Austin Hill - Economics - Morality - And Roger Ebert’s Final Years

I never paid much attention to what Roger Ebert said about movies.

Given that I usually take-in only three or four films a year, Ebert’s analysis of any particular film or actor or “scene” just wasn’t going to be something that would capture my attention.

But the final seven years or so of Ebert’s life offer some seriously thoughtful and thought provoking lessons, for those who still care to learn. Whether you reside on the right or left side of the political and cultural aisle doesn’t much matter. Consider some of the facts of Ebert’s final years, and the implications of his actions.

First, Ebert suffered with multiple bouts of cancer for over a decade, yet he and his wife Chaz Hammelsmith Ebert remained married and supportive of each other. Initially diagnosed with cancer of the thyroid in 2002, Roger would discover cancer in his salivary gland a year later. After being in remission for periods of time, he eventually contracted cancer in his jaw bone (which necessitated the removal of his jaw), and he lost his voice. Through all of this, he and were seemingly inseparable.

The things that the Eberts said and wrote about each other during their roughly twenty years of marriage were sufficiently extraordinary, even for otherwise healthy spouses. Yet despite Roger’s immense health struggles, neither of them seemed to have been deterred. Even in the past few years as a voiceless Roger absolutely needed Chaz to speak on his behalf, both out in public and in television interviews, never once did you see either of them convey anything short of love and respect for the other, and neither of them ever seemed awkward or uncomfortable with Roger’s diminished functioning. In a country where the legal definition of marriage remains a widely contested public policy issue all the while more than half of the nation’s marriages end in divorce, the Eberts, whether they intended to or not, publicly emulated what a marriage should be about -both in sickness and in health.

Secondly, Roger’s determination to remain professionally and publicly active despite his debilitations says some extraordinary things – both about Roger’s character, and about the value of human life itself. Losing your voice and having your face become severely disfigured is undoubtedly awful for anybody, but for someone who makes their living in front of tv cameras, such circumstances could be a career killer.

But not for Roger Ebert. Despite the loss of his voice Roger could still write, and what couldn’t be written Chaz could say for him. That’s how things went for Roger over the last seven years or so. Do an online search and story after story emerges of the Eberts playfully appearing at film festivals and movie premiers, Roger offering his signature “two thumbs up” gestures with Chaz doing the talking.

An extraordinary example of the Eberts’ “grace under fire” appears in a video on Youtube. Roger and Chaz are sitting on the set in a remote studio being interviewed by a CNN Host at the Anchor desk. The Host, noticeably awkward with Roger’s appearance and inaudible gestures, thanks Roger for his courage to continue appearing on TV, noting that Roger had been such a handsome on-camera performer for so many years. Through hand signals, scrawling on a note pad, and some vocal help from Chaz, Roger shoots-back at the host and says “what do you mean I was handsome? I think I’m still looking pretty good!”

The fact is, Roger looked rather odd with his jaw removed, but that apparently didn’t matter to the confident and in-love couple known as Roger and Chaz. The value of one’s life transcends their immediate physical appearance and level of functioning, and Roger’s sustained presence in the public square was a testimony to that ultimate truth. Yet on this point, Roger’s final years were an anathema to those who are quick to advocate for rationed healthcare and euthanasia, believing that people as old and incapacitated as Roger quite naturally have a “duty to die.”

Tragically, during the same week that the courageous Roger Ebert left us, some horrific news broke about Medicare, the federal healthcare program for senior adults. Under the federal Obamacare law, funding for Medicare is being gradually cut to allow for increased expenditures on Medicaid, the federal healthcare program for the poor, and on the Obamacare program itself. As a result, a new trend has emerged: Medicare is increasingly denying treatment to elderly cancer patients (Is this the “change” you were “hoping” for?).

From a raw political standpoint, this makes sense. Sickly senior citizens are a less-viable voter-block than are younger and middle-aged citizens (those who can benefit from Obamacare and Medicaid). But from a moral standpoint this is an abomination. Is the life of every elderly cancer patient as valuable as Roger Ebert’s was? In political terms, the answer is “no.”

Thank you Roger and Chaz for some important lessons. Are Americans willing to learn from them?

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Matt Barber - Marriage is What it is

“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” said the smooth-talking, skirt-chasing, totally busted philanderer.

“Well, no, Bill,” replied Congress. “Actually, things just ‘is’ what they is.”

Here’s what marriage is: The God-ordained, lifelong, covenantal union between man and wife, designed to provide men, women and children optimal stability and overall well-being. Marriage is that biologically, spiritually and morally centered institution calculated to ensure responsible procreation and perpetuate the human race. Marriage – real marriage – represents the fundamental cornerstone of any healthy society (any society that hopes to survive, at least).

Here’s what marriage is not: Anything else.

In short, marriage is what it is.

That our nation has fallen so far, so fast in its embrace of empty relativism makes the head swim. It’s at once perplexing and heartbreaking that we have a U.S. Supreme Court seriously considering inventing a newfangled “right” to that chicane aberration tagged “same-sex marriage.” This is true particularly when one considers that the defining behaviors central to “gay marriage” were, for hundreds of years and for obvious reasons, legally and properly classified as “crimes against nature.” Though our postmodern zeitgeist may have changed, objective reality has not.

