We Can Fight Back, Too

WeddingRings - Copy

More and more often, we find these sorts of stories in the news:

Two women named Melinda and Dani Phoenix and the man they both consider their husband, Jonathan Stein, are in a polyamorous relationship and parenting two babies together under the same roof.

Melinda and Dani began their relationship as a lesbian couple and became domestic partners in 2010. A year later, Jonathan joined them as the third partner and the three married last summer in a ceremony that is not legally recognized.

Or this:

Three gay men from Thailand have tied the knot in what is thought to be the world’s first three-way same-sex marriage.

Happy newlyweds Joke, 29, Bell, 21 and Art, 26, took the plunge on Valentine’s Day after exchanging their vows in a fairy-tale ceremony at their home in Uthai Thani Province, Thailand.

The three blushing grooms are thought to be the world’s only wedded male threesome and have since become internet sensations after photos from their big day went viral.

Or this:

[Actor Neil Patrick] Harris has two children with his “husband, actor/chef David Burtka — 4-year-old twins, Gideon and Harper, who were conceived via a surrogate mother.

If we consider how cleverly the progressive left has “normalized” what once was not considered normal (and actually which is not normal), then we come to understand that we can peacefully fight back, using their tactics.

We do not have to accept their reworking of the English language. Men do not have husbands. Women do not have wives. Marriage is between two people of opposite sex: one male and one female, as ordained by God.

Someone in a traditional marriage should refer to the marriage this way:

I am traditionally married.

Why must anyone who is in a state of holy matrimony, in a traditional marriage, cede to others the privilege of warping the definition of that sacramental state? We should not.

To refer to a man as the “husband” of another man, or to a woman as the “wife” of another woman, is an insult to anyone who is in a traditional marriage, in the holy state of matrimony.

Why is it that certain small groups of the population are allowed to change the very semantics of marriage? Definitions have already subtly changed; consider these examples from various online reference sites:

A husband is a male in a marital relationship.

 Husband: a married man, especially when considered in relation to his partner in marriage.
Husband: A man joined to another person in marriage; a male spouse.

Husband: a married man: the man someone is married to.

How carefully they parse. How carefully they avoid using the words woman, female, wife, when describing a man in relation to his “partner”, “spouse”, “another person”, or (my special favorite) that “someone” that he’s married to.

How soon will they have to change those definitions to take into account the “someones” (plural) that any man is married to? How soon will they have to change the definition to include female “husbands”? Surely it’s only a matter of time until males demand to be called “wives”.

Already Facebook gives users 58 different options for defining their own “gender”. What’s to keep traditionally married people from demanding the same courtesy by being allowed to define their own marital status, for example, by demanding a new category: traditionally married?

Or, as Dolce and Gabbana suggested, “classically” married? Read this story to see how those two gay fashion designers ran into the buzzsaw of the “Gaystapo”, when they advocated for the right of all children to have a mother and father in a “classical family.” That was their personal opinion, but politically incorrect opinions (as defined by progressives) apparently no longer are worthy of First Amendment protection.

But we can fight back against censorship and the distortion of the English language.

We can refuse to use the words husband or wife when speaking of homosexual partners in a homosexual “marriage”.

We can refuse to use the word marriage at all in the context of any homosexual legal relationship without using a suitable qualifier, such as, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, homosexual marriage, non-traditional or non-classical marriage.

Better yet, use gay-coupled; don’t use the word marriage at all, no matter what the government calls it. It’s a mockery and a sacrilege.

We all have the right to free speech. We should exercise our First Amendment rights. Do not allow a vocal minority to get away with hijacking the semantics of traditional (classical) marriage.

Consider this story:

[F]our adult children of gay parents — acting as a “quartet of truth,” according to their lawyer David Boyle in Long Beach, Calif. — have submitted briefs to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opposing same-sex marriages, with several saying that growing up under the rainbow was neither normal nor pleasant.  …

“I was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk,” wrote Ms. Stefanowicz, adding that her father sometimes took her on his “cruising” visits to gay art galleries, nude beaches and public parks.

Like other daughters of gay men she has talked with, Ms. Stefanowicz said she felt she — and her femininity — were not valued or affirmed.

“Ultimately, I was seeking his love and acceptance. [But] I was not allowed to freely question him, bring up moral arguments or hurt his feelings, or I would face long-term repercussions,” Ms. Stefanowicz wrote. …

Ms. Klein said she was expected to pay “constant homage and attention” to her mothers’ gayness and believe that gays were “much more creative and artistic” because they weren’t sexually repressed.

The heterosexual culture of marriage and children was held in “utter contempt” by the gay adults in her world, Ms. Klein wrote. [What?! Teaching innocent children cisism? I thought I invented that word, cisism, until I searched for it.] 

