Chuck Colson has an agenda

Chuck Colson’s admiration of Rontrell Matthews’ work ethic is right on.

Last summer, Rontrell Matthews walked into Capers Preparatory Christian Academy in a poor rural community with terrible public schools. Rontrell held out a check for $32.86 – his first paycheck from his after-school job. If they would let him in, Rontrell promised, he would give them every paycheck from then on.

Rontrell proved the old saying that where there’s a will, there’s a way. So why is it different for same-sex couples who marry in spite of stereotypes, societal stigma and anti-gay legislation?

While criticizing David Brooks’ mother mentoring program, Chuck makes the funny argument that same-sex marriage is responsible for unwanted pregnancy.

The sickness is broken and unformed families.

Instead of relying on a government program to fix families after they break, wouldn’t it be better to keep families from breaking in the first place? Wouldn’t it be better to find ways to encourage parents to marry before having children, instead of telling them – as our cultural elites often do – that marriage does not matter?

Second, when it comes to families, government itself is often the problem, promoting policies destructive to families. For example, courts that force states to accept same-sex “marriage” are redefining true marriage out of existence. That’s not good for kids.

Hello, Chuck. Did you know that same-sex couples can’t – oops – have children by mistake? Oh, you forgot. Let’s revisit your friend Rondell. Like Rondell, same-sex families have to buck the system in order to succeed. We have to fight all these uphill battles against anti-gay government and religious institutions. As you say, “individual ingenuity always trumps the best government program” or legislation. And when our ingenuity wins, you can bet your sweet bippie that we are dedicated to our kids and that we make great parents. And that’s why you’re part of the problem.

And many studies have shown that kids do best in married, two-parent families.

Who’s stopping us from getting married, again?

Yet some states now force adoption agencies to send kids into the homes of homosexual couples.

“Two-parent”“couples”.. What did we miss? Is there some mystical mathemagic that slipped through the cracks? 1+1=2.

So stop it. Just stop it. Why do you admire Rondell’s agency and then treat us as invisible agents of an out of control government; “courts that force states to accept same-sex “marriage'”?

We had to work hard to win those court battles. We have agency, too.

You know, Chuck, we live right here in Loudoun, home of your Prison Fellowship Ministries. (Btw, what does any of this have to do with your mission of reforming prisoners? But let’s not digress.) You’re welcome to come to one of our social events, to meet your neighbors and see that we are real people, real families. No offense, but I’m not very hopeful. I get the sense that you don’t want to know the folks you judge, because you’d find your judgment to be un-Christian. Better to continue treating us as abstract objects of tyrannical government intervention. I’m beginning to think that somebody here may have an “agenda.”

p.s. – Chuck, isn’t that whole “faith-based initiative” thing that funds Prison Fellowship a government program?

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Chuck Colson has an agenda

  1. Robin says:

    The other thing that bothers me is that so many of these states also have laws against cohabitating i.e. to “encourage” people to get married (although I would say force is a better word). So basically gay couples are darned if they do and darned if they don’t. It’s totally illogical.

  2. David says:

    It is the very definition of “special rights” for an adoption agency to be exempted from the requirement to act exclusively in the best interests of the children in its care. But that is exactly what these folks seem to want. They want to be allowed to operate – with public money and the imprimatur of the state – on the basis of their religious beliefs instead.

    It becomes clearer every day why the early anti-gay industry coined that term – it’s a perfect description of themselves.

  3. David says:

    Thanks for pointing that out, Cory. It’s Jonathan’s post, and he evidently had a bad html night. Fixed now.

  4. Jonathan says:

    No problem Cory. Mistaking my writing for David’s is a compliment.