Gay Patriot Header Image

If you live long enough, you’ll see everything

Apple, Facebook will pay for female employees to freeze their eggs:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Apple Inc and Facebook Inc will help pay for female employees to freeze their eggs…

From January, Apple will pay both full- and part-time employees up to $20,000 for procedure and storage costs for female employees to freeze their eggs.

“We continue to expand our benefits for women, with a new extended maternity leave policy, along with cryopreservation and egg storage as part of our extensive support for infertility treatments,” Apple said in a statement.

I’m pretty sure that Apple already covered its employees’ *medical fertility problems*. (If that’s mistaken, please correct me in the comments.) Something else must be new here. What is it?

Could it be, a benefit for egg-freezing as a pure career move? Let’s see:

“We want to empower women at Apple to do the best work of their lives as they care for loved ones and raise their families.”

NBC News reported on Tuesday that Facebook recently began covering egg-freezing for non-medical reasons…

Egg freezing is a pricey but increasingly popular option for women. It enables women to delay child bearing…

A sign of the times. Now that Facebook/Apple woman can freeze her eggs at 30, work years of 80 hour weeks, and then at 50 when she’s pulling 300K a year (and naturally infertile), pay a surrogate to do that other part of her life for her – you know, having kids from her eggs.

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with it – if she’s doing it all with her own money. The issue I see here is, Apple and Facebook are choosing to engage in a form of discrimination against their employees who don’t make (or shall we say, don’t need to make) that particular, optional choice.

Remember, the money comes from somewhere: the overall “employee comp” budget. Rather than pay tens of thousands of dollars for a hugely *optional* procedure for a special category of employee, why would Facebook/Apple not raise all employees’ bonuses by (say) a thousand dollars? That would empower far more women (and men, and transgenders) and be much more fair.

The free market will (or should) ultimately decide if Apple and Facebook have done the right thing here. In the meantime, some people appear not to grasp that freezing your eggs – purely as a career move – is optional:

“Egg freezing gives women more control,” said Jennifer Tye, marketing lead for Glow, a mobile application aimed at helping women avoid pregnancy or conceive.

“When I turned 30, I had this notion that my biological clock was ticking, but I didn’t know what my options were,” said Tye.

Really? At 30, she didn’t know what her options were? I hope she was misquoted; if not, it’s mind-boggling stupidity.

On Ted Cruz’s Proposed Judicial Restraint Amendment

Posted by V the K at 7:01 am - October 9, 2014.
Filed under: Social Issues

Ted Cruz will reportedly introduce a (beautiful and doomed) amendment to the Constitution that would empower the states to define marriage on their own terms, as has been the historical norm.

“Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.

Limiting the power of the judicial oligarchy is a very good idea. If anything, there should be more amendments like this to tell the courts that not only marriage, but also abortion, tax policy, environmental policy, education policy, immigration policy, and a range of other issues are not their business. The courts should be limited to ensuring that the laws passed by the people’s elected representatives or the people themselves are followed. The social justice activism of the courts out to be clipped in a lot of areas.

Unfortunately, this amendment is about five or ten years too late. And instead of being viewed in its proper role as a restraining order on a dangerously out of control judiciary, it will be demagogued as “anti-gay” or whatever. The left is manipulative and dishonest, and their voters are emotional and ill-informed.

This combination of manipulation and emotionalism has already decided that a piece of paper stamped by bureaucrat that “legitimizes” a relationship is more important than liberty.

On Kajieme Powell, and Injustice in America

We here at GayPatriot care deeply about justice. In contrast to the political Left, we happen to care about real justice; rather than posturing and claims of “social justice” that are usually unjust and illegitimate. We know that 90-95% of the time, when the political Left is shrieking about “social justice”, it’s exaggeration – or often baloney.

Accordingly, we tend to favor law and order. But the law-enforcement system must be subject to constitutional limits. And it’s made of human beings like anything else, beings who can make mistakes or go wrong. There are times when law enforcement should be criticized, if not condemned, for doing something horribly unjust.

Kajieme Powell’s death is one of those times. If you haven’t seen this video already, WARNING – it’s tragic and not for the faint of heart:

YouTube Preview Image
(Via Zero Hedge; edited video is also at HotAir.)

