Today, President Obama threw his support behind same-sex marriage. Thank God! The mask is off, six months before the election and about a year since he announced that he was willfully violating his Oath of Office by ordering the Justice Department to cease defending the law in court. Specifically, he ordered an end to defending The Defense of Marriage Act.
It is the duty of the Executive Branch to see to it that the duly constituted laws of the land are executed and defended by attorneys general. Hasn’t that been the battle cry of Catholic governors who plead their personal opposition to abortion, but must uphold the law of the land with all of the resources of the Executive?
What Obama has done is actively define dictatorship by the selective upholding and prosecution of the laws. This eviscerates the legislative branch of government and turns the law into the personal prerogative of one man. If anyone claimed ignorance in voting for Obama the first time, he has made his agenda plain for all to see this time around. In not defending the Defense of Marriage Act and now openly declaring support for the redefinition of marriage, the president has declared war on the central institution of all organized religion. The question arises in many quarters…
“So What?”
It’s actually not so benign. For openers, heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage, with no-fault divorce and divorce rates hovering in the 50% range for decades. Still, if we have made a mess of our institution, the truth remains that it is OUR institution to fix.
A core reason for marriage is the universally recognized need of children to have a biological mother and father, each of whom brings their complementary strengths to bear on the formation of their new human beings. Modern research has overwhelmingly borne out the truth that children do best when raised by their biological mother and father, who both reside with the child under the same roof. The pathologies in children increase in proportion to the degree to which the biological parents drop out of the child’s life. That’s not conservative talking points. That’s well-established social scientific data.
Part of the pathology of gay/lesbian marriages (and most divorces in heterosexuals) is the belief that a child can do just fine without a mother or a father. At least in divorce the reality of one-parental involvement is a tragic consequence. In gay and lesbian unions it is a principled and celebrated world-view.
Worse still is the implicit validation of what some in the homosexual community call heterosexuals aloud: breeders. Gay men who donate sperm for IVF and surrogate motherhood merely use women as barnyard livestock. (So do the heterosexuals who pioneered and grew this beastly industry.)
Breeders.
Lesbian couples seeking sperm donations for either insemination or IVF do as much with men: Stud animals.
The entire affair signals the collapse of Western/Christian Civilization. We have lost sight of who we are, what our children require, and have subordinated their needs to our narcissistic and hedonistic obsessions.
There is nothing sweet and benign about two men determining that they are just as good as a mother. Such belief betrays their hostility toward women at the biological and metaphysical core of womanhood. The same for lesbians with men.
Bioethics has as a prerequisite that we know who we are, what our nature is and is not. It is concerned with the right use of technology and prudential judgement. When society embraces such institutionalized pathology it is impossible to have a coherent national discussion about how we treat ourselves and one another.
If we can’t agree on who and what we are, then anything goes.
If we cannot agree on who and what we are, then we will have that dictated to us by the government. Never in the history of any human civilization has a dictatorial government acted with beneficence or charitable forbearance. They have all treated their people as so much livestock. This time around, it is the people who have thus defined themselves. Tragically, there will always be a willing dictator ready to oblige.

Brilliant. Thank you. This needs a wide reading.
[...] http://gerardnadal.com/2012/05/09/obama-same-sex-marriage-and-bioethical-fallout/ Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
Yet again you have unhesitatingly and plainly stated the truth: “We have lost sight of who we are, what our children require, and have subordinated their needs to our narcissistic and hedonistic obsessions.”
Leila is right, this needs to be widely read.
WELCOME BACK!
A copy of this post should be sent to every voter in this country. (Not the dead ones, though…)
Thank you so much for speaking the truth! I’m so glad to subscribe to your blog.
Hey Doctor, this is truly brilliant. The broadest AND most succint look at Obama and “gay marriage.” However, I disagree with you on 3 points: 1) Marriage isn’t just a religious thing, it’s a natural thing. 2) “Heterosexual” marriage should welcome ANY outside help to fix “heterosexual” marriage (not meaning to change it into an ontological impossibility, of course). I also don’t believe in putting any qualifiers before the word “marriage” like “traditional” or “heterosexual,” because marriage is what it is (man and woman). If someone wants to (impossibly) change marriage, they are the ones that need to use qualifiers. 3) Gay “sex” is not necessarily “hedonistic”–it can be a sincere but disordered attempt to express love and affection.
Just so none of my objections are misunderstood, I subscribe wholeheartedly to all the Catholic Church teaches on marriage. May I post your post whole and entire on my blog? http://www.hellburns.blogspot.com ? Thanks & God bless.
Sr. Helena,
Thanks, and feel free to repost. All I ask is appropriate attribution and a link to the original source. Regarding your critiques, in #1 I agree that marriage is natural, which in the broader sense makes it religious. This is so because nature is God’s creation and ordered according to His plan and will, which is why Paul tells us that all men have the law of God written on their hearts. God Bless.
Hi Dr. Nadal.
I understand that you are a catholic and do believe in god. But there is no scientific or empirical way to prove the existence of any such entity.
You must understand that most Americans are not catholic and reject your extremely conservative misogynistic views on society.
Shaun, Did you comer here to engage in a drive-by, or would you care to have a discussion where you are open to the facts proving you to be in error?
Right on, Dr. Nadal!!
Hi gerard,
may I invite you to http://nietzsche.com/
it’ll change your world