March 22, 2013
Contact: Jeff Walton 202-682-4131, 202-413-5639 cell
“IRD happily endorses and will participate in this march to defend traditional marriage.” – Mark Tooley, IRD President
Washington, DC— On the day that the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about California’s Proposition 8 defining marriage as man and woman, the National March for Marriage will rally outside the Supreme Court Building. IRD is co-sponsoring the march along with dozens of pro-family and religious groups. Speakers will include Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone and IRD emeritus board member Robert George of Princeton University. Opponents of traditional marriage are trying to claim the redefinition of traditional marriage is inevitable. But millions of Americans by faith and common sense know that the definition of marriage is immutable and that traditional marriage best serves all Americans, especially children. The attempts to legally redefine marriage also threaten religious liberty and the public witness of traditional religious believers. The Tuesday, March 26 National March for Marriage will begin at 9:30 on the National Mall and conclude with an 11am rally at the U.S. Supreme Court.
IRD President Mark Tooley
“IRD is honored to sponsor the National March for Marriage, in which IRD’s staff will march together.
For 20 years IRD has fought to uphold traditional marriage within declining, liberal led oldline Protestant denominations. Most of those once influential denominations, notably excepting The United Methodist Church, have surrendered on marriage, which has only accelerated their membership spiral and marginalization. What happened to the imploding Episcopal Church and others could happen to America.
Traditional Protestants, Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox, and others agree on the historic and universal definition of marriage. In these days of family disintegration, America now more than ever needs a vigorous affirmation of traditional marriage, for the sake of all society, especially the most vulnerable socially and economically, children above all.
Believers in religious liberty and a strong public voice for religious institutions and people should also be concerned about the redefinition of marriage’s ultimate impact of stigmatizing and curtailing traditional faith expressions in the public square.
We are confident that in the long term what is right and good for all will prevail, even as we anticipate in the short term many difficult battles ahead.
Dear Benmwelliver,
The implementation of ‘Reagan-omics’ set in place a formula for an eventual Plutocracy. The tax cuts and benefits of Corporate welfare did nothing to help build the Middle-Class. Instead, it provided opportunities for the extremely wealthy to hide their earnings in ways that deprived the social structure of needed infrastructure (tax) dollars, and thirty years on, the wealth inequality among Americans has become obscenely distorted.
I would wager that you might be one of the wealthiest 1%, because of your defense of those withholding money via some off-shore bank account?
I could be wrong, but I find it amusing that many Tea Party folks are so defensive of the 1%. I’m not implying that you belong to the TP, ‘just illustrating my thought.
Neo-Con: Neo Conservative, Free market Capitalists who endorse an interventionist style of Foreign Policy. Members of the Reagan, Bush-1, and Bush-2 administrations practiced the Neo-Conservative way of governing.
I find that style, exalts too much about American Exceptionalism. More than any humble person could swallow.
I knew we had something in common when you mentioned Garrison “Gary” Keillor! Wow! How cool is that?! I listen every week and find his homespun humor very entertaining, and I’m glad you do too. Though he’s too dry for my wife’s liking.
I suspect you knew me before I adopted my nickname: Marco? There’s a story behind that, but I suspect you might find that a bit too disingenuous. (BTW…My father called me that).
Does your name have anything to do with healthy liver? I’m just needling you now.
Happy Easter,
Marco
Dear Jimeckland,
“Traditional” is only relevant to a limited period of time.
What was “traditional” ten-thousand years ago is certainly not likely to be the same today.
I do understand your religious argument for marriage being between two opposing sexes for procreative reasons. But today there are plenty of people on this planet and we don’t need to guarantee by marriage that there be even more.
I have several gay friends who have adopted children, and that does more for the planet than just making more new humans.
Sincerely,
Marco Bell
An earlier comment asserted that everything “evolves.” Nope. Some things devolve.
Reducing marriage to a legal arrangement whereby any two (or more) persons of any sex (es) can get “married” does not represent progress. The depth of the pathology has to be tremendous when people are even claiming to do this under the banner of Christianity. That represents an unbelievable degree of ignorance and cognitive dissonance.
Unfortunately, just like the tragic cultural consequences of the 60’s sexual liberation movement, most people won’t recognize the carnage until it’s too late.
Dear Cleareyedtruthmeister,
Tell us how the 60’s sexual liberation movement created tragic cultural consequences? Really, I’m curious!