At the risk of being obvious, I’d like to state what was so unjust in the police killing of Powell. First and obviously, it was out of proportion to anything Powell did. He allegedly stole food items from a convenience store. And he reportedly waved a knife while resisting police arrest. And for those bad things, he should have been knocked to the ground (to get the knife away from him), or tased, or (at the very most) shot in the leg. Not riddled with a stream of bullets.

Second – and perhaps less obviously; some Democrats may need to have this spelled out for them – it was far out of proportion to what others have done. Others like, for example, DEMOCRAT Jon Corzine who, to this day, still has not been charged for stealing on a scale so vast that poor Kajieme Powell couldn’t begin to dream of it.

An America where Powell is riddled with bullets over a few food items while DEMOCRAT Jon Corzine never faces charges, is not a place of justice.

This is what our society has come to. And I don’t think it’s about race per se, as much as it is about political status & connections. Remember, Corzine’s key political connection was President Barack Obama. Powell probably had no connections.

P.S. I apologize for my tardiness in getting to the Powell matter. Without going into detailed excuses, let’s just say that (1) writing posts is time-consuming work, the way I go about it; (2) I had a busy summer; and so (3) I simply wasn’t writing in August when this happened, and I’m only now getting caught up.

Once more: Gun Rights are Women’s Rights

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 5:10 pm - September 30, 2014.
Filed under: Gun Control,Second Amendment,Social Issues

Woman shoots ex-boyfriend during home invasion:

A man was shot in the chest early Friday morning after trying to break into the home of a former girlfriend, according to police…

…she called officers regarding a former boyfriend kicking her door. Police said the woman fired two shots at the man once he made entry into the unit, hitting him once in the chest. The man fled…

The [home invasion] victim sent FOX5 a series of screenshots she said detailed numerous texts and online messages from [the home invader]. She wrote in a blog that a stalker forced her to move, obtain a restraining order and acquire a license to carry a concealed weapon…she had been sleeping with a chair in front of her door to keep her stalker out.

Via HotAir. (Note: The term “ex-boyfriend” may be an overstatement; other information suggests he was a plain stalker.)

Smart car tipping

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 10:52 am - April 9, 2014.
Filed under: American Youth,Social Issues

Somebody went on a Smart car tipping spree in San Francisco, in the last couple of days:

Motive is unclear. Some are trying to make it into a social-conflict story, but this fun-looking example from 2011 looks to me like young guys doing it “because they can”.

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll cites it as an example of the Luddite Left. Sorry, Ed. I know that the Luddite Left is real, but let’s not over-interpret. Smart cars are surely too lame to have inspired any serious Luddism.

Soros & Lewis behind marijuana legalization?

From Kelly Riddell at the Washington Times:

With a cadre of like-minded, wealthy donors, Mr. Soros is dominating the pro-legalization side of the marijuana debate by funding grass-roots initiatives that begin in New York City and end up affecting local politics elsewhere.

Wait a minute, “grass-roots”? I get the pun, but when a billionaire secretly bankrolls groups to push his agenda, isn’t the proper term “astro-turfing”? Anyway:

Through a network of nonprofit groups, Mr. Soros has spent at least $80 million on the legalization effort since 1994…

His spending has been supplemented by [recently-deceased billionaire] Peter B. Lewis…an unabashed pot smoker who channeled more than $40 million…

What is it, with the Democrats/Left giving a pass to all their manipulative billionaires?

Mr. Soros’ Open Society Foundations have annual assets of more than $3.5 billion, a pool from which he can dole out grants to pet projects, according to 2011 tax returns, the most recent on file for his charitable organizations.

David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who often are cited for their conservative influence, had $308 million tied up in their foundation and institute in 2011.

Finally, I may as well state my own view, and readers can agree or disagree. I do oppose prohibition of marijuana for the same reason I oppose prohibition of alcohol: the prohibition doesn’t work and creates more problems than it solves. Having said that, I don’t use the stuff and find its heavy users (or addicts) repellant.

Fort Hood, again

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 1:18 am - April 3, 2014.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,National Politics,Social Issues

There will be plenty of time to understand what happened and make appropriate points. For now, our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.

More leftists run amok

After V’s posts on the progressive, feminist lesbian who stands with the religion that actually oppresses women, and the transsexual who feels that her sex change operation should get her off the hook for murder, I thought I’d throw in a couple more examples.

