On SCOTUS and Marriage: Keep The Fight Alive

In light of SCOTUS’ ruling legalizing same-sex unions, or SSM, nationwide today, I will say this: I will still hold my view that marriage is between a man and a woman. I’ve spent many years researching both sides, reading opposite views, and reaching a conclusion long ago that this is how I feel. No government or judicial decision will coerce me into changing my view on marriage. Neither should you. Does this mean I have malice towards those who hold an opposite view? Quite the contrary. Americans are free to believe whatever they want without fear of retribution. We should have mutual respect for our differing opinions while respectfully disagreeing. (Who knows when this mutual tolerance will be realized.) That’s a beautiful thing. Debate should be encouraged.

There are several things to reflect on moving forward: will religious liberty be respected? Will dissenting opinions still be respected or will the speech police silence us? Will churches be coerced into performing SSM against their will? Will businesses be shut down? Time will tell.

This decision illuminates how important and more successful we can be in advocating for civil society without government or quick legislative fixes. We need to have a coherent, thoughtful, fair discussion on marriage on the cultural front.

What say you? Agree? Disagree? Can both sides co-exist or will one ideology – that of our opponents- be shoved down our throats? Weigh in below!

Originally appeared on Facebook.

New Counter Cultured Article: Johns Hopkins Student Battles Campus Leftists

Yesterday we published an interview with John Hopkins student Andrew Guernsey up at Counter Cultured.

Here’s an excerpt:

The First Amendment is under siege in our country today. From articulating support for natural marriage to being politically incorrect, respectful disagreement over issues and intellectual diversity are strongly discouraged today.

One college student, Andrew Guernsey, has gone out of his way to challenge the “tolerance brigade” at Johns Hopkins University following its student government’s decision to bar Chick-fil-A from campus. As a result, this incident has garnered a lot of media attention. Andrew penned an op-ed in National Review and subsequently appeared on Fox & Friends to discuss why campus statists are wrong to suppress campus free speech. 

I recently interviewed Andrew to learn more about what happened on his campus and how he has played a role in fostering a discussion of socially conservative ideas with his peers.

Continue reading at Counter Cultured.

Expose the Intolerance of the ‘Tolerance’ Crowd

“What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly – that is the first law of nature.” -Voltaire

There has been a lot of discussion about tolerance recently. The mouthpieces of the “tolerance” crowd suggest that if we don’t accept gay marriage or leftist views, we should be condemned to hell, ostracism, IRS targeting, or lawsuits, to name a few. Two recent examples come to mind. Two gay businessmen invited Senator Ted Cruz for a campaign event only to condemn him afterwards for his so-called “bigoted views” after many in the militant gay “rights” movement threatened to boycott their businesses. (Pretty pathetic, right?) Funny how we must submit to same-sex marriage but can’t have our views respected. (Tyranny never sounded so delicious!) The second example is Sweet Cakes Bakery in Oregon. The persecution of its owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, is not new, however. They’re Christian bakers who were forced to close shop after same-sex marriage activists bullied their business into submission and subsequent closure. One lesbian couple even suggested their refusing to make them a cake was “mental rape.” (What a lofty, deluded accusation–and an offense to rape victims everywhere.) Free association is protected under the First Amendment. Christian bakers have every right to refuse service as gay bakers do, and vice versa.

The beauty of living in the United States is we enjoy boundless freedoms, especially free association and free expression under the First Amendment. Sadly, those who comprise the “thought police” under the guise of “tolerance” are eager to suppress alternative view points. It’s rather pathetic to see the rise of petulant children masquerading as adults who inject statism into discourse. For example, we hear and witness the following: “I don’t like your views, so I’m going to sue the pants off of you!” What are we becoming? The former Soviet Union? This stuff is getting ridiculous, especially with the media and government bureaucrats juicing people up through class warfare rhetoric.

Tolerance is a two-way street. Practice mutual respect, but don’t feel obligated to change your views to please someone. That’s cowardice. [Yes, you can hold a view and be civil with someone who disagrees with it! Imagine that?] Be kind unto others. [Many on the Left have yet to perfect this art.] Engage in dialogue respectfully. [If someone exudes immaturity and vapid qualities, forget it and move on. Don’t focus on the frivolous things in life.]

Be a good steward of freedom. Regardless of your position of the legal definition of marriage, encourage support for the First Amendment. Dissent is a beautiful thing!

What are your thoughts? Weigh in below. Be respectful or else…

More Power to Millennials Getting Married in Their 20s

stylemepretty

Credit: StyleMePretty (via Pinterest)

Who says Millennials–young adults ages 18-33–are balking marriage? Quite the contrary!

This past weekend, I had the pleasure of attending the wedding of two young conservatives who are very close friends of mine. Let me introduce you to the newly minted Mr. and Mrs. Meyer!

Loading

Congratulations to the newly minted Mr. and Mrs. Ron Meyer! #CeliaAndRonFromThisDayOn

View on Instagram

 

I love seeing my friends get married.  I attended two weddings this past year–a West Virginia wedding for my dear friend Angela in July and the aforementioned Virginia wedding this past weekend. It truly warms my heart that more Millennials are realizing that the institution of marriage is not a lost cause–or an institution rooted in slavery as some women have claimed. (Yes, some hold this bizarre belief that marriage is slavery.)

Notwithstanding, people–particularly Millennials–shouldn’t fear or loathe marriage. In fact, they should look forward to it one day. (I wrote about this subject in an article titled “We Should Look Forward to Marriage” for Marriage Generation in May 2013.) Though few of my close friends have taken the plunge, I expect more of them–myself included–to experience marriage in the future.

