Friday, June 26, 2015

While Legalized Gay Marriage Is Being Celebrated...

All Americans--regardless of race gender, ethnicity, even sexual orientation--lost this morning one of the most fundamental rights of our republic, one that Americans throughout the ages have fought and even given their lives in defending.

The right, guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, to having a say (otherwise defined as a vote) in making state laws via the state constitutional amendment process.

Time and time again, a state constitutional amendment process in which propositions are voted upon, has the voice of the people silenced by oligarchs in black robes when the vote doesn't go down the way the liberals want it to go. In doing so, these unelected judges make law from the bench.

It happened again today, as the US Supreme Court decided to overrule the votes of millions of Americans who were opposed to the concept of marriage being anything other than the union of one man and one woman, regardless of the fact that the concept of marriage is not a right that was established by any government, let alone the United States. It is a religious ceremony that existed thousands of years before the founding of this nation. Thus, the five liberal justices of the Supreme Court, have made a right that did not exist in the Constitution, arrogantly thinking their thought process is higher than the laws of nature and nature's God.

And all you liberals, who have not gotten over Bush vs. Gore, and too busy screaming about people being denied the right to vote, you're silent today because your in the streets celebrating and shaking your fist at the heavens, thinking your "religion" of liberalism now trumps any other belief system. You hypocrites!  You just denied the right of millions of Americans to decide state law via the ballot initiatives.  You show today you only care about voting rights only when you need more time to manufacture enough votes to put your candidates into office.

Just like abortion laws, "same-sex" marriage laws should have been left to the states to decide.  Even then, there are more complicated matters to decide, such as the rights of religious liberties issues.

Liberals and same-sex marriage supporters on the right/libertarian side, use the "equality" argument. "You can't tell someone who they can and can't love." Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case. It is the emotional argument made to sugar coat and hide the true aims of the "same-sex" marriage crowd.

Why do I say that? Listen to "America's Pastor," the Rev. Billy Graham, starting at 2:09 in this clip from a 1978 crusade in Toronto, Canada.


"If the home goes, the nation is going to go."

Now, keep in mind the words of Rev. Graham as you watch Glenn Beck from 2013 reference a speech by LGBT activist Masha Gessen, who stated that the fight over so-called "gay marriage" is a 'lie' to meant to destroy the concept of marriage.


And consider this, like South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley found out when she decided (mistakenly, I might add) to get rid of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state grounds, if you give the cultural Marxists on the Left an inch, they'll take a mile. They'll never be satisfied, which is why you cannot negotiate with the Left.

Justice Alito realized the implications of this thinking in his dissent (Legal Insurrection).
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.
It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.
Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.
If you want more of an example of what Alito is warning about, see what happened up north when Canada made same-sex marriage legal, and how Biblical passages against homosexuality have been ruled "hate speech." 


Destruction of the family is one of the tenants of Marxism. It's not just economic, look at all the other assaults on the family up to now that have weakened it...abortion-on-demand, radical feminism, and now "gay marriage."  Not just the family, it is also religious liberty at stake. Marxists have been threatened by religion, because no power can be higher than the state.

Also, one of the consequences of today's decision is, once you go down the slippery slope of redefining marriage for one group, you have to do it for other groups (Politico).
The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.
This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.
Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.
That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.
In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.
... Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.
So while homosexuals feel a right has been given to them, the rights of all Americans are threatened because of this judicial activism yesterday and today.

And the nation is much weaker and less free because of it.

No comments: