The Case for Marriage As the Union Between a Man and a Woman

NOTE: I originally wrote most of this article more than a year ago, but never got around to completing and publishing it.  Now that gay marriage is in the news, both in Maryland and nationwide due to President Obama's "flip-flop-flip" on the issue, I decided to revisit and complete this.  It is of necessity long, because I am trying to address the issue as comprehensively as possible and respond to many of the claims made by gay marriage advocates.  I have two main goals in writing this.  The first goal relates to conservatives and religious people who are uncomfortable with gay marriage but may not be able to articulate why and may be reluctant to take a stand.  I hope this article will help them to realize that there are good public policy reasons to keep marriage between a man and a woman and encourage them not to back off in the face of accusations of bigotry from the left.  The second goal is to convince any supporters of gay marriage who may read this that there are good reasons for our opposition to gay marriage and that we are motivated not by hatred or the desire to deny gay people basic civil rights, but by our desire to preserve an institution that benefits children and society and to protect religious liberty.  I don't necessarily think that this article will change the mind of someone who believes strongly in gay marriage, but I think if that person is honest and fair-minded it will convince him or her that there is a clear case against gay marriage that is not based on bigotry and hatred.

The other day, I glanced at a letter on my dining room table from my state delegate. He was talking about all the supposed "accomplishments" of the 2011 session of the Maryland legislature. One of the items he mentioned was the issue of same-sex marriage. Even though same-sex marriage narrowly failed to pass the House of Delegates this year, my delegate considered it a great triumph for equality that the legislation came so close to becoming law. He even included a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

This got me thinking about how thoroughly social conservatives are losing the battle over marriage in this country. Everyone knows that the key to winning an argument is framing the debate in terms favorable to your position. No matter how strong a case you may have, it is next to impossible to win an argument when you are fighting on your opponent's turf. In this case, gay rights activists have succeeded in convincing a sizable percentage of the American population that gay marriage is a fundamental human and civil right guaranteed by the Constitution, and to ban it is to deny equality to millions of Americans. In almost any debate on this topic nowadays, the onus is on defenders of traditional marriage to prove that they are not the hate-filled, discrimination-loving bigots that they are assumed by default to be. Indeed, most of the time the media calls the issue a debate over "marriage equality." Talk about loaded definitions! Obviously, no one wants to get stuck on the side of inequality, which explains why support for traditional marriage from many conservative quarters has been tepid at best.

I think it's important to take a step back and think about the actual institution of marriage -- what it is, why it exists, why it is important to society. In my view, understanding these points is a critical first step to discussing whether changes are needed in the definition of marriage. Instead of allowing our opponents to pick the battleground, we have to redirect the focus back to these critical questions.

Primary Elections Yesterday

For conservatives, there was a lot to celebrate in the primary election results yesterday:

In Indiana, 36-year GOP incumbent Senator Richard Lugar lost by a massive 61-39 margin to State Treasurer Richard Mourdock.  Lugar was so out of touch with Indiana he sold his home in the state years ago.  For most of his tenure in the Senate, Lugar was a conservative, but over the past 5-10 years he had been drifting steadily to the left, even going so far as to agree to be featured in an Obama campaign ad in 2008 (viewed by some as a quasi-endorsement of Obama).  Lugar will certainly not be missed by me, and Mourdock should have no problems winning the general election in a conservative state like Indiana.

In North Carolina, voters passed a state constitutional amendment to reiterate the traditional definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman by an overwhelming 61-39 margin.  I expected the measure to pass but not by such a wide margin in this supposed swing state that Obama apparently entertains hopes of carrying in November.  I also found it interesting that 21% of Democrats (200,000 voters) voted for "No Preference" rather than for the unopposed Obama.  Hmmm.

In West Virginia, Obama did have an opponent.  A convicted felon who has been incarcerated in a Texas prison since 1999.  This guy got 41% of the Democratic vote statewide!  Obama got only 59%.  I think it's safe to say this is one state Romney has locked up.

