By Paul Bremmer
Michael Brown has a message for all the social conservatives out there feeling deflated because the Supreme Court ruled “gay marriage” a constitutional right: don’t mope around. Instead, just refuse to redefine marriage.
“Just because the court rules a certain way doesn’t mean we have to accept it,” Brown told WND in an interview.
Brown, an author and talk radio host, advises conservatives to “refuse to redefine marriage” in his latest book “Outlasting the Gay Revolution.” In fact, this advice is the fourth of eight principles Brown lays out to help conservatives overcome the gay revolution.
The author pointed out Abraham Lincoln refused to accept the Dred Scott decision of 1857. By a 7-2 majority, the Supreme Court had ruled African Americans were not American citizens. However, Lincoln spoke out forcefully against the decision in his famous debates with Stephen Douglas, and many other Northern abolitionists argued against it as well. A mere 11 years later, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution functionally overturned the Dred Scott decision.
Likewise, the court ruled in Roe v. Wade women have a right to an abortion. But rather than squelching all dissent, Brown noted, the decision galvanized the pro-life movement. The annual March for Life was established the very next year and continues to draw hundreds of thousands of pro-life protesters. To this day, abortion rights are still a major topic of debate, even as the number of abortionists, and abortion businesses, across the nation plunges.
So abolitionists and pro-lifers refused to accept Supreme Court decisions they believed were immoral, and Brown argues proponents of traditional marriage should do the same.
“Maybe you’re a county clerk, maybe you’re an educator, maybe you’re a pastor – just because the Supreme Court made an outrageous ruling doesn’t mean that we have to accept it,” Brown said.
The author and WND columnist maintained conservatives must refuse to redefine marriage not because they are hateful, but because traditional marriage is best for society.
“Once you redefine marriage, you render it meaningless,” Brown argued. “Once you say it’s not the unique union of one man and one woman together for life, it could become anything. It could be two or three or five or one. You have no limit on it. Once you say ‘marriage equality for all,’ you open the door wide.”
One Montana man tried to walk through that wide-open door just days after the Supreme Court ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges. Nathan Collier of Montana applied to have his polygamous relationship with two women legally recognized as a marriage, saying, “It’s about marriage equality. You can’t have this without polygamy.”
Collier wasn’t the only one who felt this way. On the day of the court’s ruling, a Politico magazine headline blared, “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy.”
The world has seen even stranger “marriages.” Three “gay” men in Thailand got married earlier this year. In January, a 40-year-old woman married herself in Texas. And although it’s not legally recognized in any country, several people around the world have married animals.
Paul Kengor, a university professor and author of “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage,” has also voiced concerns about this kind of slippery slope.
“I would warn same-sex marriage supporters, if you believe that it’s your right to redefine marriage to mean whatever you want, in this case male-male, female-female, by what right can somebody else not redefine it some other way?” Kengor asked. “Maybe male-male-male or a stepfather and a stepdaughter, and if I can’t say that you’re wrong with your definition, how can you say that they’re wrong with their definition?”
Some have even suggested incest should be legal. In fact, the New York State Court of Appeals upheld the legality of an uncle-niece marriage last October.
Brown said a “very liberal pro-gay website” once asked him to take part in an online debate about whether adult consensual incest should be legal. The site interviewed five people and Brown was the only one who said it should not be legal.
He says incest is only one can of worms that could be opened if marriage is no longer the union of a man and a woman.
“We refuse to redefine marriage because we do not want it to go where it should not go,” Brown said. “We’re going to be loving towards all people, kind towards all people, but we’re not going to call it marriage.”
from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/conservatives-told-chill-over-new-marriage-definition/
from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/conservatives-told-chill-over-new-marriage-definition/
No comments:
Post a Comment