Normally, I don&#8217;t consider myself much of a trendsetter, especially when it comes to the online discourse among middle-aged cosmopolitan liberal women. To the extent that these people talk about me at all, it&#8217;s usually to call me a misogynist or to praise my brief appearance on &#8220;Dancing with the Stars.&#8221; In any event, on a typical day, they certainly aren&#8217;t reading my social media feeds and watching my podcast in order to pick up new lingo. We can be certain of that much.
So I was more than a little surprised to see an article that was just published by The Guardian, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">entitled</a>, &#8220;Now comes the ‘womanosphere’: the anti-feminist media telling women to be thin, fertile and Republican.&#8221; According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this article</a>, the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; is: 
<blockquote>&#8220;An organized effort to create &#8230; an alternative rightwing media ecosystem targeting young female US audiences – one of the few demographics that has, until now, leaned substantially Democratic.
This new &#8216;womanosphere&#8217; includes Brett Cooper’s channel as well as lifestyle magazines like the Conservateur and Evie, Candace Owens’s Club Candace, Alex Clark’s Maha (“Make America Healthy Again”) talkshow Culture Apothecary, conservative Christian influencer Allie Beth Stuckey’s Relatable, and swimmer turned anti-transgender activist Riley Gaines’s podcast Gaines For Girls.&#8221;</blockquote>
Before we get into the substance of this article, such as it is, I need to pull up something I wrote online a few weeks ago. <a href="https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1907550102605946958" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Here&#8217;s what I wrote</a> at the time: 
<blockquote>We hear a lot about the &#8216;manosphere.&#8217;I think it’s time we start talking about the womansphere and the corrosive effect that these shrill, toxic feminist influencers are having on the minds of young women and their marriages.</blockquote>
So there you have it. Long before The Guardian demanded that everyone start talking about the &#8220;womanosphere,&#8221; I was demanding a public conversation about the &#8220;womansphere.&#8221; All they did was add an &#8220;o&#8221; in the middle, to change womansphere to woman-o-sphere, and then they completely changed the meaning of the word, as I was using it. To me, the womansphere are the anti-man, bitter feminists on TikTok. To them, the womanosphere is a collection of the most normal, and pleasant women you’ll ever meet. And of course the other problem is that no one at The Guardian knows what the word &#8220;woman&#8221; means. But other than that, you can&#8217;t deny the striking similarity between these two made-up words. If The Guardian actually made any money, this is the part where I&#8217;d start demanding royalties. But in this case, I&#8217;ll let it slide. As the old saying goes, great minds think alike. And the not-so-great minds just steal everything and pass it off as their own.
But I don&#8217;t want to dwell on how much money The Guardian owes me, even though it&#8217;s obviously substantial. The bigger issue with the article — as with everything else published by The Guardian — is the content. The tone for this particular hit piece is set right in the headline. We&#8217;re supposed to see the Right-wing &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; as somehow nefarious and sinister because it encourages women to be &#8220;thin and fertile,&#8221; as The Guardian puts it. These two words — &#8220;thin and fertile&#8221; — are like kryptonite to the staff of The Guardian, apparently. Now, you might observe that words like &#8220;thin and fertile&#8221; are just ways of describing someone as &#8220;healthy.&#8221; And you might wonder what&#8217;s so bad about the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; encouraging women to be thin, fertile, and healthy. 
But all you&#8217;ll get from The Guardian is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this paragraph</a>: 
<blockquote>The type of woman these commentators valorize is thin, straight, fertile, traditionally feminine, conventionally attractive to men and white – though they try to avoid overt racism. &#8230; Anyone who falls outside of this narrow mold is subject to relentless mocking and disparagement.</blockquote>
Just to be clear here, the &#8220;narrow mold&#8221; that The Guardian is complaining about is simply being healthy, feminine, and attractive to males. (They do add that you have to be white as well, but they contradict themselves in the same breath, because one of the commentators they attack in this hit piece is Candace, who last I checked is not white). So all we&#8217;re left with is the &#8220;narrow&#8221; lane that literally billions of women throughout all of human history have fit through. That&#8217;s the virtually impossible standard that you have to meet, if you don&#8217;t want to be &#8220;relentlessly mocked and disparaged&#8221; by the online &#8220;womanosphere.&#8221;
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1583-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=The+Matt+Walsh+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
We all know why The Guardian believes that only a small subset of the female population can qualify as healthy. For one thing, they believe that men can become women. So that probably skews their perspective a bit, given that trans-identifying males aren&#8217;t usually paragons of physical fitness. Additionally, it&#8217;s long been established that Left-leaning individuals, wherever they are in the world, tend to be less healthy. 
Not too long ago, there was a <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5893220/#:~:text=Findings%20from%20cross%2Dsectional%20studies,report%20better%20self%2Drated%20health." target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> from researchers at Harvard and Columbia which found that: 
<blockquote>Findings from cross-sectional studies conducted in Japan and Europe have reported that individuals expressing a conservative ideology (as compared to liberal ideology) tend to report better self-rated health. In the USA, it has been reported that Republicans are less likely to report poor health in comparison to Democrats.</blockquote>
These findings shouldn&#8217;t surprise us, because an ideology that doesn&#8217;t care about personal responsibility isn&#8217;t going to have the healthiest followers. The only people who are surprised, apparently, are the writers for The Guardian. But in their confusion, they do manage to hint at one point that&#8217;s worth thinking about, which is this: The Left has decided to give the Right a monopoly on advocating for healthy lifestyles. It&#8217;s true that if someone these days promotes health, fitness, marriage, family life, et cetera, then we can assume that they&#8217;re probably conservative. All of that has become Right-wing coded. But that&#8217;s only because the Left has gone to war against everything healthy and normal. The Right is not dominating this issue because they&#8217;re mind-controlling women. They&#8217;re dominating the issue because the Left has abandoned it.
As this article continues, The Guardian doubles down on its attempt to make &#8220;being healthy&#8221; sound like an act of terrorism. 
At one point, they quote a piece from &#8220;Evie,&#8221; and then they have a coronary over it. So <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here&#8217;s the line</a> from Evie, followed by The Guardian&#8217;s meltdown:&#8220;&#8216;Our reproductive organs are made for just that – creating new life – not warding off sperm and altering our insides to make conception close to impossible,” read a recent Evie piece. 