I’ll answer with my own two:
1. soaring divorce rates
2. over 50 million (!) murdered babies
Hard to know where to begin, Marco. Try these for starters: fatherless children leading to an almost endless cycle of poverty and psychological dysfunction; the tragic emotional, spiritual and biological consequences of abortion-on-demand; rampant sexually-transmitted diseases; the gradual removal of sacredness from sexuality, viewing it instead as largely recreational and self-serving.
Here you go, Marco, hot off the press! Another nice little reminder of the accomplishments of sexual liberationists! http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-110197000-venereal-infections-us-nation-creating-new-stis-faster-new-jobs-or
“Protect marriage…”?? From what? People WANTING to get married?!
You guys have lost this fight, largely due to how irrational and immoral your position appears to be. Unless you can begin to put forth rational and moral sounding arguments, this fight is over.
Sorry for your loss.
You sure don’t sound sorry, you sound like a liberal gloating because our culture has such a low view of marriage that getting a divorce is easier than getting out of a TruGreen contract, and that the most loud and obnoxious pressure groups can tilt the public debate and extend “marriage” to any two entities who feel (for the moment) aroused by each other.
You are correct, the fight is over, and the wrong side is inevitably the winner. Perhaps in 5 more years you can gloat more when your loosely defined “peoplewanting to get married” will extend to incest, adult-child pairings, and probably inter-species. “Equality” has a way of becomig a broader and broader concept. But there is not nor ever will be “equality.” The law may say two men or two women are “married.” In the eyes of God, never, not even if every liberal bishop in the world shows up for the “wedding.” God created the two sexes to complement and complete each other, and if you don’t believe God, surely you believe in biology. The two women down the street with crewcuts and flannel shirts call themselves “married,” but that doesn’t make it so.
Enjoy your gloat if you wish. A culture with no sense of decency is not a good place to live in, except for the bottom-feeders who helped create this situation. I’m sure to them there is joy in destroying civilization.
Gloating? No. I truly am sorry for the pain this progress is causing folk like many here. I was not long ago in the same ideological boat with you.
Indeed, as an anabaptist and just peace advocate, I am in – and have been in and will remain in – the minority as far as popular opinion goes, so I understand being on the minority position. While I do not despair because I’m in the minority, it can be a bit of a pain. Such is life. I was genuinely bemoaning the grief I’m sure you feel.
On the other hand, as a believer in the moral righteousness of marriage for all folk – gay or straight – I’m quite glad that public opinion has changed to, what is in my estimation, the more morally and rationally “right” position. Just like I’m glad that public opinion has changed in my lifetime so that overt racism is no longer popularly accepted. I believe both to be a change to the moral Good and I thank God for that progress.
My major point, though, was that your argument (the position I formerly held, I remind you) is losing because it simply sounds irrational and immoral.
Promoting marriage is, on the face of it, a Good thing. People can see that. It is self-evidently Good, as a rule.
Conversely, discouraging sexual licentiousness is, on the face of it, a Bad thing, something to be discouraged. Self-evidently to nearly everyone.
I’m just pointing out that, until you can make arguments that sound more rational and more moral, you’ll continue to marginalize yourselves.
And just to be clear, where you say ridiculous, patently false statements like…
* Perhaps in 5 more years you can gloat more when your loosely defined “peoplewanting to get married” will extend to incest, adult-child pairings, and probably inter-species.
* The law may say two men or two women are “married.” In the eyes of God, never, not even if every liberal bishop in the world shows up for the “wedding.”
* God created the two sexes to complement and complete each other, and if you don’t believe God
…you are not making rational or moral arguments, you are engaging in rather childish and immoral ranting.
Do you understand?
No one is advocating animal abuse, child abuse, abusive relationships of any sort. Many of us do believe in God, we just doubt that you speak for God.
To suggest that we do is just false witness, which makes you into the irrational and immoral one, in your approach to an honest disagreement. That is why you lose this argument.
Given the way that Sandy is responding, I doubt that she can hear this coming from me, but maybe some of the other more conservative brothers and sisters could back me up, here…?
So…those who want to stick to a marriage definition that appears to be consistent with biology, natural law, reason, 8 thousand-plus years of recorded human history, and the religious teachings of all major faiths are the ones who are unreasonable and immoral??
Gay marriage proponents are typically the same liberals who have told us for decades that marriage is an outdated social insitution…now they have suddenly discovered the importance of marriage? Give me a break.
Marriage redefinition advocates frequently suggest that “no one” is advocating incest, polygamy, etc….but that’s the same thing they would have said 30 or 40 years ago about gay marriage. The slippery slope gets ever more slippery.
