God Said: "Divorce = 1 Man + 1 Woman"

   Leaders of faith across the nation have suddenly become inspired by their convictions that God has defined marriage as being the holy union of one man and one woman. This has translated to a multitude of charged organizations to fund massive advertisement efforts in the fight to admirably protect the institution of marriage.
    One of these, the newly formed Texas-based non profit organization known as God Said has the pious goal "to switch 25% of African American voters from voting their political party to voting their Biblical values." They announced their focus to change the hearts and minds of a large swath of voters within the African-American community within the swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin through nearly $1 million in television advertisements.  Their website states it has the support of notable personalities as Dr. Day Gardner, former Miss America contestant, and Dr. Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King, as well as the Coalition of African-American Pastors.
    It would appear God Saiders are quite fixated on a firm belief that they have been offended by the backing of National leaders, like President Obama, who have supported same sex marriage.  Their foundational belief is that since the biblical Old Testament Book of Genesis depicted the first marriage as Adam and Eve, it has therefore been decreed that marriage is between one man and one woman.  They further state that God's Word is Final and that we should all Vote His Value.
    Suspiciously devoid from the ad against same sex marriage, is a widely paraphrased Biblical verse that "what God has joined, let NO MAN separate."  Perhaps highlighting this statement of God's was conveniently left for future ads?  It would seem that God Said, being a rather new organization, was too busy putting words in God's mouth while writing copy for same sex marriage opposition ads to be bothered with the other thing God Said: "Divorce = 1 Man + 1 Woman."  
    At least we can give credit to secular organizations, like the Maryland Marriage Alliance, who have acknowledged the existence of divorce and the role it has played in protecting family values.  Within the state of Maryland, they have added their own opposition of same sex marriage and perspective on the Question 6 referendum.  Their ads which, as of October 8, state that "Marriage is more than what adults want for themselves. It's also about the next generation.  Marriage provides children the best chance of being raised by a mother and father. While death and divorce too often prevent it, children do best when raised by their married mom and dad.  Everyone is entitled to love and respect, but nobody is entitled to redefine marriage.  Vote against Question 6."
    Perhaps Maryland Marriage Alliance can borrow from the ad tactics of God Said by rewriting thier ad to remind children of divorced families that: "Divorce = 1 Mom + 1 Dad."  We Agree.  Vote His values not your party. Be reminded of what God said.
 

The Fight for Life ... without Liberties

According to Rick Santorum's own article, entitled "My Fight for Life" in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), "the other Republican candidates simply check the pro-life box."  He contrasts his 'record' of fighting for the unborn to his opponents' (and President Obama's) records in what results in a virtual political advertisement published in the conservative-leaning WSJ.

In case you missed it, I'll paraphrase his fight for life argument and apply them to an equal protection of liberties argument - one of those liberties being the right of marriage (of any individual in the eyes of the U.S. government).

FIRST POINT - He states that "life is a right endowed by our Creator, that it is inalienable, laid down in the Declaration of Independence, and should be guaranteed under the Constitution. The right to life is the first right.  Without its protection, no other rights matter."

Santorum Translation: Given the U.S. Government hasn't protected the right to the unborn, there is no point to protect the liberties of the populace that live and are governed within the U.S.

SECOND POINT - He makes the argument that "the 14th Amendment states explicitly: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  The Constitution is clear. The meaning is inconvenient."

Santorum Translation: It is inconvenient of me to admit that United States Constitution equally protects liberties of ANY PERSON and that the States should have to equally apply liberties such as the right of marriage (in the eyes of the U.S. Government).


THIRD POINT - Mr. Santorum blatantly admits that he helped champion the confirmations of two conservative Supreme Court justices nominated by President George W. Bush which allowed the Supreme Court to change its precedents on partial-birth abortion.

Santorum Translation: With respect to the Supreme Court, if I were to be President I would submit Supreme Court nominees that can interpret the law through partial opinion and unfair judgements when the ideology suits my ideology.  I would expect that the Senate Judiciary Committee have the confirmation advise and consent toward those nominations as when I was a member.  Lastly, Supreme Court opinions pertaining to abortion, right of marriage (by any citizen), and similar liberties be judged with partiality and unfairness.


