Friday, April 5, 2013

7QT When will I be fed to the lions?

Hosted by Conversion Diary


Just a few years ago, both President Obama and President Bush not only defended marriage as a man and woman, but they both understood the reasoning in regards to child welfare and the importance of a mother and father, especially in more vulnerable situations in urban and low-income families. Bush initiated fatherhood initiatives, and Obama as a Senator also wanted to increase such programs and policies to increase the stability for a child's life.


Remember back in 2010, when Americans were polled about 40% believed marriage was obsolete. Three years ago was the turning point. " If your parents were divorced, you're at least 40 percent more likely to get divorced than if they weren't. If your parents married others after divorcing, you're 91 percent more likely to get divorced." Marriage decline is exponential. So, the decline is more evident and growing faster by the day.


This is awkward, I still want to promote and defend marriage. Or something. I will defend marriage without using the word marriage. OK.


So there was a local conversation on what to do after Gay Marriage is a part of the national landscape and what will happen to people like me.

Lucky me.


Gay culture existed for a long time in Massachusetts all without gay marriage. Marriage declined on its very own, gay culture didn't have to destroy it. But I always connected gay culture with 'alternative' ideas though. But WFNX/Phoenix (the local independent radio station) is dead, and a lot of ideas we connected to an alternative are gone as well. So odd to head about a gay pride parade on Kiss 108, a media giant.

For me it was never about destroying gay culture or being anti-gay. Did you know, when Ray Flynn was Mayor of Boston and ambassador to the Vatican under Clinton, he (as mayor) was a guest on the '1 in 10' the local radio show gays on WFNX. He also initiated the marriage protection petition in Massachusetts ten years ago to defend our marriage policy, at the time.


The law will address the needs of families in new language and policy. Because even if you can't call it marriage, the state will always have the interest in a child being raised by biological kin in a stable environment. It will be costly and disruptive for the child, if parents do not vow as husband and wife to be married or whatever we will call it, how about calling it 'work it out together without being complete jerks to one another, because this really isn't just about being someone's special soul mate and getting a bunch of government freebies'.

I have to rebuild and strengthen the family without using the word marriage. That's all I can physically do at this point. Support parents being parents, engage both mother and father. If a couple plans on sticking it out, support their relationship and not just their wedding. Sad when a wedding favor lasts longer, then a marriage. Yeah, I save mine. When we live in a world, in which media sends the message that wants us to be more concern to saying yes to the dress, then to our marital vows.


Over in England, they are working on their government policy to help mothers and fathers raise their children.

Specially-trained nurses are to act as mentors to the young mothers while they are bringing up their babies, health officials have announced, in a bid to prevent child abuse and reduce the chances of children growing up to be troubled youths. The Family Nurse Partnership currently sees nurses or midwives regularly visit first-time mothers under the age of 20 during their pregnancy and until their baby is two years old. The nurses help the new mothers, and fathers, to prepare for labour, offer advice on looking after babies and toddlers, and help plan for the future.


  1. Brilliant post! I'm linking to it in my own 7QT.

  2. Think about #7. The government will be involved in child-rearing from the start. Whose values will be taught?

    Dig this:

    "When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I say calmly, 'Your child belongs to us already. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community'."

  3. Thanks.

    I have been reading up on the concerns of natural decrease, while to many this may sound like a good thing for the overall population, there are economic impacts to the community and infrastructure.

    Without male/female domestic units that are stable, people won't have children. We can not fault them for that, understandably. According to freakonomics, baby bonuses do not work as does grandiose bridal/baby showers. But to even suggest male/female is a model for not only proceation and child raising, apparently I am violating the civil right movement of our times according to my Facebook feed.

    Crazier days ahead.

  4. KT Cat,

    Oh yes the teacher who wants to change the world through other people's children. Here in Massachusetts, our MCAS standards are so high that children in public schools actually are limited in the exposure of those ideas, because they have to cover what is on the test and not social ideas.

    Here in Lowell. Because of the social disadvantages, teachers have to teach because the parents due to English as a second language or low educational attainment by parents/immigrants/fragile homes must MUST focus on academics over propaganda.