Here’s a bit of pleasant news to kick off the week. As reported by Matthew Archbold:

Two abortionists in Maryland (Dr. Steven Brigham and Dr. Nicola Riley) were ordered to stop practicing abortions in Maryland after a woman was severely injured.

Subsequently, police raided the clinic searching for medical records and to their horror they discovered dozens of unborn babies stored in a freezer.

After being shocked and disgusted my mind raced back to an incident a few months ago.

This would be a strange and horrible story if it had never happened before but just a few months ago another abortionist, this one in Philadelphia, was discovered to be keeping aborted babies in jars.

The news story has been picked up and linked by many blogs, and it’s been posted on the Drudge Report, making the original story hard to reach as the server is struggling to handle the load of visitors. At this writing, 10 hours after the story was posted, there are 127 comments and 48 retweets. It seems to have hit a nerve.

I don’t understand the fuss. For decades feminists have been telling us that abortion is a morally neutral choice. They have claimed that what is being aborted isn’t really a baby, just a mass of unnecessary tissue. They have referred to it as a fetus, a lump of cells, even a parasite. So this is just the equivalent of the doctors keeping a few cell samples, right?

Nope. This is a moment of moral clarity. The common reaction by the people shows that we instinctively understand that we are not dealing with just a mass of tissue, but an unborn baby, stripped of its chance to live.

I’ve observed before that the left believes in the freedom of speech only when it is their speech being protected. I call this phenomenon “Free speech for me, but not for thee” because when the left disagrees with someone, they have no problem with denying the other person the chance to speak, or drowning out someone else’s speech with screams when the floor belongs to another speaker.

Let’s look at a few examples caught on camera. First, however a warning: some of these videos have foul language. You have been warned. Now, onward! Earlier this year in Chicago, six people stood up in the middle of the Holy Name Cathedral Easter Mass service, interrupting Cardinal George in the middle of his homily.

While these six people have every right to state their opinions, the middle of Easter services is the wrong time and place to do so. If you believe the government is wrong, then go to a government venue to express your opinion. Don’t pull your stunt in the middle of a church service, interrupting the worship of thousands of people. It is rude, boorish and counter-productive.

Here is another example of interrupting in an inappropriate time and place. I’m sorry that you’ll have to listen to Sheila Jackson Lee for 30 seconds at the beginning of this clip from Bill Maher’s show.

I’m not a fan of Bill Maher, but he makes a great point two minutes into the video: “You are in the audience. Audience comes from the Latin ‘to listen.’” Again, disrupting Bill Maher’s show with your 9/11 “truther” agenda is the wrong time and place, and it ultimately does your cause a disservice.

In the next video, the Recreate68 crowd in Denver gathers around a Fox News camera crew and strong-arms them out of their midst.

Caleb says it well in his report of this scene:

Throughout the event, these men and women exercising their freedom of speech lamented, in dramatic and ominous terms, their lack of free speech. Then in the middle of the event they decided to silence the Fox News crew.

For a peace protest, these guys sure are ready to make war. Not with enemies abroad, but with conservatives at home, real or perceived. Stop war, they cry. Just not theirs, apparently.

Remember that the First Amendment, which specifically mentions your freedom of speech, also safeguards freedom of the press. But if you disagree with the reporters or the network they represent, then their right to report the news is not to be honored. Classy.

OK, so I’ve been picking on the left for their tendency to interrupt at the wrong time and place, but the phenomenon of interrupting someone else’s speech isn’t exclusive to leftist radicals. In the next clip, several survivors of abortion stand up and interrupt a speech by Senator Obama:

I actually support the idea that abortion, as it is commonly practiced in the United States, is an abomination — but disrupting a speech to point this out is rude, and again, it’s the wrong time and place. The people had congregated to listen to Obama, not to the disruptors. This kind of interruption as as boorish and unwelcome as having a loud phone conversation or repeatedly yelling out the address of your MySpace page in a packed movie theater. The people in attendance paid to watch the movie, not to listen to you.