It will take much longer than 5 years, but, if we continue on the current path, we will see negative cultural consequences down the road that no one might have envisioned today.
Dear Cleareyed…,
Your opening paragraph is valid and sound logic, and that bodes well for any argument regarding a particular subject.
However, it is your second paragraph that I challenge.
Yes, (we) Liberals have been among many who have considered Marriage to be an outmoded institution until now. And why now, do we make a fuss over it? Because finally, society has allowed the many thousands of individuals who had to hide in the “closet” in order to avoid being physically brutalized by the closed-minded, intolerant people who now still want to return to “The Good Ol’ Days”.
Society has changed for the better by accepting the people who used to fear for their lives, just to be who they were born to be. And now (finally), we can expect to be part of society as a whole, by marrying the one we love.
So yes, it is a battle worth fighting. Just as you fight for your Rights, it is vital to defend the Rights of our fellow citizens who wish to contribute to society as a whole, by starting a family with the same civil structural security that you currently enjoy.
Clearly…
those who want to stick to a marriage definition that appears to be consistent with biology, natural law, reason, 8 thousand-plus years of recorded human history, and the religious teachings of all major faiths are the ones who are unreasonable and immoral??
In a word, yes. You are not offering rational support for your hunches. By and large, your entire argument is either, “I think God does not approve of marriage between gay folk, therefore, God does not approve and you shouldn’t do that!”… which is an unsupported opinion that you’re welcome to, but you can’t prove it and you have no rational reason to demand others heed your hunches about what God does and doesn’t want… OR, your argument goes along the lines of “Gay people are promiscuous and letting them marry will destroy marriage…” which is irrational and immoral because you are bearing false witness and slandering others.
Gay folk ARE sometimes promiscuous. So are straight folk. But ENCOURAGING fidelity and loving, committed, monogamous marriage relationships is the ANSWER to promiscuity, not a support for promiscuity.
And for you all to suggest that gay folk are incapable of being faithful, that is slanderous and false and easily demonstrated to be false. I can see in the real world that my gay friends are no more likely to be unfaithful to their spouses than my straight friends.
In short, your arguments rely upon bullying assertions that you know best (ie, “I know what God wants, so you have to do what I say, because I know best what God wants and I should decide that for you…”) and irrational slander.
It is self-evidently obvious that encouraging FAITHFUL, loving, committed relationships is an innate Good. Rationally speaking, where is the “bad” in encouraging faithful, loving, committed relationships?
My family, whatsoever things are good, true, noble, pure, loving… think on THESE things. Marriage is a self-evidently Good thing – for gay or straight folk. You all lost this argument because you could not disprove this point and you relied instead upon false witness, which is itself immoral.
Do you see now where you lost your way? Pray on these things, my family in Christ. Consider repenting of pride and hubris, or at least, pray for a bit more humility in how you address disagreements in the future.
When panehollow warns Christians that we might be (ooh!) “marginalized,” she’s caught the essence of the whole thing. Christians have been “marginalized” since the first Good Friday, and Jesus foretold persecution and even martyrdom, which would qualify as “marginalization” taken to the nth degree.
I gather paynhollow is the familiar ex-evangelical happy to be away from the margins and happily part of the secular culture. We all make our choices. Whenever the Bible mentions the word “crowd,” it’s always in a negative light, and Jesus spoke of the “wide way” that leads to destruction. However, the modern liberal prefers the wide way (and doesn’t believe in the Last Judgment anyway), so, as the Gospels say of the Pharisees, they prefer the praise of men to the approval of God. To be accepted by the unbelievers is the liberals’ view of salvation.
I prefer this life in the margins. If the culture is 99 percent godless (and I’m being generous), I’ll stick with the 1 percent. A crowd is never right.
Ben…
We all make our choices. Whenever the Bible mentions the word “crowd,” it’s always in a negative light, and Jesus spoke of the “wide way” that leads to destruction.
By this line of reasoning, then, the church has LONG been wrong on this topic, since they were soundly in the midst of the “wide” mainstream crowd of thought on homosexuality. Indeed, when I moved away from the traditional understanding, I was in the margins. By YOUR measure, then, I was right and you were wrong, am I understanding you correctly? And I am only wrong now because our arguments were the most rational and moral and thus, won the argument? And you all are “right” because you couldn’t make a sound rational or moral argument to support your position and thus, you became the minority?
Interesting theories, but unfortunately for you, this is not a sound rational disagreement. Which is why you lost this argument with the majority. Naught else.