Indeed, American culture, while casting aside that which is just, moral and true, has, instead, taken-up that which is unjust, immoral and false. This abject rejection of absolute truth provides compelling evidence that the good ‘ol USA – the greatest nation on earth – is on the fast track to becoming “the late, great USA.”

So-called “gay marriage” is a counterfeit – a mockery of legitimate marriage. It’s like taking a rotten apple, spray-painting it orange, and then calling it an orange. “Same-sex marriage” is no more real marriage then a rotten apple is an orange. It’s mock marriage.

One of the best appraisals I’ve read on marriage was presented in 2003 to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). Among other things, the future pontiff explicitly recognized the empirical fact that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” Following are excerpts from his treatise titled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”:

The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman … in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives. …

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united. …

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

To be sure, “marriage equality” already exists. It is, quite simply, the self-evident truth that both husband and wife are co-equal, indispensable partners essential to the formulation of a marriage covenant. While moral relativists clamor for their propagandist version of “marriage equality,” the rest of us live in marriage reality.

Every single mentally competent adult enjoys the right to marry within exactly the same parameters required by natural law. Thus, “equal protection under the law” is afforded to all. As long as your spouse-to-be is 1) not too closely related, 2) of legal age, 3) only one person, 4) of the opposite sex and 5) a biped of the genus homo-sapien – then you’re golden. Marry away.

If you remove one requirement – in this case, the binary male-female prerequisite – then there is no justification, logical or legal, for not removing all requirements. If we yank one foundational brick from the marriage wall, then, as in the days of Jericho, the whole danged thing comes a-tumblin’. That is to say, if the Supreme Court rolls out “gay marriage,” then legalized polygamy, incestuous marriage and heaven-knows-what-else must inevitably follow.

Even still, the left loves to suggest that “gay marriage” supporters are “on the right side of history.” This is utter nonsense. Natural marriage has, for all of history, been on the “right side of history;” and so it shall remain.

Another rotten apples-to-oranges false equivalency is to claim that precluding “gay marriage” is akin to banning interracial marriage. Again, this is nonsense. Liberals, in making their case for the former, are quick to cite Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that invalidated anti-miscegenation laws.

By comparing “gay marriage” to interracial marriage, leftists endeavor to draw a parallel where none exists. The Loving Court both recognized and affirmed the fundamental man-woman nature of marriage while simply – and rightly so – removing arbitrary and truly discriminatory racial barriers. While Loving left the institution of natural marriage fully intact, a pro-”gay marriage” ruling by the High Court would thoroughly deconstruct it.

In sum, proponents of counterfeit “gay marriage” pretend that normalcy, biology, history, morality and sanity are all irrelevant to the debate. They are not. As counterfeit money devalues the dollar, counterfeit “gay marriage” devalues the institution of legitimate marriage.

Scripture reminds us that, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Ultimately, the oxymoronic notion of “same-sex marriage” is nothing new. It’s both rooted in man’s age-old rebellion against God and ancient pagan sexual morality.

So, I’ll leave you with this fundamental question: Since God undeniably designed marriage to be the exclusive union of man and wife – who, or what, then, do you suppose manufactured the absurd notion of “same-sex marriage?”

I think the answer is pretty clear.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Dr. Ben Carson - Marriage and Easter

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray,
and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways;
then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJV)

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Stoplight - Framework

In his Stoplight® commentary, Stuart Shepard explains the connection between stacking dominoes and marriage.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Daniel Greenfield - The Deconstruction of Marriage

Originally Published on the Sultan Knish blog

---

The only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn't come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.



Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.

The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.

The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country-- it produces its next generation.

The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.

Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.

There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run at it while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.

The left hasn't gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.

You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.

Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.

The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.

Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.

In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.

The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.

Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.

Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women's clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.

The left's deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.

Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change 'rose' to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.

The left's social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.

Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.

As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell's Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left's deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.

The left's greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.

To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.

The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.

The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.

That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.

The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.

And that is what we are truly fighting against.

Daniel Greenfield

Visit Daniel's Blog Sultan Knish by clicking HERE

Daniel Greenfield is a blogger and columnist born in Israel and living in New York City. Daniel is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a contributing editor at Family Security Matters.

Daniel's original biweekly column appears at Front Page Magazine and his blog articles regularly appear at Family Security Matters, the Jewish Press, Times of Israel, Act for America and Right Side News, as well as daily at the Canada Free Press and a number of other outlets. Daniel has a column titled Western Front at Israel National News and his op eds have also appeared in the New York Sun, the Jewish Press and at FOX Nation.

Daniel was named one of the Jewish Press' Most Worthwhile Blogs from 2006-2011 and his writing has been cited by Rush Limbaugh, Melanie Philips, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Judith Klinghoffer, John Podhoretz, Jeff Jacoby and Michelle Malkin, among others.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Crystal Wright - Gays Don’t Have a Right to Marriage

The mere words same-sex marriage connote it’s not a “marriage” by use of the term, but rather an aberration of a societal norm that a small group are determined to force onto the majority. Only 3% of Americans are gay.