There is an appropriate time and place for actions and words. If you disagree with the government, some official, or a person’s position on an issue, then feel free to speak up! But pick the right venue. If you are going to protest, then do it with class, not crass. Here’s an example of a classy protest — at 1:15 into the following clip, a lone protester stands and holds up his sign. He says nothing — just holds up his sign.

Is he interrupting Sean Penn’s speech? Well, he’s not shouting and preventing Penn from speaking. He’s just holding up his sign. Had the others in the crowd left him alone, he would have continued to stand there quietly. Their actions caused more of a stir than he did. And their actions proved that they didn’t respect his right to free speech, as his sign was torn out of his hands. It’s worthwhile to point out that while he showed some class and respect for the people around him, this protester still picked the wrong place and time to make his point.

It’s easy to stand up for speech with which you agree, but it is much harder to stand up for speech with which you disagree. I dislike protests that disrupt the freedom of others to speak their mind. If you have something to say, then post to a blog, email your friends, call people on the phone, or stand on a street corner and just plain talk. Explain and convert as many people as you can to your position with the excellence of your rhetoric and argument. But as you want people to honor your freedom of speech, you should be prepared to honor theirs.

Don’t scream and shout when other people are talking. Didn’t your mom teach you that?

UPDATE: As I wrote this, a number of Code Pink protesters broke into the Republican National Convention to disrupt the proceedings. They interrupted Senator McCain’s speech and were promptly removed from the area.

Q.E.D.

In the first season of Babylon 5, the episode “Deathwalker” deals with a war criminal who was guilty of destroying multiple worlds decades earlier, during a major war. When she resurfaces on the Babylon 5 station, she avoids prosecution by the Earth administration by bribing them with an immortality serum she has developed.

This serum will cure any disease or injury and extend life indefinitely as it is taken. There is just one catch — the serum has a critical ingredient found only in living beings. For one person to live for decades by using this serum, many others must die.

Let’s pull this concept from a sci-fi television episode and imagine that such a serum exists today. Would you be willing to point to someone and request that person be ground up into the serum you need to remain healthy and happy? You might balk at the idea of converting someone living into a Soylent Green-like serum, but could you always refuse it? What if you had been diagnosed with a horrible wasting disease, and one injection would cure you? If you were taken to the hospital after a body-crushing accident, would you refuse the injection, knowing that it would remove your pain and fix your broken body? And as you stood looking over the unconscious form of your child in the intensive care unit, could you tell the doctor getting ready to inject your child with the serum that he should hold off?

I’m sure there are people who wouldn’t have any problem using the serum as an excuse to liquidate as many people as they could, based on the other person’s race/age/sex/job/nationality/shoe size/etc. Living a longer and healthier life would merely be a bonus to their genocidal desires.

You might be willing to sacrifice someone you don’t know or care about so that you or someone you love could live a few more healthy and pain-free years, but would you be as happy to have this serum available when anyone else could nudge a doctor and point to you as preferred serum material?

Of course, this idea is just silly. No one would ever think of sacrificing a human life just to keep another alive. Right?

Well, no.

The concept of embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of the embryos to get at their stem cells. But it’s no big deal, the abortion supporters tell us, because embryos are just masses of tissue, you know. An embryo isn’t really a life, they say, so we don’t have to be concerned about it. This reasoning makes it OK for us to point to that embryo and say, “Sacrifice that bit o’ tissue so I may live.”

And so what would have become a living, breathing human being has been sacrificed for a hypothetical cure-all serum that has not yet been created. Yes, you read that right. At this writing, embryonic stem cell research has yielded no cures. But if we are to believe the proponents of embryonic stem cell research, it will cure every ill known to man. Christopher Reeve was paralyzed by an accident, but embryonic stem cell research could cure all paralyzed people. Michael J. Fox has Parkinson’s disease, but embryonic stem cell research could cure his disease, too. It seems that embryonic stem cell research will cure everything based on the pie-in-the sky wishes of the supporters. In my family, when we discuss some cure-all, we often joke that it will cure “rabies, scabies and babies.” Well, embryonic stem cell research will certainly cure you of the “disease” of babies if you sacrifice them on the altar of “research.”

But there is hope. Adult stem cell research has actually yielded some very promising results, and that’s more than embryonic stem cell research has done. But you don’t hear much about it in the press because it isn’t the political hot potato that embryonic stem cell research has become. Occasionally, though, some good news will surface.

If scientists had confidence that embryonic stem cell research could and would product wonderful results, there would be people willing to put up venture capital to fund the research. This isn’t happening, so the scientists who are wedded to the idea of stem cell research want the government’s pocketbook opened up for their benefit. And when Uncle Sam writes a check, he does so by pulling the money from your bank account.

Here’s one last thing to consider: embryonic stem cell research is indicative of a trend of cheapened human life in our society, brought about these last three decades thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe vs. Wade. You can also see the way human life has lost its value whenever someone says, “I’m sure she wouldn’t want to remain in this vegetative state, so let’s pull her feeding tube,” or “They’re getting so old that their quality of life has gone down. It’s time we euthanized them for their own good.” It also explains the gruesome story coming out of Miami, Florida. (hat tip to the Ornithophobe.)

But that’s what we get when we are more concerned about using others than about their own right to life. Get those Soylent Green processing plants working at max capacity, and grind the unwanted into immortality serum for the rest of us. After all, we deserve and demand it. Just ask Michael J. Fox.

Abortion hit the news in a big way when the South Dakota legislature drafted a bill that would outlaw nearly all abortions in the Mount Rushmore State, and Gov. Mike Rounds signed it into law on March 6, 2006. The only exception to this abortion ban is to preserve the life of the mother. Allowing abortions for the health of the mother would allow abortions for mental as well as physical health reasons. South Dakota lawmakers also did not add provisions for cases of rape or incest. This state law now becomes the strictest anti-abortion law in the U.S. I am in favor of allowing abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother, if the mother so chooses; these three conditions are commonly supported by proponents of anti-abortion laws.

But the liberal feminists neither want nor ask for my opinion on abortion because I am male. It’s all about a woman’s choice, and men have nothing to do with it. As I figure it, a man contributes 50% to every conception, but that’s my narrow-minded conservative philosophy talking, don’t ya know?

Some of the news surrounding this SoDak law is interesting. Here’s a sentence from a Washington Post article: “The bill was designed to challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe, which in 1973 recognized a right of women to terminate pregnancies.” This is inaccurate; technically, the Supreme Court ruled that there was a right to privacy between a woman and her doctor. Abortions were widely legal before the 1973 decision, but each state had the right to decide whether or not it would allow them to be performed. And if you are familiar with your 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, that which is not specifically granted to the federal government or forbidden to the states and people is a right held by the states and people. If Roe v. Wade were tossed out by the current Supreme Court tomorrow, it would not make abortion illegal. It would only place the responsibility of determining whether abortions will be performed in a particular state back with that state, and the representatives elected by the people of the state.

This is alluded to in another section of the Washington Post article:

National abortion rights organizations said the South Dakota vote has set the stage for a new fight to keep abortion legal at the federal level and in the states. “When you see them have a ban that does not include exceptions for rape or incest or the health of the mother, you understand that elections do matter,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “We will be very active in ’06 and in ’08 in electing candidates that represent the views of most Americans.”

Keenan is talking about making sure that pro-abortion candidates are elected, but she doesn’t like it when representatives make decisions against abortion as they did in South Dakota. The irony of her statement is that elected representatives mean nothing to the abortion debate as long as the majority of nine justices in black keep Roe v. Wade upheld. Unless that decision is overturned, abortion will remain legal throughout the U.S. Feminists love Roe, viewing it as holy writ from the justices’ bench, but the Supreme Court justices are merely human and have made some incredibly bone-headed decisions before. I can name three examples off the top of my head: Dred Scott v. Sandford, which supported slavery; Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld the practice of segregation under the phrase “separate but equal;” and the recent Kelo v. New London ruling that pisses on your right to own property.