~Dan
And no, I’m not an “ex-evangelical.” I’m a slightly progressive anabaptist, traditional in most ways, love God, love the church, love the Bible and even love my detractors – those who like to twist our motives and words to support their cultural values. As an anabaptist, I too, am used to and prefer life in the margins.
It’s just on this point, your side’s “arguments” come across as so hateful, sinful and irrational, that you drove the majority away from your position, you made it clear there was no good sound moral or rational reason to oppose something as innately Good as marriage.
~Dan
Sandytnaylor’s astute comments weren’t even remotely a “rant.” However, given that misnomer and the familiar terms “hateful” and “irrational” for whatever cannot be argued with, I see we are back with the familiar provacateur, and I encourage disengagement from same.
However, as an exit statement: I am not “hateful, sinful, and irrational” for supporting the Christian view of marriage and opposing the acceptance of what is clearly not “marriage.” I have the Bible, two millennia of tradition, and common sense on my side (I can look at a male and female body and see that, obviously, they were MADE FOR each other), and that accusation “hateful!” just doesn’t work on people whose faith is solid. The Romans, a notoriously depraved people, didn’t legalize marriage between two men, and they mocked Nero for “marrying” his boy toy, Sporus. To sink lower on the depravity scale than the Romans is hardly a cultural advance. Amazing that the apostles urged their audiences to turn to God and turn away from a “crooked” world (Acts 2:40 – liberals don’t read Acts), and yet the liberal clergy are so benighted that they want to bestow the church’s blessing on this bottom-of-the-barrel immorality. Follow Paul, or follow Nero? Guess which choice the liberal church makes, and that’s all you need to know about them. If Nero came back to earth, instead of hating them as the instigator of the first persecution of Christians, they’d probably make him a bishop, and since he kicked his pregnant wife to death, causing her death and the death of their unborn child, he’d probably be lauded for “reducing his carbon footprint.”
Ah, Mr. “Paynehollow” (aka Mr. Trabue), I knew it had to be you. Who else can construct such a lengthy, imaginative narrative around what someone DIDN’T say while almost totally ignoring what they DID say?
Yes, when you start seeing the word “hateful” show up in half the comments, you recognize that familiar voice, and we’re back with Alice having tea with the Mad Hatter and March Hare, realizing we’re in a universe where rationality is the supreme handicap. Unfortunately, his voice is typical of so many liberals, just this bizarre flow of cliches and moral posturing and derision that they mistake for eloquence. Bell is in the same mold, claiming gays are trembling in fear of being “physically brutalized,” rather ironic in view of the fact that what gay men call “making love” is considered brutality when it takes place in a prison shower stall. I’ve never heard of evil and intolerant heterosexuals passing on the AIDS virus to gay men, but somehow we get cast as the supreme villains in their little melodrama. Funny also that they whine about the “right to love,” but given the ease with which AIDS is passed on, they don’t seem to be curtailing their sexual practice in order to stop the plague. I’d love to sign an agreement with the gay community: show me that you genuinely love and respect other gay men by ceasing the bath-house sex, public restroom sex, “bug parties,” and “barebacking” that have led to the high incidence of this plague. If they’re willing to do that, I’d say, sure, let them marry, they seem like good people. But that isn’t going to happen. My niece works for the county health department, and she assures me that most of the gay men she meets in her work laugh when she brings up “safe sex.” She has asked the infected ones if they reveal their status to their sex partners, and the usual answer is either “no” or “not unless they ask.” Where is the “love” in that? I don’t see much “community” feeling in the actions of people who don’t give two hoots if they infect other people.
Sorry, but given the state of things, I will not accept this tag of “hateful” pinned on me and my fellow Christians. I do not hate gays, nor do I do them any harm at all. I’m capable of loving the sinner but hating the sin, and I think their lifestyle is deplorable. Anyone who thinks that allowing them to legally marry is going to lead to any dramatic change in their behavior is a fool. There are plenty of “couples” who gloat about their “open” relationships, which, considering the obvious health risk, is pretty darn ridiculous. My niece meets plenty of “partnered” gays in her work in the health dept. Getting “married” isn’t going to change a thing. People whose identity is bound up with their ability to hook up with multiple partners aren’t going to honor marriage any more than they honor the need for any human being to avoid infecting other people with a life-changing disease.
Wow! Sandytnaylor sure seems to have the whole Gay thing figured out.
Now we can’t continue having ribald sex wherever and whenever we want…Damn!