Though today’s culture reduces marriage to planning the ‘perfect’ wedding, having the ‘perfect’ diamond ring, and saying “Yes to the Dress,” many Millennials thankfully refuse to cheapen the institution.

A March article in Forbes highlighted this trend:

Once, marriage was seen as a “cornerstone” in life. Today’s Millennials see it more as a “capstone.” The marriage rate among 20-somethings may be at an all-time low, but not for lack of desire.

Due to many factors — a lackluster economy, radical feminism, marriage redefinition, divorce, infidelity, etc. – Millennials are skeptical about jumping into marriage. Those of us who regard the institution highly don’t want to settle for less or get divorced, so we delay marriage. Others wait until they’re financially secure to take the plunge. Whatever a Millennial’s reason to delay marriage, have discernment, practice delayed gratification, and remember to love yourself before you can love someone else.

To my fellow Millennials who are newly hitched or engaged–thank you for proving that marriage is still worth pursuing!

Saying Children Deserve a Mother and a Father is Bigotry?

Who knew that saying kids fare better with a mother and a father is a dangerous, bigoted concept?

Apparently tweeting support for natural marriage is hate-filled, unadulterated, and dangerous.

Case in point:

Disclosure: I support marriage between a man and a woman. (Gasp!) Anyone who’s known me since my high school days knows that I’ve held this view and don’t plan to change it. Religion isn’t telling me to believe this; I’ve done my own research, reading, and thinking to conclude this. If you disagree with these views, that’s perfectly fine. We have a beautiful right called the First Amendment. You’re entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. Respectful disagreement is perfectly acceptable. However, when you start painting mere disagreement of views as “bigotry” or “discriminatory,” I, like so many others, can’t take you seriously. How does reducing the exchange of ideas to ad hominem attacks encourage dialogue and strengthen our society? It doesn’t. You look foolish and desperate. Additionally, how do these people suppose they suppress our “dangerous, bigoted” thoughts? Implanting a microchip into our brains? Asking the NSA to spy on us? Bolshevized re-education? Sending the IRS on us?

Asking government to ban or discourage alternative views is not the solution. We’ve become so desensitized as a society that every conservative, anti-big government, religious, or pro-free market view is now perceived as racist, bigoted, and discriminatory. This is ridiculous.

Voltaire said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Be good stewards of freedom and discourse, not lackeys of statism and tyranny.

New Counter Cultured Article: Proposed Women’s Museum Isn’t Inclusive

I’ve penned a new column at Counter Cultured called “Proposed National Women’s History Museum Fails to Honor All Women.

Here’s an excerpt:

The late fashion icon Coco “Gabrielle” Chanel once said, “In order to be irreplaceable one must always be different.

The female establishment continues to hold our gender hostage by refusing to acknowledge and accept our differences. Not every woman is a man-hating, “empowered” pro-abort. Not every woman believes in neutralizing gender differences. Not every woman relies on government for empowerment. As a result, I must express my disappointment with the proposed National Women’s History Museum (NWHM).  

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently voted 383-33 on H.R. 863 to create a bipartisan commission to review the proposed museum, its placement on or near the National Mall, and potential affiliation with the Smithsonian. 191 Republicans joined all House Democrats to approve the commission. A vote is expected in the Senate soon.

The museum’s goals are outlined on its website:

The National Women’s History Museum’s vision is to build a world-class museum at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The National Women’s History Museum currently raises awareness and honors women’s diverse experiences and achievements through its dynamic online museum, educational programs, scholarship and research. Once housed prominently among the other great museums of Washington, D.C., it will create better understanding and greater partnerships among men and women. The National Women’s History Museum will be the first museum in any nation’s capital to show the full scope of the history of its women and will serve as a guiding light to people everywhere.

Continue reading at Counter Cultured.

New Townhall Column: Female Establishment Bosses Women Who Reject Radical Feminism

I’ve penned a new column at Townhall.com called “”All-Inclusive” Female Establishment Bosses Women Who Reject Radical Feminism.”

Here’s an excerpt:

Radical feminism is passé and in disarray. From pushing the wage gap myth to dismissing personal responsibility, our leftist sistas are clueless about true women’s rights.

How did birth control access become the only issue women care about? Who decided it was acceptable to destroy human life? More importantly, why should we look to big government policies to advance our gender?

Now, the feministas are going after Hollywood actresses.

In an interview for the May 2014 U.K. issue of Harper’s Bazaar, actress Kirsten Dunst defied the status quo and did the unthinkable: she came out against blurring gender differences!

“I feel like the feminine has been a little undervalued,” she says. “We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money, but staying at home, nurturing, being the mother, cooking – it’s a valuable thing my mum created. And sometimes, you need your knight in shining armour. I’m sorry. You need a manto be a man and a womanto be a woman. That’s why relationships work…”Unsurprisingly, these words weren’t well-received by radical feminists.

Jezebel writer Erin Gloria Ryan penned a blog post titled “Kirsten Dunst Thinks Ladies In Relationships Should Wife the F*** Out” calling Dunst “dumb” for not subscribing to feminist group think:

“I’m not going to couch this much because Kirsten Dunst is not paid to write gender theory so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that she’s kind of dumb about it, just as I wouldn’t be surprised if Gloria Steinem sucked at convincingly andheartbreakingly playing a mysteriousoversexed teen who kills herself in a Sofia Coppola movie. So, you know.”Uproxx’s Stacey Ritzen called Dunst an “insufferable person” for her refreshing comments on femininity.

Classy.

This behavior isn’t new. The female establishment has great disdain for dissent and independent views, specifically conservative and libertarian views.

 

Continue reading at Townhall.com.

UPDATE: Thanks to FreeRepublic and Heritage Foundation for the mentions!