In Wisconsin, Democrats nominated former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to run against Scott Walker in a gubernatorial recall election in June.  The interesting thing here is that Barrett comfortably defeated Kathleen Falk, who was Big Labor's nominee of choice.  After all, this recall election was engineered by Big Labor in the first place, and they spent big money on Falk's behalf.  Barrett is downplaying the union issue, to the point that he backed out of a unity rally with Falk and union leaders the final weekend of the campaign in an apparent attempt to avoid being associated with them.  It seems pretty obvious that the non-stop union protests and recall shenanigans over the past year plus have turned off voters and provoked a backlash.  Walker was practically unopposed in his primary and there were no other GOP primaries occurring, while the Democrats had a competitive gubernatorial primary as well as a number of competitive primaries for state legislature recall races.  Therefore, Democrats should have had far more motivation to turn out than Republicans.  Yet, the total votes cast by Democrats and Republicans was virtually equal, and Walker got more votes than Barrett and Falk put together!  I'm feeling good about Walker's chances in the recall election next month.  He is one of the most courageous and principled politicians out there, in my opinion.

Testimony before sub-committee this week

Dr. Jeffrey Herbener of Grove City College and the Ludwig von Mises Institute (also a former professor of mine) is testifying before the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology which is chaired by Ron Paul (Committee on Financial Services) tomorrow.   Dr. Peter Klein of University of Missouri is also testifying.  Both are excellent economists and should say what needs to be said.  I can't say as much for their colleagues who will also be testifying before the subcommittee, including James Galbraith.

Dr. Shawn Ritenour over at Foundations of Economics has more details, including links to Dr. Herbener's and Dr. Klein's written testimony.  I encourage you to take a look at the written testimonies if you can!      

Some Dude's Profound Profundities of Profoundness

Thomas Sowell occasionally writes a list of pithy sayings which are too short for their own article.  I'm doing the same.  -- S.D.

1. There is one reason and one reason only to oppose voter ID laws: you support election fraud.

2. Or maybe you think that voter ID laws are discriminatory against differently-animated Americans.  Or differently-naturalized Americans.

3. One argument from liberals opposed to voter ID laws is that the number of fraudulent votes cast is miniscule and that this is a "solution without a problem."  In that case, maybe I should wait until I get a cavity before I brush my teeth.

4. I am a little amused when I read about efforts to end bullying in schools.  Liberals seem to think that passing a federal law against bullying will somehow make bullies disappear.  All it takes is passing a law and hiring some motivational speakers?  Why did no one think of that before?  In that case, why not ban jerks?  That would eliminate a whole range of crimes and antisocial behaviors...like silencing dissenters and demanding that other people pay for your recreational activities, for example.

There oughta be a bumper sticker... (cont.)

Continued from here...

7. Keep your ovaries out of my wallet.  (See this.)

8. If obstetricians made large donations to Democrats' campaigns, giving birth would be a sacrament.

9. I want a pony.

The President's List

Here is a disturbing opinion piece from The Wall Street Journal about President Obama's enemies list. 

I have said this before, but I will say it again.  Put ideology aside for a moment.  Regardless of whether you are conservative or liberal, you should be upset by the political tactics Obama uses.  You should be bothered by the excessive partisan rhetoric he uses to demonize his opponents, his administration's attacks against the free press, the way he uses the power of the presidency to intimidate GOP donors, his attacks against and attempts to lecture the Supreme Court (a co-equal branch of government), his attempt to politicize the awarding of government contracts, his administration's intimidation tactics against health insurers, his open refusal to comply with Constitutional requirements about obtaining Congressional approval for his Cabinet-level nominees, his corrupt refusal to hold people in his administration accountable for their actions, his politicization and racialization of legal cases that should have nothing to do with politics (Trayvon Martin case, Cambridge police case), and his administration's refusal to enforce laws they don't like.  To me, Obama's corrupt thug tactics and disregard for the rule of law are far worse than his left-wing ideology.

Every time I see a car with an Obama 2012 sticker or hear someone expressing support for his re-election, I wonder.  Are these people simply ignorant about what Obama is really up to?  Or do they know about what he's up to and just don't care?

"Seven Stanzas at Easter"

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His flesh: ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart
that–pierced–died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping, transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.

The stone is rolled back, not papier-mâché,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.

And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck’s quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.
~John Updike

There oughta be a bumper sticker...