I haven’t heard such misinformed ramblings for decades, but then, I presume Sandy is still following these issues from the FOX(News)-hole she dug in the eighties.
Why do some minorities like Sandy’s, think that Marriage Equality for ALL peoples, is somehow, some kind of “camel’s nose under the tent” threat?
The AIDS virus was certainly something that needed addressing, but that’s not anywhere near central to the issue of marriage equality. If STD’s were any kind of barometer for people’s Rights to marry, then heterosexuals should be denied as well, since the rates of infection are similar in ‘those’ groups. (Note: A blood test was required of me, and my betrothed before we were allowed a license to marry, back in the seventies). If promiscuity is your main concern, then be fair about whom you casually indict with your vitriol.
The subject of Marriage Equality deals with the unjust policies of two consenting adults wanting the same fair treatment under the law. It is not a desire to justify some cheap trollop through the garden of traditional intransigents.
The weak argument that the “Religious Right” puts forth will suffice for those that cling to those archaically narrow and restrictive standards. As for the rest of Society, let’s hope those who are still steeped in old prejudices can keep to themselves, as Humanity seeks to evolve into a more inclusive existence.
Thanks for your compassionate comments. You certainly have me figured out – totally wrong on all counts.
When you use the word “vitriol,” you’re doing the pot-says-to-kettle routine in a huge way. You also seem to have some problem applying the “inclusive” thing, as seen by your reactions to people who don’t think the same as you and your liberal pals.
Not that it matters, but no, I don’t live in a Fox news hole, I live in a very secular society where public policy is decided by the loudest and most obnoxious pressure groups. I am not Amish, so whether I watch Fox or not, I still get the clear message: I’m a hate-filled, intolerant, judgmental horrible person – even though I’m not. I think you, being of the “creative” tribe, manage to avoid actual contact with human beings who don’t see the world through the liberal lens. The fact that you put AIDS on the same level as other STDs shows you are seriously out of touch with reality. Very few heteros will be on an expensive drug regimen for the rest of their lives due to the standards STDs, but thousands of gay men, generous in sharing their viruses, will be. I’m sure you try to “spin” the AIDS epidemic to make it sound like no big deal, just boys will be boys, but it’s a simple matter of hard data: gay men are infecting each other with AIDS, guilt-free, all that matters is the joy of sex, not the well-being of the guy they’re with at the moment. Some “community” you choose to support. I’m happy that I don’t believe to a “community” where people don’t care if they pass on their diseases to others.
Say whatever you like about the Religious Right. None of us are losing any sleep over what a gaggle of arty pseudo-sophisticate Episcopalians say while they’re munching their croissants before their blessing of gay “marriages.” People who have zero knowledge of the Bible or Christian doctrine are not a crowd that affect my view of living the life that God intended.
If you consider yourself “evolving,” get a second opinion. Maybe you can evolve toward some common courtesy and at least make a gesture of being “tolerant,” also might drop your profanity.
SandyT…,
I would apologize for any profanity that was misdirected, but I’m sorry, I don’t recall using any. Perhaps you could remind me?
AIDS is and always has been a serious disease, and I only include it with other sexually transmitted Diseases because it too can be treated.
My Gay friends and family don’t live the kind of lifestyle that you described, ie: salacious, prurient, licentious, or sleazy. And none of them have had to deal with AIDS. So please simmer-down a little bit about the Gay Boogey Monster out to destroy the world. It will be destroyed by something other than that!
I think obesity will be the destructive force that brings down America (or the World).
I think you could do your blood pressure a favor if you just didn’t fret so much about AIDS infected Gay men. They aren’t as purposely destructive-driven as you make them out to be, and why should it matter to you and your sex life.
I’m flattered that you think my Artsy-ness separates me from the drivel of humanity, but I relish contact with ALL kinds of people! Think about it…
I’m enjoying my ‘contact’ with YOU! Truly!!
Again, have a blessed Easter Holiday!
Sincerely, (with NO profanities, anywhere in this text)
Marco Bell
.