In fact, the isolation from the “inferior” heterosexual world was so complete, she wrote, that “I had no idea how two heterosexuals behaved toward their children as mother and father” until she was placed in foster care over a medical issue when she was a teenager.

Mr. Lopez said he and other children of gays feel “pain” — but it’s because there’s a “missing biological parent,” not because people lack legal marriage.

He said his childhood exposure to radical Catholic liberation theology and talk about “the beauty of homosexual relationships” led him into years of sexual experimentation, including taking money for sex with men.

A reunion with his long-estranged father led to his escape from the “toxic” gay family life, said Mr. Lopez, who is now married to his girlfriend and a father. …

Despite what the gay lobby and progressives want society to believe, children raised by gays are not “happier and healthier than their peers,” as those brave fellows Dolce and Gabbana understand.  Indeed,

In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research, … the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups–with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated “suboptimal” (Regnerus’ word) in almost every category.

Other comprehensive studies have shown the damage that can be inflicted when one is raised by a gay couple:

[T]he majority of the studies finding no disadvantages are of dubious quality: They rely on small numbers of survey participants, often recruited through gay advocacy events, websites, sperm banks, parent forums, word of mouth, or other nonrandom methods. Such “convenience samples” can produce useful data but are prone to bias—where the families most likely to respond are those already faring well.

A new study, published in February in the British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, avoids that problem. It examined a survey database from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, involving random interviews with tens of thousands of U.S. households.

In analyzing data from 512 same-sex couples with a child under 18 living in the home, study author D. Paul Sullins—a sociology professor at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.—found that children raised by same-sex parents were twice as likely to suffer emotional and behavioral problems as children with heterosexual parents. When compared only with children raised jointly by their own biological parents, the difference was even more stark: Children from same-sex households were four times as likely to suffer problems such as depression, anxiety, defiance, or inattention.

Mr. Lopez and Ms. Stefanowicz, mentioned above, have decided to “fight back:”

Instead of cowering, Lopez has decided to fight back. Last year he co-launched an advocacy group, the International Children’s Rights Institute, whose mission involves defending the right of children to have a mother and father—their biological ones, whenever possible. Stefanowicz is on the organization’s testimonial council, along with other children’s rights advocates and children of gay parents.

Nor should we who believe in traditional marriage cower. We also should fight back, if only by insisting upon reserving for traditional marriage the language that has traditionally defined traditional marriage. A marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Marriage is

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Marriage is

a state instituted and ordained by God for the lifelong relationship between one man as husband and one woman as wife. … [It is] the most intimate of human relationships, a gift from God, and a sacred institution.

Anything else is not marriage and we should never be heard saying that it is.

Laws are already being misapplied to punish people for words they speak, when someone arbitrarily decides that those words constitute “hate speech.”

We’ve not yet reached the point where the government has tried to punish people for not speaking words that they never intend to speak, or for having “hate thoughts” (such as, that gay “marriage” is a sacrilege, a mockery, and a travesty). If we ever do reach such a point, then our Republic is lost.



320 responses to “We Can Fight Back, Too

    • So there’s no one, huh? Just bring on the next fundamental communist transformer.

    • Rosemary Woodhouse

      This I can address with PERSONAL knowledge and conviction! While certainly not best buddies, I worked @ his campaign headquarters during his three bids for congress (he lost1st and 3rd) as well as having been at several social functions with him… NOT ONE WOMAN in all the time I have known him has ever complained about being harassed. Not one! And let’s just say I am not only a conservative woman, but I look like one, if you catch my drift. He is always a gentleman! His wife, Angela, is an absolutely lovely woman by any objective standard and the love between them.is apparent. Besides, he is FAR from stupid! This is the oldest political trap in the world. THEY ARE TRYING TO DESTROY HIM. THIS has me livid!

    • Sweet. How nice. If that is the man. We need to be cognizant.

      When I was young there was a lot of talk that Cubans were involved and the patsy Oswald was in thick with Cubes.

      Wonder if this can be verified.

  1. O’ and the INELIGIBILITY CIRCUS….. I tracked it down… as the
    SCRUB MASTERS R removing all the info.. so we CAN’T READ IT!


  2. Here we go again with a personalized logo. Its all about the man and not the Country. You think USA upon sight don’t you?


    • Here we go again with a person touting his natural born foreign heritage.



