NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Parenting

Nebraska School Insists: Stop Referring to Students by "Gendered Expressions" Such as "Boys and Girls"

A school in Lincoln, Nebraska is demanding that teachers no longer refer to students as “boys and girls”, but ... purple penguins?

Fox News reports on aLincoln Public Schools handout that included the following advice and explanation:

Purple Penguin“Don’t use phrases such as ‘boys and girls,’ ‘you guys,’ ‘ladies and gentlemen,’ and similarly gendered expressions to get kids’ attention,” reads a handout from the Lincoln Public Schools that was given to teachers.

“The agenda we’re promoting is to help all kids succeed,” Brenda Leggiardo the district's coordinator of social workers and counselors told the newspaper. “We have kids who come to us with a whole variety of circumstances, and we need to equitably serve all kids.”

So instead of asking boys and girls to line up as boys or girls, teachers have been encouraged to segregate the children by whether they prefer skateboards or bikes, or whether they like milk or juice.

“Always ask yourself, ‘Will this configuration create a gendered space?’” the handout stated.

The handout, provided by Gender Spectrum, a website which "provides education, training and support to help create a gender sensitive and inclusive environment for children of all ages" does not explain what to do if all of the children like juice or skateboards. But it does suggest teachers “create classroom names and then ask all of the ‘purple penguins’ to meet at the rug.”

Equitably serve all kids? The school district seems to believe that in order to ensure “equality” for children who might have a real problem of gender confusion, it is a better idea to confuse ALL children.

As NOM President Brian Brown notes in our national newsletter this week:

178062396Now we see the tragic absurdity of a situation wherein, in response to gender dysphoria and confused sexual identities that may be conditions suffered by a certain number of kids, we confuse all kids by chiding them for calling themselves 'boys and girls' and name them instead after an imaginary creature, 'purple penguins.' (I suppose 'purple penguins,' unlike the black and white ones that live in Antarctica, don’t have biological sexes.)

This is why this indoctrination in the public schools is such a travesty and will be hard on our children: because, as you know, boys and girls actually really do exist, and purple penguins do not; and being a girl is a very good thing, as is being a boy.

Girls and boys shouldn’t be called “purple penguins” in order to appease a political agenda: they should be encouraged to be the people they have been since birth. Childhood is precious, and it should not be compromised because a small portion of adults want to modify the way boys and girls are addressed.

No law can change simple truth, no matter what terms are used. So let's fight back in our own school districts across America. Enough of the indoctrination: let girls enjoy being girls, and let boys enjoy being boys.

"Ruthless Misogyny" - A Glimpse at the Radical LGBT Playbook

From Public Discourse comes this hard-hitting piece which everyone should read and share.

It reveals the deplorable and unacceptable tenor of "debate" (if you can even call it that) waged by the radical activists promoting same-sex 'marriage' - a kind of bullying and harassment that has absolutely no place in the public square and should be condemned on all sides.

FemaleBut instead of condemnation, HRC and GLAAD and others meet the problem with a deafening silence that speaks louder than words - all the while throwing around invective like "hate group" to describe NOM and others, effectively throwing fuel on the fire and serves as a provocation to further attacks like the ones we see revealed in this article.

The author writes:

In the name of equality, groups such as GLAAD (which employs Jeremy Hooper) have pushed through gender identity laws that have legally erased women. The term “woman” now legally can refer to the way that a man chooses to identify himself. Once women have been erased legally as a group and as individuals, it is not hard to erase “mothers.” This lends support to the practice of using one woman’s eggs and another woman’s womb to supply children for gay male couples, obscuring the concept of motherhood and making it seem dispensable.

Share this far and wide, and help us expose where the real hatred and bigotry in the fight over marriage is coming from.

For a Strong Future, Children Deserve Committed, Married Mothers and Fathers

The importance of marriage to society is an irrevocable truth: for a society to even survive, there must be children. For children to be born, there must be fathers and mothers. For fatherhood and motherhood to exist, there must be commitment and sacrifice that will designate the male and female as a new union that will give society the needed foundation to flourish. That bond is marriage.

Dr. Scott Stanley examines a recent study showing that children with married parents are better off than children with unmarried parents.

Mother-Father-ChildTheir findings show that the association between marriage and positive child outcomes may be substantially accounted for by greater income and more engaged parenting among marrieds. Based on this, they argue that intervention efforts should focus on parenting and not on marriage, per se.

But Scott Hanley points out that marriage is more than a “mere commitment device” or a superfluous relationship status:

Signals of commitment are important across a wide swath of societal life because people will often make better decisions with clearer information about the level of motivation in others,iii and signals about commitment are, arguably, of great importance in the development and maintenance of romantic and family relationships. Reeves seems to be arguing that the signal value of marriage is not as consequential as behaviors such as parenting, but what that view fails to account for is how marriage has most typically been a potent signal of commitment with a distinct placement regarding the sequence and timing of childbearing. At the root of it, what is signaled by marriage is a commitment comprised of “us with a future.”v Sure, reality has very often been messier than the tidy ordering of love, marriage, and a baby carriage; and many marriages do not go the distance. But marriage is likely, in some large respect, explanatory regarding child outcomes because marriage most often is a strong and credible signal of commitment prior to childbirth.

[. . .]

While not always, and perhaps less so now than before, marriage serves as a strong signal that two people are tacitly committed to raising a family together. Further, and for more complex reasons than I want to develop here, signals are the most informative when they are fully under the control of those sending them—by which I mean, when the behavior has Family at Coffee Shopfewer prior constraints so that it reflects something true about the individual. That means that signals about commitment are more informative before a child arrives than after because having a child increases life constraints. When marriage precedes two people having a child, the question of intention about a shared long-term time horizon was settled before things got messy with baby drool and poop. For couples with this foundation already in place, even unplanned and mistimed children are still landing in a relatively rich context regarding bi-parental commitment. One can (and should) believe that various socio-economic disadvantages govern a lot in this big lottery of life, but we should not lose sight of how sequence plays a consequential and causal role in child outcomes.

Families are the foundation of society, and the devaluing of marriage has consequences that reach every male, female, and child, as well as future generations. Without marriage, “family” becomes a simple collection of cohabitants, and couples are no longer the building blocks that create and sustain those families, but simply a joint agreement.

Marriage is, indeed, fading in front of our eyes, and with it goes a lot of signal clarity about commitment in the context of sequence. Maybe those elements can be constructed behaviorally on a broad scale, but we should recognize the difficulty we face in trying to make up for the loss of something with real explanatory power.

For a strong future, children should be provided with the best environment possible: a family, with committed, married mother and father.

Read more at family-studies.org.

We DO Need Fathers

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, pop icon Katy Perry remarked about fatherhood, “I don't need a dude.  It's 2014!  We are living in the future; we don't need anything.  I’m not anti-men. I love men. But there is an option if someone doesn’t present himself.”

D.C. McAllister responded at The Federalist with a very fine article:

Father-DaughterSociologist David Popenoe, a pioneer in the field of research into fatherhood, says, “Fathers are far more than just ‘second adults’ in the home. Involved fathers bring positive benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring.”

That means it’s not just the fact that he provides money so there is reduced stress in the home, and it doesn’t mean just any “dude” can step in and replace him. There is a real and organic relationship between a father and a child that is irreplaceable and essential in the development of the child.

Williams wrote in an article at the Wall Street Journal that “when fatherless young people are encouraged to write about their lives, they tell heartbreaking stories about feeling like ‘throwaway people.’ In the privacy of the written page, their hard, emotional shells crack open to reveal the uncertainty that comes from not knowing if their father has any interest in them.”

Study after study has shown that children with fathers in the home are better off in school, commit less crime, have more stable relationships, and are less likely to be involved with drugs or engage in other deviant behavior. Girls, in particular, exhibit higher self-esteem and are less likely to have out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

[...]

Studies have shown that fatherless children are more insecure, more likely to experience depression, and more inclined to exhibit disruptive behavior. “Boys with involved fathers have fewer school behavior problems,” and “girls have stronger self-esteem.” In other words, “fathers have a powerful and positive impact upon the development and health of children.”

[...]

A dad isn’t just some dude to dismiss. Children need him. They will always need him; from infancy to adulthood, he is the cornerstone of their lives... if the statistics are to be believed, then the truth is that growing up without a dad is no fairytale.

Read the whole piece.

Should Parents or Government Raise Children?

"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." - George Orwell, 1984

Scottish parliament recently passed a bill that requires the state to appoint a "guardian" for every child in the country from birth until the age of 18.  This sinister and disturbing practice would expand the role of the state in an unprecedented way, chipping away at parental rights and opening the door for massive government intrusion into family life.Man-Woman-Child

The right of children to be raised by their parents--and the rights of parents to raise their children according to their values--is a basic human right.  When parents responsibly rear their children, families stay strong, thus limiting the power of the state.  A free society depends in part on strong marriages and families to bring up children in the most ideal setting.

A government "guardian" checking in on every child is tantamount to government surveillance of every family.  These "guardians" will have access to family records and will be required to report on the child's development and welfare.  They will also recommend household changes.

What if a government "guardian" disagrees with parents on how to best raise a child?  Will the government official be able to override the parents' decisions about the child's healthcare, education, and home life?  What if the government worker disagrees with parents' religious or political views, and thinks it's "unfair" or "bigoted" to raise a child in a religious environment?

If this bill and the threatening principles enshrined in it become law--which will happen unless pro-family activists stop it--it would open the door for state-sponsored surveillance on every family.  It would enable the Scottish government to tell parents how to raise their children, place children's best interests and parental rights at odds with the interests of the increasingly powerful state.

Of course, there are occasionally unfit or abusive parents from whom children must be protected.  But sound policy is not based on rare exceptions.  In almost every case, children do best when raised by married parents in a stable relationship, and the government has no right to interfere with this.

Parents, not the government, know what's best for their kids.

"The Implications of Redefining Marriage are Staggering..."

The consequences of redefining marriage are formidable and grave, Michael Brown recently wrote at Charisma News.  Brown pointed out some of the absurdities of California's new law deleting the "biased" and "outdated" terms "husband" and "wife" from the state's marriage law.  The terms have been replaced with "spouse."

Women cannot be fathers and men cannot be mothers, Brown wrote.  He argued that marriage cannot be redefined unless words that are foundational to our existence are rendered meaningless:

Allow me to make some very simple statements...

Note to California: A woman cannot be a father and a man cannot be a mother.

California-FamilyFurther note to California: The terms "husband and wife" are neither discriminatory nor outdated.

Further, further note to California: Your social experiment will fail.

I do not deny that there are same-sex couples who love each other deeply and who are committed to each other long-term, and I do not deny that there are same-sex couples who are absolutely devoted to their children.

I am simply pointing out that their union cannot rightly be called "marriage" (regardless of what the courts might say) without rendering foundational words and concepts meaningless, a sure recipe for cultural chaos.

To repeat: The implications of redefining marriage are staggering, and those of us who love and cherish marriage and family need to redouble our efforts and renew our courage to stand up for what is right and what is best, making a fresh determination to swim against the current flood tide of semantic and social confusion.

True marriage and family will prevail in the end.

The "cultural chaos" to which Brown referred is what has brought about intolerance and bigotry toward those who believe in marriage between one man and one woman.

When It Comes to Parents, It Isn't "The More The Merrier"

Blogging for the Ruth Institute, Jennifer Johnson recounted her experience of growing up with five parents.  The piece responds to claims by Masha Gessen, a prominent LGBT activist who was recently honored by the state department, who has famously celebrated her own unorthodox family as the shape of things to come:

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

Johnson's mother and father divorced when she was about three.  Her mother remarried once and her dad remarried twice, so she has experienced what life is like with five parents--a mother, a father, two stepmothers and a step-father.  Johnson's experience shows that growing up in such a structure is not as rosy of a picture as LGBT activists paint or something to be approached casually:

Child Custody

In this day and age children can already have five parents. That’s how badly marriage has deteriorated already. The main difference between what Gessen advocates and my experience is that my step parents were not legal parents; she advocates for all of the adults in her situation to be legal parents.

Having more than two legal parents will be a nightmare for a child...adding additional legal parents will create more disruption for children’s daily lives, more chaos, more confusion, less unity. And why are we doing this? So that adults can have the sexual partners they want.

