Thank you Janna, Thank you Rivka for Speaking out

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Mary_Cassatt_-_Mother_and_Child_%28The_Goodnight_Hug%29.jpg

Mary Cassatt,   Mother and Child, A Goodnight Hug (1880)

My last post was about Janna Darnelle’s Public Discourse piece describing how her husband left her for a man and how a judge made sure the ex husband got primary custody of the children.  The judge’s decision was indicative of a growing prejudice among sitting judges in favor of the LGBT agenda.  But my main point was that the net effect of redefining marriage can be summed up in one word:  separation.  It absolutely requires that children be forcibly separated from at least one parent.  It cannot be otherwise.  In this case, that parent was the mother.

After Janna spoke out about her heartbreaking experience, she was attacked by trolls of the LGBT lobby. She used a pseudonym and she never identified her ex-husband by name.  But her ex-husband made a point of exposing Janna on an LGBT blog so that their attack machine could harass Janna, call her an “unfit mother,” and contact her employer to accuse her of “anti-LGBT bigotry.”

And when Rivka Edelman came to Janna’s defense, she too was attacked by bloggers of the LGBT lobby. You can read Rivka’s Public Discourse piece here: “Ruthless Misogyny:  Janna Darnelle’s Story and Extreme LGBT Activism.”   Some excerpts here:

The publication of Janna Darnelle’s story led to a spate of blog posts full of vitriol, calling her “a pitiful creature,” accusing her of mental instability, and questioning her very existence.

With the help of her husband’s comments, Scott Rose set off to dig up and publicize as much personal information as possible about Darnelle, such as high school graduation and real estate records. Rose has harassed Darnelle with threatening messages. He has even contacted Darnelle’s employer . . .

In writing this piece, I know that I risk being labeled a bigot. Like Janna Darnelle, I will probably have to endure a whole host of misogynistic terms. I’ll be called crazy, unhinged, laughable, bitter, fat, old, and ugly. In other words, I am just a woman who dares to say rich privileged white men do not have the right to women’s bodies and body parts.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Rivka’s prediction proved true.  We should all be grateful that she was willing to step up to the plate to call out the Stalinist LGBT tactics, knowing the risks.

In the end, this should clarify for us that free speech is a use-it-or-lose-it proposition.  The breakdown of civil society is so thorough today that we have to expect to be attacked when standing up for the truth or for any friend who speaks the truth.  It can only get worse if we don’t resist.  We have no choice but to fight on, reach out to others, and keep talking!

Judge Separates Children from Mother, Because “Gay Rights”

This iconic photograph by Dorothea Lange evokes a mother’s sense of despair and isolation.

Janna Darnelle’s husband told her he was leaving her for a man.  But that wasn’t the end of it.  The judge awarded primary custody of the children to her ex-husband.  He made more money and Janna was a lowly housewife.

Read about it in Janna’s Public Discourse essay — for which she was pilloried by never-to-be-satisfied LGBT forces (more on that later) — by clicking here:  “Breaking the Silence:  Redefining Marriage Hurts Women Like Me — and Our Children.”

The piece ran last month, but I want to be sure to include it as a post because it illustrates so clearly the forces in society that seek to separate and isolate us.  Activist judges are increasingly becoming the arbiters of all personal relationships.  Claiming gayness in America today serves as a trump card among many or most sitting judges.  Janna explains:

My husband wanted primary custody of our children. His entire case can be summed up in one sentence: “I am gay, and I deserve my rights.” It worked: the judge gave him practically everything he wanted. At one point, he even told my husband, “If you had asked for more, I would have given it to you.”

This shouldn’t surprise any of us though.  Separating children from their mothers has become an art form today, condoned by social engineers in academia, in the media, in Hollywood, as well as from the bench.  Here’s more from Janna:

My husband had left us for his gay lover. They make more money than I do. There are two of them and only one of me. Even so, the judge believed that they were the victims. No matter what I said or did, I didn’t have a chance of saving our children from being bounced around like so many pieces of luggage.

As for the ceremony at which Janna’s ex “re-married:”

“. . . my children were forced—against my will and theirs—to participate. . . local news stations and papers were there to document the first gay weddings officiated in our state. USA Today did a photo journal shoot on my ex and his partner, my children, and even the grandparents. I was not notified that this was taking place, nor was I given a voice to object to our children being used as props to promote same-sex marriage in the media.

This is the ugly underbelly of “redefining” marriage:  just like divorce, it’s all about separation.  Let’s not forget that.  Separation and isolation.  The whole point of it is to separate men from women, children from mothers, and children from fathers.  And, in a very real way, redefining marriage is part and parcel of the no-fault divorce culture that shoves children away from stable childhoods.  A child’s sole purpose in this new scheme is to accommodate the “happiness,” or the “authentic living” or the whims of certain adults who rule over them. Because in this paradigm nobody else matters.  In this picture we see how the child’s discarded mother becomes a non-person in the eyes of the state.

