Posts Tagged ‘marriage’

For The Simple Factual Record, No Homosexual Has EVER Been Deprived Of The Right To Marry.

March 26, 2013

I’ve heard this argument – a la Hitler’s “big lie” – so many times that if I’d vomited every time I heard it, I would have barfed myself into vapor by now.  That’s why they call it “ad nauseum,” I suppose.

“Everyone has a fundamental right to marry,” we’re told.  And so homosexual marriage is not merely a Constitutional issue, but a human rights issue.

But here’s the damn obvious question: when have homosexuals EVER been denied the right to marry?

A homosexual can marry anybody of the opposite sex of maritable age and status who will have them, the same as everybody else.  Nobody has had their right to marry deprived from them.

I challenge anybody to find me an example of a single case in which a homosexual was denied the right to marry, given what marriage is: the union between one man and one woman.  Just find me one time when a homosexual tried to marry and was denied the right to do so.

Let’s put it this way: if homosexuals are somehow being defined as having been denied the right to marry, you have to employ a definition of “marriage” that no society has ever before embraced.  Which is to say that you literally have to assume what you want to prove and then use what you just assumed as your “proof.”  To wit, “marriage” is the union between a man and a woman under God.  That is what it has ALWAYS been.  Which is why no civilization has ever called for homosexual marriage.  And unless you assume that marriage is somehow something else (which it isn’t and has never been), no homosexual has EVER been denied “the right to marry.”

That’s what we call facts.  That’s what we call logic.  That’s what we call morality.  And that’s what we call history.  Homosexual marriage fails on all counts.  It is an oxymoron.  “Homosexual marriage” is like “liquid solid.”  It is like “adult children.”  You can’t have both.  It is either one or the other.  Unless you want think of “adult children” in the Obamanomics sense in which young people have been “fundamentally transformed” into permanent “children” because they’ll never be able to get a job in this disastrous economy and will therefore be helpless dependents forever.  In that Orwellian sense in which “freedom is slavery” and “ignorance is strength,” I suppose anything is possible – even “homosexual marriage.”

“Homosexual marriage” is non sequitur unless you begin by perverting the thing in language that you then want to pervert in actuality.  When I hear somebody mouthing this idiocy of homosexuals being denied the right to marry, I know that I am in the presence of a true moral and intellectual idiot.  And I excuse myself in search of somebody who is actually worth having an intellectual conversation with.

If homosexuals don’t want to marry, fine by me.  But don’t whine because you don’t want what decent, healthy people want.

Homosexuals don’t want the right to marry; they want the right to pervert the institution of marriage.  Period.

Advertisements

Of Jesus, The Woman Caught In Adultery, Public Morality, The Law – And The Consequences Of Ignoring Our Developing Social Crisis

August 7, 2012

I had an interesting discussion with an intelligent young libertarian that we didn’t have time to finish.  It involved the libertarian (and liberal) notion that morality shouldn’t be legislated.  An interesting fact about that view is that the very view itself amounts to legislating your morality as opposed to the person’s morality that holds that morality SHOULD be legislated.

It is simply a fact that every single law presupposes somebody’s view of morality.  Any law that says “X is wrong and the consequences are therefore Y” or “You must do X and the penalty for not doing X is Y” are invariably based on somebody’s view as to what is right and what is wrong.  You simply cannot avoid “legislating morality”; it is only a question as to whose morality ought to be legislated.

My friend believes that moral issues such as prostitution and narcotics offenses should not be crimes and should not be punished by the legal system.  He specifically said that people shouldn’t be put in federal prison for such non-violent crimes.  Why not?  After all, he says that he himself doesn’t believe in drugs and would never use a prostitute.  His answer: Because he doesn’t believe that it is right for him to hold other people accountable for his moral views.

Well, let me say a few things in addition to the aforementioned fact that EVERY law and for that matter every striking down of every law that has been on the books (e.g., “sodomy laws”) represent somebody’s morality.  The first emerges from Abraham Lincoln – and why he was the first Republican rather than the first libertarian.