1) In Michigan, a teachers’ union contract openly discriminates against men, whites, and Christians. From the Ferndale school district’s clause about promotions:

Special consideration shall be given to women and/or minority defined as: Native American, Asian American, Latino, African American and those of the non-Christian faith.

I could note the poor construction, and the apparent ignorance of the fact that many Latinos are part of what progressives would call “white privilege”. But what’s far more disturbing is that teachers – or, a school district – could be so disrespectful of basic American legal, civic and moral principles.

2) There’s more on that bossy left-wing professor who assaulted a pro-life, 16 year old girl last week in Santa Barbara. From the police report:

In essence, Miller-Young told me that she felt “triggered” by the images on the posters…

Miller-Young said that she and others began demanding that the images be taken down. Miller-Young said that the demonstrators refused. At which point, Miller-Young said that she “just grabbed it [the sign] from this girl’s hands.” Asked if there had been a struggle, Miller-Young stated, “I’m stronger so I was able to take the poster.”…

Miller-Young went on to say that because the poster was upsetting…she felt that the [pro-life] activists did not have the right to be there…

I told Miller-Young that I appreciated the fact that she felt traumatized by the [pro-life] imagery but that her response constituted a violation of law…

Miller-Young replied that [the pro-lifers] coming to campus and showing “graphic imagery” [in common areas] was insensitive to the community…

Miller-Young also suggested that the group had violated her rights. I asked Miller-Young what right the group had violated. Miller-Young responded, “My personal right to go to work and not be in harm.”

Miller-Young elaborated that one of the reasons she had felt so alarmed by this imagery is because she is about to have the test for Down Syndrome. Miller-Young said. “I work here, why do they get to intervene in that?”

I explained to Miller-Young that vandalism, battery and robbery had occurred…

Get it? Mireille Miller-Young wants to get off the hook for alleged acts of vandalism, battery and robbery because *her feelers were hurt*.

Miller-Young could potentially have a Down Syndrome baby that she might then want to abort, and how dare anyone take (or publicize) any stance that might make her feel guilt over that? Telling Miller-Young your truth (remember when lefties used to love the idea of everyone ‘telling their truth’?) is now “harm” to her that justifies her use of physical violence.

This looks to me like a classic case of a woman who might have a personality disorder, seeking to control/abuse other people. God bless the sane policeman!

Now for some better items. The Delaware Supreme Court has upheld self-protection rights for residents of public housing. And they were unanimous. Remember, the criminal residents already had guns, so this ruling is a help to the law-abiding residents.

And in California, three Asian-American State senators thankfully blocked an effort to bring back racial discrimination in college admissions, after California voters had rejected it in 1996.

Harassment, censorship and disease

Some quick links.

Thanks to reader Peter H, for about half the items!

What Feminism Has Come To

So, aside from lowering standards to the point where Lena Dunham is considered smart and pretty, what has Feminism achieved?

The feminization of our politics has brought about the unsustainable welfare state; whose crowning achievement is Obamacare, a program championed by a Feminist Speaker of the House and implemented by a Feminist Secretary of Health and Human Services.

American Colleges are well on the way to becoming puritanical matriarchies. Already overwhelmingly female, new laws are being worked that will define virtually all sex as rape, and there are efforts underway to make it mandaory to expel males who are merely accused of rape. Rape itself is being  redefined to include the circumstance of a woman changing her mind after consenting to sex with a man, with no statute of limitations.

The foregoing may be an effort for women to reclaim through legalism what they lost in the sexual revolution; control over the sex. The culture of single parenthood and permanently single women is a consequence of men no longer needing to commit to a woman in order to receive sex. [Insert metaphor regarding the logic of purchasing the bovine when its lactic emissions are gratuitously available.]

At one point, Feminists assailed pronography as demeaning to women. Now, it’s hailed as empowerment when a Womyn’s Studies Major at Duke University (Annual Tuition: $40,000) makes pr0n. [The coed in question claims it’s the Patriarchy’s fault because she doesn’t get enough financial aid; never mind she was offered a full-ride (no pun intended) at another university.)

Social Conservatives get knocked around a lot for believing that motherhood and family give women more dignity than pr0n careers, for believing that men should commit to their women and women to their men and both should commit to their families; for believing that empowerment comes through strength of character and self-reliance, not by performing lewd acts for the sexual gratification of strangers. Given the alternative, it should be conceded that social conservatives have a point.

“It’s our choices that make us fat, not McDonald’s”

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 8:16 pm - March 8, 2014.
Filed under: Amazing Stories,Food,Health & medical,Social Issues

I do NOT recommend this guy‘s diet, but he claims to have lost 56 lbs and counting, eating all McDonald’s – all the time.

Get regular exercise and honestly limit your calorie intake, and you will moderate your weight…it’s math. (Or science; take your pick.)

True conspiracies?

It’s healthy to be skeptical of conspiracy theories; especially ones whose truth would require bad science, illogical motives, the implausible silence of thousands of people, etc. For example, the Rosie O’Donnell form of 9-11 Trooferism, in which absurd claims are made that fire somehow can’t melt nor weaken structural steel, that employees spanning vast security agencies of multiple nations conspired in vast deceptions, etc.

But occasionally, a conspiracy might be real, or partly so. I recently web-surfed to this interesting video from the folks at They claim to list 25 true conspiracies.

Note: I DO NOT AGREE with, or vouch for, their entire list. For example, their item 18 (the Nayirah al-Sabah war propaganda case) specifically asserts a CIA connection that Wikipedia does not mention at all. Or their item 15 (about polio vaccine containing a cancer-inducing agent) appears to be weakly sourced.

Still, here are three of their items which were new to me – and which did seem to be supported, when I did quick Google searches for them. If true, they would be historically interesting. If untrue, please feel free to say so in the comments (hopefully with links).

25. Did the NSA in the early 1960s propose to foment war with Cuba, by means of false terrorist incidents that would kill Americans? Search for Operation Northwoods. Again, if this story is false, please let us know in the comments. ABC News reported it as true. If it was a real proposal, then President Kennedy deserves kudos for rejecting it.

24. Did technology exist, as early as the 1970s, to assassinate people ‘trace-free’? A page says that:

At the first televised hearing [of the 1975 Church Committee]…Chairman Church dramatically displayed a CIA poison dart gun to highlight the committee’s discovery that the CIA directly violated a presidential order by maintaining stocks of shellfish toxin sufficient to kill thousands.

Some say the point was to deliver a tiny dart, and a toxin, that would decay on impact and become undetectable, after having induced a massive heart attack. I (Jeff) would add that, if the CIA had it in the 1970s, then surely others must have it in the 2000s; which must be why some people wonder about the sudden heart attack of Andrew Breitbart. (more…)

The Media Are Misrepresenting SB 1026 (Also, Dog Bites Man)

Posted by V the K at 8:20 am - February 26, 2014.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America,Social Issues

The Arizona “gay bill” has been severely misrepresented accordin to a bipartisan group of lawyers from both sides of the gay marriage debate. It is not a “turn away the gays bill” as the MFM and the histrionic left (but I repeat myself) have portrayed it.

Everything after this is a rant; feel free to ignore it.


If Only He Were Living in a Normal Mainstream Pansexual Transgender Wiccan Nudist Commune

Posted by V the K at 8:56 am - February 20, 2014.
Filed under: Family,Social Issues

Olympic Gold Medalist David Wise is married with a wife and a young daughter; he attends church regularly. To NBC, this constitutes an “alternative lifestyle.”

At such a young age, Wise has the lifestyle of an adult. He wears a Baby Bjorn baby carrier around the house. He also attends church regularly and says he could see himself becoming a pastor a little later down the road.

The Mainstream Media is baffled by young 20-somethings who choose to live as adults; especially when the MFM has worked so hard to ensure they can live on their parents health insurance until age 26, stay in school until their 30′s, and delay marriage and family until the front end of middle age.

The Psychology of Radical Feminism

Posted by V the K at 8:35 am - January 9, 2014.
Filed under: Liberalism Run Amok,Social Issues

Commenter Catseye brought to my attention more background on the Radical Feminist blogger who despises men, claims that everyone with a Y chromosome is a rapist, and that all bearers of the Y-Chromosome should be deprived of all rights and property. Even on the left, this is considered a little bit fringe-y; although not quite as radical batsh-t extreme as people who want affordable, Constitutionally constrained, accountable Government.