Masha Gessen had a mom and a dad, so it appears that she benefitted from the socially conservative family structure--it appears she was not raised under the family structure she advocates... Since I lived under the family structure they advocate, I will sometimes ask [activists]: would you trade childhoods with me? They either say no or they don’t reply.

If what I had is so great, then why don’t they want it as children? Here’s my conclusion: they want it as adults but not as children. They want the benefits of the socially conservative family structure when they are children. But as adults, they want sexual freedom, or at least they want to appear “open minded” and “tolerant” about others sexual choices, even at the expense of children, even though they themselves would never want to live under what they advocate. It’s a bizarre sort of a “win-win” for them, I guess.

It’s very painful for me to have conversations with these people. They don’t understand what they advocate, and they don’t seem to want to understand.

Johnson's experience shows such structures have a profoundly negative impact on children--putting the desires of adults over the needs of children does a giant disservice to the young, vulnerable children involved.

Advocates of redefining marriage can push junk science through the liberal media and claim that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, but when push comes to shove, science and common sense demonstrate otherwise.  Children like Johnson who were raised in unstable environments rarely wish the same on anyone else.

Is it just and fair for adults to put the well-being of children on the backburner so that adult desires can trump everything else?

Johnson also asked readers:

Imagine having each of your parents completely ignore the other half of you, the other half of your family, as if it did not even exist. Meanwhile, imagine each parent pouring their energy into their new families and creating a unified home for their new children. These experiences give you the definite impression of being something leftover, something not quite part of them.

Johnson's experiences say a lot about redefining marriage: it hurts children and even advocates of redefining marriage are glad that they benefitted from being raised by both a mother and a father.

Gessen has also advocated for the abolition of marriage altogether, saying:

...it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist... The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

California Senator: 'Husband' and 'Wife' are "Outdated, Biased" Terms

From FoxNews:

Husband-Wife-StrikethroughThe terms “husband” and “wife” have been deleted from California’s marriage law under a bill signed into law Monday by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The terms will be replaced with “spouse” to accommodate same-sex marriage, which became legal in the state last year after the Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved ban on it.

[...]

“I am pleased Governor Brown has recognized the importance of this bill, which makes it explicitly clear in state law that every loving couple has the right to marry in California,” Leno said. “This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender” [emphasis added].

Further proof that redefining marriage is not simply about "equality" or expanding the institution to include more kinds of relationships; it is about fundamentally altering the meaning of the institution itself, and discarding terms like "husband" and "wife" to "the ash heap of history."

Ideal Home for a Child is With His or Her Mother and Father

A photo of two men holding a newborn baby is making its rounds on the internet.  The baby boy was born to an unrelated surrogate mother during Toronto's WorldPride week.  The photo has generated many reactions and garnered the support and praise of many who are supportive of redefining marriage.

Everyone can agree that a defenseless, precious baby deserves love from all of the people in his life.  But many who viewed this photo--or have read stories about same-sex couples adopting, or are curious about what effect the redefinition of marriage has on children--have likely wondered what family structure best benefits children.

Social scientist Mark Regnerus's acclaimed Family Structures Study examined a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements.  Those who viewed this viral photo would perhaps be interested in and benefit from reading Regnerus's findings.

Regnerus's extensive study revealed that "children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day."

Family

The study showed that there are "consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18," and although it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior does not necessarily have anything to do with the ability to be good, effective parents, the data suggest "that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number."

The study showed that there are "consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18."

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents, children raised in same-sex households are much more likely to have received welfare growing up, have lower educational attainment, report less safety and security in their family of origin, report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin, are more likely to suffer from depression, and have been arrested more often.

The study also showed that children of lesbian mothers are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance than children raised by their biological parents.  Regnerus's study shows clearly that the ideal home for a child is with his or her mother and father.

Nobody is saying that gays and lesbians don’t love their children and don’t work hard to be good parents. The point that needs to be understood is that this is not about what adults want for themselves, it’s about what is best for children. Adoption exists to serve the needs of children, not the desires of adults.  Adoption places children with the parents they need, not adults with the children they want. The rights at stake here belong to the children – their right to expect to receive the love of their mother and father.