Since the beginning of time, before marriage was formally recognized by state laws, it was defined between a man and a woman not just for kicks, but because people of the opposite sex have coupled off to procreate, as a means of continuing society. It takes a man and woman to biologically create a baby, so naturally society began to recognize marriage between a man and a woman to encourage stable families and cultures.

Two men and two women will never be able to create a baby. This is fact not fiction. People argue that not every married couple has children. While every married couple won’t choose to have babies or be able to, marriage between a man and woman is at the core of society’s cultural foundation and must be protected.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in two cases, California’s Proposition 8, where citizens voted to ban gay marriage, and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage between a man and a woman. Proponents of gay marriage are asking the court to ignore centuries of a societal norm and legalize gay marriage as the law of the land on the basis of the 14th amendment.

Activists often refer to the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia case to argue that denying gays a right to marriage is discriminatory. In the Loving case, the Supreme Court ruled laws banning interracial marriage were illegal because they violated the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws” clause, which applied to all citizens. Mildred Loving, a black woman, and her husband, Richard, a white man, had the right to marry because the institution of marriage is inherently between a man and a woman, not between two men or two women, and therefore gay couples don’t have a right to marriage.

During arguments in the California case, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia plainly pointed out, marriage has never been a “fundamental” right for gays, as lawyer Theodore Olson tried to assert. “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted?” said Scalia.

For gays to suggest a right to marry is akin to blacks fighting for civil rights is not only preposterous but also offensive to the highest order. Emmett Till, a 14 year old black boy was beaten, his eye gouged out, murdered, and thrown in the bottom of a lake with a “cotton gin fan barbed wired to his neck” all because he whistled at a white woman. Till was denied civil rights. The Supreme Court declared black slaves property instead of citizens in the 1857 Dred Scott case; therefore denying blacks equal rights to their white slave masters under the Constitution. I don’t see how denying gays marriage rights is akin to slavery holding blacks in bondage as property, as liberals assert.

My mother and father joined “sit ins” at segregated lunch counters in the 1960s to fight for the basic right to eat, work, live and learn in the same places as whites. Blacks and some whites were lynched, murdered, hosed down and arrested so blacks could enjoy their undeniable rights under the Constitution. I don’t see gays undergoing the same struggle in their quest to marry.

America is almost a moral wasteland as it is. People are expected to look the other way, condone and accept as societal norms things like teen pregnancy, out of wedlock births, and the left’s constant mockery and disintegration of traditional family values. Cue the liberal rant: “Stay at home mom Ann Romney never worked a day in her life.”

It’s no coincidence that 38 states where gay marriage was placed on the ballot voters rejected it because it attempts to redefine a societal norm. Nine States and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage. The DC Council voted to approve gay marriage, bypassing a ballot initiative for fear residents would reject it. Of the remaining states, courts forced them to allow gay marriage. While some states have voted in favor of gay marriage, the majority voted against it because they think it’s wrong.

What’s overlooked in the gay marriage debate is that gays represent 3% of the US population yet they are attempting to force their life choices as mainstream on the 97% majority. From gay marriage, to gay adoptions, homosexual curriculum in public schools, and the demand for gay Boy Scouts leaders, when will this gay war on society END?

Crystal Wright

Crystal Wright is a black conservative woman living in Washington, D.C. Some would say she is a triple minority: woman, black and a Republican living in a Democrat dominated city. She’s contemplating moving back to her home state of Virginia, where her vote would count for something. By day, Crystal is a communications consultant and editor and publisher of the new website, conservativeblackchick.com. Crystal earned a Bachelor of Arts in English from Georgetown University and holds a Masters of Fine Arts in Theatre from Virginia Commonwealth University.

Wright is the principal owner of the Baker Wright Group, LLC , a full service public relations firm, specializing in communications counseling, media relations, message development, media training and crisis communications. The firm’s approach is straight forward counseling: an unvarnished approach to public relations.

Visit Crystal's Website by clicking HERE

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Alison Howard - We Don't Need Another Roe

Alison Howard of the Concerned Women of America.

Alison asked us 'Older Folk' to not give up on the Younger Generation.

aired March 26, 2013

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Mr. Clinton, You Are Wrong About Overturning DOMA

Dear Mr. Clinton, with all respect to the office of the president which you held for 8 years, I must say that it is not just ironic that you are now asking the Supreme Court to overturn the legislation you signed into law 17 years ago. It is downright tragic.

In your March 7th editorial for the Washington Post, you wrote that although it “was only 17 years ago” when you signed the Defense of Marriage Act, “it was a very different time.”

May I ask you, sir, if 17 years have changed the nature of men and women, of mother and fathers and children, of the essential elements of a family? Have 17 years changed multiplied thousands of years of human history? Have 17 years changed fundamental faith values embraced by several billion people worldwide?

You explain that, 17 years ago, “In no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction.”

In point of fact, since 1996, 32 states have voted to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman (the majority of them since 2004), including my current home state of North Carolina, which just last year overwhelmingly wrote natural, organic marriage into the constitution by a vote of 61% to 39%, despite a strong majority of Democrats statewide.