In 1858, Democrat candidate for president Stephen Douglas, in arguing that slavery ought to be legal (more specifically, that slavery not be made ILLEGAL) assumed a view that the government could be completely neutral in regards to a moral issue like slavery (or abortion, or homosexuality, etc.) and allow each person the right to own a slave (or abort a baby or marry a same-sex partner) as he or she chose.  I’ve described the exchange Douglas had with Lincoln before:

Douglas said that, although he was “personally against” the institution of slavery, “popular sovereignty” ought to determine whether slavery was legal or not. Does that sound familiar? The state isn’t “for” slavery or “for” abortion or – in the case of prostitution – “for” prostitution; it ought to be completely “neutral” and allow people to decide for themselves. In their Sixth Debate at Quincy on October 13, 1858, Abraham Lincoln’s famous response to Douglas was:

“So I say again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas says he “don’t care whether slavery is voted up or voted down,” whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue logically if he don’t see anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

The fact of the matter is that if government permitted blacks to be owned as slaves, it was not taking a neutral position. It was implicitly accepting the view that blacks were less than fully human, and therefore could be owned as property if someone chose to do so. And if the presuppositions justifying slavery were wrong, then as Lincoln said, one simply could not have “the right to do wrong” – even by popular vote. In the same way, by permitting unborn babies to be aborted, the government is not taking a neutral position. Rather, it is likewise implicitly accepting the view that the unborn are not fully human, and therefore can be regarded essentially as property rather than as persons (property that may be destroyed at will).

On issues such as abortion, or prostitution, or homosexual marriage, or narcotics crimes, I do not accept the argument that would be legislating my moral view and that doing so is somehow wrong for me to do.  That is because 1) the other side is equally legislating ITS moral view, and if the other side has a right to legislate its morality than I certainly have just as much right to legislate mine. 2) I further submit that in all of these issues, I am not merely legislating “my” morality; rather, I submit that God has made it plain that He is against these things the same way that I am, and I further submit that the entirety of Western civilization is similarly on my side on all of these issues. 3) there is no such thing as “neutrality” on a moral principle or issue.  You simply ultimately must take one position or the other.  When it comes to legalizing abortion, for example, the government cannot claim “neutrality” because they are affirming that ultimately abortion is permissible and it is not wrong for someone to have one.   And it therefore boils down to 4) as Lincoln argued: a person cannot have a right to do something that is wrong.

During our conversation, my friend brought up a fascinating point as supporting his view that we should not be legislating morality: he brought up Jesus and the example of the woman caught in the act of adultery.  Here’s the story (John 8:3-11 from the NIV):

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.  In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”  They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.  When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”  Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.  At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.  Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

I should point out that this story – as famous as it is – is NOT in the earliest manuscripts of the Book of John and was quite possibly not in John’s Gospel as he wrote it.  It is also not found in any of the other Gospels.  I could therefore simply dismiss this account as a later addition to the Gospel and at the very least argue that one shouldn’t make sweeping conclusions on the basis of a story that may not even have been part of Jesus’ teaching.  I’m not going to take that path in the rest of my interpretation of this passage and in fact believe the passage is an authentic event in the life of Jesus, but you should realize that option is available.

My friend cited this story in John’s Gospel to support his view that Jesus was essentially a libertarian here and abrogated the notion of the law punishing someone for moral issues like adultery.  And the implicit assumption is that what applies to adultery would likewise therefore apply to prostitution, homosexual marriage and narcotics crimes (i.e., to all the so-called “victimless crimes”).  Is he right?

Take a moment before reading on to think about how you would respond to this and upon what grounds you would so respond before reading on.

Let me point out a few things that need to be understood.

1) Jesus is not abrogating the Law of Moses here.  In a passage that was unquestionably the words of Jesus, we have this: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17).

Interestingly, on John’s (Johannine) theology, it was the pre-incarnate Christ who gave Moses the Ten Commandments to begin with.  John 1:1-3 famously teaches that Jesus as the Word was God the Creator.  It teaches that “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”  It was Christ who created the universe and created man in His image so that He could one day assume the image of man in the Incarnation.  And it was the pre-incarnate Christ who appeared to Moses in the burning bush.

It’s not like Christ as God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Creator, Yahweh the I Am, gave Moses the law and then later came to earth and decided that the stuff about punishing adultery was wrong.  There is a great deal more going on in this account of what Jesus did and why He did it.  And particularly, given that Jesus specifically taught that He had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, one simply does not have warrant to assume that contrary to what Jesus said He actually DID come to abolish the law.