These are all variations on common bumper stickers.  Feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments section.

1. My child was Vandal of the Month at Occupy High School.
2. It will be a great day when our military has the money it needs and Planned Parenthood has to hold a bake sale to pay for abortions.
3. A conservative needs a liberal like a dog needs a tick.
4. Envy is not a family value.
5. Class warfare is not a family value.
6. Jesus is not a Democrat.

My Ballot Choices for Tomorrow's Primary

Just on the off chance that there are any Maryland (particularly Montgomery County) readers of this blog that are interested in hearing my ballot choices for tomorrow's primary election, here they are:

PRESIDENT: Mitt Romney. Romney has never been my first choice, but he is the only candidate with a mathematical chance of winning the GOP primary outright. I think that the sooner this primary wraps up and we can focus our attention on Obama, the better. Waiting till the convention to choose a nominee is a very bad idea and will likely guarantee a loss to Obama in November. Romney has weaknesses as a candidate, but I think he is a decent man and a very acceptable nominee and would be a vast improvement over Obama.

U.S. SENATOR: Daniel John Bongino. From what I have read, the two top-tier candidates in the race are Bongino and Richard Douglas. Of the two, I find Bongino more impressive. His website demonstrates his conservative beliefs and also is very detailed and substantive. His resume is also very impressive, and conservative blogs are buzzing about his passion and speaking ability. He has associated himself with the Tea Party movement and has been endorsed by several Tea Party members of Congress. My only concern about him is that his website does not address his positions on abortion and gay marriage, but the fact that the Maryland Right to Life has not endorsed a candidate in this race suggests to me that he is probably pro-life. Obviously, he is a long-shot against Democratic incumbent Ben Cardin, but if he is as good of a candidate as people are claiming, maybe he will make it a race.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 6TH DISTRICT: Roscoe Bartlett. This district was redrawn since the last election, and has gone from being a 40% Obama district to a 57% Obama district, meaning it will be a challenge for us to hold this district in the upcoming election. Bartlett is a long-time incumbent, but he has not faced a close race in a very long time and is about 85 years old. I'm a little worried that he may not be up for the tough campaign ahead. However, I have not found myself impressed with any of his 7 GOP challengers either. Supposedly the biggest threats to him are two opponents who are already members of the state legislature: Kathy Afzali and David Brinkley. I have read some negative things about Brinkley, who apparently is a fairly moderate Republican. Also, Bartlett has been an excellent congressman who has consistently fought against higher spending, and he has been endorsed by the Maryland Right to Life. And he has raised more money than all his opponents combined, which calls into question their claims that they would have a better chance of winning in the general election.

BOARD OF EDUCATION AT LARGE (MONTGOMERY CO.): For Board of Education, I always look at the candidates recommended by the teachers' union's "Apple Ballots" and make sure to vote the opposite, since I believe the teachers' unions deserve a large share of the blame for the problems we have with public education today. Most people apparently do not agree (or do not realize that Apple Ballot candidates are teachers' union endorsed, not necessarily teacher endorsed), since the Apple Ballot candidates always win. Anyway, incumbent Phil Kauffman is the Apple Ballot candidate, so he's out. Of the remaining candidates, I think I most prefer Aryeh Shudofsky, based on some of his answers to the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County's questions. Morris Panner might not be a bad choice either.

BOARD OF EDUCATION DISTRICT 2: I think the worst choice would be Saqib Ali, who is actually not an Apple Ballot candidate but is a left-wing activist and an awful former member of the House of Delegates (I used to be in his district when I lived in Montgomery Village). I would also avoid the two Apple Ballot candidates Jeanne Ellinport and Fred Evans. Almost by default, I settled on Susan Byrne as the best available choice. I liked what little information I could find about her. Both she and Shudofsky (above) are outsiders, and I think that's a good thing. The Montgomery County Board of Education could use some fresh blood.

Usually the candidates I vote for don't win. I hope this year is different!

Too Late to Apologize

I can't remember if I've shared this before or not, but it's ok if I have.

I like the "no tea" in the first verse...

October Baby and the NY Times

I thought I'd share this brilliant movie "review" from the New York Times for October Baby.