It is true that, for the first time, several states voted in 2012 to redefine marriage, but those were heavily blue states where traditional marriage proponents were outspent by as much as five-to-one, and even then, the voting was close.

Can you really claim some kind of mandate when 9 times out of 10 (32 states out of 36), when the people have been given a right to vote, they have voted against genderless marriage? The mandate is actually against your position, sir, not for it.

In your editorial, you offer a transparently weak justification of your signing of DOMA, which leads me to ask: Mr. Clinton, did you have no conscience when you signed that bill into law? Did you have no gay or lesbian friends? Had you not met any upstanding gay or lesbian couples, working hard to raise a family? I’m sure that was not the case, sir, and with all candor, your justification for signing DOMA in 1996 while asking the Supreme Court to overturn it in 2013 smacks of political correctness more than dispassionate conviction.

You wrote that when DOMA comes before the Court on March 27, “the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.”

Do you honestly believe, Mr. Clinton, that any of the framers of the Constitution countenanced a day in our great nation when men would be marrying men and women marrying women, and in the name of the Constitution, at that? And since when did our Constitution guarantee the government’s endorsement of all romantic attractions and sexual behaviors? And are you genuinely unaware that redefining marriage is just the tip of the iceberg of a massive societal transformation in the name of LGBT rights, including the undoing of gender distinctions?

And with your brilliant legal mind, sir, are you oblivious to the fact that polygamists and polyamorists, too numerous to be ignored, are also appealing to “freedom, equality and justice” in the pursuit of their “rights”? What will you say to them, especially given the fact that their lifestyles are now being mainstreamed by the very same media that has so shaped American thinking on homosexual issues?

You wrote, “Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples.”

But what does this have to with the radical redefinition of marriage? What does this have to do with sanctioning an institution that will guarantee that a child has either no mother or no father? What does this have to do with rendering marriage genderless, to the point that marriage certificates could be reduced to Partner A and Partner B, along with birth certificates being reduced to Parent A and Parent B? (In this context, I should mention the Florida judge who “approved the adoption of a 22-month-old baby girl that will list three people as parents on her birth certificate – a married lesbian couple and a gay man.”)

Mr. Clinton, if marriage is simply the union of two people and not the union of a man and a woman, can you give me one solid intellectual reason or one compelling social argument why marriage cannot involve more than two consenting adults? What is so special about the number “two” if it does not consist of a male and female, with their unique biological and social compatibility and, in normal circumstances, their ability to produce children whom they will raise for the next generation?

You claim to know now that DOMA not only provided “an excuse for discrimination,” but that “the law is itself discriminatory.” Surely you must realize that polygamists, polyamorists, and others will find your current position “discriminatory.” More importantly, the sanctioning of same-sex “marriage” will mean that multiplied tens of millions of God-fearing Americans will be codified as bigots, surely the height of ugly discrimination.

Mr. Clinton, you were right before. You are wrong now. I pray that God will give you another change of heart.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Prager University - He Wants You

Men look at women. That's their nature. But is this fascination with the female body a threat to their spouse or the woman they are with? That's the question that best-selling author and nationally syndicated talk show host, Dennis Prager, deals with here. His answer will be a revelation to most women... and a relief to most men.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - All My Exes Live in Texas

A former Texas high school teacher was convicted of multiple felonies after having sex with five 18-year-old students at her home. The conviction was a victory for the prosecution but it was a setback for the feminist movement. It was also a setback for the homosexual uncivil rights movement, which seeks unlimited authority to redefine relationships among consenting adults.

Brittni Nicole Colleps, 28, of Arlington, was found guilty of 16 counts of having an inappropriate relationship between a student and teacher. In Texas, this second-degree felony is punishable by two to 20 years in prison per count. Because none of her students sodomized her, the relationships have not yet been enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

What makes this case difficult for some to fathom is that Colleps is Mrs. Colleps, not Miss Colleps. She is married and has multiple children. She also likes to have sex with multiple school kids at the same time. In fact, she had to turn herself in after one of the student athletes she was having sex with video recorded the encounter using a cellphone. That’s one of the disadvantages of taking on several athletes at once. It’s tough for a girl to know what all the boys in the room are doing at any given time. And it’s tough to keep track of all the electronic devices.

Police Detective Jason Houston testified at trial saying that charges were filed because, whether they are 18 or not, it's a crime for a teacher to have sex with her students. This has some feminists upset because they think it should only be a crime for a teacher to have sex with his students. They think that a woman having sexing with high school students is empowering while a man having sex with high school students is oppressive. As usual, the feminists want to do away with laws that are gender neutral. In their view, it’s the only way to end gender discrimination. It isn’t logical but it doesn’t have to be. It’s feminism so it just has to sound angry.

Feminism has a long way to go to achieve equality but at least it has accomplished one thing: it has more women pursuing careers and acting like hyper-sexualized frat boys. Some women are able to do both at once. (Insert inappropriate multi-tasking joke here).