2) Part of that “great deal more” that is going on is overtly stated in the account itself:

 “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

This was hardly a mere matter of asking Jesus whether the Laws of Moses were valid or whether the specific Law of Moses pertaining to punishment of adultery was valid.  The pharisees dragged this woman before Jesus to trap him.  The woman was merely a pawn in their game.  Basically, they were seeking to put Jesus in an impossible dilemma: if Jesus said that the woman should be stoned, then Jesus would be guilty of demanding the death penalty which was reserved for Rome and therefore Jesus would be guilty of insurrection against Rome.  And don’t think the Pharisees would not have immediately raced to Pontius Pilate and made sure that Pilate was aware that a dangerous insurrectionist was walking around inciting Jews to commit violence.  And if Jesus said the woman should not be stoned, then Jesus would be guilty of abolishing the Word of God and the Law and teachings of Moses and therefore a blasphemer and a heretic.  Jesus had to answer the Pharisees in a manner which did not invite either of these two above interpretations.  If the woman actually had been stoned to death, she would have died not as a result of her adultery but for being a political tool in the effort to entrap Jesus.  That must be seen as the proper background for Jesus’ answer.

3) There is also something very wrong with this picture:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery.

How many does it take to tango?  Doesn’t it take TWO people to commit adultery?  Where’s the man?  Why isn’t he there?  Just how was it that “this woman was caught in the act of adultery” but they didn’t catch her partner?

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that I to this very day believe that people caught in the act of adultery should be stoned to death.  Does that therefore mean that I would or should agree that only the women should be stoned and the men should get off scott free?  Must I hold that stoning the women is better than not stoning anybody?  Because that’s the specific circumstance that Jesus was confronted with.

By this point in time, the Pharisees had actually long-since ceased following the “laws of Moses” and were instead following “a hedge around the law” of Moses in its place.  They had developed all sorts of laws in sources such as the Talmuds, the Mishnah and the Midrashim and had added levels upon levels and layers upon layers of laws to surround the law of Moses ostensibly to keep a person from breaking the law of Moses by making it such that he or she would have to first break a whole series of laws just to GET to the Law of Moses.

Jesus described these additional laws in Matthew 23:1-4 (NLT):

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses.  So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach.  They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden.

Unfortunately, they had an uncanny way of providing loopholes for themselves.  The woman could and should be stoned to death for her crime of adultery, but the man who committed adultery with her and presumably informed the Pharisees of her crime was let off the hook.

And in condemning the woman to death, Jesus would have been providing His assent to this entire unjust system that had arisen around the Law of Moses in addition to being labeled as an  insurrectionist against Rome.

How was Jesus to render His judgment about a system which stoned a woman to death as an adulteress while the man who had committed the same act of adultery with her walked away whistling and able to do it again?

In answering the way that He did, Jesus on the one hand could not be called an insurrectionist against Rome; those who were about to stone the woman put their stones down because of his words.  On the other hand, He likewise could not be said to have abrogated the Law of Moses.  Because He didn’t tell them NOT to stone her; He merely called attention to the fact that those who were about to be executioners because this woman was a sinner were themselves sinners.  It was the perfect answer for the trap the Pharisees had set for Jesus; in fact it was the ONLY answer for the trap.

4) Jesus’ mission and ministry itself was also involved.

I’ve heard death penalty opponents ask the question, “Would Jesus sentence somebody to death?”  And of course, you’re supposed to read John 8:3-11 and conclude “Oh my gosh!  No, He wouldn’t have!  The death penalty is wrong!”  But let’s ask another question on the same view: “Would Jesus sentence somebody to life imprisonment?”  And of course, on the same view that you use above, the answer is, “No.  Jesus wouldn’t have done that, either.  He would have forgiven the criminal.”  On the view that is being taken of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, Jesus would have forgiven the criminal for his crime – regardless of what it was – and told him, “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

You end up with a category fallacy, as I shall explain. 

We run into two problems in understanding the John 8 passage as Jesus teaching that adultery – and all the other aforementioned moral issues and “victimless crimes” – should no longer be punished.  One is everything I’ve said above, and the other was speaking in John 8 as One who did not come in the Incarnation to judge and condemn people for their sins, but rather to deliver and save people from their sins.  That’s the category fallacy I was talking about.  It doesn’t mean that Jesus was saying that all laws be set aside.  He wasn’t teaching that we can or should do away with the Law of Moses, or that public moral crimes such as adultery and homosexuality and prostitution, etc. etc. be allowed to flourish without any punishments.  Rather, he was saying to those who were merely trying to set a trap for Him by dragging a woman before Him in order to get Him to commit insurrection against Rome that if her accusers were going to demand she be punished for her sins, then her accusers should be punished for theirs, as well.

One day, for the record, Jesus will return as King of kings and as Lord of lords.  And He will very MUCH come to judge and render judgment.  And yes, people WILL be held accountable to the moral law and they will be punished for their crimes against men and against God.

There’s an increasingly popular view that liberals and libertarians share: public moral issues such as homosexual marriage and prostitution and the narcotics industry don’t hurt them as individuals and therefore we should simply step aside and allow those who want to “fundamentally transform” America to have at it.  My response is twofold: number one, if your argument is “It’s not hurting me” and that’s all you care about, you’re not a patriot because you only care about yourself.  Your marriage won’t implode so you don’t care if homosexual marriage and prostitution and widespread narcotics use become the law of the land to go along with adultery and abortion.

Well, that was the exact same attitude that the Germans had as they watched the Nazis take the Jews away.  They weren’t Jews so it didn’t affect them and they didn’t care.  Martin Niemöller summed up the reality that “It doesn’t affect me” is a rather morally idiotic way to live.  This idea that “it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care” is the essence of “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

The second thing is that these issues DO affect you.  Because they affect all of society all around you. 

George Washington said the following in his farewell address.  In his very last words to the nation, the father of our country issued us this warning:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.”

Fellow founding father John Adams expressed a very similar warning this way:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We reject our religious tradition and degrade public morality at our peril.  I write about the constant liberal attempt to rip up the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution and take away our right to keep and bear arms and protect our homes and our properties from both private individual criminals and public sector bureaucrat tyrants alike.  They decry the violence they see around them, but will never realize that it was their “fundamental transformation of America” which they have pursued for the last sixty years that broke down our society and turned it into a violent place to begin with.  I write:

Liberals have worked hard for the last fifty years to take away our morality and our religion. In so doing, they have given us the very violence that is now spiralling out of control. Liberals are the kind of people who have taken away prayer. Liberals are the kind of people who have refused to allow the posting of the Ten Commandments because “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” and God-as-Government forbid that children be allowed to do something like that. Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed godless abortion upon society to the tune of 54 MILLION innocent human beings butchered since 1973. Liberals are the kind of people who have destroyed fatherhood, because according to liberals fathers did not father children, but strictly non-human lumps of biological goop such that they should not be allowed to have any influence whatsoever as to whether their own babies be allowed to even live. Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed pornography on us because liberal justices are moral idiots who are morally incapable of differentiating between art and XXX-rated sex movies. Liberals are the kind of people who imposed no-fault divorce without limit or condition upon us because breaking up families is more important than asking couples who took a vow to one another under God to work to resolve their differences. Liberals are the kind of people who turned marriage itself into a perverted mockery by saying that the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman be adulterated to include whatever the hell politically correct understanding depraves the minds of the left next.

These are the people that George Washington said, “These people are NOT patriots.” These are the people that the founding fathers said we needed to be armed to protect ourselves against as they take away the God-given rights of “the people” to protect ourselves against the very tyranny they continually seek to impose upon us.

Abortion has been the death of fatherhood.  When a man and a woman have sexual relations, does a man father a child?  No!  Not on the liberal abortion view!  No child was born; only a lifeless inanimate lump of goo arose.  That man is NOT a father and should have NONE of the rights of a father.  And therefore if he wants his child, he is compelled to stand aside and do nothing while his child is murdered at the “choice” of his child’s mother with absolutely ZERO say in the subject.

In the black community you’ve got two out of every three babies conceived being murdered in their mothers’ wombs.  What ought to be the safest place in the world for a baby is the most dangerous place.  And you wonder why 71% of all black children are raised without fathers?  Those “non-father fathers” are merely living according to the Democrat/liberal reality that fathers do not matter and that they should have no choice and no rights as fathers.  They didn’t “father” anything and they have no rights and no “choice” even if they think they DID “father” something; so they should therefore have no responsibility and there’s the door right over there.

You say, “It doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.”  But your poor kid or grand kid has to go to school and then walk home from school surrounded by increasingly psychotic little thugs who never had fathers to teach them right from wrong and discipline them when they chose the latter over the former.  More and more boys are growing up having no idea what it means to be a “man” apart from what their mothers who have become embittered against men tell them.  With the clear result being that boys are growing up to be far worse than the “non-father fathers” who abandoned them.  Morally intelligent people are watching their society become more toxic by the day all around them.  And they damn well know that this decay is hurting them.

Meanwhile the number of workers who support each retiree continues to plummet every single year. Seventeen workers contributed to every retiree’s benefits when the Social Security program began. Now it’s down to 2.3. By 2035 it will be down to 2-1. Meanwhile we have murdered more than 54.5 million future workers since 1973. Any fool ought to know that the trend isn’t good. And yet we keep piling on more and more and more idiocy because “it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.” One day we’re going to wake up to find ourselves in a collapsing banana republic and then we’ll wish we’d cared.