Though some young women may recoil when conservative men like JD Vance and Elon Musk opine on birthrates and fertility, outlets like Evie are able to repackage a similar message in a more approachable way. Maggie Bullock, a women’s magazine veteran who co-writes the Spread, a newsletter about the industry, said she saw outlets like Evie as trying to be something of a &#8216;gateway drug&#8217; into more extreme conservative ideologies. &#8216;Like, we’re nice and we’re pretty and we’re not that radical, don’t worry, we’re just telling you the truth,&#8217; she said. &#8216;It feels like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.'&#8221;
So here we have Evie magazine stating that women&#8217;s reproductive organs are intended for reproduction. And The Guardian devotes about a thousand words to declaring how outrageous this statement is, even though it&#8217;s probably the least controversial thing that anyone can say in the English language. They even bring in an alleged expert — a &#8220;women&#8217;s magazine veteran&#8221; — to establish that Evie magazine is essentially a &#8220;gateway drug&#8221; to extremism, because they don&#8217;t think women should sterilize themselves.
What&#8217;s especially amusing about the accusations that this article makes — against Brett Cooper, Riley Gaines, Candace Owens, Allie Beth Stuckey, Alex Clark, and so on — is that, first of all, the article wants us to see these women as a dark and sinister force. But I know all of them. Allie I’ve known for years. Riley I&#8217;ve met a few times. I went on Alex’s show a few months ago. Brett and Candace are both friends. They are some of the nicest, most cheerful people you&#8217;ll ever meet.
The article uses words like “scary&#8221; to describe them, which is just hilarious from my vantage point. Or the vantage point of anyone who has watched any of their shows. Although I will say that Alex forced me to drink raw milk when I was on her show, and that was deeply disturbing, and also dangerous to my health. But aside from that, it was not a very scary experience.
The other thing is that all of them of course have jobs. And yet The Guardian concludes that all of these women, in reality, want women to be nothing but &#8220;submissive homemakers&#8221; who <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women">never leave the home</a> for any reason: 
<blockquote>While the women behind these outlets all have different styles and tactics, they are mostly aligned in their desire to return to a gender-essentialist worldview: women as submissive homemakers, men as strong providers.</blockquote>
First of all, any time you hear a phrase like &#8220;gender-essentialist&#8221; being used unironically, you can immediately stop paying attention to the person who says it. The term is nonsense because everyone, in a sane world, is a &#8220;gender essentialist.&#8221; Everyone should understand that gender is an essential concept, because it&#8217;s what allows human beings to reproduce. It also dramatically affects human behavior in every significant way. So if someone calls you a &#8220;gender essentialist,&#8221; the appropriate response is &#8220;yes, I am.&#8221; And by the way, the Left is also &#8220;gender essentialist,&#8221; albeit in a completely demented way. They don&#8217;t understand the concept of gender, but they certainly obsess over it, as you may have noticed. They take their fake genders extremely seriously over there. It is an essential concept in their worldview. Just in a very confused way.
The other irony here is that it&#8217;s The Guardian that wants these women — like Brett Cooper and Candace Owens — to be silent, apparently. They’ve written a gigantic article about how all of these women should shut up and stop expressing their views. Apparently they can&#8217;t grasp the idea that, as I&#8217;ve said many times, different people can choose to do different things. I&#8217;ve gone on record many times saying that, in general, women should prioritize raising families, and men should prioritize providing for their families. That doesn&#8217;t mean that women should never have a career under any circumstances. And obviously, all of the women that The Guardian is attacking in this article, would also agree with that statement, because they all have lucrative careers of their own.
We could go on for the next hour picking apart this article, but it&#8217;s honestly not worth the time. But it is worth noticing one aspect of this issue that The Guardian doesn&#8217;t talk about. Throughout all of this angst and misdirected, incoherent frustration, the one thing The Guardian doesn&#8217;t do is grapple with the fact that the alternative to the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; has already been tried. And it has completely and utterly failed. The alternative to the &#8220;narrow&#8221; lane espoused by Brett, Candace, and company is the lane of Left-wing secular feminism where women find their purpose in the workplace and either reject family and marriage altogether, or place it second in importance to the pursuit of professional success. It’s the lane where a woman doesn&#8217;t submit to her husband, but instead submits to her employer — who as it happens is often also a man. It’s the lane where a woman is so committed to her independence and autonomy that she will purchase it with the blood of her own children, which is the whole point of abortion.
We&#8217;ve tried the feminist approach for a few generations. It is actually the new thing. The trendy thing.The narrow thing. And how has it worked out? Divorce rates have skyrocketed. The institution of the family is in shambles. And, by all available metrics (including the prevalence of antidepressants), women (and men) are miserable. Here&#8217;s just one indicator. For more than 20 years, Gallup has asked women if they&#8217;re happy with how they&#8217;re being treated by &#8220;society,&#8221; whatever that means exactly. And in 2022, Gallup <a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/numbers-women-society" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recorded</a> the lowest level of satisfaction among women since they began asking the question. Yes, after all of the alleged advancements in &#8220;women&#8217;s rights&#8221; over the last twenty years, women believe they&#8217;re more oppressed than ever.
But you don&#8217;t need Gallup to tell you that. You can either talk to women who made the decision to enter the workforce, or you can go on TikTok. Every day there&#8217;s another viral video of some young woman in tears because she went out into the working world and found it horrifically dreary, depressing, and demoralizing. We’ve seen the alternative to women being thin and fertile and prioritizing their families. It has been a disaster. We got millions of broken homes, millions of dead children, and millions of extremely depressed but allegedly liberated women to show for it.
The traditional approach has thousands of years of success under its belt. The new approach crashed and burned 30 seconds after takeoff. The Guardian is using the lame new &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; branding to suggest the opposite — they want to suggest that this is some dangerous new Right-wing ideology. But it&#8217;s not. It happens to be the ideology that clearly works best for everyone, including women. It’s the philosophy that built human civilization and maintained it and helped it thrive for millennia, up until the last several decades. The Guardian might not know what women are, or what they want. But these women do. And the more the Left mocks them for wanting to be healthy and to raise families, the more women will turn away from Leftism, until the only women left supporting Democrats are men with wigs on. That is the Democrat Party&#8217;s absolute worst nightmare. And with every garbage article like this one, that nightmare for Democrats — otherwise known as progress to the rest of us — is becoming more and more real by the day.