While Brittni Colleps was at home serving a substantial portion of the boys’ track and field team, her husband was serving in the military overseas. Christopher Colleps said that he is mad at his wife, but stands by her "because `til death do us part means `til death do us part." In other words, Mr. Colleps takes marriage seriously.

Christopher Colleps testified in court that he and his wife had engaged in group sex before – also during the course of their marriage. He also testified that he was “hurt” by what his wife did with multiple high school student athletes. The moral distinction between the group sex in which he participated and the group sex in which he did not participate brings us right to the heart of the marriage debate in 21st Century America.

According to Christopher Colleps, and to homosexual rights activists, marriage is not an agreement between two people and God. It is an agreement between two or more people. The group sex Mrs. Colleps engaged in was not wrong because it violated the laws of God. It was wrong because it violated his rules. Mr. Colleps had to know of the act, approve of the act, and hopefully participate in the act for it to be okay. As long as all the adults offered full knowledge and consent, everything was okay. That is the new view of marriage. It is just whatever the humans want it to be.

The videotaped evidence at trial demonstrated that none of the participants was using a condom. The acts also occurred in a house where three young children were being raised. But remember that if Mr. Colleps had only known and approved – and gotten in on the action! -then everything would have been okay.

The defense attorney for Brittni Colleps said that Texas should not have convicted his client, adding that Texas is too conservative for its own good. He looks forward to the day that the Texas Supreme Court gets the government out of people’s bedrooms and allows consenting adults to do whatever they wish to do in their own homes.

That day has not yet come in Texas. That is good news for Texans who care about their children.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

"The New York Times" wrote a shocking article calling attention to the income inequality caused by single parenthood. That's right, the liberal "New York Times" found that inequality is caused more by marital status than by finance, Wall Street, or tax policy. Are liberals encouraging the decline of marriage? Find out on this Trifecta.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - The Next Sexual Revolution Has Arrived

In July, 2009, Newsweek ran a feature article on “relationships with multiple, mutually consenting partners,” entitled, “Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution.” Last week, Showtime launched a reality TV show called “Polyamory: Married and Dating.” To quote from Newsweek’s 2009 article, it’s “enough to make any monogamist’s head spin.” And all this, of course, is being touted as a great thing, a celebration of love and freedom, a deliverance from the monotony and constraints of monogamy.

The Showtime promo pulls no punches and makes no excuses:

Narrator: The polyamorous lifestyle may shock some. But with American divorce rates hovering around 50 percent, these families are on the front line of a growing revolution in the traditional monogamous relationship.

Michael: I want people to know it’s okay to live a life this way, it can be good. Because it is. It’s beautiful. We love it.

Jennifer: I want people to know that monogamy isn’t the only way.

Vanessa: If it were socially acceptable, I think there would be way more poly people.

Tahl: It feels like how we really should all be living.

Natalia Garcia, director: I really believe that a lot of people are going to watch this show and their jaws are going to drop. And they’re also probably going to wonder, Am I poly?

Narrator: Follow two not-so-typical families –

Kamala: Mommy and Daddy are going to ask Jen and Tahl to come and live with us. How would you like that?

Kid: Yeah. I like ‘em.

Narrator: – that are changing the way America thinks about love.

Yes, it’s all about who we love, a statement we’ve heard before – repeatedly – in another context. Perhaps President Obama needs to allow his views on marriage to “evolve” just a little bit more? After all, don’t all Americans have the “right” to be with the person (or persons) they love?

According to the official blurb, “This provocative reality series takes an inside look at polyamory: non-monogamous, committed relationships that involve more than two people. Lindsey and Anthony are married, but live in a triad (three-way relationship) with their girlfriend, Vanessa. Husband and wife Michael and Kamala have many lovers, including couple Jen and Tahl.”

Tahl, for his part, cites this lengthy quote from Amy Thornton as expressive of his views: “A lot of people say no to more love. Why? Well (IMHO) the number one reason is they don’t love themselves. It’s the first place that people say no to more love. After that comes the perception of ownership and control in relationships. The…mentality is my partner is mine, and I don’t have to share. If I share I might lose what I have. Which of course is silly, you can always lose what you have, or what you think you have. People don’t know that though, and they aren’t taught to believe otherwise. It’s ridiculous conventional wisdom that few choose to challenge. Anyway, since that’s true, therefore I am willing to give up getting more love for myself so that I don’t have to share. There is also a perceived idea of lack, that there isn’t enough to go around. The silly idea also persists that there is one true love for everyone… …that’s the short version according to me.”

And to think: Some of us have been stuck in the stone age of monogamous marriage for decades. We could have been so free! In the words of one of the reality show’s stars, “Monogamy destroys family. . . . I feel liberated.” Chew on that for a while: “Monogamy destroys family.” (This sounds a bit like Dan Savage, who said, “people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted.”)

To be sure, it is not just Showtime that is pushing polyamory. In January, ABC News ran a TV spot entitled “Polyamory: 1 Mom, 2 Dads, and a Baby,” while a January report on the BBC carried the claim that “Polyamorous relationships tend to be ongoing, sustainable, emotionally bonded, committed relationships with more than one person, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.”

