautiful balanced document that managed to hold back the tyranny of the Big State for 150 years. Unfortunately, the Big State is now firmly in control in the US and it will not allow other institutions or individuals exercising their rights to threaten its voracious appetite for power and money.
A successful joyful marriage is one where a husband and wife have a loving supportive relationship in their unique roles while raising their children to appreciate the freedom to worship, speak, gather with friends, learning the joy of a job well done, studying God’s creation in a field of one’s own choosing, freely picking a mate, and living a life of healthy moderation.
A successful family is not the desired outcome of the Big State. Who needs a Big State if kids are well adjusted, hard-working, free, independent, and living lives of moderation? Answer: we don’t. Thus the Big State subsidizes out-of-wedlock births, keeps kids trapped in poor schools, fills their heads with warped morality and history, weakens the marriage contract replacing Dad with Uncle Sam, and entraps young people with easy access to debt.
Still don’t believe the destruction of the family was planned. How about we listen to their own words —
Karl Marx from the Communist Manifesto:
“Abolition of the family! … On what foundation is the present family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie (business class). But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians (the working class), and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.”
From President Wilson to President Obama, most Democrat presidents range from stanch Marxist Fascists like Wilson and Obama to softer Socialists such as Clinton. President Obama has strong ties to Marxism, selects Marxists for political positions and often uses the vernacular of a Marxist.
The Democrat Party was greatly altered by President Woodrow Wilson. His extensive writing laid the ground work for the modern Democrat Party. To get a flavor of President Wilson, read what he wrote in 1890:
“The competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much–everything–for the external uses to which they may be put…. He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates…. It is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.”
The Big State has no place for love, the well-adjusted, and it despises freedom. Have you ever wondered why some of the most joyless people in the world work for the Big State? God has designed us to find self-worth and joy in a meaningful job done well – self-worth and joy are in short supply when you get your paycheck from Big State Uncle Sam.
The Big USA State at all levels directly controls roughly 45% of the US economy, it dictates and regulates the spending on another 17% (health care, environmental regulations, etc.), and provides incentives for another 15% (mortgage deductions, student loans, farm insurance). Only 20% of the US Economy still runs on free market principles. Evidence for this is as simple as turning on CNBC: when the US Congress votes for increasing spending via debt, the stock market goes up – and talk of reducing spending tanks the market.
Most churches are afraid of the Big State. The Big State bribes the Weak Church into silence with tax deductions for their charitable contributions. In return the Weak Church is not allowed political speech or political literature to be distributed that might go against the state. It is nauseating to watch 50,000 people march for a pro-life cause in San Francisco knowing full-well that the majority of those marching will cast their next ignorant vote for a politician who is 100% opposed to everything they stand for. They are ignorant because the Weak Church will not tell them the complete story because of the fear of losing a tax deduction. Here’s to longing for the day of the free and independent Church.
A Free and Independent Church is one that embraces every part of the Gospel message without fear.
I’m a big supporter of the separation of Church and State. The State should not dictate that anyone has to go to a particular brand of Church or go to Church at all. The Church should never dictate to the State what the proper tax rates are, where the roads need to go, or what type of military equipment to purchase. However, the Church’s voice needs to be freed.
Policy: The deduction for charitable donations needs to end and the money returned in the form of lower tax rates. Happy result: Smaller state and a freer Church.
Now for one clarification; a government and a church are both necessary institutions that are critically important for a civil society. However, once they grow out of control and cease their proper function they become a cancer on civil society.
Marxism is the doctrine of the Big States today. In ancient times the Big State was an out-of-control monarchy. The Bible refers to the Big State in 1 Kings 12:10 and 2 Chronicles 10:10. King Rehoboam listens to the counsel of young government advisors who urge him to raise taxes.
“Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them,
My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins. And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke”
Rehoboam’s tough tax words resulted in his chief tax collector getting killed and his Kingdom divided in two. Here’s to longing for the day when tax collectors could be tarred and feathered … tarring and feathering my Turbo Tax CD just doesn’t have the same impact. Okay, I promise I’ll get back to marriage, but no guys will read this book if unless we can somehow connect marriage with the joy of tar and feathering Big State tax collectors – the point of all of this is Big States don’t like strong marriages.
There is only one true Marxist economy and that is complete state control over the economy and family. However, there are many Marxist-lite nation states of which the USA is one where the State directly controls much of the economy and is heavily involved in the regulation of the remaining private enterprise and the manipulation of family values.
Finally, Marxism is fundamentally atheistic because Marx said so but also because it devalues the individual in favor of the collective. A Theistic world view values the individual over the collective. The atheistic left views marriage and freely choosing individuals as competitive to State or collective control. As such the atheistic left has campaigns to weaken marriage and all inherent rights of the individual.
I’ve spent some time on this topic because it is important to understand how much Marxist ideology infects our Western thinking. By understanding Marxism we can more easily discover what has been broken and set about repairing the damage.
In Russia the atheistic Bolsheviks (aka Marxist aka Communists) overthrew the Czar and took full control in 1917. Lenin and Trotsky wasted no time making divorce easy. At the same time they attempted to weaken the mother-child bond by requiring nursing mothers to randomly nurse other babies. These folks were sick. They prevented mothers from nursing their own children to enforce the idea of the collective.
The Left way back in 1917 used deceptive moral arguments to advanced their agenda of state control. For example: marriage is a repressive institution designed to keep women in “their place.” In the 1960’s and 1970’s the Left in America used similar terms. Ironically, in 2013 as they try to further destroy marriage with “Gay marriage” they no longer say marriage is a repressive institution. If marriage is a repressive institution, then preventing gays from a repressive relationship would be a good thing. Understand that the Left will use any argument to advance the cause of evil. God is constant and changes not – being the opposite of God means atheists feel no need of consistency so don’t expect it.
In the Free West, Marxism began to flourish in small communities in the US and Europe. The divorce rate rose slowly in the 1910’s right along with the rise of Marxist ideology. World War 2 caused a very significant but brief spike in the USA divorce rate due to the rush marriages as young men headed off to war and the subsequent divorces due to the haste followed by a long absence. However, the WWII spike paled in comparison to rapid rise in the divorce rate as the Free West entered the Big State 1960’s and the Free Love Era. The divorce rate has remained high ever since.
The economic, emotional, and physical damage to men, women and children has been staggering as the bedrock institution of marriage and the family is undermined. Even couples that are marginal church attenders have not been spared. This book reports on the social wreckage.
The massive social experiment to diminish the importance of marriage in American and Western society has been a dismal failure from a Christian perspective and a wild success from a Marxist perspective. As a result, your economic future, physical safety and personal liberty has been impacted and the consequences are growing worse each decade. Unfortunately, some political knuckleheads who are blissfully ignorant of the economic cost of fatherless families in various conservative movements tell us to “only focus on economic issues” and “government has no role in social issues.”
Social issues are economic issues. Social issues are liberty issues. Social Issues are personal safety issues.
Most people assume they understand marriage until they are asked basic questions and then they sound like those infamous man-on-the-street interviews where US citizens can’t name the Vice President.
No part of this book should be interpreted as being holier-than-thou or that divorce is never an option. We all fail, we all sin, and we all need forgiveness. True compassion is to speak the truth, seek to prevent failure, and help to restore when moral failure happens.
Once again, Jesus said “Him that is without sin, cast the first stone” … “and they all went out silent” unable to cast a stone at the women caught in adultery as the law demanded. Christ offers for forgiveness to all for example: a tax collector repented and then wrote the Gospel of Matthew; another man named Saul was responsible for persecuting Christians and was a participant in the martyrdom of Stephen but then repented and ended up writing the majority of the New Testament.
End of the history section and on to a secular view of marriage.