Phillip Blond is the founder of the think tank Res Publica in the UK, and appears in this video produced for the World Congress of Families in London:
He says: "The attempt to redefine marriage is profoundly important because what its actually saying is that a structure which has persisted, sanctioned by the religions, since the first inception, is to be erased in the name of a form of equality ... [but] it creates a society in which the differences can't be endorsed, respected and actually creates a situation where the interest of gay people and the interests of straight people are opposed, and that doesn't further any good for any of us."
16 Comments
The push to change the meaning of marriage to accomodate the few at the exspense of the many is simple tyranny in its rawest form.
Tyranny:
oppressive power ; especially: oppressive power exerted by government
Phillip Blond is more correct than he may know.
The origins of Totalitarianism go back to the French Revolution.
Under classic liberal enlightenment thought the traditional family is what is called a "intermediary social institution" That is it exist between the naked individual & the State.
There are any number of such institutions including Universities, Trade Unions, Religion, Poltical Parites, Press outlets, and the like...
These are covered under are "right to free assosiation" under the 1st amendment. The entire collection of these insitutioins, including the family are known as "civil society".
Of these "intermediary social insitutions" - marriage & the family has always been considered the primary one.
As old as Pericles the family has been considered a bulkwark against state tyranny.
Marriage & the family are considered to pre-exist the State and even religion. That neither created marriage, but that it evolved organically. The State did not create marriage, it simply recognizes it as one of our natural rights. That is why & how it became recognized as a fundemental consitutional right and international human right.
In the Mass. Goodridge case the Court says in the first paragraph of its decision - "quite simply the State creates marriage"
This is no mistake that the Judge in such a prominate case starts off with this argument.
If the State creates marriage it can uncreate marriage or redifine marriage.
A totalitarian state is considered one who dosent recognize these "intermediary social institutions" - Hence "totalitarian" = total social control by the state.
Marriage is the basis of the family and the family is considered to be the ulltimante "intermediary social institutions" - with rights against the State.. All this is well established fact of history and represented well in the case law.
That's rich. NOM is the place where differences can't be endorsed. In fact, making sure differences aren't endorsed is NOM's primary mission!
NAACP has endorsed marriage equality as a civil right!
Phillip Blond is more correct than he may know.
The origins of Totalitarianism go back to the French Revolution. Under classic liberal enlightenment thought the traditional family is what is called a "intermediary social institution"
That is it exist between the naked individual & the State. There are any number of such institutions including Universities, Trade Unions, Religion, Poltical Parites, Press outlets, and the like... These are covered under are "right to free assosiation" under the 1st amendment.
The entire collection of these insitutioins, including the family are known as "civil society". Of these "intermediary social insitutions" - marriage & the family has always been considered the primary one.
As old as Pericles the family has been considered a bulkwark against state tyranny. Marriage & the family are considered to pre-exist the State and even religion. That neither created marriage, but that it evolved organically.
The State did not create marriage, it simply recognizes it as one of our natural rights. That is why & how it became recognized as a fundemental consitutional right and international human right. In the Mass. Goodridge case the Court says in the first paragraph of its decision - "quite simply the State creates marriage" This is no mistake that the Judge in such a prominate case starts off with this argument. If the State creates marriage it can uncreate marriage or redifine marriage.
In short, agency is stifled by identity politics.
NAACP endorsed Ebonics because "they were born that way."
Randy, your racist remarks aren't helping you or NOM.
Randy
I think your right about the NAACP..They have made themselves generally irrelevant to African-American opinion at large. Those who even know who they are dont take what they say seriously because of silly leftist knee-jerk submission like the "ebonics" thing. They are not serious players even amoung the Left.
Also - watch for groups like this and others on the left to do what many such groups are doing now. Sure they sign on to the marching orders..However they dont really promote or bring their insitutional resources to bear on the issue. It just becomes another declaration burried amoungst other forgotten declarations.
This is particularly true of the NAACP that cant afford to look out-of-touch with its base.
Indeed their endorsment so late in the game may be a sign that they know SCOTUS is going to side against same-sex "marriage"..so they can afford this one time endorsment.
If they thought it was going to last would know that its protracted battle over individual and religious liberty will be fought with multiple black defendants (as it already has). This would be a P.R. disaster for a group like the NAACP - to be seen as siding with the gay left & gay "marriage" over multiple victims of their own people caught in the cross-fire for taking a principled stand.
NAACP does nothing to stop violence in the black communtiy. Yet they have time endorse gay marriage. They are just a puppet of Democrats and this strange progressive movement.
The NAACP banked on the fame of Rosa Park, but left her to live in squaler. She had to depend on her lanlord - a Anglo - to carry her until the day she past.
Much like their marriage corruption counterparts; the NAACP knows no shame.
"Riverfront Associates, which owns the downtown Riverfront Apartments where Parks has lived since 1994, quietly decided in early October to allow Parks to stay there rent-free permanently.
"I thought it was the right thing to do," managing partner Peter Cummings said Friday. "This woman is an icon. She deserves an enormous amount of respect. In a way, I think it's an honor to be able to accord her that respect.""
Phillip Blond is more correct than he may know. The origins of Totalitarianism go back to the French Revolution. Under classic liberal enlightenment thought the traditional family is what is called a "intermediary social institution" That is it exist between the naked individual & the State. There are any number of such institutions including Universities, Trade Unions, Religion, Poltical Parites, Press outlets, and the like... These are covered under are "right to free assosiation" under the 1st amendment. The entire collection of these insitutioins, including the family are known as "civil society". Of these "intermediary social insitutions" - marriage & the family has always been considered the primary one. As old as Pericles the family has been considered a bulkwark against state tyranny. Marriage & the family are considered to pre-exist the State and even religion. That neither created marriage, but that it evolved organically. The State did not create marriage, it simply recognizes it as one of our natural rights. That is why & how it became recognized as a fundemental consitutional right and international human right. In the Mass. Goodridge case the Court says in the first paragraph of its decision - "quite simply the State creates marriage" This is no mistake that the Judge in such a prominate case starts off with this argument. If the State creates marriage it can uncreate marriage or redifine marriage. A totalitarian state is considered one who dosent recognize these "intermediary social institutions" - Hence "totalitarian" = total social control by the state. Marriage is the basis of the family and the family is considered to be the ulltimante "intermediary social institutions" - with rights against the State.. All this is well established fact of history and represented well in the case law.
Fitz and Richard, can you show me where the NAACP
endorsed Ebonics?
"It's one thing to be compassionate toward people who are exceptions to the norm. It's another thing to redefine the norm."
David O. Coolidge
The Marriage Law Project
Thank you! But tell me, Is the world going mad? I'm praying for all of you out there on the front doing battle May God bless and be with you
Elizabeth.
A hundred years or so the dominate society forced Native American children to attend government schools to suppress their culture and indoctrinate them into the dominant culture.
I think all would agree now that was oppressive and despotic. It is just as much tyranny for a minority to force a change of a cultural institution on the general society today. I am a rebel and will not accept their re-definition of marriage.