But it is Showtime which has taken the lead, as the Polyinthemedia website announces: “The series will break new ground in introducing modern polyamory to a mass audience. Nothing like this has ever appeared on television. (Sister Wives and Big Love come from a very different place of religious patriarchal polygamy.)” To quote Newsweek again, “the traditionalists had better get used to it.”

According to estimates cited in Newsweek, there are more than half-a-million people in America living in polyamorous relationships, and if this is true, it won’t be long before the “progressives” among us will be calling for our children’s textbooks to reflect even more family “diversity.” (“Heather Has Two Mommies” is sounding quite passé.)

Of course, this is not Showtime’s first bold foray into the front lines of the sexual revolution. The network was already (in)famous for pioneering shows like “Queer as Folk” (2000-2005) and “The L Word” (2004-2009), all of which verifies what polyamory advocate Jasmine Walston stated in 2004, “We’re where the gay rights movement was 30 years ago” – and they’re catching up rapidly.

And there’s no slippery slope?

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Doug Giles - 10 Ways Women Can Wreck Their Marriage

If some of you ladies want to know how you can suck the life out of your marriage and drive your good husband to insanity, or to the bar, or into the arms of another woman, or to a divorce attorney, or just shrivel him up into a conquered quail who inwardly loathes you as he dies a slow, emotionally tortuous death, well then . . . this is your lucky day.

Here are 10 surefire principles that’ll make your husband more miserable than Donald Trump forced to watch Rosie river dance naked.

Nag your Husband. One way to torture your hubby is to be a nerve grating, contentious, non-stop dripping faucet of faultfinding and finger pointing.

Criticize your husband in public. Yep, publicly shame him. Become an expert at unveiling anything about your spouse that’ll cause him to want to jump in front of a speeding bus.

Keep Him On a Short Leash. By short leashing your mate with insane limits your man will quickly feel like a stupid son, controlled by you, his new petulant mommy.

Become a Drama Queen. Make the atmosphere of your home tense. Make it crazy. I mean … crazy.

Hate his Friends. Sever the ties your companion has with those who have walked to hell and back with him because now . . . it’s all about you. You especially want to steer him clear of friends who feel the liberty to shed light on you, the interesting wife.

Hate his hobby. Your goal is to joy steal any pleasure that can be had by the poor schlep. And anyways you don’t want him to enjoy anything that you don’t like. [take away fishing pole]

Cut him off sexually. It’s not enough to rag and ridicule him and then run his friends off. No, you must go the second mile and turn into the Sex Nazi. No sex for you!

Get your family involved in your marriage. Forget this leave and cleave stuff the Bible dictates. If you want your union to unravel then you’ve got to gang tackle your husband with “The Family.”

Never apologize. If, in the odd event you do something that hurts your husband never, I mean never, apologize. You . . . apologize? Please.

Do we really need a number 10?

Doug Giles

Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - The Bigots Against Marriage Equality

We hear it from gay activists day and night, “This is about marriage equality. We believe in marriage for all.” In reality, what most of these activists want is a redefinition of marriage that suits them alone. For the rest, they want anything but equality.

Writing in Australia, Bill Muehlenberg notes that polyamorists have challenged the Green Party’s declaration that they support “Marriage for All.” The Australian press reported that, “The Greens have declared they have a clear policy against support for polyamorous marriage as they pursue their case for same-sex marriage. Greens marriage equality spokeswoman Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has declared . . . . ‘Our bill clearly states marriage “between TWO consenting adults” and that is the Greens’ position.’”

This statement was released after “Senator Michaelia Cash . . . challenged the Australian Greens to state their position on polyamorous marriage. This follows the disclosure that polyamorists have made submissions to the Greens’ Senate Inquiry on Marriage Equality. ‘Sarah Hanson-Young must explain whether she does support “marriage for all.”’”

Marriage for all? Hardly. Marriage equality? Not a chance.

Muehlenberg’s sarcasm is well-placed: “Shame on those intolerant, bigoted and hate-filled Greens. They are a disgrace. Instead of being open, inclusive and tolerant, they are just redneck haters who are denying lovers their dreams. How dare they exclude so many people from their basic right to love and marry?”

Really, it is remarkable that Senator Hanson-Young could declare emphatically that marriage is “between TWO consenting adults” without any apparent sense of embarrassment and without recognizing the extreme irony of her statement.

Throughout recorded history, marriage has never been the genderless union of two consenting adults. It has always been the union of one man and one woman, although in many cultures it has been (and continues to be) the union of one man and one or more women. This means that it is far more radical to redefine marriage as the union of any two people than it is to redefine marriage as the union of a man and a woman and additional partners.

On what basis, then, can advocates of same-sex “marriage” argue for their right to marry the one they love while refusing that right to other consenting adults? To say, “But marriage is the union of two people” carries no weight at all, since that is simply the definition they have made up (like calling a motorcycle a truck or calling a plane a car).

In case we have forgotten (and it appears that many have), the reason marriage requires two people is because it requires a man and a woman. Otherwise, why emphasize the number two? Why not three or more? Or why not just one?