The Guardian Newpaper To Stop Using Elon Musk’s Social Media Platform

The Left Uncovers The Sinister Conspiracy Pushing Women To Be Healthy And Happy

Brett Cooper

Candace Owens

Feminism

Leftists

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Riley Gaines

The Guardian

Traditional Marriage

Women

Social media influencer Hannah Neeleman, better known by her social handle and business name Ballerina Farm, was a polarizing figure even before the interview that made her go viral.
Critics saw her as a shackled housewife popping out kids when she could have been dancing at Juilliard. But even fans of the so-called “trad-wife life” took issue with Neeleman’s brand of homesteading, claiming she was too beautiful, too curated, and most of all, too staged.
They couldn’t help but point out how Neeleman’s husband was a literal billionaire (son of David Neeleman, who founded multiple airlines including JetBlue) so obviously, this was all simple for her. They accused the Instagram star of cosplaying farm wife life and painting an unrealistic portrait of hard work.
Neeleman had already gone viral when she competed in the Mrs. World pageant just 12 days after giving birth to her eighth child, a feat she accomplished without pain medication and at home in bed. Photos and video clips of her competing make it clear why so many followers take issue with her – even two weeks postpartum, the Instagram star is stunning. Jealousy is common, especially on social media.
Then, the interview came out. U.K.-based outlet The Times published a lengthy <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/magazines/the-sunday-times-magazine/article/meet-the-queen-of-the-trad-wives-and-her-eight-children-plfr50cgk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">profile</a> after writer Megan Agnew visited the famous Utah farmstead and got to experience the beauty of Neeleman, Mormon mom of eight, firsthand. But then Agnew decided to make the influencer’s husband Daniel sound like her captor rather than her life partner. She openly lamented Neeleman’s decision to scale back on her career ambitions and devote herself to making her home and raising kids.
“Is this an empowering new model of womanhood — or a hammer blow for feminism?” the writer wondered.
“My goal was New York City. I left home at 17 and I was so excited to get there, I just loved that energy. And I was going to be a ballerina. I was a good ballerina,” Neeleman told Agnew during the interview. “But I knew that when I started to have kids my life would start to look different.”
<div id="attachment_777519" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-777519" class="size-large wp-image-777519" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/DSCF7435-11_1920x608_crop_center-1024x324.jpg" alt="Courtesy: BallerinaFarm.com" width="1024" height="324" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/DSCF7435-11_1920x608_crop_center-1024x324.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/DSCF7435-11_1920x608_crop_center-300x95.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/DSCF7435-11_1920x608_crop_center-768x243.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/DSCF7435-11_1920x608_crop_center-1536x486.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/08/DSCF7435-11_1920x608_crop_center.jpg 1920w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Courtesy: BallerinaFarm.com</div>
Agnew made her disdain for Neeleman’s husband and family clear. “I can’t, it seems, get an answer out of Neeleman without her being corrected, interrupted or answered for by either her husband or a child. Usually I am doing battle with steely Hollywood publicists; today I am up against an army of toddlers who all want their mum and a husband who thinks he knows better,” she wrote in the piece.
One viral line from the article quotes Neeleman as saying, “‘Our first few years of marriage were really hard, we sacrificed a lot. But we did have this vision, this dream and —’”
The interviewer noted how Daniel “interrupts” to say, “We still do.”
The passage continued, “What kind of sacrifices, I ask her. ‘Well, I gave up dance, which was hard. You give up a piece of yourself. And Daniel gave up his career ambitions.’”
Reactions to the article were so strong that Agnew wrote another <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/my-day-with-the-trad-wife-queen-and-what-i-really-thought-of-her-qmbmmhkp8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">follow-up piece</a> a few days later responding to her expose on “the queen of the internet ‘trad wives’” and resulting commotion. The interviewer said Neeleman had “become an avatar through which people hotly debate motherhood, womanhood and freedom to choose either.”
Every post shared on the Ballerina Farm social accounts – whether it’s a video of her making pasta from scratch, or churning her own ice cream – has a fair amount of negative comments alongside the gushing support and requests for recipes. Neeleman doesn’t often address the haters. But in the case of The Times article, she did come to her own defense.
She shared her thoughts in an Instagram clip shared on July 31. “A couple of weeks ago, we had a reporter come into our home to learn more about our family and business,” Neeleman said in the video.
“We thought the interview went really well,” she continued. “We were taken [aback] however, when we saw the printed article — which shocked us, and shocked the world by it being an attack on my family and my marriage.”
“That couldn’t be further from the truth … which leads me to believe that the angle taken was predetermined,” Neeleman said of the piece. “Together, we have built a business from scratch. We&#8217;ve brought eight children into this world and have prioritized our marriage all along the way. We are co-parents, co-CEOs, co-diaper changers, kitchen cleaners and decision makers.”
In another post shared the same day, the beauty queen once again got personal.
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/C-GzbLXuQLP/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/C-GzbLXuQLP/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Hannah @Ballerina Farm (@ballerinafarm)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
“Everyday I share a glimpse into our rural farm and family life here in the mountains of northern Utah,” she wrote. “I wear many hats–mom, wife, cook, business owner, content creator, lover of God and all things butter. For long time followers and those just joining the journey, I wanted to take the opportunity to tell you our story in my own words.  My time before marriage, before kids, before I even dreamt of creating Ballerina Farm.”
Neeleman encouraged followers to read more of her story on the <a href="https://ballerinafarm.com/pages/about-us" target="_blank" rel="noopener">About Us page</a> of the official Ballerina Farms website, where the influencer discussed growing up in Utah as one of nine children as her parents ran a small flower shop.
“Cash was tight, entrepreneurial spirit was thick, and we worked hard to make ends meet,” she wrote. &#8220;Looking back now, I realize I was raised in a small business training incubator. A front line view of how business works.”
“With the flower shop being in retail I learned all about the seasonalities of cash flow, the importance of a good customer experience, and the value of great employees,” Neeleman continued.
She called her marriage to Daniel the “best decision” she ever made and gushed about having her first child, too. “Motherhood was my new dream.  God was guiding me, as He always had,&#8221; she wrote.
As for shifting her priorities from prima ballerina to family life, Neeleman said she has no regrets.
“We started chasing after our new list of dreams. The channel is an expression of my real life. It is beautiful, rewarding and I get to do it with my family. We have many dreams still to accomplish and I can’t wait to see what the future holds,” she concluded.

MixCollage-08-Aug-2024-10-40-AM-6638

Mom Of 8, ‘Ballerina Farm’ Founder Defends Her Life Choices, Marriage After Scathing Expose

Mom Of 8, 'Ballerina Farm' Founder Defends Her Life Choices, Marriage After Scathing Expose

Children

family

Instagram

Marriage

Media Bias

New York City

Readers Pass

Social Media

Utah

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/house-republicans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House Republicans</a> sent letters to protect <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/religion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">faith-based</a> entities from discrimination in the federal <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/budget" target="_blank" rel="noopener">budget</a> due to their views on traditional <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/traditional-marriage" target="_blank" rel="noopener">marriage</a>.
The <a href="https://roy.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/roy.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/roy_gnda_lhhs.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a>, which was spearheaded by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and sent to multiple House Appropriations Subcommittees, requests that lawmakers add text to the budget that prohibits agencies from taking discriminatory action against people or organizations on the basis of a “sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction, that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman.&#8221;
“Without this language, we fear that the federal government will begin to systematically discriminate against religious schools, faith-based organizations, and other non-profits by barring their participation in federal programs, and removing their tax-exempt status, for their views on marriage,” the lawmakers wrote. “The First Amendment is sacred. It secures the right to write, pray, think, speak, and associate as one pleases. These fundamental rights are uncontroversial and must be protected.”
Other signatories of the letter included Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL), Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN), and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ).
The call for explicit protections for religious liberty in the budget proposal comes after President Joe Biden endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dem-controlled-house-passes-same-sex-marriage-bill-39-republicans-support" target="_blank" rel="noopener">enshrines</a> same-sex marriage protections into federal law in accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges. Democratic lawmakers recruited 39 Republicans in the House and 10 Republicans in the Senate to support the bill, which was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-signs-same-sex-marriage-bill-drag-queens-invited-to-lavish-wh-ceremony" target="_blank" rel="noopener">signed</a> into law in December.
The bill also repealed the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to legally define marriage as between one man and one woman and to permit states not to recognize same-sex unions from other states.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) repeatedly <a href="https://twitter.com/SenMikeLee/status/1593000633954865153?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1593000633954865153%7Ctwgr%5E25353db1d07f622a0ebb595d228af91f6e7c8813%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fsenate-advances-same-sex-marriage-bill-with-some-gop-support" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> that the “religious liberty protections” in the Respect for Marriage Act were “severely anemic and largely illusory.” He voiced concern that religious entities could be exposed to litigation and the loss of nonprofit status under the new law.
Biden nevertheless <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/12/08/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-bipartisan-house-passage-of-the-respect-for-marriage-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">praised</a> the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, saying that “millions of marriages and families” were put at ease by the new law following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and other previous opinions purporting a constitutional right to abortion.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The overall budget proposal offered by the Biden administration, which suggests an increase in government spending from $5.8 trillion to $6.9 trillion, is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/more-taxes-and-more-spending-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-president-bidens-newest-budget" target="_blank" rel="noopener">marked</a> by a number of tax hikes on wealthy individuals and businesses. Households with more than $100 million in wealth would be subjected to a 25% minimum tax, while the top marginal tax rate would be increased to 39.6% from the current 37% rate. Businesses would see an increase in the corporate tax to 28%, which would split the difference between the current 21% rate and the previous 35% rate that was in effect before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.
Members of the House Freedom Caucus, many of whom signed the letter urging explicit protections for religious organizations, have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-freedom-caucus-chairman-responds-as-white-house-lobs-spurious-claims-at-spending-cut-proposal" target="_blank" rel="noopener">countered</a> the administration’s budget proposal with a framework that would establish topline discretionary spending at the fiscal year 2022 level for one decade and allow for 1% annual growth.

