To be sure, if North Carolina law were making it illegal for a clergy member to perform what he or she considers to be a marriage ceremony, the violation of religious liberty would be serious cause for concern. In fact, some have worried that Indiana marriage laws could be interpreted in such a fashion as to criminalize religious ceremonies.
But it looks like the statute under question in North Carolina is simply about making authorized officiants follow licensing rules for what the state considers valid marriages. There’s no indication that it actually is illegal to have a ceremony saying two men or two women are married. And, in fact, plaintiffs don’t point to anything the state has done to punish officiants at same-sex ceremonies. For some reason, reporters didn’t bother to ask for substantiation on these points. (See the New York Times, Religion News Service and BuzzFeed.)
Harvard student Sandra Y.L. Korn recently proposed in The Harvard Crimson that academics should be stopped if their research is deemed oppressive. Arguing that “academic justice” should replace “academic freedom,” she writes: “If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?”
In other words, Korn would have the university cease to be a forum for open debate and free inquiry in the name of justice, as defined by mainstream liberal academia.
Unfortunately, this is already a reality in most universities across America, where academics and university administrators alike are trying, often successfully, to discredit and prohibit certain ideas and ways of thinking. Particularly in the humanities, many ideas are no longer considered legitimate, and debate over them is de facto non-existent. In order to delegitimize researchers who are out of line, academics brand them with one of several terms that have emerged from social science theory.
Who could deny that the problems identified by feminists in America are serious? Here are just five recent examples of how bad women have it in the States, each followed by a look at a minor problem faced by women in other parts of the world.
LOL! Mollie Hemingway rules. 🙂
*P.S.: See also: Feminists Fighting McDonald’s Are Learning The Wrong Lessons
I don’t normally take much interest in what celebs say and do, but when the odd occurrence of a celeb saying something non-progressive happens, I do think it’s worth noting, esp. when they get flak for it…
The actress Kirsten Dunst ruffled a few feminist feathers by making the following comment in a magazine interview:
“I feel like the feminine has been a little undervalued,” she says. “We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money, but staying at home, nurturing, being the mother, cooking – it’s a valuable thing my mum created. And sometimes, you need your knight in shining armour. I’m sorry. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman. That’s why relationships work…”
[…] Kirsten Dunst clearly values what her mother did for her as a mother and doesn’t want it to be lost in the pursuit of female autonomy. She thinks too that heterosexual relationships are based on a distinction between the masculine and the feminine and that therefore it is better for men to retain something of the masculine role within relationships.
Should rich kids be the only ones who ever get to see a lion?
Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies.
Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.
Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.
The notion of marriage equality was never about marriage or about equality. It’s all about the wrapping paper. It’s been packaged as an end in itself, but it is principally just a means to a deeper end. It is the means by which marriage extinction – the true target — can be achieved. If marriage and family are permitted to exist autonomously, power can be de-centralized in society. So the family has always been a thorn in the side of central planners and totalitarians. The connection between its abolition and the limitless growth of the state should be crystal clear. So anyone who has bought into this movement, or is tempted to do so, would want to step back and take a harder look.
The hard push for marriage equality was never about marriage. Neither was it about equality. It’s a convenient vehicle to abolish civil marriage, whether to rid the world of paternalism, evade responsibility for children, “privatize” relationships, or whatever. Abolishing marriage strips the family of its autonomy by placing it much more directly under the regulating control of the state.
Once the state no longer has to recognize the marriage relationship and its presumption of privilege and privacy, we all become atomized individuals in the eyes of the state, officially strangers to one another. We lose the space – the buffer zone – that the institution of the natural, organic family previously gave us and that forced the state to keep its distance.
Just so. Those who propose abolishing civil marriage, should ponder – are we just a group of autonomous individuals, or are we a collectivity? I may strongly dislike the State getting involved in divorce processes, but is that reason enough? What of societal costs of no layer of protection against bureaucratic tyranny? The family is such a layer.