Priceless, isn't it?

The movie opens today. Go see it.

October Baby

NateDawg and I were blessed to see a pre-screening of a new movie coming out on March 23, October Baby. We were part of a group of bloggers chosen specially for this honor. Just kidding. I won the tickets through 95.1 Shine FM. The DJs were handing out tissues as we entered the theater, and they were right. It isn't all tears. There are many funny and beautiful moments. It was a wonderful, moving, emotional story of forgiveness and love, of the miracle of lhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifife, and adoption. I think I will try to go again when it opens next weekend.



And a hint for when you go see it (opening weekend!): be sure to stay for at least the beginning of the credits.

"Seaweed in Your Gas Tank"

Great article from Charles Krauthammer this morning about the idiocy of Obama's energy policies. Read it here.

Krauthammer's conclusion is that high gas prices "are a constant reminder of three years of a rigid, fatuous, fantasy-driven energy policy that has rendered us scandalously dependent and excessively vulnerable."

"In questions of power...

...let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
~Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution, 1798

Reggie for President

My parents' dog, Reggie, overheard me saying that I would vote for him over Obama this November and has asked me to announce his candidacy for president here on Common Cents.  -- S.D.

Reggie, Labertarian for President

My fellow Americans, both human and canine:

In 2008, we elected Barack Obama as the President of the United States, and for the first time in my life, I was proud of my country.   This year, I ask you to elect me as the second brown president of the United States.  Here is my vision for the future of our country:

• Over the course of obedience school, female dogs can spend over $3000 on birth control, creating an undue hardship for these bright young pups.  There are some who would block access to these vital services, and by doing so, doom dogs around the country to be punished with a litter of puppies.  As president, I will require all providers of health insurance to include coverage of spaying and neutering with no increase in premiums or copays.  
• Too many dogs are overweight from eating unhealthy food from the table.  Obesity, whether in humans or dogs, raises insurance premiums for everyone.  As president, I will promote taxes on bacon and cheese in order to persuade dogs and owners to make the right food choices.  
• We must punish the 1%, who dine on expensive canned foods, such as Alpo, while the less privileged among us are forced to eat Old Roy (and in doing so, fund our corporate overlords at Wal-Mart).  
• Some people say that you can't teach an old dog new tricks.  However, I believe that all dogs are capable of learning if provided with the opportunities that they deserve.  As president, I will introduce the K9 Bill, which will provide grants to dogs to attend college after retiring from the police force.
• There are some intolerant people in government who rail against earmarks.  As president, I will end discrimination on the basis of breed and provide opportunities to all dogs of all ear colors.  (This is what they are talking about when they refer to "earmarks", right?  My campaign manager said that it means something else, but I think he's confused.)  
• As president, I will show solidarity with my fellow flea-ridden housepets in the Occupy movement by instituting a student loan forgiveness program.
• As president, I will stimulate the economy by creating numerous shovel-ready projects.  In fact, my shovel-ready projects have already created jobs for my owners at home.
• There are millions of people in our country who, by no fault of their own, are not entitled to vote under our Constitution or who lack the energy or motivation (I can relate to that, as I enjoy lying around) to acquire a photo ID.  There are some who would discriminate on the basis of citizenship or laziness by enacting laws which would require voters to show a photo ID at the polls.  As president, I will propose a new odor-based program where voters identify themselves based on their unique scent.  (This policy would especially benefit the deliciously-fragrant members of the Occupy movement.)
• As president, I will work to improve our strained relations with other nations by showing them the proper level of respect.  If I see another dog who is bigger than I am, like the king of Saudi Arabia for example, I will approach with my belly on the ground and my tail between my legs.

Some of these ideas may sound a little harebrained, but what do I know?  I'm just a dog.

Ruff,

Reggie, Labertarian for President

"A turd in every yard"

War on Women?

I'm sorry to keep harping on the contraceptive mandate/Sandra Fluke issue, but the Democrats keep talking about it (I guess they don't feel like trying to defend Obama's economy) so it's important to respond to their false claims. Mark Steyn has a fantastic (as always) column out today pointing out the ridiculousness of this supposed "war on women" the Republicans are waging. I laughed out loud reading it.