FOURTH POINT - Mr. Santorum accuses Ron Paul that he "embraces the 10th Amendment but ignores the 14th Amendment" pertaining to his position on abortion rights.  He further states "The Constitution protects not only property rights but people too.  What is liberty with the right to life?"

Santorum Translation: I don't embrace either the 10th Amendment or the 14th Amendment.  Basically, until the United States changes its position on abortion, those of you who are living should have unequally protected liberties. I believe that the U.S. Government should have full power over governing the liberties (like the right of any to marry) and furthermore, only certain individuals should have their liberties protected, and not equally.  

Mr. Santorum...here's a question. Can you truly be a President that would actually stand for an equal protection of liberties in the same fairness and fervor that you stand for the protection of the rights of the unborn?   Maybe it's best you not respond,... I think we all know the answer to that question.

Wanting the wedding cake, AND eating it too?

     The traditional marriage vow goes something like this:  "For richer, for poorer. Until death do us part." Those contemplating to publicly and in the eyes of God, make those vows as well those who are bent on preserving the 'institution of marriage' both have one thing in common - they don't want to or never seem to remember about divorce.  In these United States, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau report, there were 19.1 weddings performed per 1,000 men and 17.6 per 1,000 women across the U.S. in 2009, while divorces became final for 9.2 of every 1,000 men and 9.7 of ever 1,000 women.
    Adding to those that wish to conveniently divorce their minds of the facts, Ex-Senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum took the opportunity to deflect these impressive divorce statistics and instead concentrate on putting the blame for a record low rate of marriages on recent advances by insistent, same-sex, marriage equalitarians.  According to his Tweet it was one of the direct effects of changing the definition of who can and should not participate in the traditional marital act.  Among others, factors such as a greater emphasis of education and career development, social acceptance of (same- and opposite-sex) cohabitation, and an increasing desire by women and men to be financially independent before entering into marriage, were conveniently excepted from Mr. Santorum's argument.
     One wonders just what it is that keeps defenders and preservationists of marriage from being reminded of the seeming "check out clause" of the traditional marriage vow.  Perhaps they don't want to put the effort toward lobbying Congress to enact more stringent divorce laws in America?  Would they find themselves unable to uphold such laws?
     It's fairly apparent that divorce is quite likely what's being defended given the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), since it was enacted on September 21, 1996, was ineffective at curbing the tide of divorce.  Perhaps, again, much like the beaming bride-to-be in white and husband-to-be in black there are a great many that don't want to think about the matter of divorce.  DOMA was a non-starter for affecting a reduction in divorce rates because defenders and preservationists of divorce need to defend the "check out clause."  They want their traditional and sanctimonious wedding cake AND they want to eat it too.
     It's quite comical (and perhaps evidence of the above stated hypothesis) that a full website search of the National Organization of Marriage internet presence is devoid of any mention of,...not one reminder of the existence and prevalence of divorce.
     It would seem that defenders of the marital institution have an equally forgetful (or purposed defender of divorce) list of accomplices - the partnerships of Family Policy Councils, the Family Research Council, and (to a lesser extent) Focus on the Family.  They all concentrate on fighting for issues that ultimately codify who can enter into a marital relationship, human sexuality, abortion, parental rights, and pornography.  Lost in all these charged issues is the most important issue of all - THE RIGHTS AND WELFARE OF CHILDREN within the sanctimonious institution of marriage.
     Marriage preservationists might want to also be aware that, according to the same report, roughly 1.1 million children or 1.5 percent of all children in the United States, lived in 2009 in the home of a parent who divorced in the previous year. How about a Focus on the CHILDREN OF DIVORCE? How about a Focus on DIVORCE LAWS?
     Oh, that's right...these defenders want their cake and they are not leaving a piece of it for the children of divorce.  (Photo: Courtesy of Peter Dazeley/Getty Images)

How high must the fidelity bar be ??