Utah's Court Filing on Marriage "All About Kids"

In The Salt Lake Tribune, Brooke Adams does a fairly good job presenting the essential arguments in the State of Utah's court filing in support of the marriage amendment which is under legal scrutiny by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The headline of the article is its weakest point, declaring "State makes it all about kids in brief against same-sex marriage." 

Baby_Wedding_RingsWe would say, rather, two things: (1) the State is recognizing that marriage is all about the kids, simply observing marriage as a given phenomenon and institution, preexisting any state -- whereas, on the other hand, it is the marriage redefinition side of the debate that seeks to "make" marriage about something which it is not; and (2) the brief should not therefore be said to be "against same-sex marriage," but instead to be for marriage --  marriage as it has come down to us through history and tradition.

Nevertheless, as we said at the outset, the article does do a rather fair job outlining the most salient points of the State's brief:

Utah has chosen a definition of marriage that is "principally a child-centered institution, one focused first and foremost on the welfare of children rather than the emotional interests of adults," the state said. "And by reinforcing that understanding, the state gently encourages parents to routinely sacrifice their own interests to the legitimate needs and interests of their children."

That definition is not designed to demean other family structures "any more than giving an ‘A’ to some students demeans others," the state said.

You should read the entire article, which has ample additional quotations from the filing.

What Makes a Parent? A Kansas Court Case Reveals How Far We've Fallen from the Ideal Answer

A terribly sad and maddening story out of Kansas today reveals just how absurdly astray the fruits of the sexual revolution have taken us with respect to understanding the nature of marriage and family.

The story involves a man named William Marotta, and reads like a script of a satire but is all too sadly real.

Here is the basic timeline of the situation, according to the coverage from CNN:

  • In 2009, a lesbian couple from Topeka, Kansas posted an ad on Craiglist(!) seeking a sperm donor.
  • Marotta (who is married!) responded and "donated [his] genetic material" to the women free of charge.
  • The couple then performed an artificial insemination procedure at home(!) and one of the women conceived and gave birth to a baby girl.
  • Now - with the child only 4 years old - the couple have separated and one of the women has had to quit work citing medical reasons.
  • The state, therefore, is stepping in and ordering Marotta to pay child support for the four-year old girl.
  • Marotta is protesting this order in court, saying of the little girl, "I'm not her parent."

Young GirlReading the story, it is particularly horrifying that the child's interests and roles aren't given primary attention, or really any attention at all. Her rights, her needs, her future are all merely the "frame" of the story, relegated to being treated as nothing more than a source of inconvenience in the lives of these three adults.

The relevance of this story to the issue of same-sex 'marriage' is obvious: The drive to redefine marriage is born of a culture which makes marriage and parenting about the desires of adults rather than the rights and welfare of children. This story gives a snapshot of that culture.

For these three adults, having a child wasn't the serious and heavily weighed decision of commitment that it should be. Marotta himself says he responded to the Craigslist ad  (and let's pause momentarily again over that detail) because he was "intrigued" - fathering a daughter was a lark for him. And as for the couple who so quickly separated... one can only wonder whether they were truly prepared for the gravity of parenthood, when part of the process involved soliciting sperm from a random stranger met on the internet!

This is why marriage matters: Marriage encapsulates a set of norms and expectations which civilize men, protect women, and serve the needs of children. Abandon these norms, and "parenting" becomes a soap-opera story about adults' goals and achievements, where children are merely part of the supporting cast.

Pro-Marriage Rally Planned at Utah State Capitol

Check it out!

Stand for Marriage Flyer


Click here to read a news piece on the planned rally.

If you live in Utah, I hope to see you there! If not, please share this with your pro-marriage family and friends in Utah so that we can have a strong showing and demonstrate in a resounding way that Utah stands for marriage!

 

"Doctors Can't Be Essential, Because Some Doctors Are Bad"

... said no sick person, ever.

And yet this seems to have been the model of an implied argument from a pro-same-sex 'marriage' legislator in Indiana during an exchange that occurred earlier this week in the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on HJR3, the proposed Indiana marriage amendment.

