Home / Church  /

Fox News Biggees Surrendering on Marriage
By Steve  Pauwels / 30 March  2013

I was more disappointed than shatteringly surprised when Bill  O’Reilly and Megan Kelley essentially raised the white flag the  other night, or at least went AWOL, on the battle for authentic marriage.  Guesting on Mr. O’s eponymously titled  Factor  program  Tuesday evening, Fox News ’ fetching,  mid-afternoon anchor  volunteered, “I had an interview with Tony Perkins … What is it about calling …a  gay union a marriage that offends you? How does it hurt a traditional  …marriage?…  I didn’t hear anything articulated that was particularly  persuasive.”

To which O’Reilly, nearly exploding out of his chair, added ecstatically,   ”I agree with you a hundred percent!  … The compelling argument is on  the side of homosexuals … ‘We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like  everybody else.’ …. And to deny  that, you’ve got to have a very  strong argument … the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the  Bible.”

What’s perplexing is when a national media figure who, for a decade,  has  doggedly sniffed-out pernicious “secular progressivism” abruptly takes a powder  on the “defense-of-traditional-marriage” front. Towns should be able to host a  Christmas creche and reference the word “Easter” in their school programs,  blasts Bill O – but the post-modern hijacking of marriage is no big deal?
Philosophically consistent that ain’t.

Folks regularly go on about how “smart” is Ms. Kelly. And — contrary to  self-congratulating  Leftists’ cheap shots — O’Reilly is no dummy, either;  he normally acquits himself pretty skillfully in unpacking the issues. If,  however, either of them actually buys the shabby, short-sighted humbug  they proffered in this back-and-forth? Seems they’re not quite as  bright as advertised.
The more “compelling” brief is found among the heralds of  pro-”homosexual-marriage”? Well, I suppose so —  if one  assumes sloppily splashing around unreflective chatter about  “equality” and “rights” qualifies as a “compelling” argument for officially  rejiggering what all of recorded history has confirmed to be civilization’s  bedrock institution.

First  off, the Fox talkers’ imperious dismissal of “bible thumping”  rebuttals of fake, i.e. “same-sex”,  matrimony shouldn’t be conceded.  I apologize to no one for shaping my life around the unshakable truths of  Scripture — and I’m in pretty impressive company. Most of our Founders — perhaps  all of them? — would find it alarmingly scandalous that  Judeo-Christian principles are being written out of the modern  public-policy discussion. Glance at the historic record: biblical wisdom was a  welcome and indispensable contributor to  the establishment of our Constitutional Republic — facile,  “separation-of-church-and-straight” mythology notwithstanding.

John Adams, for instance: “Americans did not invent this foundation of  society. They found it in their religion [Christianity].”
Next,  the ages ( personal experience, biology, every major religion and  reams of recent scholarship) have thumpingly ratified the  husband/wife-led family as the preferred agency for  propagating and  caring for the human species. The “state” can’t  and shouldn’t take an  interest in formally acknowledging that, Mr. O’Reilly? The U. S. Government, Ms.  Kelly, is out-of-line in endorsing it? Seriously?

I’d say common sense demands as much. And, by the way, the Constitution  comfortably permits it.
Do our founding documents explicitly authorize the Federal government to give  thumbs up to “heterosexual marriage ? Of course not — and what  pro-marriage advocate is asserting otherwise? Our Constitution/Bill of Rights,  however, do charge “general government”, in its various departments, with   raising up and maintaining military defenses, crafting tax policy,  setting immigration law, etc. In a nod to the irreplaceable union  of husband and wife as the hub of child-rearing and anchor of a stable  society, wherever public policy in these and multiple other areas intersects  with matters nuptial it may, and should, encourage the institution.

Benefits for military spouses and government employees? Tax-filing provisions  for married households? Exactly whom a legal immigrant is permitted to bring  along into the country? Any of countless scenarios in which marital status  potentially impinges on a citizen’s interaction with her government necessitates  that federal law clarify: what is a husband? wife? family? What comprises a  marriage?

These  terms have centuries-underscored meanings. Despite the caterwauling of  take-no-prisoners homosexual supremacists, leaders and lawmakers should make  distinctions based on those meanings. Practicality, in fact, obliges they do so  — as does prudence and morality.  Natural marriage plays a  demonstrably crucial, salutary role in cultivating well-ordered,  well-oiled communities. Governments wisely and rightly boost it.
Yet, blithely chirping about “equality” and “rights” overturns all of the  above, correct? Neutralizing what used to be obvious to everyone?

Okay – along that line of reasoning: VA benefits currently are accorded only  those who’ve done their duty in the armed forces but not to school teachers,  non-profit employees, plumbers. Where’s the “equality” in that? Shouldn’t they  enjoy the same government-conferred “rights” of any armed-services  member?
I smell “civilian-a-phobia”!

What “right” do the unemployed have to their “unemployment compensation” when  laboring Americans have no access to same? Can’t “unemployed” be extended to  take in the “under-employed”? The “unsatisfactorily-employed”?
Why should business owners or investors enjoy tax-breaks denied mere  weekly-paycheck earners? Sounds like a 14th Amendment  ”equal-protection”  outrage to me!!

Do some egalitarian-minded singles feel Constitutionally snubbed when the  government extends to their married peers special advantages?  What of the  spinster who insists she is devotedly “married” to her three cats – and expects  Uncle Sam to honor that status?

Ludicrous? Only by degree: the evangelists of “gay marriage”, after  all, traffick reflexively in this same species of loopy reasoning and  language hijinks. Our elected officials and courts draw lines all the time,  distinguishing one set of individuals from another based on their activities,  how they live, what they pour into society or take from it. Those formulations  long have included marriage — an arrangement once assumed beneficial to America  and thus promoted by American polity.
Suddenly, we’re arbitrarily informed that’s no longer copacetic.

Memo to Bill O’Reilly and Megan Kelly: It’s really not all that complicated;  some might actually find it downright  “compelling”.
And for the record: I didn’t thump my Bible; not  even once.

Read more:  http://clashdaily.com/2013/03/fox-news-biggees-surrendering-on-marriage/#ixzz2P7jygZ1L Get more Clash on ClashDaily.comFacebook, Twitter, and YouTube.