Don’t tell me it doesn’t affect you.  Because I’ll know from that moment that I’m talking to a moral idiot.

The same applies to prostitution.  Do you really think that’s a ‘victimless crime’?  You don’t think the wives and the fiances and the girlfriends of men who use prostitutes aren’t hurt by this public moral depravity?  You don’t think the children of these men aren’t hurt by it?  You don’t think that the women who prostitute themselves aren’t victimized by an action in which they literally sell their bodies to be used like sex dolls?  You don’t think that life hurts their children and hurts their family members?  You don’t think that when women prostitute themselves it in fact hurts ALL women as men develop an increasingly widespread attitude that women are merely objects to be used and discarded when you’re finished using them?  You don’t think that ANY location where prostitutes gather to further poison society doesn’t become a toxic cesspool that won’t lose its value, thus directly hurting that community?  Yes, prostitution hurts society.  Prostitution hurts society at every single level.

Let me cite an article that was in the Los Angeles Times on a different subject that creates the same sort of problems for a community: the different subject was panhandling.  Liberal cities like Arcata – known as “the Berkley of the North” – has tried to ban the panhandlers they once encouraged to flood into their city.  In addition to the trash, the drug needles, the human feces all over, these “tolerant” liberals discovered that they were killing their city’s businesses as shoppers increasingly avoided areas where they would get repeatedly and aggressively hit up for money.  You don’t think prostitution doesn’t create an even BIGGER drag on businesses?  You don’t think that prostitution – which brings in gangs and pimps and turf wars along with many other things that make decent people avoid those areas like it had the plague – doesn’t do the same things to the unfortunate businesses that find themselves next to a hell hole?  You don’t think that as businesses fail, jobs leave the area, tax dollars leave the area, the area itself suffers decline and blight, and people aren’t HURT?

You cannot have a right to do wrong, Lincoln said.  What kind of person would actually say, “There’s nothing wrong with prostitution, and I hope my little girl sells herself for hundreds of anonymous men to sexually use her?”  What kind of people would encourage their wives or their mothers to become prostitutes?  If you think that prostitution is a good thing that will help civilization flourish, if you truly believe that women are the sort of dumb farm animals who won’t mind if their men use women for money that rightfully belongs to their households and to their children, then you are a particular kind of sick idiot.  But please have the basic decency NOT to say that while you personally believe it’s wrong and you would never do it yourself that people ought to have the “right” to do this obviously very wrong thing.  The wisdom of Lincoln refutes you right along with the results of the fruits of your attitude on society.

Marriage is under direct attack from so many different liberal policies it is beyond unreal.  Defining marriage as a mere societal convention that has no divine value or transcendent significance, such that it can be redefined according to whatever is the politically correct attitude that happens to be in vogue, is hardly the way to support the institution of marriage.  If marriage means everything, than marriage means absolutely nothing.  It is either a union of one man and one woman under the sight of God or it isn’t.  People are increasingly asking, “Why should we bother to get married?”  Because marriage means less and less, and there is less and less stigma for those who simply don’t bother to marry because there is no longer any value in marriage.  And therefore there is less and less permanence and stability and more and more fracturing of more and more families.

Liberals want to say race is the leading indicator as to poverty.  They are WRONG.  The leading indicator of poverty is single parent households.  There is absolutely no question that regardless of your race or any other factor, that marriage is the place where children thrive and abandoning marriage results in abandoning children to impoverished lives. 

Let us return again to adultery.  What should we do?  Re-legislate the Law of Moses and stone them?  That would be something, wouldn’t it?  Imagine how many despicable people wouldn’t be around to plague society any longer?  That being said, obviously we’re not going to stone adulterers any time soon whether it’s a good thing to do or not.

Tragically, it is very difficult to put the immoral cat back in the bag and embrace public morality once that love of and pursuit of national public morality has been lost.  Once a nation begins to decline, it is very difficult to turn the ship around.  Degenerating from bad to worse to collapse is the pattern that we have observed over and over and over again.

The first thing that we can do as we realize the enormous hole we have dug ourselves in is for the love of God to STOP DIGGING.  Quit attacking marriage, the family, religion, religious values and morality while assuring the people that doing so will do no harm.  Quit saying “it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.”