Chip Roy

House Republicans Call For Budget To Prevent Discrimination Toward Groups Affirming Marriage Is Between ‘One Man And One Woman’

House Republicans Want Budget To Stop Discrimination Toward Groups Affirming Marriage Is Between ‘One Man And One Woman’

Budget

Christianity

Congress

House Republicans

Religion

U.S.

To modify a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypELsuR1MRM" target="_blank" rel="noopener">phrase</a>, the Left’s favorite culture war battle is always the next one. Never content with winning, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/progressivism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">they</a> do not stop in their goal of dismantling every traditional value and norm. Their goal is total domination.
This was evident yet again on Tuesday at the White House. If you watched <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">President Joe Biden</a>&#8216;s celebration of the &#8220;Respect for Marriage&#8221; act on Tuesday, you noticed a large amount of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/drag-queen-invited-to-biden-white-house-once-performed-for-a-2-year-old-boy-the-kids-are-out-to-sing-and-suck-d" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rhetoric and fanfare</a> which had nothing to do with the union of man and woman — or any combination of the two sexes.
For example, Biden <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-calls-to-challenge-cynical-laws-targeting-transgender-children/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> at the event, &#8220;We need to challenge the hundreds of callous, cynical laws introduced in the states targeting transgender children, terrifying families, and criminalizing doctors who give children the care they need.&#8221;
In other words, the implication is that you can only support LGBTQ rights if you support transgender surgeries for children — even if you voted for the &#8220;Respect for Marriage&#8221; act as dozens of Republicans did.
To any decent person, that standard makes no sense. What does marriage have to do with mutilating kids?
Nothing really — at least not on the surface. But that&#8217;s because liberals are always aiming for more than they admit.
Consider that throughout the debate of the law in question, Americans were told that it only had to do with marriage. Conservatives who opposed the bill — often on religious liberty grounds — were browbeaten by leftists and their media allies and called homophobic bigots.
Then, as soon as the bill is about to be signed, Biden admits that actually, this entire movement is about much more than respecting marriage: It&#8217;s about radical gender theory — though he would never use that term. Instead, he — or more precisely, his handlers — hide it behind terms such as &#8220;healthcare,&#8221; &#8220;gender-affirming care,&#8221; and sometimes &#8220;gender policies.&#8221;
Off-the-cuff comments and video evidence from the president point to the fact that he has no idea what &#8220;gender policies&#8221; even mean.
&#8220;What do you say to Americans who disagree with your gender policies?&#8221; a reporter asked Biden in October.
&#8220;My gender policies?&#8221; a surprised Biden said in response as if the journalist were asking whether he prefers men or women in his love interests.
&#8220;Transgender policies like bathrooms, women’s sports, things like that,&#8221; the muckraker clarified.
&#8220;I stand by my policies&#8221; was all that Biden could muster in response.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Reporter: &quot;What do you say to Americans who disagree with your gender policies?&quot;
Biden: &quot;My gender policies?&quot;
Reporter: &quot;Transgender policies like bathrooms, women’s sports, things like that.&quot;
Biden: &quot;I stand by my policies.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/T66qbosKiV">pic.twitter.com/T66qbosKiV</a>
&mdash; Greg Price (@greg_price11) <a href="https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1583532826410246144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 21, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So why does Biden go along with it all? Well, because he is a loyal footsoldier of the Democrat Party. He advocates whatever the party wants — which is why he&#8217;s their perfect president.
Individual thinking is frowned upon amongst collectivists. The president has shown no desire to buck the party, and he certainly wouldn&#8217;t well into his senior years.
So why the need for the president to mention anything unrelated to the &#8220;Respect for Marriage&#8221; bill?
Because the Left only support causes so that they can open up doors for their next goal.
That characteristic is not limited to ideas about sex and gender.
To further the point, it was <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/15/remarks-president-immigration" target="_blank" rel="noopener">only ten years ago</a> the Left was demanding amnesty for only children brought into the U.S. illegally. The children weren&#8217;t at fault, they&#8217;re innocent, they&#8217;d argue. Republicans essentially won that battle, or have worked to help Democrats. Now, the Left is<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/no-thanks-schumer-wants-amnesty-for-11-million-or-however-many-illegal-aliens-are-in-the-u-s" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> demanding amnesty</a> for all illegal immigrants.
Similarly, having secured the victory in changing the institution of marriage — a cornerstone of society — they&#8217;re engaged in a full-on battle to redefine man and woman. They&#8217;re targeting minors across America to do so.
What comes after that, who knows, but rest assured the Left already has something in mind because that is how they operate. They are already thinking about how to win the next cultural battle.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Transgender flag stock photo

The Left’s Favorite Culture War Battle Is Always The Next One

Culture

Executive

Joe Biden

Leftism

Politics

Progressivism

Respect for Marriage Act

Social Issues

Rep. Vicki Hartzler (R-MO) wept during a House floor speech as she pleaded with colleagues to stop the Respect for Marriage Act, with Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu (CA) referring to her emotional outburst as &#8220;tears of hate.&#8221;
Lieu posted the searing response on Twitter following Hartzler’s speech on Thursday.
&#8220;Want to see tears of hate?&#8221; he tweeted. &#8220;Watch the speech below. This MAGA Republican is so hateful of other human beings experiencing the joys of marriage and love that she shed tears of hate.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Want to see tears of hate? 
Watch the speech below. This MAGA Republican is so hateful of other human beings experiencing the joys of marriage and love that she shed tears of hate. <a href="https://t.co/XYubxawOFE">https://t.co/XYubxawOFE</a>
&mdash; Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1600933120919818240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Hartzler&#8217;s words provided strong support for traditional marriage, urging House members to oppose the legislation to codify same-sex marriage.
&#8220;I&#8217;ll tell you my priority. Protect religious liberty, protect people of faith, and protect Americans who believe in the true meaning of marriage. I hope and pray that my colleagues will find the courage to join me in opposing this misguided and this dangerous bill,&#8221; she said.
The short video quickly turned viral, with more than 1.4 million views less than an hour after its posting.
The House of Representatives <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dem-controlled-house-passes-same-sex-marriage-bill-39-republicans-support" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed</a> the legislation on Thursday, 258-169, sending the bill to the president&#8217;s desk where it is expected to be signed into law.
The measure was supported primarily by Democrats, but 39 House Republicans joined in the measure. The bill repeals the Defense of Marriage Act that legally defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman and permitted individual states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
In addition to Lieu&#8217;s demeaning response to Hartzler, he posted his disdain for the majority of Republicans who opposed the Respect for Marriage Act.
&#8220;The majority of House Republicans are on the wrong side of history,&#8221; he tweeted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The majority of House Republicans are on the wrong side of history. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/thursdaymorning?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#thursdaymorning</a> truth <a href="https://t.co/Q6QegSW1UC">https://t.co/Q6QegSW1UC</a>
&mdash; Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1600890561505808391?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Senate previously passed the legislation — which also codifies federal protections for interracial marriages. The 61-36 vote last week included 12 Republican Senators supporting the measure, offering the supermajority needed to pass the 60-vote filibuster threshold.
The Senate Republicans who backed the bill were Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Mitt Romney of Utah, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Joni Ernst of Iowa, and Todd Young of Indiana.
Prior to the Senate vote, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) unsuccessfully attempted to urge fellow Republicans to include protections for anyone with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage belongs to one man and one woman.
“Instead of subjecting churches, religious nonprofits, and persons of conscience to undue scrutiny or punishment by the federal government because of their views on marriage, we should make explicitly clear that this legislation does not constitute a national policy endorsing a particular view of marriage that threatens the tax-exempt status of faith-based nonprofits,” he wrote. “As we move forward, let us be sure to keep churches, religious charities, and religious universities out of litigation in the first instance,” he said in a <a href="https://www.lee.senate.gov/services/files/7BBDBA04-B17A-4DC1-9BEC-75E733F37A5F" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> concerning his proposed <a href="https://www.lee.senate.gov/services/files/CB39DE23-EF22-4CDC-B645-BF756A5F94D1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lee Amendment</a>.

