Thread: Who Killed the American Family?

Who Killed the American Family?

by Phyllis Schlafly

September 11, 2013

Political support for traditional marriage seemed to evaporate in the summer of 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but the homosexuals are behaving as though it did and filing lawsuits in many states to expand the Court’s decision, while the advocates of traditional marriage have retreated into silence.
It wasn’t just that the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. It was the way that the 5-to-4 majority issued what Justice Scalia called a “jaw-dropping … assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives.”
Republicans in the House of Representatives had hired top legal talent to defend DOMA in court. After the Supreme Court decision, they quietly canceled their legal support for defending marriage and have said nothing since.
We hardly hear anyone standing up for the proposition that traditional civil marriage is essential. Marriage provides the legal construct that supports family autonomy for the benefit of the next generation and also for the kind of free America most of us want to live in.
Village is the progressives’ metaphor for the theory that the government, speaking through judges, psychologists, school personnel, and social workers, should supervise child rearing rather than parents. These government busybodies have co-opted the centuries-old concept of “the best interest of the child,” changing its meaning to justify a judge (rather than parents) making all decisions about children.
Millions of divorced dads have discovered that a judge on his own can decide that fathers have no right to see their kids, but must pay child support anyway. Many of our social ills are attributable to children being cut off from a relationship with their dads.
You might think that the court intervenes only when there is a nasty divorce conflict, or when a parent has some serious fault such as being a drug addict, but that is not true. No family is safe from a judge’s unilateral decisions.
When the popularly elected San Francisco sheriff had an argument with his wife, the authorities decided to bust up his marriage. Neither husband nor wife complained, and both wondered why it was anybody’s business.
The city liberals all said that his family was everyone’s business, so he was hit with a one-year restraining order preventing him from seeing his wife and child. He had to call on all his political friends to avoid losing his job.
Even if you are a libertarian who believes in writing your own marriage contract, the law makes it impossible to make a binding agreement for the custody and support of your own children. Any such contract can be voided and replaced with the biased ruling of some judge.
The nuclear family is the essential building block of a free society with limited government. The nuclear family is essential to have an economic structure of limited government because, without it, the government moves in to provide what the family would have done for itself. There are now 79 separate programs handing out taxpayers’ cash and valuable benefits totaling nearly a trillion dollars annually.
A combination of forces abolished the American family as we knew it. The many factors include changes in the law such as unilateral divorce, court decisions especially abuses by the family courts, the culture, curricula and customs from elementary grades through college, taxpayer financial incentives for illegitimacy, and pronouncements of self-appointed experts who think they know how to manage children better than parents.
We must shame and cut off taxpayers’ money from the groups that killed the American family, including feminists, judges, legislators, public school teachers and administrators, so-called child protection agencies, professors, psychologists, college courses, government handouts, and Democratic politicians who want big government spending in order to win votes. The problem cannot be remedied by prohibiting same-sex marriage (even by a constitutional amendment) or by telling men to “man up.”
Feminists demand that we abolish the patriarchy, and they argue that its worst offense is expecting mothers to care for their own children, so the taxpayers should pay for daycare for all children. Feminists are still whining on television in 2013 about President Nixon’s veto of the comprehensive Mondale daycare bill back in 1971.
All those who care about preserving religious and economic freedom that is the hallmark of America should realize that we cannot reassert constitutional rights, private enterprise, balanced budgets, reduction of government spending, and freedom from government management of our lives, without the traditional intact, self-supporting nuclear family functioning as the foundation of our society.

http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/column/who-killed-american-family.html


They, who is they?????? They can't kill the American family all it takes is for you and yours to bring it back....

Slippery Slope Alert! Three Way Marriage–Huh?!?

By Angel Rodriguez / 24 April 2014





Today I read about this three-way marriage, between three women. I know that some people are anti-gay, particularly religious folks. I respect your views on this matter, for personal or religious reasons. Your views are your views. Here is my personal stance on this topic: personally I don’t give a crap who you want to bang in your bedroom. That’s your business, and again, I don’t give a crap. That’s my opinion, and in no way is this the opinion of Clashdaily. It’s my own personal view, so if you take issue with it, then take issue with me, not the site.

That being said, it has been often said that allowing gay marriage was a slippery slope. Stories like the one I just mentioned, make me wonder about how far people with different views and lifestyles will try to take things. A three-way marriage? I even remember reading a story about a man that married his freaking Labrador! That’s a dog, by the way, in case you didn’t know. What in the world is wrong with this guy?

So, where do we as a society draw the line? As I mentioned I have no issue with gays. However, I do have an issue with polygamy. Before any pro-gay mafia types think about coming after me, let me say this to you. If this were a couple made up of two women and one man, or two men and one woman, I’d still be on here writing about them. So do yourself a favor, and save your energy. I’m not attacking gays. I’m attacking a three-person marriage, which happens to have three women.

Today, I was involved in another heated discussion with some people who support gay boy scout leaders. As I mentioned several times before, I have no quarrel with gays. I do have an issue with someone pushing an agenda on people that are not interested in it. I have an issue with the war on Christianity, and the hypocrisy of the far left. I also have an issue with an adult who wants to push or parade their sexual orientation on a group that exist solely for kids. I have never gone to any kids’ event and discussed my sexual preferences.

I’m as straight as an arrow, but I don’t go around saying, “Hey, everybody. I’m straight, look at me.” They are kids, and it’s none of their damn business. Why does your being gay factor into this equation? As far as the kids and you are concerned, sex doesn’t exist. Period. That’s why I have an issue with this push. Why make it a point to advertise or push your sexual preference? To the kids, we should all be non-sexual beings. You can be gay, and proud. I don’t care, but this is of no concern to the kids.

Again, this is my personal view. I’m sharing it at the risk of upsetting the Clashdaily readers, as well as the gay militant types, but if I can’t share my opinion, then how are we any different from the left with their consistent name-calling and personal attacks? No, I’ll be true to my own beliefs. It has always been that way, and I have no intention of changing to please anyone. Right or left. Apologies to anyone I may have offended, but as Popeye says, “I yam what I yam!”

In any case, I digress, so where do we draw the line? Animals? Three people? Dolls? All I’m saying is that there has to be a limit, and these three women are crossing the line. Technically only two of them are married, and one is attached in some other form or whatever. I don’t really care how they did it. My concern is that soon we’ll have a three-way marriage mafia, and the animal love mafia, and possibly a more aggressive push by those freaks who call themselves minor attracted people or what not. I fear that proponents of those other lifestyles will use the gay progress to further their own goals.
Image: Courtesy of: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinsaff/264706014/


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/three-way-marriage-talk-slippery-slope/#YYfp07pfwxI6AVOU.99