Archpastoral Message of His Beatitude, Metropolitan Tikhon on the Beginning of Great Lent 2014
Kelly Bartlett (Public Discourse).
It’s one thing for two guys to love each other; it’s altogether different for society to endorse this union by granting these two men the status of marriage. A male marriage might not look overtly sexist, but what about the long-term effects? Redefining marriage grants men the legal right to deprive children of a relationship with their mother simply because she’s female. Because she’s “born that way.” What if this gender discrimination continues?
Obviously, two men cannot reproduce with each other, but in tandem with marriage comes the right to adopt. If a male couple’s adopted son meets and marries a like-minded guy whose dads commissioned him from a surrogate mother, then we would see an extended family bereft of not only mothers but also grandmothers. On both sides. Under current law in many states, this chauvinism can continue for generations.
Decades from now, young Marvin can trace his family tree and compare it with that of his pal Leroy. The latter has one mom and one dad, two grandmothers and two grandfathers, four great-grandmothers and four great-grandfathers. Leroy’s family tree is gender-integrated and balanced.
Meanwhile, Marvin lists two dads, four grandpas, and eight great-grandfathers. His family has fourteen men and zero women; it’s gender-segregated and devoid of wives, mothers, grandmothers, and their feminine love.
Of course, we know that babies can’t actually be nurtured for nine months in a test tube using IVF, no matter how many thousands of dollars we thrust at researchers. And despite millions in research, no scientist has ever generated a single ovum. Marvin had to have a mom or he wouldn’t be here. And his parents had to have mothers as well. It’s not that Marvin doesn’t have a mom or grandmothers in his ancestry. These women are invisible to Marvin, but they are real. They were intentionally excluded from his family precisely because of their sex. This man-made barricade is more harmful than the glass ceiling at work since it prevents children from accessing their own mothers.
Man caves are fun. Man family trees . . . not so much.
To be fair, same-sex marriage laws grant women the same right to segregate family trees and the same power to deprive their children of fathers. But this doesn’t advance equality. That’s simply the debunked “separate but equal” argument in new, gender-segregated clothing. Again, I know too many dads and I honor my own father far too much to endorse writing them out of generations of children’s lives for the supposed crime of being born male.
Of course, same-sex marriage lobbyists can argue that the likelihood of entire branches being segregated by sex is slim. (I sure hope so.) Yet they dare not criticize the right to create gender-segregated family trees, because doing so would automatically refute their case. After all, redefining marriage is predicated on the theory that gender diversity is unimportant in marriage. Supporting gender integration would automatically plant them on the side of pro-gender marriage.
When confronted with Marvin’s ancestry, same-sex marriage activists can only applaud as they continue to support excluding either husbands and dads, or wives and mothers from homes. They consider this such an important benefit to society that they have persuaded judges or legislatures in sixteen states and a handful of countries to enact laws enabling gender segregation in families for generations.
That’s not marriage equality. That’s same-sexism marriage.
As SSM advocates scatter seeds of gender alienation, we can focus attention on our collective family tree, which is inclusive and integrated. Every time you’re online reading an article that supports same-sex marriage, prune away the focus on homosexuality in order to shine a light on the roots of gender discrimination. Call attention to the fact that these are gender-exclusive unions. That they are missing one half of humanity. They deliberately deprive children of either a mother or a father. Their grandchildren will therefore lack either a grandmother or a grandfather. If they call it marriage equality, ask why treating the children of gays differently and banishing their mothers from the home is equality.
And when they refer to same-sex marriage, invite them to join the right side of history by rejecting sexism and supporting pro-gender marriage. Because gender matters to everyone, including homosexuals, as well as their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren . . .
- See more at: Gender, Discrimination, and Marriage | Public Discourse.
Jennifer Marshall (The Gospel Coalition Blog).
The legal freedom to live and love according to one’s preferences does not imply that government should compel others to celebrate all relationships. The law should uphold the freedom to speak and to act publicly consistent with biblical beliefs about marriage.
Tolerance means recognizing others’ right to refuse to celebrate what they don’t agree with. Religious liberty protections defending that right take nothing away from anyone. But compelling celebration certainly does.
Jennifer A. Marshall is director of domestic policy studies at Heritage Foundationwhere she also directs the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society. She is the author of Now and Not Yet: Making Sense of Single Life in the 21st Century. You can follow her on Twitter @MarshallJenA.
(Vatican Insider) The theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox Churches which was launched with the aim of achieving full sacramental communion, risks stalling permanently. And one of the main reasons for this would appear to be the divisions that exist between the Orthodox Churches and those influential circles within the Orthodox faith – the Patriarchate of Moscow above all – that are refusing to recognise one universal primate as the leader of the Church, founded on a shared and canonical and ecclesial tradition. The alarm was raised by none other than the Metropolitan of Pergamon, Ioannis Zizioulas, a former member of the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, co-President of the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Zizioulas, whom many consider to be the greatest living Christian theologian (his “Eucharistic ecclesiology” is appreciated both by Pope Francis and his predecessor Benedict XVI) restores faith in the upcoming meeting between the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Jerusalem next May. He sees unity among Christians as much more than just an alliance between Church hierarchies to form a “common front” to deal with ethical and sex-related issues.
Meanwhile, the direction the Ukrainian crisis has taken raises questions once again over the control the Patriarchate of Moscow exercises over the majority of Orthodox parishes in the Ukraine.
And the rest here “Theological dialogue with Catholics risks failure” .
Elise Hilton (Acton PowerBlog).
Elise Hilton (Acton PowerBlog):
We cannot simply have everything we want, whenever we want it. It creates chaos, illness, dysfunction; in short, we sin ourselves to death. This isn’t “neutering;” this is health, sanity and salvation. It’s common sense. It’s self-preservation. To lose control of our appetites brings us to the Gates of Hell, as Dante knew:
Another misconception promoted by ['local-food'] activists is that the absence (or much smaller volume) of packaging material at farmers’ markets has significant environmental benefits, a notion that conveniently ignores the fact that food packaging has the dual advantage of protecting food from microbes and greatly prolonging shelf life. These advantages, in turn, significantly increase the probability of food being consumed instead of ending in a landfill or incinerator.
Pierre Desrochers and Hiroko Shimizu (2012),The Locovore’s Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-Mile Diet (footnote deleted), p. 101.
h/t: Cafe Hayek.