Commentary on ‘The Marriage Pledge’
July 11, 2011
It was no surprise when presidential hopefuls, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum signed a pledge vowing to “protect families.” Both Republicans have track records opposing gay marriage, civil unions and abortion. Both are outspoken in their support for ‘families’ rights.’ Each contend that allowing homosexual unions could jeopardize traditional marriages. This pledge, however, makes even typically conservative ‘family friendly’ positions look soft.
Candidates vow in the pledge to rally (among other things): against pornograhy, to uphold Jewish and Christian marriage traditions, and require an 8 month “cooling off period” before a divorce. Even more astonishing, they agree to maintain specific beliefs, and accept particular assertions as fact. However the most insensitive statement and absurd lapse of good sense occurs in the group’s opening bullet; that African Americans were better off as slaves, because at least the children were raised by two-parent households (though they ignore parts of history where those families were mistreated and separated at their master’s whim, as well as every other sexual indignation.) After public outcry, that reference has been since removed. But it turns out, Bachmann and Santorum didn’t mean to sign the racist part (that was oversight); just the homophobic and ultra-religious, and 1st Amendment restricting parts.
Just so we’re clear, when you see bold commentary, that’s me jumping in with a WTF… You can read the full document without my commentary at The Family Leader’s website.
THE MARRIAGE VOW: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY
The “i” in Family is intentionally lowercase to signify the insignificance of the individual.
Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order – as conveyed by Jewish and Christian Scripture, by Classical Philosophers, by Natural Law, and by the American Founders – upon which our concepts of Creator-endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend.
It’s a great argument to integrate church and state (in spite of that pesky 1st Amendment)? Forget Democrats and Republicans! The new ballot box question; Christian or Jewish. . .
Enduring marital fidelity between one man and one woman protects innocent children, vulnerable women, the rights of fathers, the stability of families, and the liberties of all American citizens under our republican form of government. Our exceptional and free society simply cannot endure without the transmission of personal virtue, from one generation to the next, by means of nurturing, nuclear families comprised of sexually-faithful husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.
K, I gotta jump in here. . . Loads of other “exceptional and free societies” had alternatives to “nuclear families.” Try Cultural Anthropology 1010 (or even an Anthropology textbook).
And the stability of women, children and families depends on republicans? Maybe if you remove the ‘free market’ conservatives; otherwise those ‘innocent children’ are the next generation of sweatshop labor.
We acknowledge and regret the widespread hypocrisy of many who defend marriage yet turn a blind eye toward the epidemic of infidelity and the anemic condition of marriages in their own communities. Unmistakably, the Institution of Marriage in America is in great crisis:
· Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President.
Note: the study cited for this claim looked at the years 1880-2005. The 13th Amendment that ended slavery went into effect in 1865, more than 15 years before the study began. And the study left off with the 43rd white president, not the “First African-American President.”
But suppose a moment the numbers work out; do the authors intend to suggest that African-American families were better off as slaves, because their parents supposedly stayed together? To say nothing on an important historical oversight: slave families were traded away, broken apart, forced into promiscuity, raped, forced with illegitimate pregnancies outside of marriage. . .
Well, perhaps the same medicine could apply to white people? Henceforth: gays, single parents, or anyone refusing to sign “The Vow” should face a life of conscription. . . It’s more family friendly, you see. While we’re on the subject, black unemployment was better then, too...
· LBJ‟s 1965 War on Poverty was triggered in part by the famous “Moynihan Report” finding that the black out-of-wedlock birthrate had hit 26%; today, the white rate exceeds that, the overall rate is 41%, and over 70% of African-American babies are born to single parents– a prime sociological indicator for poverty, pathology and prison regardless of race or ethnicity.
Ok, again with the black guys. . . We get it: black people need to stay freaking married. If only white cops weren’t targeting minority husbands, maybe. . . I’m not going to speculate.
· About one million U.S. children suffer through divorce each year – the outcome of about half of all first marriages and about 60 percent of remarriages, disproportionately affecting economically-vulnerable families.
Agreed. . .
· The taxpayer-borne social costs of family fragmentation exceeds $112 billion per year, especially when all costs to the justice system are recognized.
I’m not so sure. . .
· Social protections, especially for women and children, have been evaporating as we have collectively “debased the currency” of marriage. This debasement continues as a function of adultery; “quickie divorce;” physical and verbal spousal abuse; non-committal co-habitation; pervasive infidelity and “unwed cheating” among celebrities, sports figures and politicians; anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health.
Yes, exactly; all this deterioration. . . Damn Women’s Rights Movement!
The candidate vow
The Candidate Vows:
Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:
· Personal fidelity to my spouse.
· Respect for the marital bonds of others.
* Except, of course, homosexual marital bonds.
· Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.
* Except those amendments that allow porn, pro-gay free speech, or separation of church and state…
· Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.
· Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy.
So you’re asking politicians to pledge to think your way??? Is there an exit clause if evidence changes?
· Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling-off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.”
So again, the language is cloudy. ‘Anti-marriage’ aspects of welfare and tax policy? Meaning better welfare for married poor people than single parents? But they just said in the last bullet point that two-parent households have ‘greater financial stability.’ Are they suggesting we reach out to those who need the least help?
· Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.
· Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States.
· Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children –from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.
Porn??? You want to outlaw porn? According to the 1st Amendment, porn is covered under the free speech clause.
But there’s a more important question at hand here: what’s the penalty? Because if it’s a fine. . . well, it’s kind-of like a tax on top of the $1.99 a minute. Or maybe a stint in jail; that’d be better… After all, nothing keeps families together like unnecessarily separating families!
· Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.
No problem… we’ll just segregate the restrooms and barracks. This is the gay water fountain, sorry...
Quick question; is somebody actually suggesting we expose military wives and daughters to ‘rape and sexual leveraging?’ I bet it’s those damn anti-war liberals, again!
· Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.
* Except the Sharia Laws that oppose homosexuality and pre-marital sex, of course.
· Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.
Sarah Morice-Brubaker addressed this best, when she wrote,”As a parent, I am also very glad to learn of the pledge’s emphasis on ‘robust child-rearing and reproduction.’ For too long, child-rearing and reproduction has been allowed to be an exhausting, sleep-depriving business—not without its blessings, to be sure, but one could hardly call it ‘robust.’ In my own experience, the addition of newborns to our household resulted in a marked decrease of robustness, from which none of the adults have recovered. The children, meanwhile, keep getting robuster and robuster—and that is, quite frankly, bad planning.”
· Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA‟s $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.
· Fierce defense of the First Amendment’s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.
Michele Bachmann's Strange Paradigm: Oil and Madness
Michele Bachmann stands for the proposition that you can get it wrong and still get it right as long as you keep repeating the same wrong thing over and over again.
Click here to read more...
Chronicles of Summer DiVino
. Issue 1: How Summer DiVino and I killed Osama Bin Laden
· Issue 2: Michelle Bachmann and the hapless witch
· Issue 3: Summer discovers her altruistic self in the multi-verse