After all, Nadine Schweigert, recently married herself, explaining after her ceremony that, “I feel very empowered, very happy, very joyous . . . I want to share that with people, and also the people that were in attendance, it’s a form of accountability. . . . I was waiting for someone to come along and make me happy. At some point, a friend said, ‘Why do you need someone to marry you to be happy? Marry yourself.’”

Well, why not? If there can be same-sex marriage, why not self-marriage? As crazy as this sounds, it’s happening.

A 30-year-old Taiwanese woman married herself in 2010, while an audience member watching Anderson Cooper interview Nadine Schweigert decided that she now wanted to do the same after her recent engagement broke off. Why not? After all, it wasn’t that long ago that the notion of two men marrying or two women marrying was considered just as crazy. (It is telling that the article on the Anderson Cooper website ends by asking, “What do you think? Is it too much?”)

Back in Australia, Rebecca and James Dominguez, the country’s most prominent polyamorists, have written to the Senate that, “The legal definition of marriage itself has changed over history, such as the removal on restrictions of inter-racial marriage and the provision for divorce.” And, “Just as we have allowed changes in the past to things considered ‘traditional’ (equality of women, humanity of non-white people), we can change ‘traditional’ understandings of things now.”

But of course. As Muehlenberg notes, “Now why is it that these ‘arguments’ sound so very, very familiar? Oh yeah, they are the exact same ‘arguments’ being used by the pro-homosexual marriage crowd. Absolutely identical. The reasoning for polyamory and group marriage is 100% identical to the reasoning for homosexual marriage.”

Indeed, “Once you throw out the fundamental core criteria of marriage (proper gender, proper number, etc) then of course anything goes. And we are seeing this played out before our very eyes at this very moment. And all along the homosexual activists have the gall to mock those who warn of a slippery slope, as they claim that group marriage and other combinations will never be demanded.”

This puts the same-sex “marriage” activists in a precarious position: Either they truly support “marriage equality” and “marriage for all,” embracing polyamorous marriages and self-marriage (and God knows what else), which means that the slippery-slope argument is true, or else they demonstrate the very intolerance and bigotry of which they accuse us.

Either way, they prove our point: Marriage must not be redefined.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Alfonzo Rachel - Liberal To-Vowitarianism: Huffington Post Pundit Says No Marriage for Anyone Under 25

he Huffington Post's Jennifer Nagy recently wrote that nobody under the age of 25 should be allowed to get married. Is this just another liberal double-standard? Find out.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Censorship in London and Moral Insanity in Rhode Island

I would love to take a break from writing about gay-related issues, but it’s hard to keep silent in light of some of the things taking place here in America and in the UK.

Consider this brazen case of censorship in London, coming straight from Boris Johnson, the mayor. In 2007, gay activists in England launched a campaign “to tackle homophobic bullying in schools” with a simple message: “Some people are gay. Get over it!”

According to the Stonewall.org website, “After the launch, 600 billboard panels, kindly donated by Titan Outdoor Advertising Ltd, depicted this legend in giant, tabloid-style capital letters, on a bright red background at sights in England, Scotland and Wales. In September 2009 the simple, striking poster campaign appeared on 20 major railway stations advertising screens and on 3,500 interior bus panels in November 2009 for Anti-Bullying week.”

In response, an ad campaign was recently launched by Core Issues, which describes itself as “a non-profit Christian initiative seeking to support men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression. It respects the rights of individuals who identify as ‘gay’ who do not seek change.” The Core Issues group purchased ads to be carried on a number of buses reading, “Not gay! Ex-gay, post-gay and proud. Get over it!”

This was too much for Mayor Johnson, who explained, “London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.” What a remarkable statement.

Aside from the fact that the ads did not say that “being gay is an illness that someone recovers from,” it is absolutely outrageous that the mayor of London – “one of the most tolerant cities in the world” – would deny the right of free expression to those who identify as “not gay, ex-gay, or post-gay,” especially in light of the ubiquitous “Some people are gay. Get over it!” campaign.

Some observers suggested that Johnson had ulterior motives in his actions, specifically, his own campaign for reelection, and his main rival in the upcoming election, Ken Livingstone, criticized Johnson for even allowing the ads to be booked: “London is going backwards under a Tory leadership that should have made these advertisements impossible. They promote a falsehood, the homophobic idea of ‘therapy’ to change the sexual orientation of lesbians and gay men.” Yes, censorship is alive, well, and being fully justified in “most tolerant” London.

To add insult to injury, after Alexander Boot, a regular opinion columnist for the Daily Mail, published an article entitled, “So attack on free speech is a sign of tolerance,” there was an outcry from the gay community, branding it a “startlingly homophobic column.” The Daily Mail responded by pulling the article.

It appears then that even criticism of censorship is to be censored, with one Facebook comment asking, “Actually isn’t the article a crime or against the law? Because of laws against homophobia or incitement to hatred?"

Turning now to Rhode Island, we move from the outrageous to the absurd, from censorship to moral insanity.