The Supreme Court is not akin to Moses descending from Sinai with commandments from God. Nine appointed people give their collective opinion, and sometimes that opinion can be wrong, as proven by how later Supreme Courts have overruled past decisions.

Mark Levin wrote about this right to privacy found by the Supreme Court:

So the right to privacy means everything and nothing. It has no constitutional basis and no tangible form. But what is clear is that the Supreme Court, by usurping the legislature’s authority to set social policy, has seized from the people the power to make such determinations. A mere five justices are now able to substitute their personal judgments for those of Congress and every state government in the name of privacy rights. This quiet revolution against representative government has gone largely unnoticed. The exception is the occasional Court decision on “hot button” issues in which the attention is mostly on the Court’s ruling, not on its abuse of power.

I would prefer that issues like abortion be handled by the individual states. It follows the model specified in the Constitution, after all. With the states in charge, the people can choose what, if any, restrictions they want to place on abortion. This way it would truly be up to the will of the people, and not a group of Supreme Court Justices seeing a penumbra of an emanation of a right in the Constitution, as Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1965 when the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives.

Current supporters of abortion point to sob stories about women who must sacrifice to have an abortion. The Register Guard outlines one such example:

When 20-year-old Courtney found out three weeks ago that she was pregnant, it hit the single mother – already struggling with a 1-year-old – like a brick. She cried, she talked to friends and came to a heart-wrenching decision: She wanted an abortion.

Then the real work began.

She had to take off two days from her mechanic’s job in a small South Dakota town, find a ride and travel six hours one way to the state’s only abortion clinic.

“This is supposed to be a country of freedom. I don’t think you should have to feel humiliated about a choice that is best for your own life,” she said.

Notice that even Courtney admits this decision is what is best for her own life. It certainly wasn’t the best decision for the life of her aborted baby, but Courtney’s self-centered decision is not at all uncommon. A 2004 study found that over 90% of the reasons given for abortion were essentially matters of convenience — not being able to afford the baby, or not being ready for it, for example. Rape or incest abortions accounted for less than half of 1% of the responses. If it weren’t for the 6% catch-all category of “other,” I could say over 99% of abortions performed in the U.S. were for convenience’s sake. But what can we expect from our self-centered culture?

Let me close with a bit of advice offered up by my wife: if you don’t want to get pregnant, abstain.

No, I will not vote for John F$#@*ing Kerry. I cannot. My principles won’t allow me. But let me explain why I won’t be voting for Kerry come this November.

Kerry is a liberal Democrat. That’s really sufficient in and of itself. The core beliefs that I have been writing about on this site for almost a year now are mostly at odds with commonly-held liberal beliefs. I am against abortion, as is Pope John Paul II. But John Kerry is for abortion, in direct conflict with his religious leaders. How can he be an active member of a religion when he does not follow the tenets of that religion? The answer is simple — Kerry is a liberal Democrat.

Kerry is vague when it comes to saying what he really believes. What are Kerry’s core values? Where does Kerry draw a line and say, “Beyond this line, I will not cross”? Kerry has demonstrated again and again that he will come down firmly on both sides of an issue, any issue. Kerry has flip-flopped on welfare reform, abortion issues, the 50-cent gas tax hike, gay marriage, the Patriot Act, and others. This is the man who tossed his medals over the White House fence in protest, only they were his ribbons – no, rather they were someone else’s medals he tossed, that he meant to toss his own, but he left them at home. Will the real facts please stand up?

I think this may be the best example of a classic Kerry flip-flop: on January 22, 1991, Kerry wrote to Wallace Carter explaining how he voted against the resolution for going to war with Iraq after it invaded Kuwait and wanted sanctions to run their course. A mere nine days later Kerry sent another letter to the same Wallace Carter, saying, “From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis…” Same Kerry, same constituent, nine days, two different positions. Even Kerry himself recognizes his own flip-flops, as when he said, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

Speaking of military spending, Kerry has consistently voted against valuable military programs. Things like the B-2 bomber, the Tomahawk and Patriot missiles, the Apache helicopter, the M-1 Abrams tank, and numerous fighter jets. Had Kerry had his way with these votes, the United States military would not have the necessary equipment to protect itself and wage effective war on our enemies. When anyone brings up Kerry’s voting record on military spending, this liberal Senator from Massachusetts quickly deflects the question and complains it is an attack on his patriotism. Senator, your very own votes cast doubts on your patriotism. And you can bet that my military upbringing gives me a very dim view of Kerry’s record.