The second thing to do is to try to undergird marriage and fight as a society to keep families together.  No-fault divorce and easy convenient divorce have got to go.  And of course, there is no point fighting to preserve marriages and keep couples together unless “marriage” means something that is truly worth fighting for to begin with.

The third thing to do is to find a way to punish public immorality and make acts of public immorality shameful the way it used to be.  We don’t have to resort in jails or even in a return to the stocks.  There are more ways than ever today to publicly shame those who engage in shameful behaviors to go with community service and fines.  But of course, here’s the conundrum: no perpetrator of a shameful act will never truly feel shame if the people that become aware of his or her shameful act are not offended and outraged by the behavior.  The more immorality there is that comes to characterize society at large, the more apathy there will be, and vice versa.  The more tolerant we are as a society toward adultery and divorce, the less stigma there is to commit adultery and to have divorces, the more adultery and divorce you’re going to see.

There was a time when a person possessing common sense could consider the consequences of having an adulterous affair and conclude that the consequences were simply not worth the “rewards” of the act.  As there are fewer and fewer consequences, we have inevitably seen an increase in the number of Americans who have said, “the hell with it.”

And that’s precisely why we’re going to hell.

No one is more victimized by these things than children.  Children of these tragedies perform more poorly academically, have less social competence, have worse health, and have far more behavioral problems than children of mothers and fathers (note: NOT homosexual couples!).  And of course these dysfunctional, scarred children grow up, and the vicious cycle spirals more and more out of control.

Is there a way out?  There is, but America won’t take it.

Which is why the beast is coming.  We’re living in the last days and the devil is panting with eagerness to introduce his Antichrist to the world that will be looking for a messiah of its own choosing after our depraved world collapses under the weight of its wickedness.

Marriage Defined As The Union Between One Man And One Woman Doesn’t Take ANYBODY’S ‘Rights’ Away – (Except Maybe God’s)

August 6, 2012

That’s what we’re told every day.  If I believe “marriage” is the union between one man and one woman, I’m some kind of fascist who is out to take people’s rights away.

The problem is, that’s a whole lotta bullcrap.

For one thing, marriage has been defined EXACTLY as I define it by pretty much every single civilization that has ever existed.  There is NO civilization that has EVER allowed homosexual marriage for its people in HISTORY.  So why am I a fascist for holding to a tradition that has accompanied the human race for its entire history rather than the people who are trying to impose a “fundamental transformation” on the entirety of human history up to this point being the fascists?

The entire history of the United States of America from the days when it was a colony to this day records that my views represent America and the views of homosexuals do not represent America.  Why is it that those who are trying to force a new definition that is entirely antithetical to the history of this nation not qualify as fascists?

That’s the overarching argument, of course.

It applies right down to the individual.  By defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman I am not taking anyone’s “rights” away.  Because every single adult American can marry any adult American of the opposite sex who will have him or her.  Nobody’s rights have been deprived.  We all have the SAME rights as everybody else.  And if homosexuals have morally disqualified themselves from wanting to exercise that right is hardly my fault.

If I have the right to marry anybody I choose, then why can’t I marry Aishwarya Rai?  Why can’t I can’t marry the woman of my choice?!?!  And I’m holding out for her.  I’m saving myself for you, Aishwarya!  I’ll never marry anyone else if I can’t have YOU until society gives me my rights!!!

Ah, the gay marriage proponent says, but she doesn’t choose you!  Well, that sucks.  I’ve still been deprived of my right to marry the partner of my choice whether she agrees with that choice or not, the way the left frequently presents their argument, but let’s say that that is the criterion.  So what happens if I want to marry two women?  What happens if I want to marry a ten year-old boy?  And in both cases these marriage partners agree that they would like to marry me too?  In the latter case there is at least a tradition called “pederasty” that has FAR more historical support than gay marriage ever has.  How are you going to rule gay marriage in and rule pederasty out?   There is no question that we are radically redefining society by imposing gay marriage; at least you could point to SOMETHING that once existed with pederasty; it’s been a common if disgusting practice, as opposed to homosexual marriage which is ONLY a disgusting practice.  If  ten year-olds can choose to have an abortion, as the left insists they should be allowed to do, surely they should be able to choose other sexual behaviors such as marriage.  Who are YOU to impose your “outdated morality” and “intolerance” on that ten year-old boy?  And those two women – or for that matter those 22 women – are willing adults.  If you’re going to accuse me of being “arbitrary” for defining marriage as every civilization has basically defined it and very definitely as Western Civilization and the Bible which undermines that Western Civilization has clearly defined it, how is it not “arbitrary” to categorically state that marriage can only be between two people???