Of course, the Washington Post is pushing this story line hard. They do whatever they can to smear Republicans. They tried to destroy Bob McDonnell over this very issue, publishing over a dozen front page articles claiming he was anti-woman because of some thesis he had written over a decade earlier. Fortunately, Virginia voters saw through this transparent smear, and I have hope that voters will once again be smart enough not to fall for the Post's distortions. Rasmussen has a new national poll out today that shows Romney leading Obama 48% to 43% (Santorum also leads Obama by one point). 43% is a TERRIBLE number for an incumbent. Perhaps the Democrats' tired old "war on women" strategy isn't working quite as well as they think. I hope it backfires on them, big time.

The Hypocrisy of the Left

Michelle Malkin has a great column out showing the mind-blowing double standard of the left-wing media when it comes to civility towards women. She lays out the case pretty compellingly, quote by quote. Kirsten Powers, a refreshingly honest Democratic consultant, has recently done the same thing.

There are some more worthwhile comments on this topic from Jim Geraghty's blog The Campaign Spot here and here. And James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has some interesting thoughts on a broader related them -- the cultural contradictions of feminism.

The bottom line is, if you are a conservative, you should expect to be accused of hating women, gays, immigrants, blacks, Muslims, Mormons, and the poor. (Or even if you're not conservative - just ask Juan Williams.) You should expect to be accused of being racist, intolerant, and backward and of being against science and against the separation of church and state. The epithets will be much worse if you are an outspokenly conservative woman or an outspokenly conservative black, because such people break the mold in a way that threatens the Left.

That's not to say there isn't nastiness and hate on the Right as well. There certainly is. Nor is it to say all liberals are nasty and hateful, because they certainly aren't. Some of my nicest co-workers are liberal. But I believe that vulgarity and hate are far more prevalent on the institutional Left than the institutional Right. Part of this, I believe, is due to Leftist ideology that tends to divide people into different racial and demographic groups for the purpose of addressing grievances and promoting equality of outcome. I have found that Leftists often tend to assume things like all women are pro-choice or all blacks are in favor of affirmative-action, and if they are not then they are somehow betraying their niche group. (Conservatives generally prefer to think of people not as African-Americans, or gay Americans, or Latino Americans, or female Americans, but just Americans.) And of course, this strategy of dividing people along racial or demographic lines is an important part of the Democrats' political strategy, because they depend on overwhelming support from niche racial and demographic voting blocs for their overall success as a party.

But I think the primary reason for the prevalence of vulgarity and hate on the institutional Left compared with the Right is the simple fact that it is far easier to get away with it if you are on the Left. Pretty much all of the liberals cited by Michelle Malkin faced no public outcry or serious consequences for their comments due to media bias and selective reporting. Conservatives, even ones as powerful as Rush, cannot slide by so easily. If, in an alternative universe, the media was dominated by conservatives, I suspect we would see a greater predominance of hate on the Right. In a polarized political environment like the current one, people tend to say whatever they think they can get away with.

UPDATE: Kirsten Powers has written a follow-up column on the double-standard of the media when it comes to misogyny, and it is outstanding! Read it here. Among other things, she notes that Bill Maher is slated to have top Obama advisor David Axelrod appearing on his show in a week or two, and also that Maher donated $1 million to an Obama super-PAC run by a long-time Obama aide. (We found out today that the Obama super-PAC has no intention of returning that money. After all, Maher supports Obama, so his comments about women are no big deal.) Powers adds that Keith Olbermann, another liberal noted for his respect toward women, viciously attacked her for her column on his show, and his followers then contacted her en masse to tell her, among other things, that she was "just another brainless plastic doll Fox puts on camera to appease the horned up 60-year-old white dudes at home.” (These people cannot help themselves.) She notes in conclusion that "the uproar over Limbaugh is only because it fits into the Democratic narrative that the GOP is 'anti-woman.' It’s Democratic Party activism dressed up as feminism."

Oh yeah, and guess who is slated to speak at the upcoming Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner? Another left-wing "comedian" who has said unbelievably vile and disgusting things about women, including Sarah Palin. So all these self-important media types who are so exercised about Rush Limbaugh are apparently quite happy to go listen to Louis C.K., who is ten times worse than Rush. At least one journalist, Greta van Susteren, has the guts to speak out against this double standard. Here is her statement about boycotting this event. How many other journalists will do the same?