Kerry did serve in Vietnam, and for that, I do thank him. But when he came home, he shamed the very uniform he had worn before. He testified before Sen. Fulbright’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee saying, “I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages.” With strong language like that, you’d think he were guilty of something almost as bad as putting women’s panties on Iraqi prisoners’ heads. Senator John McCain testified in 1973, two years after Kerry’s testimony, that the North Vietnamese used Sen. Fulbright’s committee testimony of Kerry and others as “the most effective propaganda” against him and other POWs. The actions of Kerry and other Vietnam war protesters like Jane Fonda, Clark Clifford, and Ramsey Clark “gave aid and comfort to the enemy and probably caused some of my guys to get killed.” This quote is from Gen. George S. Patton III, speaking specifically of John Kerry. In case you haven’t realized it, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution states that giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a form of treason.

“I’ve met with foreign leaders who can’t go out and say this publicly,” Kerry said in Florida. “But, boy, they look at you and say: ‘You’ve got to win this. You’ve got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.’ Things like that.” Kerry has refused to back up this claim, or to say when and where he had the time to meet with these foreign leaders. While we can speculate over what nations would like to see Kerry win *cough* France *cough* Germany *cough*, there are some leaders who have stepped forward to be counted. Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain, is one. He was elected days after the March 11th bombings in Madrid. Spaniards marched in the streets to show that terrorists couldn’t break their spirit, then they crawled into the voting booths and voted for Zapatero, who promptly surrendered to al-Qaeda and bowed out of Iraq. Gee, what an ally. Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (a self-proclaimed anti-Semite) said, “I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world.” In other words, stop doing your own thing, America, and start doing what the world tells you to do. I have just one thing to say to Mahathir: “John F$#@*ing Kerry you!”

Kerry stated in August of 2003, “And I’ll tell you, after I’m sworn in, one of the first things I’m going to do is go to the United Nations and turn over a new chapter in America’s relationship with the world, one that strengthens our security and our safety.” Yep. Kerry would go back, hat in hand, to the UN and get in their good graces. This is the same UN that was in the pocket of Saddam Hussein and his “Oil for Food” money. This is the same UN who was willing to stand up to a brutal dictator this way:

“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it.”
“Stop it. And this time we really mean it.”

Yep. Seventeen resolutions later, the UN wanted to write up an eighteenth when Bush said, “John F$#@*ing Kerry it!” and got the job done. This organization of thugs and dictators is the one that Kerry would approach to get his validation as President. Good move if you are the Secretary General of the UN, but a bad move if you are the President of the United States.

So, no. I won’t be voting for Kerry.

Addendum (6/29/2004): I have posted my reasons why I will vote for President Bush here.

In the last article, I wrote how the institution of marriage has been under attack for many years now. And the issue of gay marriage is just the latest in this group of attacks. In this article, I’ll explain why I am not in favor of gay marriage.

Infidelity is a big enough problem among heterosexual couples, but it is even worse among gay couples. In Amsterdam, where gay marriage is legal, infidelity and promiscuity are the norm, not the exception. “Those with a steady partner and those without reported having an average of 8 and 22 casual partners per year, respectively.” [cite] In another study looking for faithfulness in 156 male homosexuals, no couple that had been together longer than five years had a faithful relationship. Of the seven couples that were monogamous, none remained exclusively faithful to each other for longer than five years. All relationships lasting longer than five years, even the one lasting 37 years, had some agreement which allowed for infidelity. These are not so much faithful companions as roommates. [cite] Since infidelity is a bad thing for traditional marriage, how will adding the rampant infidelity of gay couples do anything to improve the institution of marriage?