When they say “vitriol,” that means you brought up some facts that they prefer to ignore. They’ve used the AIDS issue shamelessly to generate sympathy, conveniently ignoring the issue of just how the “victims” got infected. (Maybe Reagan did it. Or Bush.) It really is amazing that anyone could even suggest that AIDS and heterosexual STDs like gonorrhea are even remotely alike in their consequences. I appreciate your sharing your niece’s experience with AIDS patients, particularly the flippancy about notifying their numerous sex partners of their being poz. Of course, promiscuity itself is a means of using people and distancing yourself from them, treating a human being as just an object for gratification, and it being “consensual” doesn’t make it OK. Naturally when they already have this view of just using other men for sex they aren’t going to show much concern for the sex partner’s health then or later. I can’t address the status of lesbians and don’t know many of them, but the health data about homosexuals’ promiscuity suggests an emotional unhealthiness as well. Does our society want to bestow its full legal approval on a “community” whose members are so cavalier about sex, infecting their partners, concealing their status, making their own pleasure of the moment the standard for behavior? This is not the behavior of adults, these are adolescents, and we restrict marriage to adults.
Same-Sex marriage cannot be of equal value to traditional marriage–today, 20, or 100 years from now. Obviously TM is the preferred arrangement that benefits children, and fulfills God’s plan for creation. What TM couple, given the choice between a well-adjusted & loving SS couple vs TM couple, would place their kids for adoption with a SS couple? While the relationships may be of equal/loving value for the couple, the “marriage” will be of non-equal value. LGBT folks may end up having legal/loving state sanctioned unions, but don’t call it marriage and don’t tell me they’re equal. Unfortunately, this road leads to state vs religious freedom issues, with the latter being diminished.
All Christians do support traditional marriage.
Take it from there, folks.
As everything we know, evolves, it seems futile, if not just primitive to hold that Marriage won’t survive some form of modulation.
Certainly inter-racial marriage sent tremors among the “faithful” during the sixties.
It is always admirable to see the defense of one’s beliefs on parade. God knows I’ve spent enough time on the street corner railing against the Godless Neo-Cons for their immoral Wars, so I endorse my Christian friends who wish to seek harmony among life’s diversity.
But Marriage Equality is something that in twenty years, we’ll ALL wonder how we could have ever been against it!
The abolitionists of the 1800s opposed slavery because it was wrong. Perhaps their opinions did not matter because they fit Mark Bell’s category of seeing their “beliefs on parade.” Granted, some of the people defending marriage probably do get the buzz of self-righteousness, but that has nothing to do with whether their position is right or wrong. they are right, whatever their motivation.
I’m curious about a version of Christianity that consists of:
1. supporting the right of two men to marry and
2. bashing “neo-cons.”
That is a pretty undemanding religion, so I can see how it would attract the spiritually lazy. I don’t see it having much in common with the teachings of Jesus who told us to “take up our cross daily.” Going along with the current push for same-sex marriage isn’t exactly bearing a cross, more like running with the herd.
I’ve been listening to liberals bash “neo-cons” for two decades. They never define just what a neo-con is, probably because they have no clue, it’s just some group of Bad People that they can feel good about denouncing. Considering that secular liberals proudly fit the “godless” category, it’s funny that Mark is proud of denouncing “godless neo-cons.” I guess “godless liberals” are OK.
Dear Ben, (I’ve abbreviated your nom d’plume as you did mine..Fair?)
But respectfully, I’m not promoting Christianity in my beliefs about marriage. I’m promoting Marriage Equality as an institution that deserves all parties to take their vows seriously, whether the participants are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. or non-religious.
My disdain for Neo-Cons, whether they are Godless or God-fearing matters not. But you must admit, that the last three decades have seen America’s middle-class being run into poverty.
Beginning with President Reagan’s economic plan. Probably more towards a Plutocracy than anything else, and for that, the Neo-Conservative wing has laid waste to most of what America had built since WW-II.
It is only my opinion that those actions, by that crowd, have been most un-Christ-like. So I find them to be lost souls, who seek more money and power, rather than redemption from any loving God that you or I know.
Peace,
Marco (not Mark) Bell
Mark, that is very astute social analysis. Whatever is wrong with America can be blamed on Reagan or George W. Bush. Imagine the Utopia that would have come into being if we had re-elected St. Jimmy and kept his Yokum family in the White House. Billy Carter as diplomat – ah, America at its finest.
You still didn’t define “neo-con,” not that I expected you would. I have never heard a liberal define it. Or “plutocracy.” I’m so glad Obamessiah only has poor friends – no rich people hobnobbing with him!
Regarding names: Garrison Keillor’s actual birth name is “Gary,” but apparently he didn’t find that pretentious enough for the star of a sophisticated, intellectual cultural landmark like Prairie Home Companion, so he dubbed himself “Garrison.” If I ever met him (not that I wish to), I’d say “Hello, Gary.” A pretentious name is like a balloon begging to be needled.
All Christians everywhere should actively support traditional marriage and relationships !!