Today's Impromptus...

...by Jay Nordlinger of National Review is especially good, I think. Link here.

Yes, There Is Hope

This is probably one of the most personal blog posts I have written.

Last night, after posting about Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh, I got in bed. My mind began to be flooded with all the political and cultural headlines over the past few weeks that have made me angry and frustrated. Obama's contraception/abortion mandate...the outpouring of hate by the Left over Andrew Breitbart's death...the blatant media double standard, false accusations of sexism, and brazen attempt to silence Rush Limbaugh...the media's attempt to turn Sandra Fluke into a hero for "women's rights"...Susan G. Komen Foundation being bullied into continuing their support for Planned Parenthood, an organization that does not provide mammograms but is the largest abortion provider in the U.S....the lies told about the completely reasonable bill in Virginia to require an ultrasound of the doctor's choice prior to an abortion...the vicious attacks claiming that Rick Santorum wants to set up a theocracy in the U.S. and the blatant lies about him wanting to ban contraception...Obama's unconstitutional non-recess recess appointments that got no coverage from the media...the legalization of same-sex marriage in Maryland, and the prospect of a possible upcoming referendum battle on the topic which will likely get just as nasty as the one in California which led to newspapers releasing the names and addresses of supporters of traditional marriage and the subsequent hate and intimidation directed against them by gay activists...the recent scholarly article published advocating the murder of newborn babies if they are not wanted by their parents...the weakness of the Republican field and the bitterness and infighting among conservatives over this election...the rising poll numbers and electoral prospects for the most left-wing president we've ever had and the realization that we may be stuck with him another four years...Obama's latest big-spending budget, which includes more subsidies for rich liberals who buy Chevy Volts but which cuts benefits for our military personnel...the sad state of our country which is drowning in an ocean of debt and spiraling into a moral cesspool. The more I thought about all of these things, the angrier I became. I could feel my heart racing and I was having trouble catching my breath. I honestly wondered if I might be having a panic attack.

I turned on my bedside lamp and did the best thing I could have done. I opened up the Bible and started reading. I started with one of my favorite passages in the entire Old Testament. It is the story about when the king of Syria wanted to capture the prophet Elisha, so he sent an army after him. Here is how the passage goes from 2 Kings 6:14-17:

So he [the king of Syria] sent there horses and chariots and a great army, and they came by night and surrounded the city. When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said, “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

This passage is a reminder to God's people that no matter how dark it seems and no matter how large the obstacles or how great the opposition appears, God's hand of protection will always be on us. Like Elisha's servant, I so often need God to open my eyes of faith to see those horses and chariots of fire. I could feel the tightness in my chest starting to subside as a I re-read those comforting words, "Those who are with us are more than those who are with them." Or, as Romans 8 puts it, "If God is for us, who can be against us?"

Next, I turned to Psalm 46, the psalm that my pastor had preached on last Sunday:

God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble.
Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea,
though its waters roar and foam,
though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah
There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy habitation of the Most High.
God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved;
God will help her when morning dawns.
The nations rage, the kingdoms totter;
he utters his voice, the earth melts.
The Lord of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah
Come, behold the works of the Lord,
how he has brought desolations on the earth.
He makes wars cease to the end of the earth;
he breaks the bow and shatters the spear;
he burns the chariots with fire.
'Be still, and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!'
The Lord of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress.

Talk about an awesome refuge to have! No wonder the psalmist expresses such confidence...the same God who has done such mighty works in the past such as bringing his people through the Red Sea and feeding them in the desert with manna from heaven is now the God who is with us! The God who will rush to our aid when morning dawns! The God who sits enthroned and exalted over the entire world!

In the light of this confidence in God, David writes in Psalm 3, "In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety." He adds in Psalm 121, "Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep." We can sleep at night because God is our refuge and fortress, and He never sleeps!

Next, I found myself reading these awesome words from Isaiah 40:

To whom then will you compare me,
that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
Lift up your eyes on high and see:
who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
calling them all by name,
by the greatness of his might,
and because he is strong in power
not one is missing.
Why do you say, O Jacob,
and speak, O Israel,
'My way is hidden from the Lord,
and my right is disregarded by my God'?
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.
He gives power to the faint,
and to him who has no might he increases strength.
Even youths shall faint and be weary,
and young men shall fall exhausted;
but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength;
they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk and not faint.

How can we think for a minute that our way is hidden from the Lord when He calls each of the stars by name? How can the Creator of the ends of the earth, with unsearchable understanding and inexhaustible strength, be unable to give us the help we need for our trials? He is the one in control of everything happening in this world, including all the depressing things happening in this country. He will give His people strength to soar like eagles and endure the long race without fainting.

But what about beyond this world? Do we have a hope that endures beyond the grave into eternity? Yes, according to Revelation 6!

Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, 'Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?' I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, 'These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Therefore they are before the throne of God,
and serve him day and night in his temple;
and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence.
They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore;
the sun shall not strike them,
nor any scorching heat.
For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd,
and he will guide them to springs of living water,
and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.'

Yes, we have to come through the great tribulation of this life first. Yes, the cross precedes the crown. But if we belong to the Lord, these afflictions are but light and momentary compared to the awesome weight of the glory that awaits us in heaven with God. The worst it will ever get for us is right now. We have nothing but pure joy ahead of us, if we press on and endure to the end!

After I read these passages, I went to sleep and slept like a baby. I hope you do too!

A Couple of Links

I just wanted to make a few brief follow up comments on the topic that Some Dude broached below regarding Sandra Fluke. It is so bizarre to me that the media, with a little help from Rush Limbaugh, has succeeded in turning Sandra Fluke into a sympathetic victim. Remember, this woman is a 30-year-old activist who chose to put herself in the spotlight and has been trying publicly for years to force a Catholic university to pay for her birth control, against the Catholic Church's beliefs. Why should the university (and the public in the form of higher premiums) be forced to foot her and her friends' >$3,000/year contraceptive bill for a purely elective activity? I have posted recently on the widespread availability of cheap -- or even free -- contraceptive devices. In what twisted alternative universe does this woman qualify for hero status? Or merit attention and lavish praise from the President of the United States? (Does he really have no other priorities?)

And don't even get me started on the media double standard on crude speech toward women. Rush's comment doesn't even come close to the vile things said about prominent conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann by the Left. Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann make Rush Limbaugh sound like Mr. Rogers, but the feminists and the media have never conspired to try to remove them from the air. And unlike Maher and Olbermann, Rush apologized. He should have known better. No apology from Rush will ever be enough to satisfy this crowd. He might as well have saved his breath, because they will never rest until he is silenced for good. The Left's outrage about civility and the treatment of women and racism is always highly selective. It is a tool to promote their political agenda, nothing more. I was going to include a link to a Daily Caller article that collected some of the unbelievably nastiness from the Left (including some very well-known writers from Slate and Rolling Stone) in response to the death of conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, who died at 43 and left behind a widow and four young children, but the article apparently included so much foul language that my home computer's filter would not allow me to access it. (I will add a link to it later.) Brent Bozell III from the Media Research Center gives some specific examples of this incredible double standard from the media here. At some point in the future, I hope to do a post giving more specific examples of the prevalence of this kind of hate-filled rhetoric on the Left.

I want to include a couple other links as well. One is an interesting take on Rick Santorum's candidacy from a fantastic Christian blogger named Albert Mohler. The other is an anonymous article from the American Thinker that I found to be extremely provocative called "The New Scar on My Soul."

UPDATE: I stand by my initial comments about Sandra Fluke. Her claims were preposterous and I believe she is very far from a hero. I also stand by my comments about the ridiculous double standard of the Left and the media, which is crucifying Rush but ignoring similar comments from leftists. But having read a little more about what Rush actually said about her, including demanding that she post videos of her sex online, it does sound like he crossed a line of basic respect and decency. I think the personal insults went too far, and his attacks have not only hurt him but also undermined the cause he was trying to champion. Here's a pretty good article from a conservative, Jeff Jacoby, who says that Rush needs to make a real apology.