Marching on the Right Side of History


Our friend Dr. J writes at the Public Discourse that Defenders of marriage should draw hope and courage from the pro-life movement’s success:

As an advocate of conjugal marriage, I am often told that I am on the “wrong side of History.” The justice of “marriage equality” is overwhelming; the younger generation favors it; same sex marriage is inevitable. But this analysis is false. Indeed, there is ample reason to think that the March of History storyline will be proven incorrect. The reason? We were told all these same things about abortion.

… A funny thing happened on the way to History: the people did not perform as promised. Last year, I took a group of Ruth Institute students up to the West Coast Walk for Life in San Francisco. Official estimates place the attendance at over 35,000. But I wasn’t counting. I was looking at the faces. I saw what anyone can see, if they care to look: the pro-life movement is a youth movement. [Continue reading]


  1. Posted January 24, 2011 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    That was a really great article!
    Let's hope people do wake up to this perversion of manufactured counterfeit families!

    Mothers and Fathers are NOT interchangable!

  2. Connie
    Posted January 24, 2011 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    There is a detachment in the gay and lesbian acting people that I come in contact with and I know a few. How can they know what they are missing if they do not know they are missing it? How can they raise a loving productive human being to contribute and live a good life if that human being doe not see the difference of the gender roles growing up in the home. Yes they learn a lot from society and not all good, but more from the home a mother and father.

  3. Jamie ward
    Posted January 24, 2011 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    A gross majority in the U.S. support a women's right to privacy. Pesky facts.

  4. Mike Brooks
    Posted January 24, 2011 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    Great article. Parents with kids today appreciate the damage that the liberal 60s mentality has done to society, and there's a conservative backlash taking place.

    I live in a very liberal suburban community, but our parental perspectives are very conservative: we don't want our kids having sex at the age of ten, we don't want them contracting lethal STDs, we don't want them saddled with the responsibility of a child before completing their education, we don't want them struggling as a single parent, and we don't want them to have to suffer as a homosexual in a heterosexual society. Our kids are being taught conservative values, notwithstanding what is being taught in the schools and what they might see on television and the movies (if we allow them to even see it).

  5. Jeannie
    Posted January 24, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Of course NOM and anti-gay organizations (many of which have been formally identified as hate groups) stand on the wrong side of history. Taking away people's rights is never a winning game. NOM can be sure that gays and lesbians will be there tirelessly, again and again, to fight for our rights.

  6. Jamie Ward
    Posted January 24, 2011 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Connie knows "a few" gays and lesbians and she's badmouthing them behind their backs. She probably smiles and pretends to be their friends to their face. How Christian of her, huh?

    I know many gays and lesbians. They are mostly indistinguishable from me (I'm straight). They like hanging out with friends, call their moms on saturday, and go to work just like I do.

    I'm sure Connie thinks the gays are mixing martinis all day, having all male pool parties, and going to the disco at night. That's called prejudice, and it couldn't be further from the truth.

  7. Michelle
    Posted January 24, 2011 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    So, she is advocating that any parents who are not the biological parents can never have the same connection with the children they raise. This dismisses every single adoptive child as being parentless. She dismisses every parent who has a child through any means not "standard" according to her, as not being a fit parent. She dismisses all surrogate parents. She wants everything to fit into her neat little box, and yet the world has not worked that way in many a year.

  8. TC Matthews
    Posted January 24, 2011 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    You seem to know a lot of straw men Jamie... especially considering you don't know Connie at all. Nice to make assumptions about her though. Do you enjoy people doing the same to you?

  9. Peter
    Posted January 24, 2011 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    Mike Brooks,
    You wrote, "we don't want our kids have to suffer as a homosexual in a heterosexual society. Our kids are being taught conservative values..."

    I hope none of your kids turn out to be gay. But if one or more does, they won't suffer if you accept them and their sexuality. But if you are already pressuring them to hide their true sexuality, they will suffer for certain.

  10. Rick DeLano
    Posted January 24, 2011 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    Well Dr J I can tell you the Walk for Life West Coast was 50,000 strong this year and the only noticeable opposition I could see was a bunch of Revolutionary Communist Party kids.

    I like our chances 🙂

  11. Kathryn
    Posted January 24, 2011 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    TC: and from your comments on this blog, you seem to make an awful lot of assumptions about gays and lesbian relationships and homosexuality.