     There is an old adage "Just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you can't read the menu."  While it may have originated as advice to support those who are on diets, it seems that many who are otherwise in 'loving and committed' religious-based relationships have taken such advice to heart...some see no issues in ordering from the menu as well.
      In recent weeks, we are reminded that politicians (and those that have publicly desired to become one, like Herman Cain), the very lawmakers in America that have written laws (like DOMA) based on the Defenders of Marriage cries and petitions for protection of the Sanctity of Marriage, have demonstrated their ability fall short of their goals of matrimonial faithfulness.
     Let's be reminded of the 'legal argument' Defenders of Marriage used to petition for the DOMA law, and why many of the very lawmakers who voted to legislate it (and potential politicians to execute those laws) are unable to stand by their supposed principles - Protect the Sanctity of Marriage at all cost!!
     A foundational tenet and obligation of marriage is fidelity. Merriam-Webster defines fidelity as 'quality or state of being faithful.'  In the bible, God equates marriage to a Covenant (Malachi 2:13,14,16), furthermore Paul in Ephesians 5 states that marriage is analogous to the relationship between Christ and the Church. 1 Peter 4:8 states, "above all hold unfailing your love for one another since love covers a multitude of sins."
     What is an acceptable level of fidelity?   Let's check with a politician wanna be, Mr. Herman Cain,... In the course of 3-4 weeks, a total of four woman have made allegations against him which have called into question is streak of non-fidelity. At first, we learned of allegations of inappropriate sexually suggestive behavior toward a two female employees while he was President of the National Restaurant Association.  Then a third, female ex-staffer complained that he displayed aggressive and unsolicited behavior, including suggestive remarks and inappropriate gestures. She claimed that he even invited her back to his apartment.
     During that period, we learned of the somewhat questionable website for the  Women for Cain, an online national fellowship of women that has as its National Chairperson none other than his wife Gloria Cain, that is dedicated to helping elect Herman Cain as the next President of the United States.
     Perhaps, marital fidelity has a bar set at 2 or 3 occurrences of unfaithfulness? Just when it was thought we were all ready to accept this, next comes a fourth woman, Ginger White, a longtime friend of Cain's, told an Atlanta-based Fox affiliate that they had engaged in a consensual, 13-year-long extramarital affair.
     After Mr. Cain was unable to deny this fourth occurrence and check with his wife, Gloria, today Herman Cain, potential executive agent of the DOMA law as President, just announced in a press conference that it's just not meant to be.
     Perhaps, we may have found at least one level of a marriage sanctimony fidelity bar that the American public is just not able to accept!  (Photo courtesy of Friends of Herman Cain, Inc.)

"The Bachelor" - Turning a Blind Eye

     Get ready viewers, the 16th season Bachelor has been named - Ben Flajnik!  First premiering on March 25th, 2002, prime time reality TV has brought to American culture The Bachelor where one man has the opportunity over several weeks of "exotic and exciting dates" through the process of elimination to progressively pick from 25 eligible single women that one true love. In true dating style and realities, each woman at any point along if she is no longer interested can decline his invitation to continue dating.  Of course, the season climax to this new-fangled courtship drama is how the lucky remaining woman responds if he pops the big question, "Will you marry me?"
     The concept of love and relationship finding on television is nothing new as The Bachelor is a fanciful spin on The Dating Game, but given the American conservative culture has guarded and preserved this precious institution so well to date, the goal of this reality show is - well, you guessed it...marriage.
     It is confounding that The Defenders of Marriage (see this Blog's sidebar) have been silent to the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), the network sponsoring The Bachelor.  Considering the show's trivial treatment of this hallowed institution, that it commands millions of viewers (many of which are impressionable young adults) during prime time makes one wonder if those defenders are in effect willing witnesses to a shaky cultural shift on the matter of marriage.
    The Defenders of Marriage have been bystanders for not one season, but 15 seasons of this trivialization. (Photo courtesy of The Hollywood Gossip)

Wed and KarDash ! - 72 Days

     “Sometimes things don’t work out as planned," that's the comment heard from Kim Kardashian shortly after divorcing Kris Humphries from a $10 million, 72 day, stellar show of sanctimonious bliss. Rather than raising holy hell, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) activists, the Family Research Council, and Catholic Church priests were instead running for cover.
     Here's an interesting article in the Washington Post, What Kim Kardashian's Divorce Can Teach Us About Marriage, which reminds us that the planning of a wedding is not the same as the planning of a life together. (Photo Courtesy of INFphoto.com)