Ted Lieu

Ted Lieu Mocks GOP Congresswoman For Passionate Defense Of Traditional Marriage: ‘Tears Of Hate’

GOP Rep Passionately Defends Traditional Marriage, Mocked By Ted Lieu

U.S. House of Representatives

&#8220;The Walking Dead&#8221; actor Jeffrey Dean Morgan joined his wife, &#8220;One Tree Hill&#8221; alum <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/make-your-money-honey-one-tree-hill-actress-slams-candace-cameron-bure-over-marriage-comments/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hilarie Burton Morgan</a>, in her crusade against Great American Family network star <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/more-celebs-pile-on-candace-cameron-bure-for-traditional-marriage-comment-while-daughter-defends-her/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Candace Cameron Bure</a>.
<a href="https://dailywire.com/news/actress-claims-hallmark-channel-fired-her-for-demanding-diversity-bigotry-comes-from-the-top/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Burton Morgan</a> called Bure a &#8220;bigot&#8221; in a Monday tweet after the &#8220;Fuller House&#8221; actress defended her move from The Hallmark Channel to Great American Family network. In an interview, Bure explained that while Hallmark had gone on to embrace more LGBTQ characters and storylines, Great American Family continued to keep traditional marriage at the heart of their films.
&#8220;Bigot,&#8221; Burton Morgan said, adding, &#8220;I don&#8217;t remember Jesus liking hypocrites like Candy. But sure. Make your money, honey. You ride that prejudice wave all the way to the bank.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
How’d I miss this twit?! Who the fuck is this person? Hey Hil? You’re awesome. We lucky to have ya. X
&mdash; Jeffrey Dean Morgan (@JDMorgan) <a href="https://twitter.com/JDMorgan/status/1592627095888629760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;How&#8217;d I miss this twit?!&#8221; the &#8220;Supernatural&#8221; actor replied to his wife&#8217;s tweet, joining the attack on Bure. &#8220;Who the f*** is this person? Hey Hil? You&#8217;re awesome. We lucky to have ya. X.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“Make your money honey.” Lol… cooked kids dinner and was laughing whole time. Wife has words AND timing.
&mdash; Jeffrey Dean Morgan (@JDMorgan) <a href="https://twitter.com/JDMorgan/status/1592640662784323584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Make you money honey,” Morgan continued. &#8220;Lol &#8230; cooked kids dinner and was laughing the whole time. Wife has words AND timing.&#8221;
Bure explained that her surprise exit from Hallmark — which was followed by a number of other <a href="https://parade.com/1340261/klconniewang/hallmark-stars-on-gac-family/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">network regulars</a> like Danica McKellar, Jen Lilley, Jessica Lowndes, and Trevor Donovan — came about in part because a change in leadership had resulted in changes in network programming.
&#8220;My heart wants to tell stories that have more meaning and purpose and depth behind them,&#8221; Bure said. &#8220;I knew that the people behind Great American Family were Christians that love the Lord and wanted to promote faith programming and good family entertainment.&#8221;
Great American Family CEO Bill Abbott — who previously helmed Hallmark parent company Crown Media Network — confirmed that, at least for the time being, the network planned to keep the focus on traditional marriages. &#8220;It’s certainly the year 2022, so we’re aware of the trends. There’s no whiteboard that says, ‘Yes, this’ or ‘No, we’ll never go here,’” he added.
&#8220;I think we know the core audience and what they love is exactly how Bill originally built the Hallmark Channel,&#8221; Bure continued. &#8220;That was Christmas and those traditional holidays, so that’s what the focus is going to be. You’ve got to start somewhere. You can’t do everything at once.&#8221;

Special Screening Of AMC’s “The Walking Dead” Season 10 – Arrivals

‘How Did I Miss This Twit?’: ‘The Walking Dead’ Star Joins His Wife’s Crusade Against Candace Cameron Bure

'The Walking Dead’ Star Jeffrey Dean Morgan Joins His Wife's Crusade Against Candace Cameron Bure

Candace Cameron Bure

Hallmark

Hollywood

Movies

Television

Christians who oppose same-sex marriage will often point to the Bible for support, stating that God intended marriage to be the union of a man and a woman. Critics will reply, “But the Bible also supported polygamy. In fact, it was even part of Torah law.” What, then, does the Bible say about polygamy?
Let’s start with Adam and Eve. They were the Bible’s first couple – not &#8216;<a href="https://askdrbrown.org/library/we-mindlessly-careen-our-way-down-slippery-slope">throuple</a>,&#8217; but couple. Put another way, God did not create Adam and Eve and Evette. His intent, from the beginning, was to join one man with one woman for life.
Jesus reiterated this in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&amp;version=KJV">Matthew</a> when answering a question about divorce: “‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
So, the two (not the three or the four) become one, joined together by God.
In the same way, when Paul spoke of the union of a husband and wife as a mystical symbol of the union of Jesus with the Church, the imagery again was clear: one husband/Husband and one bride/Church (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201&amp;version=KJV">Ephesians</a>).
That being said, polygamy was a common way of life in biblical times, and it was accepted under the Law of Moses. 
This dates all the way back to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+4&amp;version=KJV">Genesis</a>, the first reference to a man having multiple wives, and some of the most famous figures in the Bible, including Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, had more than one wife.
Not only so, but the Torah explicitly allowed Israel’s king more than one wife. He was just forbidden from having too many wives: “And he shall not have many wives, lest his heart go astray; nor shall he amass silver and gold to excess.” (Deuteronomy)
It is also possible that, in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+25&amp;version=KJV">Deuteronomy 25</a>, the Torah required a married man to marry his brother’s wife if the brother passed away without having a son, but scholars debate whether this law applied to a man who was already married.
That being said, what is very clear from the Scriptures is that polygamy is a bad practice and in contradiction to God’s ideal for humanity. It was allowed because of prevailing cultural norms and as an accommodation to the needs of procreation, since a couple without children had few or no providers in their old age. And without children, the family line could become extinct.
That’s why Abraham took <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+16%3A3&amp;version=NKJV">Hagar as a wife</a> in his old age, thinking that this was the only way for him to have a child, as his wife Sarah was barren.
But, to repeat, without forbidding polygamy by law – there is not one verse in the Bible that explicitly prohibits it – the Scriptures paint a decidedly negative picture of the practice.
Abraham’s wife, Sarah, clashes with Hagar.
Jacob has constant family issues because he has two wives (sisters, in fact, and not by his choosing).
Hannah, the wife of Elkanah and the mother of Samuel, was ridiculed by Elkanah’s other wife, Peninnah because of her barrenness before conceiving Samuel.
King David encounters all kinds of familial infighting (including rape and murder) and political intrigues because of his multiple wives.
And King Solomon, David’s son, goes completely off the rails, taking things to an unprecedented extreme: “He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%201&amp;version=KJV">Kings</a>. Note that in Solomon’s case, his sin was compounded in that many of his wives were from non-Israelite nations, meaning idol-worshiping nations. Such unions were strictly forbidden by Israelite law).
So, to repeat, while the Bible does not explicitly prohibit polygamy, there is not one single positive example of polygamy in the Old Testament, while every example that is treated at any length is decidedly negative.
This, too, is a scriptural method of teaching morality, by example and not only by legislation.
Continuing into the New Testament, where there are no examples of polygamous unions despite their existence in the Jewish and pagan cultures, none of the apostles had more than one wife (see <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+9&amp;version=KJV">Corinthians</a>) and, more importantly, church overseers, who were all male, had to be “the husband of one wife.” (Timothy)
This was of tremendous importance, since the believers in each congregation were called to emulate the example of their leaders (<a href="http://hebrews">Hebrews</a>) and since it was understood that a man could not ascend to church leadership if he was a polygamist.
So, just as divorce was never God’s ideal but was accommodated under biblical law because of human sin and weakness (as Jesus explained in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&amp;version=KJV">Matthew</a>), so also polygamy was accommodated.
In distinction, however, from divorce, which is allowed under certain circumstances in the New Testament, polygamy is never expressly permitted in the New Testament, which instead emphasizes God’s plan from the beginning: one man and one woman joined together and becoming one flesh.
That’s why early Church leaders taught <a href="http://www.earlychristiancommentary.com/early-christian-dictionary/polygamy/">against polygamy</a>, although it was not a major focus of <a href="https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/90888/did-the-early-church-fathers-condemn-polygamy">their writings</a>. And that’s why, with rare exceptions, polygamy was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity">banned</a> in countries that adopted Christian teaching.
In <a href="https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/polygamy-in-judaism/">Judaism</a>, while Talmudic rabbis were not themselves polygamous, the first official legal ban on polygamy did not come until around 1,000 AD.
Those looking to the Bible in support of polygamy will not find the support they desire.
Dr. Michael Brown (<a href="http://www.askdrbrown.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.askdrbrown.org</a>) is the host of the nationally syndicated <a href="http://www.lineoffireradio.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Line of Fire</a> radio program. He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and is the author of 40 books. Connect with him on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/AskDrBrown" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/DrMichaelLBrown" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a>, or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbINn3x-intLp88Zrf8acpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

What The bible Really says About Polygamy

What The Bible Really Says About Polygamy

Bible

Polygamy

Any effort to solve a problem will certainly fail if it disqualifies all of the best solutions from the outset. This is why nothing ever gets solved in our country. We begin our search for answers by rejecting the answers. We seek solutions that exclude the solution. The results, with that as our starting point, are predictable.
It is true that religious people generally believe in saving sex for marriage. It is not true that you must be religious to see the wisdom in such an arrangement. If you wish to address our most serious societal problems, and you desire the extraordinary benefits that would come from solving those problems, then you, too, should advocate for abstinence before marriage. This is a practical position as well as a spiritual one, and the two do not necessarily have to be linked. I believe in outlawing homicide because the Ten Commandments forbid it. But, for a variety of obvious reasons, I would still believe in outlawing homicide even if the Ten Commandments didn’t exist. The same is true of saving sex for marriage.
Now, let’s take a look at the six societal crises that could be solved, or greatly reduced, by keeping sex within the framework of a monogamous and lifelong union:
<h4>1) Fatherlessness.</h4>
There are three ways for a child to end up without a father in the home. One is divorce, which we’ll address in a minute. Another is death. Both of these categories are in the minority. The number of never-married single mothers is greater than the number of divorced and widowed single mothers combined. Fatherlessness — and all of the vast and terrible consequences that come with it — could be cut in half through abstinence.
<h4>2) Divorce.</h4>
But what about those divorced mothers? Studies show that “virgin marriages” are less likely to lead to divorce than marriages between previously sexually active people.
<h4>3) Poverty.</h4>
Here we can tie together the first two items on the list. The simple fact is that children are four times as likely to be impoverished if they live in single-parent homes. Only about 8 percent of children in married households are poor. Over 40 percent in single-parent (usually single-mother) households are poor. Considering that most of those children were born to unwed mothers, the connection between poverty and sex before marriage is evident.
<h4>4) STDs.</h4>
We are currently experiencing an STD epidemic in our country. Sexually transmitted diseases are at record highs across the country, with more reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis than ever before. Two people who save sex for marriage and keep sex within marriage need not worry about this problem.
<h4>5) Abortion.</h4>
According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, only 14 percent of the women who procured an abortion in 2017 were married. That means the abortion rate could be cut by as much as 86 percent if sex were saved for marriage.
<h4>6) Sexual assault.</h4>
Obviously marriage won’t absolutely protect a woman from getting raped. But this strategy would greatly reduce the problem in college and other environments where assaults often occur within the context of a booze-fueled hook-up culture. A woman could significantly (though not perfectly) insulate herself from the risk by withdrawing from that scene completely. And if the hook-up culture were entirely abolished, the problem of sexual assault on college campuses would all but disappear.
Now, we are told that we can negate most of these issues simply by encouraging “safe sex.” But contraception is readily available everywhere. Anyone can obtain some form of birth control for low cost or no cost. Yet STD rates are still skyrocketing. Fatherlessness is still a huge problem. Out-of-wedlock birth is still endemic. Abortion is still commonplace. Maybe that is because there is no such thing as “safe sex” outside of the bonds of a committed marriage. Maybe safely having sex with a stranger you met at a party is about as possible as safely driving drunk. Yes, you can mitigate some of the risk to some extent by wearing a seatbelt, just as you can mitigate some of the risk to some extent by wearing a condom, but the act itself, in both cases, is fundamentally reckless and dangerous.
It seems there is no real substitute for a little bit of self-control and discipline. And there is no good argument against self-control and discipline, other than the fact that it requires effort. But that is more of a whine than a counterargument. Perhaps it is time we stop whining and start exploring real solutions.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Readers Pass – Walsh – 6 Huge Societal Problems That Could Be Solved By Saving Sex For Marriage16x9 (1)

WALSH: 6 Huge Societal Problems That Could Be Solved By Saving Sex For Marriage

Fathers

There is more than one way to cheat on your spouse — or, I should say, cheat your spouse. And it seems that many husbands are being cheated by their wives in a way that is no less damaging and no more justified than being cheated on. This form of &#8220;cheating&#8221; is all the more common because our culture tells women that men aren’t owed anything in the first place. You can’t cheat them out of something you were never supposed to give them, after all.
But a husband is owed something, and his wife is obliged to provide it. He is not only owed it; he needs it.
That is: respect.
A wife who belittles her husband, cuts him down, nitpicks him relentlessly, holds her affection — both physical and emotional — as a ransom, nags him endlessly, criticizes him constantly, humiliates him in public and to her friends and in front of the children, and will not allow him to take a leadership position in the home, cannot be terribly surprised when he begins to withdraw. And if he cheats — which would be a great and indefensible evil, no matter how cold and domineering his wife may be — it cannot be said that he was the first. She cheated him; she lied to him, by promising to respect him and treat him like a man, only to turn around and treat him like a child.
Men have a deep desire for respect. It is truly a catastrophe that we are not raising our girls to understand and appreciate this fact. Instead they learn, often from their own mothers, from the media, from television, advertisements, academia, and so on, that men are worthless oafs who should be handled accordingly until they prove themselves worthy of better treatment. &#8220;My husband will be respected if he earns it,&#8221; the wife declares. &#8220;Let him do the chores I assign to him, let him accomplish everything I require, let him dance to my tune, and then perhaps I’ll reward him like a circus animal with little pellets of respect.&#8221;
This is not the right approach.
A husband does not need to earn his wife’s respect any more than a wife needs to earn her husband’s love. A wife ought to respect her husband because he is her husband, just as he ought to love and honor her because she is his wife. Your husband might “deserve” it when you mock him, berate him, belittle him, and nag him, but you don’t marry someone in order to give them what they deserve. In marriage, you give them what you’ve promised.
This doesn’t mean that a man has a license to be lazy, abusive, or uncaring. Precisely the opposite. He is challenged to live up to the respect his wife has for him. But if his wife parcels out her respect on a reward system, the husband will feel demoralized and empty. He will not feel at home in his home. He will not have the sense of masculine purpose and fulfillment that his family life ought to afford him. After a while, he will dread coming home at night, preferring to remain at work where his contributions are appreciated and his talents are admired. Now the marriage has entered a very dangerous place. If a man feels more like a man when he’s away from his wife than when he’s with her, disaster is right around the corner. The marriage is already half-dead. It won’t take much to finish it off.
We all seem to understand that love is supposed to be unconditional, but we struggle to see how respect must be the same. I wonder: how would we respond to a husband who says he is not going to love his wife because she hasn’t earned it? What would we say about a man who chooses to act unlovingly toward his wife because she isn’t doing a good job of keeping the house together, or she doesn’t have dinner ready when he comes home, or she isn’t properly satisfying him in other ways, or she isn’t doing all the things he demands on the timetable that he prefers? Even if it were true that the wife is slacking in her responsibilities, we would consider the man to be a monster for holding that over her head or using it as an excuse to degrade and demean her.
So, why do we accept this approach from women? Why is it considered appropriate for a woman to order her husband around, but not the reverse? Why is it normal in our culture for a woman to assign a list of chores to her husband (the “Honey Do List,” we call it), yet we would think a man tyrannical and possibly abusive if he gave his wife her own list of mandatory assignments for the day? &#8220;Headed to work, honey. Your chore list is on the fridge.&#8221; Why do we think nothing of women who sit around complaining to each other about their husbands, even when those very same women would be devastated if their husbands did the same? Why is it acceptable for a woman to kick a man out of his own bed and banish him to the living room like a scolded puppy, while it would be seen as entirely unacceptable for a man to pull the same stunt with his wife? Imagine a wife saying to her girlfriends, “I’m really in the doghouse, girls. My husband made me sleep on the couch last night.” Her friends would probably tell her to call the police and file for divorce.
I am blessed to have married a woman who operates differently. She respects me without condition, even when I have not earned it. She builds me up and in the process helps me to become more deserving of the respect she has already granted me. GK Chesterton said the great lesson of ‘Beauty and the Beast’ is that a thing must be loved before it is lovable. I would add only that a man must also be respected before he is respectable. I have grown as a man, a husband, and a father, because my wife treated me as a leader in the home long before I had any idea what it meant to lead or how to do it.
Sadly, the average man in America is not always given this advantage. He enters marriage and finds himself immediately in a hole. He must prove his worth if he wants to be treated like he has any. His wife paints a line on the floor and expects him to walk it perfectly. But he will inevitably stumble, as all men (and women) do, and his wife will chastise him and use his mistake as blackmail against him.
A man in this situation is called nonetheless to endure, to fight for his family, and never to be unfaithful to his wife or leave her. But if he does wander, it should be noted that he is not the only traitor in the marriage. She betrayed him. She promised him a wife and instead gave him a stepmother. The two have now betrayed each other, each in their own way.
There are two sides to every story, as they say. I think this is the side that is not often told.
More from Matt Walsh: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/teachers-openly-fret-parents-might-hear-them-brainwashing-children">Teachers Openly Fret That Parents Might Hear Them Brainwashing Children, Call Parents ‘Dangerous’</a>
A version of this opinion piece was previously published in December 2017.

The Most Effective Way To Destroy Your Husband, Ruin Your Marriage, And Encourage Infidelity

Supporters of consensual incest are advocating for the taboo arrangement to be decriminalized after the recent story about an anonymous New York couple suing to have the state&#8217;s anti-incest laws overturned.
Richard Morris, an Australian man who wants the incest laws in approximately 60 countries changed, supports the New York couple&#8217;s lawsuit in Manhattan Federal Court and believes incestuous relationships between consenting adults “should not be criminalized,&#8221; according to the <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/04/17/consensual-incest-should-be-decriminalized-advocates-say/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">New York Post</a>.
Morris and other pro-incest advocates are responsible for about 130 petitions that are trying to change anti-incest laws around the world.
“We haven’t moved any mountains yet,” Morris said, acknowledging that such petitions have not proven very popular so far.
The New York Post further reported:
<blockquote>Morris was inspired to fight for those in consenting incestual relationships, he said, after learning about a Scottish case in which a long-separated father and daughter were reunited, started an affair and were then criminally convicted.
Fighting for true “marriage equality” is “the right thing to do, isn’t it?” Morris said.
“It seems to be as unjust as the law that used to imprison gay people, and the law that used to stop people of different races marrying,” he added.</blockquote>
“It is absurd to say that an adult can’t consent to marry their parent,&#8221; Morris continued. &#8220;That same adult can be sent to war, take on six or seven figures of debt, operate heavy machinery, be sentenced to death by a federal court, and consent to sex with five strangers (and marriage with one of them) but can’t consent to marry someone they love? In some of these cases, the genetic parent didn’t raise them and they met for the first time two years ago. Allegations of ‘grooming’ are laughable attempts to deny someone their rights even though it will have no impact on the person objecting.”
The case of the New York couple made headlines last week after a parent who wants to marry his or her adult child is suing to overturn New York’s laws against incest for the sake of “individual autonomy.”As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/individual-autonomy-parent-seeking-to-marry-adult-child-sues-to-overturn-ny-anti-incest-laws" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>:
<blockquote>The person who filed the lawsuit chose to remain anonymous because they seek the legal right to “an action that a large segment of society views as morally, socially and biologically repugnant,” according to court papers filed earlier this month in Manhattan Federal Court and obtained by the <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/new-york-parent-seeks-ok-to-marry-their-own-adult-child" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">New York Post</a>.
“Through the enduring bond of marriage, two persons, whatever relationship they might otherwise have with one another, can find a greater level of expression, intimacy and spirituality,” the parent further argued.
The filing, which is intentionally vague regarding the parties involved, specified that “the proposed spouses” are adults, a biological parent and child, and unable to procreate together.</blockquote>
Incest is a third-degree felony in New York and punishable with up to four years in prison. Incestuous marriages are considered void and potentially subject to a fine and jail time.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/individual-autonomy-parent-seeking-to-marry-adult-child-sues-to-overturn-ny-anti-incest-laws" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">‘Individual Autonomy’: Parent Seeking To Marry Adult Child Sues To Overturn NY Anti-Incest Laws</a>