  12. TC Matthews
    Posted January 24, 2011 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    Would those be assumptions like a man isn't a woman, and a woman isn't a man? Or no number or men can possibly equal a mother? Yeah. You're right Kathy.

  13. Joanne
    Posted January 25, 2011 at 12:46 am | Permalink

    Jamie & Michelle - Red herrings and exceptions to the rule are not persuasive. Being supportive of the current legal definition of marriage (one man-one woman for life) is NOT being "anti-gay". Why do YOU assign homosexuals to an inferior status by assuming that heterosexual marriage marginalizes people in society? Does being single and unmarried marginalize heterosexuals who can't marry? And why try to make human biology irrelevant? Just because human beings are mammals does not make finding a mate into a civil right! Mating is what it is: we cannot pretend sexual differences and naturally ensuing reproductive and kinship ties are irrelevant!

  14. Joanne
    Posted January 25, 2011 at 1:33 am | Permalink

    Dr. J's main point is valid: children do not believe the lie that sexuality and kinship ties are irrelevant, just as they do not believe killing a fetus is a good. To a child, it is a horror. Adults deceive themselves if they pretend the ends justify the means in family life. Just as abortion is by nature inhumane, the "gay marriage" hoax will be viewed as such by future generations. These are irreplaceable losses of potential life and relationships. As a child, I lost my mother (to death); there is NO replacement for that unique bond, even though another woman entered the family and did the best she could as "substitute" mother. There is no real substitute, just "second best", which may be very good, but it is NOT the same. The grief is never gone. The accompanying loss of biological kinship is also real and must not be dismissed; you lose not only one parent, but a whole kinship set. The idea that a man could have been an equivalent substitute for my mother, with no loss experienced or felt by me as a child, is beyond absurd. It is not only naive but cruel to assume that the sexuality of any parent is irrelevant to children, whether the same or opposite sex from that parent.

  15. CuriousGeorge
    Posted January 25, 2011 at 9:07 am | Permalink


    First off, projecting your own life experiences and bias on the entirety of the outside world is absurd. Have you met a child being raised by a same sex couple? Have you heard them express anything remotely missing from their life?

    As far as "killing a fetus"; I weep that this choice has to be made at all. A child deserves to be created responsibly - where both sex partners have the purpose of bringing life into this world. The lack of parental character and ability of the sex partner's parents cannot be understated. The need for abortion lies primarily on the parents who failed to teach their children these basic life lessons - relationships first; stable relationships next; then think about children.

    Finding a mate is not a civil right - absolutely. But, when someone makes the choice and actually *DOES* find their life partner, it is a civil right to make the next logical step in the relationship and declare their vows and have those vows recognized by society and the state. To not recognize that some same sex couple are as committed to their relationship as some heterosexual couple is not treating them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. Treating *everyone* equally is another one of those "core family values" that is lacking in this society.

    Mating is wonderful; procreation is wonderful; procreation has never been a requirement of a marriage.

    As far as "kinship" ties being the end all and be all:

    Are you against adoption as a rule? Are you against surrogate mothers providing a child to love to an infertile couple? What "sense of loss" does a child have when the mother gets sperm from a sperm bank because the husband lacks sufficient count to get her pregnant?

    And how is preventing to committed same sex partners from obtaining a marriage licenses supposed to cure any of these problems?

  16. CuriousGeorge
    Posted January 25, 2011 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    The solution to having more children in our society staying with their biological parents and having "the mother and father they deserve" is to teach our children early on about how to use condoms properly; how to create and work on stable relationships; and to only bring children into the world when you are ready.
    Those are the lessons of "responsible procreation". These are the lessons that so many "traditional families" are failing to teach their children.

    Not recognizing that same sex couples can and do get married and denying them the same benefits and protections available that any two people of opposite sex can get simply by filling out a marriage license and having a justice of the piece officiate the ceremony will not address any of the issues being raised by the "protect traditional marriage" side.

  17. ConservativeNY
    Posted January 25, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Do you remember when everyone was supposed to be pro-choice by the year 2000. Here it is, 2011, and abortion is STILL a hot button issue. So what happened to that nostradomic claim? Probably the same thing that happened to all of the flying cars, time machines, and colonies on the moon we were supposed to have by now. LOL!

One Trackback

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by NOM, Bikers For Marriage. Bikers For Marriage said: Marching on the Right Side of History [...]

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.