If a woman wants to walk out of her home leading her husband – that is literally a well-hung young STALLION – who the hell are YOU to say that’s wrong?  Why do you think you should have the right to impose your narrow-minded intolerant bigotry on that poor woman who only wants to be left alone and live her life with her husband the horse? 

The problem is that marriage is either a particular thing, an ordinance under God that every society has recognized, or it is basically whatever the hell you want it to be at any point in the increasing depravitization of our culture until it becomes too toxic to continue to exist and dies out.

There is something that Francis A. Schaeffer described that he labelled “moral velocitization.”  It referred to something we are seeing coming at us faster and faster and faster with every passing year. 

There was a time not very long ago when NO American president would have celebrated homosexual marriage.  If FDR had campaigned on the platform, “I’m going to give you a country in which one man may openly sodomize another man and anybody who doesn’t like it gets denounced!” he would have had his ass thrown out of office.  And if you go from George Washington to Bill Clinton, you find that Bill Clinton signed into law something called “the Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) that defined marriage PRECISELY the way I define it. 

It’s not until you get to the forty-forth president, with the previous forty-three all unanimously disagreeing with him, that you get to an endorsement of homosexual marriage.  And even THAT president lied and decieved his way into office by categorically stating that:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.”

If the forty-forth president had said anything different, his skinny little fascist ass would never have sat in the Oval Office.

THAT’S moral velocitization.  We go from a moral view that nobody in their right mind believed could have characterized this nation to one that is held by the most dishonest president in our nation’s history – and which by “virtue” of a bait-and-switch has gradually acclimated America to a toxic view that our founders would have decried as genuinely evil.

Let me talk about abortion for a moment; I’ll be back to homosexual marriage.

Since 1973, the Democrat Party and every single person who has voted Democrat have murdered 54,559,615 MILLION innocent human beings and counting since Roe v. Wade (that as of January 23, 2012).  We’re talking about a level of homicide that is NINE TIMES WORSE than Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust.

I’ve told more than a few Democrats who call themselves “Christian” that no, you aint: because the Virgin Mary came to you and said, “I’m only thirteen and I’m pregnant.  I have no husband and I don’t know what to do.”  And you fed her the Democrat Party line and she had an abortion.  And so your baby Jesus is dead and He didn’t die for your sins because you killed Him before He had the chance.

You see, the Incarnation and the Baby Jesus is the quintessential proof that life begins at conception and that the Democrat Party is the Party of Demons.  That’s why “Democrat” means “Demonic Bureaucrat.”  And one day Democrats as individual people will try to use the Nazi Nuremburg Defense and say they weren’t responsible for the consequences of their votes.  But God – with the fire of His increasing wrath billowing out from His chariot throne (Daniel 7:9-10) – will point out that with every single vote they as individuals chose more politicians who would appoint more judges who would in turn murder more babies.  And this was hardly done without their knowledge and consent.

Now, I bring that up because as godawful and as depraved as abortion is, God says that that isn’t the lowest depths that the Democrats can attain to.

As recorded in Romans 1:18-28:

God’s Wrath Against Mankind

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

The lowest point a culture can get is not abortion, as hateful and evil as abortion is; it is the moral crime of condoning and in fact honoring and celebrating homosexuality. It is in the Bible in black and white.

I can explain to you why that is.  It is because after God created man in His image He said to humanity:

God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” — Genesis 1:28

And from the very outset, from the Tower of Babel on, depraved, sinful, wicked man has had an “alternative” to the plan of the God who created one man for one woman.

It is no surprise that the Democrat Party – the party of genuine evil – would slander and pervert God’s will and plan by endorsing global warming and population controls and the most egregious slap in the face to His will of all: open recognition and celebration of homosexuality.

As declared in the New York Times on July 30, 2012 under the title “Democrats Draft Gay Marriage Platform“:

Democrats appear ready to embrace same-sex marriage as part of their party platform, a policy shift that reflects an expanded acceptance of gay rights in mainstream politics.

The move would place the party in line with the beliefs of President Obama, who in May became the first sitting president to declare that gay men and lesbians should be able to marry.

Democratic Party officials had squabbled over the issue in the past. But at a platform-drafting meeting over the weekend in Minneapolis, they approved the first step to amend their platform, placing the amendment on track for adoption. In two weeks, the entire platform committee will vote at a meeting scheduled in Detroit. Then, if approved as expected, it would go before convention delegates in Charlotte, N.C., for final passage in early September.