Waist photo of man and woman holding hands

Advocates Push For Consensual Incest To Be Decriminalized, Laugh Off ‘Grooming’ Allegations

Sex Crimes

A parent who wants to marry his or her adult child is suing to overturn New York&#8217;s laws against incest for the sake of &#8220;individual autonomy.&#8221;
The person who filed the lawsuit chose to remain anonymous because they seek the legal right to “an action that a large segment of society views as morally, socially and biologically repugnant,” according to court papers filed earlier this month in Manhattan Federal Court and obtained by the <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/new-york-parent-seeks-ok-to-marry-their-own-adult-child" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">New York Post</a>.
“Through the enduring bond of marriage, two persons, whatever relationship they might otherwise have with one another, can find a greater level of expression, intimacy and spirituality,” the parent further argued.
The filing, which is intentionally vague regarding the parties involved, specified that &#8220;the proposed spouses&#8221; are adults, a biological parent and child, and unable to procreate together.
As the New York Post further <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/new-york-parent-seeks-ok-to-marry-their-own-adult-child" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>:
<blockquote>The parent wants to walk down the aisle in New York City, and is asking a judge to declare the laws unconstitutional and unenforceable in their case, which the lawsuit dubs “PAACNP” for “Parent and Adult Child Non-Procreationable” couples.
“Parent-and-adult-child couples for whom procreation is either virtually or literally impossible can aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning,” the forebear argues, claiming it would “diminish their humanity” if they were unable to tie the knot with the kid they conceived.</blockquote>
Incest is a third-degree felony in New York and punishable with up to four years in prison. Incestuous marriages are considered void and potentially subject to a fine and jail time.
Eric Wrubel, who is a family and matrimonial law attorney in Manhattan, doubts incest will ever catch on culturally, telling the Post, &#8220;It’s never gonna fly.&#8221;
“The closest you can come is Woody Allen, and that wasn’t his daughter, it was an adopted child whom he never adopted and it still turns people’s stomachs,” Wrubel added.
Even so, some far-left publications have dared to wade into normalizing sexual deviancy such as pedophilia and incest. As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Amanda Prestigiacomo <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/latest-media-push-incest-seriously-amanda-prestigiacomo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">commented</a> back in 2016:
<blockquote>The Leftist media’s crusade to strip away stigmas from all damaging behavior has hit new lows over the last year; first <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/">Salon</a> heinously tried to normalize pedophilia and now The Telegraph is doing the same with incest.
The Leftist publication <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/disgusted-by-incest-genetic-sexual-attraction-is-real-and-on-the/">argues</a> that feelings of “Genetic Sexual Attraction” (GSA) are actually quite “normal” and should not be judged. Above all else, we must be tolerant — the Left’s only “moral” standard.
The Telegraph’s Charlotte Gill exploits the recent disturbing tabloid “relationship” between Kim West, a 51-year-old and her son. West initially gave up her son for adoption but upon reuniting 30 years later, her “motherly love” took a nosedive into the deep end: The couple “fell in love” and are now looking to get marriage and have children.</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/latest-media-push-incest-seriously-amanda-prestigiacomo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Latest Media Push: INCEST. Seriously.</a>

Bride and groom walking on pavements

‘Individual Autonomy’: Parent Seeking To Marry Adult Child Sues To Overturn NY Anti-Incest Laws

New York

The marriage rate in the United States in 2018 dropped to the lowest level ever measured, according to government data released Wednesday.
The National Center for Health Statistics <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/marriage_rate_2018/marriage_rate_2018.pdf">reported</a> that the marriage rate fell by 6% to roughly 6.5 marriages per 1,000 people, the lowest rate since the government began measuring the stat in 1867.
&#8220;Millennials are in peak marriage years, their 20s and 30s, and it’s still dropping,&#8221; NCHS statistician Sally Curtin, the lead author of the report, told <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-marriage-rate-plunges-to-lowest-level-on-record-11588132860">The Wall Street Journal</a>. &#8220;This is historic.&#8221;
Marriage rates plummeted in the early 1930s around the start of the Great Depression, sinking to a then-record low of 7.9 marriages per 1,000 people in 1932. Over time, the marriage rate more than doubled to an all-time high of 16.4 in 1946, the year after the end of World War II.
The marriage rate dropped to 8.4 in 1958, then recovered and fluctuated in the 9-10 range from 1964-1994. Marriage rates started a steady decline in 1994 that led to the record low in 2018. Curtin did not venture a reason as to why U.S. marriage rates have declined.
The Wall Street Journal offered several causes for the decline:
&#8220;Many Americans are opting to form households without tying the knot, and strained finances have been a top reason. In recent years, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/affluent-americans-still-say-i-do-its-the-middle-class-that-does-not-11583691336?mod=article_inline">much of the marriage decline</a> has come for middle earners and those with only a high-school education. Declining religious adherence and growing acceptance of unmarried cohabitation have also played a role.&#8221;
Americans’ finances are under a historic level of strain amid the outbreak of the coronavirus. New date released by the Department of Labor on Thursday showed that about 30 million Americans have filed unemployment claims since mid-March when state governors began shutting down wide swaths of the U.S. economy to limit the spread of the coronavirus.
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/unemployment-tops-30-million-as-coronavirus-crisis-crests">The Daily Wire</a> reported:
&#8220;The news wasn’t all bad. While the number was slightly higher than the 3.5 million economists surveyed by Dow Jones expected, the number was far lower than the record 6.8 million for the week of March 28. The latest number was also lower than the previous week, which came in at 4.4 million. Still, one in six American workers is now unemployed.&#8221;
The Department of Labor data showed that 12.4% of U.S. workers are receiving unemployment insurance that Congress recently increased by $600 a month. The extra unemployment cash, meant to cushion millions of Americans who have been forced out of jobs because of the coronavirus, has had the unintended consequence of luring workers out of the workforce for extra money or keeping workers from returning to jobs supported by federal loans.
A Marist College poll released on Wednesday <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/about-half-of-households-have-lost-income-to-the-coronavirus">showed</a> that roughly half of American households have been impacted by the coronavirus. Half of U.S. adults surveyed reported that either they or someone in their household has lost a job or income due to the coronavirus.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Couple Holding Hands

‘Historic’: U.S. Marriage Rate Fell To Lowest Level Ever Recorded In 2018

Menu