Two weeks ago, a 17 year-old student-artist at Pilgrim High School painted a mural depicting the stages of a boy’s life, from childhood, to teen years, to graduation in cap and gown, to marriage and family. The last image showed the boy, now a man, standing with his wife and son, with wedding rings over the couple’s heads.

This was too much for the school, and the administration decided to paint over the last image, since “some of the members of the Pilgrim High School community suggested that the depiction of a young man’s development from boyhood through adulthood as displayed may not represent the life experiences of many of the students at Pilgrim High School.” I kid you not!

How dare this young artist depict an image of a traditional family, since this “may not represent the life experiences of many of the students.”

Do you see why I call this moral insanity?

The artist, Liz Bierendy, herself raised in a single-parent home, explained, “I felt bad because I didn’t want to offend anyone. I was scared that maybe it would go out to our homosexual community and I didn’t want them to get in an uprise because I was not trying to preach that’s the right thing to do at all.”

Can you imagine this? She “didn’t want to offend anyone” and she was “scared” that it would provoke a negative reaction from “our homosexual community.” And all this over an image of a married couple with their child. What has become of America?

The school ultimately let Liz decide how to complete her mural, and she stood by her initial decision. But as long as incidents like these continue to happen – here and in other parts of the world – I’m going to continue to write about them.

The best way to combat censorship is to speak out more loudly and clearly, while the best way to combat moral insanity is to expose it.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Jeannie DeAngelis - Thoughts on Marriage From … Cameron Diaz?

Who better to expound on the institution of marriage than a promiscuous, never-been-married Hollywood liberal out promoting a movie about an oversexed teacher “saving up cash for a boob job?”

Relationship expert Cameron Diaz felt moved to share her opinions with the boys of Maxim magazine. This time she said marriage is a “dying institution.” Ms. Diaz, who’s seen more home runs than her current beau Yankee third baseman Alex Rodriguez has seen in his whole career, said “I think we have to make our own rules. I don’t think we should live our lives in relationships based off old traditions that don’t suit our world any longer.”

You remember Cameron – she’s the one who said, “I can be attracted to a woman sexually, but it doesn’t mean I want to be in love with a woman. If I’m going to be with a woman sexually, it doesn’t mean I’m a lesbian. We put these restraints and definitions on people, but it’s hard to define.”

Cameron Diaz was described by the international men’s magazine as a “rarefied creature even by Hollywood standards,” but to vulgarity aficionados Ms. Diaz is a woman full of “beauty, intelligence, and humor with a 4.0 in Potty Mouth.” Evidently, for consumers of “soft porn for male adolescents,” Diaz’s coarse language elevates the ‘Vanilla Sky’ actress to the position of matrimonial philosopher and discerning harbinger of “new rules.”

Summing up her marriage insights with advice that is sure to strengthen the fabric of society, theorist Diaz said: “Guys need women who challenge them and don’t let them get away with their s**t. Women, conversely, need to not be crazy bitches who blow up when their guys tell them something that scares them.”

Diaz’s thoughts on traditional marriage were a perfect promotional segue for her new movie “Bad Teacher.” After demeaning a God-ordained institution, wanton schoolmarm Diaz set her sights on glorifying her role as a bawdy middle school teacher who makes child predator/stellar educators Mary Kay Letourneau and Debra LaFave both look like Teacher of the Year.

“Lying seductively across a desk in a thigh-high miniskirt and red stilettos in a clutter-filled classroom,” Cameron graced the pages of the rude men’s magazine. Referring to the movie “Bad Teacher,” the publication declares: “It’s not every day that one of the world’s biggest movie stars offers to fulfill your schoolboy fantasies. But then Cameron Diaz is not your average movie star… Miss Diaz, we’ve been bad, bad boys!”

In the movie’s car washing scene, Cameron resurrects the spirit of the rather scandalous Van Halen hit single “Hot for Teacher.” The 1984 video depicted a bikini-clad teacher parading around in front of a gang of lecherous, barely pubescent 7th graders who apparently had it ‘bad’ and were ‘hot for teacher.’ Twenty-seven years later, Diaz ratcheted it up a few notches with raunchy language, vodka-swilling and breast enhancements.

In addition to dissing marriage, the not so angelic ‘Charlie’s Angel’ continues to make her “own rules” and feels comfortable promoting a movie where she slithers all over a soapy car in hot pants during a car wash scene full of junior high school children. Irreverent Diaz said the best part about the movie was that she enjoyed “being allowed to be rude to kids during the filming.” Diaz joked, “The best thing was getting to abuse children, none of whom were harmed during the filming.”

Ask Diaz about her romance with A-Rod: “It’s really awesome.” Her feelings on marriage: “Marriage hasn’t been important to me.” On having children: “We don’t need any more kids. We have plenty of people on this planet.”

Cameron Diaz is convinced that when it comes to marriage, family and education, “We should [not] live our lives in relationships based off old traditions that don’t suit our world any longer.” Which means the world Cameron endorses is immoral, corrupt, disrespectful, and depraved.

So there you have it – Cameron Diaz, is just another in a long list of left-wing Hollywood social engineers who seem to believe American society is bettered by way of morally bankrupt musings.

Jeannie DeAngelis

---

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---