Gay relationships are also linked with domestic violence. Almost 50% of gay men suffer domestic abuse serious enough to require hospitalization. For lesbians, violent domestic abuse reaches 55%. If emotional abuse is added to these statistics, the numbers reach 83% and 84% for males and females, respectively. [cite] This level of domestic violence is much higher than in heterosexual couples, so how is legalizing gay marriage a benefit to marriage as an institution?

One major reason given in favor of gay marriage revolves around the legal benefits that accrue to married couples. But these very same benefits are available for non-married couples, and it doesn’t require the ham-fisted force of government to provide them. Homosexual advocates demand that gays be allowed to marry so they can reap the same legal benefits that married couples have. Common requests I have heard deal with hospital visitation rights, joint ownership of property and bank accounts, and inheritance, among others. All of these benefits can be obtained through common legal documents. It doesn’t require an act of Congress to make these things happen. If a gay couple really wants these benefits, they only need to act. It is true that married couples have many of these benefits without the need of the same legal documents, but these were put in place for the benefit of the children born into a family and for their parents. And when you come down to it, it is in the government’s best interest to promote couples bearing future tax-payers. Regardless of how much they try, a homosexual couple will never have children together.

But what is the ultimate goal of the gay advocates? What is it that drives them to argue for marriage? It can’t be the legal benefits, for those are already available to the people who want them. A common demand of gay activists is that people tolerate other lifestyles. But these gay activists no longer seek tolerance. They are demanding that people accept them. Not only must others tolerate and turn a blind eye to their actions, they must now actively accept that the gay lifestyle is just as valid and good as the heterosexual lifestyle. I can’t help but think of the poem by Alexander Pope:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen,
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
Essay on Man (ep. II, l. 217)

If gay activists have their way, and the government steps in and redefines marriage as the union of two people rather than the union of a man and woman, what will follow? Two things, and quickly. First, once gay marriage is legal in the U.S., then lawsuits will be filed to force churches to accept and perform gay marriages. All pretense of seeking tolerance will vanish at this point; the club of lawsuits will be used to force full acceptance of the gay lifestyle on everyone. Second, the institution of marriage will be dealt what will likely be its death-blow as every possible redefinition of marriage will be pushed forward in the courts. If the definition can be changed once, it will be that much easier to change it again and again. Just think, marriage will become the union of:
– a man and multiple women
– a woman and multiple men
– multiple men and multiple women
– an adult and a child (can you say NAMBLA?)
– a living person with a dead person
– humans and non-humans

A society that cherishes and promotes healthy, happy marriage between a man and a woman is a society that will thrive. Gay unions, even in countries where they are fully legal and accepted, do not come close to providing the same healthy and happy benefits as heterosexual unions.

I hold no hatred for gays. But I do recognize that their call for marriage creates no benefits for anyone, and the potential for great harm to themselves, others, and society as a whole.

And I cannot support it.

“Captain, how could you have written your article about gay marriage? You are such a homophobe!” A homophobe is someone who is afraid of gays in the same way that an acrophobe is afraid of heights or an arachnophobe is afraid of spiders. A phobia is an irrational fear of something, but the term “homophobe” has been used to mean “hatred of gays” and not just an irrational fear of them. And it is currently used as a term to shut people up, just as calling someone a fascist or Nazi is often used to silence the opposition. I have neither fear nor hatred of gays or their lifestyle. While it is true that I do not condone their lifestyle, this is worlds away from fear and hatred. Heck, there are lots of lifestyles that I do not condone, so I’m not just picking on gays here.

“If gay marriage becomes common, that means my wife and I will have to get divorced, since gay marriage will damage the institution of marriage.” While this is a cute argument, the weakening of marriage as an institution does not mean that each and every specific marriage is on the rocks.

Do we agree that marriage today is a weaker institution than it used to be back when our parents and grandparents were married? Many things have combined in the last 3 to 4 decades to weaken the institution of marriage.