R.S. McCain digs a little deeper into the psychology of this “RadFem” blogger and discovers that back when she was a teenage girl, RadFem blogger had an unhappy affair with an older man. I’d be willing to bet this older man was a liberal Democrat. First of all, she doesn’t strike me as the kind who would date a Republican. And second, liberal Democrat men have a pattern of using and abusing younger women; e.g. Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer, Jim Moran et fils, Bob Filner, Steve Cohen, et cetera. So, maybe this guy treated her like crap; or maybe he grew tired of dating a batsh-t crazy feminist dingbat and left her for a woman who could make a proper sandwich. Whatever the case, she was clearly left embittered by the relationship. As R.S. McCain Summarizes:

From this sketchy (and unverifiably anonymous) history, we can approach an answer to the first question: Yes, she is crazy, which is to say her behavior has been irrational and self-destructive, and her inability to cope with disappointment — “I didn’t understand why I accumulated so many failures” — led her to adopt an extreme anti-male worldview, i.e., radical feminism. But this is all radical feminism actually is, the elaboration of mental illness as a political philosophy. Sane, normal and happy women don’t become feminists. However, as the realities of sexual behavior in our culture becomes increasingly abnormal — and widespread sexual promiscuity is, historically speaking, abnormal — fewer women are sane and happy, so feminist beliefs become more commonplace and abnormality is thereby normalized.

I tend to agree. My intuitive suspicion is that RadFem blogger is one of those people who can’t stand the thought of other people having something she does not have (this is a major psychological factor on the left), in this case, a healthy, satisfying relationship with a man. So, in her mind, if she can’t have it, then no woman anywhere should be able to have it. And she has created this entire Rape Mythology to rationalize this belief.  And although she is an outlier, she’s not *that* far outside of the left-wing feminist mainstream; Rape Hysteria is a huge thing on the left, to the point where a man accused of rape by a woman is deemed automatically guilty and denied his Constitional Rights. (Link. Link. Link.)

If He Were a Catholic Priest, This Would Be a Scandal

A public school teacher in Michigan was convicted of molesting a 13 year old boy. (Statistically, children are 100 times more likely to be abused by a public school employee than by an official of the Roman Catholic Church.)

He was rightfully sent to prison, but not before several of his unionized, public education colleagues weighed on his behalf, arguing for leniency and understanding.

In her leniency letter, (a fellow teacher) wrote that Neal losing his teaching certificate, coupled with the parole that will prevent him from molesting other children is “steep enough of punishments that a long incarceration term is not warranted on top of that.”

Social studies teacher Amy Huber Eagan, wife of school board member Mike Eagan, said that Neal “has been, and will be, greatly missed in the educational arena,” which Huber Eagan feels “in and of itself has been a huge punishment to Neal.”

Huber Eagan beseeched the judge, “considering all the circumstances surrounding the case… Neal [should] be given the absolute minimum sentence.”

But the judge disagreed with the teachers, and sentenced Neal Erickson to 15-30 years. Much to Erickson’s chagrin, to grown-up prison and not juvie.

In the latest “in yer face, taxpayers” move, the teacher’s union is suing to collect the molester’s severance pay. Because prison subscriptions to Highlights magazine cost money, yo!

The Roman Catholic Church was sued for hundreds of millions of dollars, and the progressive left is still bashing them constantly for covering up and enabling the sexual abuse of children. But when a public school teacher’s union does the same thing, there is no outcry in the liberal left media. Why is that? Could it be because teacher’s unions are such loyal and generous members of the social democrat coalition?

Rand: Right again?

Not ‘that Rand’ (although he is often right), but the other one.

Many have noted how life today has come to resemble the corrupt, ever-decaying crony socialism depicted in Ayn Rand’s lengthy second dystopian novel. Now it’s even coming to resemble the demented communalism of her first dystopia, Anthem.

Anthem depicts a frightening future society which has de-valued the individual, replacing “I” (or “me”) with devotion to “We” in every possible aspect of life. The society’s philosophy is captured in sayings like these:

We are one in all and all in one. There are no men but only the great WE: one, indivisible and forever.

We are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers are we allowed our lives. We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State. Amen.

Some people might agree with the above sentiments, for real. Have you ever heard of We Day? Watch the video at the link; it shows a vast, cheering orgy of thousands of “Me to We” activists celebrating their awesome We-ness.