      Burning Man ~ a light-cube’ ~ Lick my Cuban … Match ME
      Combustable Usurper ~ Blending USA ~ HOT-HOT-HOT ??? ha

      • ~ Lillie Belle • a day ago ~ @wnd ted cruz logo….
        Okay, let’s look at the logo. A flame in red, white, & blue with a single star. Texas & the strength of Texas.
        Representation of the flame of fire in the guts & or hearts of those that want to save the USA & return her to her greatness and strength, of those that are willing to fight with their checkbook & or voice to defend
        & protect our U.S Constitution & the foundation that the USA was built upon, those that are willing to go to the mat to undo the damage that the current Administration and POTUS have done to our freedoms, military, International image & loss of respect across the Globe, & to return America & Americans to the esteem of being one of Earth’s super powers & the land of freedom & leader of the humanities & searches for freedom & equality. Ted Cruz can & will lead us back to the greatness that we were as a country & a society, & help us recover from the absolute destruction perpetuated upon us since Barack Hussein Obama was inaugurated. ….

        & when….will we know the final outcome…do we yet??? fill me in

      • The American Tear. A crying shame.

      • Just because I can’t resist. He’s Canadian of Cuban and American descent. Will he be the first American POTUS to have his birthplace plaque installed in a foreign country?

        Gotta love he’s the ‘first hispanic” of this and that. He’s leaning on his foreign paternity and he never even lived in a Spanish speaking country.
        Yo Ted, thought you said you were American.

        Just like barky, dreams of his Father’s country makes him an African-American, too.

        You guys are just too special with your being minorities. Congrats for pulling yourselves up from your worn out, second hand bootstraps!

    • It looks Muslim to me. I’m serious. Like that Al Jazeera symbol, just as the story says:

      That’s the very first thing that popped into my mind when I saw it. It looks like Arabic writing, or whatever you call it. What are they thinking? Do we want to know? This is making me uneasy, queesy. What does he need a symbol for and what is it supposed to symbolize? Is he DELIBERATELY trying to symbolize/normalize Muslim script? Why? Are his people THAT clueless that they did not realize? Don’t they test market/poll this stuff first? Psychologically, what is he saying? btw, is HE using NLP, too?

    • Check it out. This article hyphenates the phrase natural born citizen at least 3 times. They even enclose it in quotes including the actual “Clause”:

      We must look to the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1: “No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president.”

      They’re missing a comma and the last word is in need of a semicolon.
      But hey! who wants to be petty?

      • If you’re translating the text, wouldn’t you just type it as written and NOT add hyphens where there are none?

        btw, who’s Martha? The other two are his wives.

        • Transcribing so create “transcitizens”, perhaps?
          Or would that be trans-citizens.

          Funny that Eleanor shows up as Darragh when her name was Wilson when they hooked up.

          One can only wonder why they create “bios” with major biological events left out.

          Where is Ted’s mother “buried”? She surely doesn’t seem to be among the living.


          The Canadian birth certificates requests a Mother’s name before marriage. Marriage to whom? Why the assumption the mother is married to the father? I don’t see the word Wife on the thing.
          Geophysical Consultant. Consulting with whom? I’d love to see those college transcripts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysics

          Wonder if he knows this guy.

          • Is his mom dead? I didn’t know. Maybe Find a Grave will show.

            • Not that I know of – I was being snarky. I think she lives in Texas.

              I posted this upstairs, too. It has a few details.


              • Hmm. Couple places in there I was ready to cry BS. Well, if we’re going to be railroaded again, at least he’s NOT Barry, but then again, I don’t know what he IS. The parallels are too freaky. Did he not get reared by his MOTHER? Then how did Dad become such a big role model? So one of the half-sisters is deceased. That’s sad. Still, no mention of the mother’s first marriage, children, married name. So much like Barry, with all the half-siblings and multiple allegiances. Did his mother ALSO become a Canadian citizen? If so, did she renounce her U.S. citizenship? Would that be required in Canada? Did they, back then, automatically give Canadian citizenship to wives of new citizens? Rather sketchy on the details, the timing, of this Canadian citizenship issue. WHEN? Before or after Ted’s birth? What another tangled web. Like with Santorum, though, I don’t feel like spending a lot of time until it looks as if he’s going to be “it” on the ballot. Isn’t it odd that they don’t put citizenship of the parents on a birth certificate? Is the birthplace intended to imply citizenship? Well, that doesn’t work when a person naturalizes.

                • Canada did and may still recognize dual citizenship, so by that stander Cruz was a dual cit., but that means he was a canadian citizen basically and only renounced it recently. We do not recognize dual citizenship. Oh we recognize but legally we don’t, so????? I don’t know if both parents must be citizens for a child born there to be a canadian citizens though, because I am wondering the same thing…..has his mother become a Canadian citizen???

                  • My friend’s husband’s job transferred them to Canada. They’re both American, and because their child was born in Canada, she was Canadian.

  3. O’ ….so TRUE ^^^^ when will get “THE ANSWER” WHEN ?

    IF ya SEE some-thing… SAY SOME-THING! HELLO?? HELLO ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s