Father and DaughterDuring testimony from Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kellie Fiedorek (and she did a wonderful job, by the way!), there occurred the following exchange (as reported by in a stilted article by The Raw Story). The emphasis is ours editorially:

“The only relationship that can naturally produce children is that between a man and a woman,” Fiedorek noted. “There are situations where they may not want to have children, maybe they cannot have children. But the union of one man and one woman still furthers the ideal that children, when that happens, will be born into homes with a mom and a dad.”

“You know, I had a mom and a dad and I wish my dad wasn’t there, the way he acted in my household,” [Democratic State Rep. Vernon Smith] pointed out.

This is unfortunately a frequent error in logic that arises in the marriage debate. When marriage advocates point out the unique contributions and value that men and women bring to the enterprise of marriage - and particularly the irreplaceable role of fathers (a fact observed by, among others, President Obama himself) - proponents of redefining marriage will often fall back on the failures of some fathers to try to call into question the ideal.

But reasoning from the failure of an ideal that the ideal is somehow less important is a flawed line of reasoning in any case:

  • Do occasional bad doctors mean we should get rid of doctors?
  • Does a failed inner-city charity mean we should abolish all inner-city charities?
  • Does the existence of asthma mean breathing is bad?

It is important, therefore, to note that a legislator who would deprive Indiana voters of their right to vote to protect marriage and to reaffirm the crucial role fathers play in children's lives is employing such a logical fallacy as this one.

There will always be exceptions to the general rule. Some children seemingly do fine even in extremely unstable family environments with only one parent, or even no parents involved in their lives. But as a rule, the evidence is overwhelming that children thrive best when raised in a stable, intact family with a mother and a father. That is what we should encourage and promote.

And this is why Indiana voters must redouble their efforts to contact their legislators and urge them to put this issue to the test of the common sense and wisdom Indiana's ordinary citizens who know better than to abandon the only institution that binds men and women to each other for the benefit of the couple, any children born of their union, and society as a whole.

Given the opportunity to vote, we are confident that the people of Indiana will preserve marriage, not abandon it!

Will the American People Make 2014 the Turning Point for Marriage

The Daily Caller published NOM president Brian Brown’s end-of-the-year Op-ed, where he discusses how pivotal 2014 will be for marriage.  Brown writes:

Marriage in 2014The American people know how important marriage is to the country, and to families. We’re fed up with the elite telling us marriage must be abandoned in the name of “equality.” America needs men and women to come together, produce children, and raise those children with the love and support of both a mother and a father. That’s what marriage does, and that is profoundly good for the country.

Looking back at what the courts did in 2013, and could do again in 2014 to undermine marriage, Brian makes it clear that the only way to protect marriage from activist justices is to amend the U.S. Constitution.  He continues:

Regardless of what the Court does, the survival of marriage as the nation has always known it may well depend on whether the American people can again be roused to take action. They’d need to do more than sign a petition — they’d need to demand that their political leaders amend the US constitution to preserve marriage.

There is, of course, already a federal Marriage Protection Amendment, authored by Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, working its way through Congress. If you haven't taken action to urge your legislators to enact this important law, please do so right away!

G.K. Chesterton wrote, “The greatest political storm flutters only a fringe of humanity. But an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children literally alter the destiny of nations.”

In 2014, ordinary men and women across this country will need to step up and demand that their political leaders amend the Constitution to preserve marriage.  And when they do, they will alter the destiny of this nation.

 

Another Polygamy Reality Show? Just What We Need...

From articles praising polygamous unions in the media to teaching elementary school children about "happy triples," it's become clear that new, more extreme steps are being taken to normalize the practice of polygamy and further promote the redefinition of marriage.

The latest example is a new reality show that's been picked up by TLC detailing the lives of a Utah polygamist with five wives and twenty-four children.

In addition to the Browns and now the Williams family, TLC also has done a special featuring the Darger family of Utah. HBO's fictional show about a polygamous family, 'Big Love,' ran for five seasons.

Following the recent court ruling, Williams said now is the time for polygamists to show they are deserving of the recognition by putting an end to the misogyny rampant among the culture and putting women on equal footing as men.

'Women are not a commodity and they shouldn't be treated as such,' said Williams, 43, a project manager in his brother's construction business. 'There needs to be complete symmetry within a marriage.' -Mail Online