Mixed in with calls to help The Children, some of the speakers bark sentiments and commands that would fit well in Rand’s dystopia. Just upgrade the event’s arena another notch (fill it with another 20,000 people) and it will start to resemble the North Korean Mass Games.

As for their desire to feed hungry children: Don’t get me wrong, of course that’s nice. I’m all for people helping other people – at their own expense.

But this gang (featuring Al Gore, for example) shows no understanding of what it would take to actually feed the world’s children. What it would take is: universal protection for individual rights to life, liberty and property under the rule of law – so that productive people, working hard for their own gain (not for the great “We”), will then produce, sell and distribute food on a large-enough scale.

More kids go hungry in countries that habitually interfere with production and trade; countries that don’t respect the individual who works to support her own life, liberty and property. Sadly, the Left has turned America into one of those countries, which means we will be cursed with increasing poverty and hunger in years to come.

Friday satire – from The Onion

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 3:54 pm - August 16, 2013.
Filed under: Equality (Real or Faux?),Humor,Social Issues

Report: There Only 17 Total Square Miles On Earth Where Gays Not Discriminated Against

P.S. If you feel that anti-gay discrimination is too serious to joke about (and it is, in some places): then please re-think your willingness (if any) to excuse Islamist dictatorships, and/or your opposition to gun rights.

Why are homicide laws different for women & men?

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 8:16 pm - August 4, 2013.
Filed under: Abortion, aborting gays,Social Issues

Consider the following:

In each example, the men certainly deserve charges/punishment for other reasons; namely, for crimes of fraud, assault, kidnapping or rape.

But murder? In each case, the murder charge arose from the man having aborted his fetus (that is, the fetus created from his genes). Is that just? In each example, if the woman had aborted her fetus, she would not be charged with murder.

Why is it a crime of homicide when the father terminates the fetus, but not when the mother does? Why should the same action (killing the fetus) be a crime, or not, depending on who (which parent) did it?

If the variant were race – If we claimed, for example, that the killing of a black person is somehow not murder, when “who did it” happens to be a white person – then Bob Dylan would write protest songs about the inequality…and rightly so.

Please note, I am not expressing a stand on the above questions. I am asking them, inspired by Bruce’s re-tweet from Matthew H, “…men do not have the same rights as women. We can’t kill & call it ‘health choices’.” The tweet is correct. And why should that situation be? Has the pro-choice movement created a ‘female privilege’, a dangerous new form of legal inequality?

Does Pat Robertson understand what marriage is for?

Just caught Erin Burnett on CNN talking about something I had noticed earlier today as trending on Yahoo!

Screen shot 2013-05-16 at 6.45.32 PM

Yup, that’s right, number one above.* On his “700 Club” television show yesterday, his co-host Kristi Watts read a letter from a woman having trouble forgiving a cheating husband. Watts called infidelity “one of the ultimate betrayals“, but Robertson said the woman should “stop talking about the cheating.” After asking some good questions which get at the heart of what it means to be good husband, he otherwise seems to miss the point, dismissing the problem of infidelity — and failing to understand the full meaning of marriage, particularly the marital vows:

He cheated on you. Well, he’s a man, okay, so, what you do is begin to focus on why you married him in the first place, on what he does good.

. . . .

But recognize also, like it or not, males have a tendency to wander a little bit. And what you want to do is make the home so wonderful that he doesn’t want to wander. But, think of the temptations that are out there. The Internet is filled with pornography. Magazines are filled with pictures, salacious pictures of women. Anywhere you turn around, there is some solicitation to the sense to entice a man. And so what you have to do is say, “My husband was captured and I want to get him free.”

Yes, Mr. Robertson is right; males do have a tendency to wander, but marriage vows exist to restrain that tendency, to remind a man that he has, to borrow a term many social conservatives like, made a covenant with a woman, forging a bond more important that the momentary gratification a dalliance with another women might offer.

What this man did was wrong and to earn forgiveness, he should first admit that.

Marriage has evolved for a great many reasons, one of them to control that tendency to wander.  Mr. Robertson should have said as much.  He should have said that what the cheating husband did was wrong — and criticized him for violating his vows.  And for causing pain to a woman to whom he had sworn fidelity. (more…)