25 Extra-Biblical Protestant Traditions

Talking to Protestants about the Bible can be frustrating. They insist that they rely only on the Bible, and that Catholics are in deep error by having what Protestants call "traditions of men." That's a quote from Mark 7:8 that Protestants like to use against Catholics.

So, as a rebuttal I created this list of 25 Extra-Biblical Protestant Traditions. I present this list not necessarily as a criticism of the items on the list, but to point out that Protestants rely on their own traditions far more than they realize.

Support Gay Marriage With These Ten Easy Steps!

Supporting gay marriage is to support the destruction of the family tree for children raised in gay households. So, in order to remain morally consistent, gay marriage supporters should follow these ten easy steps:

1. Pick one parent to erase from your life.

2. Make sure this person's name is stricken from your birth certificate.

3. Remove all references to this person and his/her family from your contact lists, email, phone records, photo albums, etc.

4. Locate a gay or lesbian to adopt you. Choose one that is the opposite sex as the parent you removed from your birth certificate. This will create the very same gay parenting arrangement you are advocating for future generations of children.

5. Have this person's name inserted into your birth certificate. Make sure you update any other records with this person's name, and the names of his/her family, such as insurance papers.

6. When your other parent objects, tell them to get over it. Tell them:

• "... a genetic connection is not sufficient to create parentage."
• "... a genetic connection is not a necessary component of parentage."
• "... gestation is not a sufficient connection to create parentage."

After all, this is what you are tactily telling children raised in gay marriage households to think and believe.

7. Never mention the other parent's name again or the names of their family members. Never tell your children about him/her or his/her family.

8. If your family members express concern, say this: "Since this is how future generations of kids raised in gay marriage households will feel, I thought I should be consistent and do in my own life what I was requiring to be done in the lives of future children. Besides, why do you care? This was MY decision and it has no bearing on you at all."

9. They may ask why you chose a person of the opposite sex of the one you erased, rather than the same sex. They may question the wisdon of going against what you were given at birth (two parents of opposite sexes, not same sexes). If so, you can repeat the above retorts. You can also say things like this:

"Gay marriage and gay parenting will strengthen marriage and families."
"Don't judge."
"What do you have against gay people?"
"Are you homophobic?"
"No H8."

If this exchange occurs on Facebook or another social media site, just type this:

=

That should stop all thought and silence your questioners.

10. If you feel no aversion at this thought exercise, if you feel it has merit and is something people should do, then, and only then, is your support for gay marriage morally consistent. I will still disagree with you. But I will at least know that you understand the ramifications of what you are advocating.

Thank you, Dr. Lopez at EnglishManif for this enlightening exercise.

Will SCOTUS Overturn Loving v. Virginia If It Makes SSM Legal?

Here is my reasoning.

Loving v. Virginia was the landmark SCOTUS decision in 1967 that made interracial marriage legal again. Here is the most common phrase quoted from the decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....(emphasis added)

"... basic civil rights of man...." is a direct quote from the Skinner v. Oklahoma decision made by SCOTUS in 1942, in which the court was affirming an individual's right to marry and procreate.

"...existence and survival" refer to the new generations of people who arise due to the marital union, which means that marriage is between a man and a woman. 



The court reinstituted interracial marriage by overturning Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which made marriage between a white person and a negro illegal. This Act made interracial illegal because, as acknowledged elsewhere in the Loving decision, white legislators didn't want whites interbreeding with blacks. The Act cited eugenics arguments for prohibiting marriage between whites and non whites.


In both instances it is very clear that people in general and SCOTUS in particular understood that marriage was a procreative institution.

So......

If SCOTUS ever finds a constitutional right to SSM, making marriage a non procreative institution, does this overturn the Loving decision and reinstate the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, as well as other anti miscegenation laws?

I am not a legal expert. I am just trying to understand the ramifications to other SCOTUS decisions involving marriage, since the most cursory analysis of SCOTUS decisions involving marriage clearly indicate that marriage is procreative and therefore involves a man and a woman. Read the aforementioned decisions (not the Wikipedia sanitized versions) as well as Maynard v. Hill. Go chronologically: Maynard, Skinner, Loving. Maynard in particular is fascinating! If you only read one, read Maynard.


Maynard v. Hill
Skinner v. Oklahoma
Loving v. Virginia

What happens to these decisions of SCOTUS finds that marriage is not procreative, or makes marriage a non procreative institution?

What is an Annulment?

Since there is so much confusion about annulments, I thought I'd write a post about them to help clarify what they are.

In our culture, one way we think of people is that they are married, or they are not married. It's black and white. We don't have an in-between concept. Actually, we do have one, but it's only understood in the legal profession. We'll get to that term in a moment.

Let me use an analogy. It's like a circle. The married person has a circle, the unmarried person does not have a circle. We don't usually think of people as having partial circles.... we don't usually think of people as being in a marriage that is not quite whole. We don't usually think of them being in marriages where some important, fundamental element is lacking. We think of them as being married, or not married. This sort of black and white thinking causes confusion when it comes to annulments.

Coulter vs. Stossel on Marriage

Ann Coulter appeared on John Stossel's show and discussed a variety of issues. I was super excited about her marriage related remarks. It takes a lot of courage to support traditional marriage these days, so I am really happy she did. She said several different things about marriage that I'd like to comment on.

1. Divorce. She mentioned that divorce should be harder, and she's absolutely correct. But, I would have liked to her elaborate as to WHY.

Just for reference: 30-40 years ago, divorce used to be fault based. In other words, the husband or the wife had to have done something really awful in order for a divorce to be granted. Not so any more. Now we have "no fault divorce," which really means unilateral divorce. Unilateral divorce means one person can terminate the marriage for any reason, or no reason. There is no other area of contract law where one party can terminate without cause. (Not that marriage is strictly a contract, because it is not. But you get the idea.)

Why are Biden's and Sebelius' Excommunications Meaningful for Non Catholics?

I thought I'd discuss the significance of Kathleen Sebelius and Joe Biden getting excommunicated. If you're not a Catholic or a Christian it might not seem like a big deal, but it really is - it's a HUGE deal. To be excommunicated means that you've demonstrated by your actions that you do not believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, and are therefore told not to receive communion, or in extreme cases, are denied communion. Communion is the apex of the Catholic faith.

Russians for Romney

 So I wandered back to my beach chair and noticed two of my business cards under the seat. "What are these doing here?" I thought to myself. "I didn't bring any business cards with me and even if I had I haven't taken anything out of my bag yet." I picked them up and put them into my bag.

Within about five minutes a gal walks by. She's got a bright red ball cap on, saying CCCP. "Holy crap!" I thought to myself. "I have to talk to her! Is she advertising that she's communist or a socialist? Is she protesting communism or socialism? Why in the world is she wearing that hat?"

"Excuse me, ma'am?" She doesn't hear me. I speak a little louder and wave my hand to get her attention, "Excuse me! Can I talk to you?"

She stops, a little surprised.

"Hi. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to startle you but I just had to ask you about your cap. It really grabbed my attention. Why are you wearing it?"

She smiles. "Do you know what it means?"