Free Love

The idea of “free love” that gained popularity in the 60s has had a destabilizing effect on marriage. As the saying goes, “why buy the cow when the milk is free?” Armed with the cry of “If it feels good, do it,” this generation justified doing just about everything. The end result was a breakdown in the institution of marriage. After all, why get married when shacking up together gives you everything you need? Hand-in-hand with the idea of free love come the twin ideas of promiscuity and unfaithfulness. If there are no vows of marriage, it is easier to let the eye (and body) stray to the next available person who crosses your path. Infidelity and heartbreak are rampant when your lust rules your actions.

Abortion and other forms of birth control

Access to abortion and other forms of birth control, most especially the Pill, has weakened marriage. It used to be that if a young couple get pregnant, they got married shortly afterwards. The end of “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers” illustrates this idea as the closing scene shows the fathers standing close behind the couples and giving their armed blessing to the marriages. Since they didn’t know which of the girls had given birth, they were all going to be married to save their honor. Old fashioned? Judging by today’s standards, it sure is. But it worked. Couples started off, albeit a bit tardy, married so the children would come into a home with both a mother and father.

These days, men don’t feel concerned about sleeping around. If the girl isn’t on the Pill, then she can always get an abortion. This attitude has freed men from worrying about getting the girl pregnant. After all, isn’t it the girl’s responsibility to make sure she’s taking the Pill? And if she’s forgotten and gets pregnant, who cares? “Doing the right thing” has come to mean paying for the abortion, rather than getting married and raising up the child.

Illegitimacy

In the last few decades, the rise of illegitimacy has been astounding. We have reached the point where a black child has about a 25% chance of being born to married parents. A generation of children has grown up knowing only Mom and a steady stream of boyfriends. The stigma of illegitimacy on children is no longer as onerous as it used to be, and I can’t help but think that is a good thing. After all, it is not the child’s fault that his or her parents were not married. The blame falls squarely on their shoulders. But where this once used to be a shameful, scandalous thing, in certain circles it has almost become the norm. And unfortunately, illegitimacy is often attended by violence. A woman and her child are much more likely to be beaten by a live-in lover than by a husband.

Divorce

Divorce, too, used to be a scandal. Before a couple could be divorced, one had to be shown to be at fault. Because a divorce was frowned on by society and difficult to obtain, couples often chose to stick together and work out their difficulties. But with the advent of “no-fault” divorce, it became much easier for a couple to part ways. All you had to do was claim “irreconcilable differences” and you were quit of each other. Since it was so easy to get divorced, why worry about choosing your mate carefully? And with divorce so simple to obtain, why work at kindling a more lasting love when the brief flush of lust has worn off? Bored with your spouse? Get a divorce and start looking for a new love. And with divorce so easy, some people started looking for a new love while still legally bound to the old one. I have heard people say that if they are already planning to get a divorce, dating around is OK. Infidelity between married people destroys the institution of marriage just as surely as infidelity between unmarried people does.

Effects on children

A happy marriage between a loving man and woman is the best environment for raising children. While this is not always possible, this is the optimal situation, and people should not aim for anything less. Children who are raised by a father and mother can see how to treat their spouse when they grow up and get married. I learned how to treat my wife with loving tenderness by watching how Dad treated Mom as I grew up. I fully understand that it is not always possible for children to be raised by both a father and mother. My wife’s father died when she was only twelve. I know of another who divorced her husband when his sexual abuse of the children was made known. While I am not in favor of no-fault divorces, this is a case of a crystal-clear fault, and I agree with the divorce. Both of these instances resulted in a single parent raising the children. It isn’t the best option, but it is the best they could do because life doesn’t always grant us the best even when we strive for them.

And now for something that will make some people mad at me: if a single woman is pregnant, she should think of the child’s best interests and give it up for adoption. This is the best way to ensure that the child will have both a father and mother. This isn’t always in the best interest or desire of the mother, but if she isn’t selfish, she will recognize that a loving couple could provide much more for the child than she can by herself.

So far I have listed several ways that the institution of marriage has been under attack for decades. Society suffers as marriage suffers. My next article will talk specifically why gay marriage is not something I can support.