 

“Bonds that Matter” Looking at the World through the Eyes of the Child

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lifesite/DSCN0245_1.JPG

Over a million marched in Paris in 2013 to support the right of the child to know both mother and father.

I’ve made a late-in-the-year resolution to keep up my blog a whole lot better than I have.  My apologies — and appreciation — to those who check for new posts.  I have a lot of items on my hit parade.  So I’ve resolved to post more frequently even if it means more sloppily.

So, first off, let me say I understand how easy it is to get discouraged as we witness The Great Unraveling in our society.  The breakdown of family accounts for a huge part of this, especially the separation of children from their parents and the layers of confusion adults are heaping on kids for the convenience of said adults.  Broken homes create broken children.  And so many broken children portend an ever more dysfunctional society.

The road ahead seems very dark now, especially as we feel the increasing hostility to the idea that children have rights that override the convenience of so-called grown ups.  Let’s face it:  we humans are not naturally ethical beings though so many of us truly do like to think so.

But if you look around, you’ll see some beams of light emanating from the cracks in all of the social chaos.

For example, at the Reagan Library last week the International Children’s Rights Institute had its inaugural conference to discuss the inherent rights of children to be born free — not manufactured as chattel — and their right to know their origins.

I for one think it’s past time that adults get a bit out of their comfort zones and start looking at life through the eyes of the child.  There is harm when a child is separated and isolated — by design — from any clear answer to that existential question:  “Where did I come from?”   Please click on the links throughout this post to learn more about the conference and its participants.

The Conference theme was “Bonds that Matter.”    Alana Newman, founder of Anonymous Us, talked about her experience as a donor-conceived child, and how artificial reproductive technologies de-stabilizes a child’s sense of self.  Such children are wounded and puzzled by the way they came into the world — as commodities — and why one or both parents didn’t care to know them. But they’re told to shut up about it since they wouldn’t be here otherwise.  (Alana rightly compared the accusation to being a child of rape:  yes, I am happy to be alive, but not about the rape.)

Jennifer Lahl, president of the Center for Bioethics and Culture talked about the surrogacy industry and how it turns children into chattel as it treats women as cattle.  Jennifer Morse of the Ruth Institute discussed the impact of no-fault divorce on the lives of children.  And adoption experts Cathy Swett and Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy walked us through the topic of adoption from the eyes of the adoptee, because even in the best of circumstances adoption still forces a child to emotionally “work out” the absence of his or her biological parents.

Congratulations to Robert Oscar Lopez who organized and emcee’d an absolutely fantastic conference.  Hopefully the first of many!

Singleton Nation

Rise in single adult Americans since 1976

 

Check out the above chart that was published last week in a Bloomberg News article about a growing trend among Americans to stay single rather than marry.  For the first time ever, a majority of the adult US population is single.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics — which supplies the figures in its monthly jobs report — calculates the percentage of “selfies” as 50.2 percent, or 124.6 million adult Americans.  That’s up from 37.4 percent in 1976.

I see this shift as an indicator that the individual in our society is becoming more “atomized,” with individuals less connected to others in strong relationships.  Fewer marriages mean fewer children in marriages and more detachment from a sense of family.  This in turn can lead to a strong feeling of displacement, a feeling that there are no community bonds either.

In fact, only natural families can build natural communities that nurture young and old alike:  communities of faith and voluntary associations that include deep friendships based on trust. When a sense of belonging is gone and trust in others is diminished, people look for comfort in other places: shallow relationships, gangs, the anesthesia of drugs, and government programs.

It all makes for the perfect vacuum for the State to fill.  The State is always promoting its own brand of artificial community that can’t substitute for intimate bonds of love.  It’s been taking over the functions of family in policies like state-run childcare, elder care, health, and education.  People who feel isolated naturally look to these programs when there’s no place else to go.

But the silver lining is that 75 percent of adult Americans are either married or say they want to get married, according to a 2013 Gallup poll.  And when high school seniors were asked how important a good marriage was to them, the results were even more encouraging: 84.5 percent of girls and 77 percent of boys replied that it was “extremely important.”

So people still desire strong relationships, and they still say that they do.  We should remember that because it’s cause for optimism and offers a window of opportunity.  It means people really do believe in their hearts that strong family ties are the best way to defeat alienation and loneliness.  We need to reach out and find new and effective ways to convey the obvious truth that strong marriages make happy communities.