According to Democrats who were briefed on the vote in Minneapolis, there was no objection when the issue came up. Though the language that was voted on could still be revised, party officials do not anticipate any major obstacles going forward.

To put it in Chick-Fil-A terms, God’s reality is as simple as this:

That’s what the Bible says.  What reality says is that homosexuality is horrible for both society and the homosexuals who are trapped in that vile lifestyle.  What reality says is that homosexuality is terrible for the children who are abandoned by the left because of equally vile political correctness. What we find about the “children” of gay parents is that:

Even after including controls for age, race, gender, and things like being bullied as a youth, or the gay-friendliness of the state in which they live, such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things.

Why on earth would anybody want that for children?

Democrats have finally reached rock freaking bottom.  They have completed the Book of Romans circle describing a nation that is ready to be judged by God.

Jesus said:

“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. — Mark 10:7-8

And that’s why Democrats murdered Him in their moral abortion mill as a Baby while He was still in the womb.  Jesus said, “Don’t do it, Democrats!”  And Democrats said, “You just go to hell, Jesus.”

And let there be no mistake: if you vote Democrat, that is PRECISELY what you are voting for.  Because without your continued support of the Democrat Party, this platform would lead to the ruin of the Democrat Party.  But the same godless Democrats who have murdered more than 54 million human beings with your vote are going to take this final step into godless oblivion.

God created man in His image.  He holds us morally accountable to the image of Himself in us.  You can try to usurp His divine right as Creator, but what you cannot do is avoid ultimate judgment by Him.  Which is why the day  is coming when every Democrat will stand before God and be held accountable.

Obama Leeches Away The Once Most Sacred Institution Of Marriage In God Damn America

May 10, 2012

“Not God bless America.  No, no, no, God damn America!” – Rev Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual leader for more than 20 years before the “reverend” became politically inconvenient

Barack Obama in 2008:

REV. WARREN: Define marriage.

SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. You know, God’s in the mix. (Applause.)

Obama just kicked God out of the mix and replaced Him with himself:

“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

God damn America!  GOD DAMN AMERICA!

The line that Obama’s position on gay marriage is “evolving” is a lie.  Barack Obama supported gay marriage as early as 1996.  And then his campaign LIED about it.  It was NEVER that Obama’s views on marriage “evolved”; it was ALWAYS that Obama cynically and deceitfully lied to the American people in 2008 when he assured the American people he believed something that he did not in fact believe.

So much for “Obama, as a Christian.”  That “evolved” straight to the bottom level hell with everything else about this incredibly wicked man.

What does the Bible have to say about embracing homosexuality?

– “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” — Leviticus 18:22

– “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

– “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.”  — Romans 1:24-28

Well, I suppose you can read it either way.  Maybe God just adores homosexuality.  It’s just not clear.

IF YOU ARE A DEMON-POSSESSED FOOL, that is.

But what do you expect from the party that gave America fifty-four million murdered babies while they call themselves “pro-child”???

Younger Americans support gay marriage by a wide marginYounger Americans are also the least likely of every generation of Americans to bother getting married at all.  Which is pretty much another way of saying that the people who most want to piss on marriage support pissing on marriage:

Marriage Obsolete?
By JESSICA HOPPER
Nov. 18, 2010

Not only are more marriages on the rocks these days, so is marriage itself, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center.

A survey of 2,691 Americans done in association with Time magazine found that nearly four in 10 Americans think marriage is becoming obsolete. That’s an 11 percent spike since 1978, when Time asked the same question.

“Marriage is still very important in this country, but it doesn’t dominate family life like it used to,” Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at John Hopkins University, told the Associated Press.

Younger people are leading the way in redefining what marriage means. Forty-four percent of those between the ages of 18 and 29 saw marriage as obsolete, compared to 32 percent of those 65 and older.

Other groups more likely to see marriage as a fading institution included blacks, at 44 percent, those with a high school diploma or less, at 44 percent, and people who made $30,000 or less a year, at 48 percent.

Young People Marrying Less and Less

Census data have shown that younger people are marrying less and less, and when they marry, they’re generally older. […]

Every group that most votes Democrat is the same group who most thinks marriage is obsolete and the same people who support gay marriage.  The same people who believe that marriage is obsolete are the same people who say that homosexuals should be able to do the thing they think is pointless.

If marriage is the sacred union ordained by God between one man and one woman, then marriage is vital and essential to the health of a society and culture; if marriage is an arbitrary thing that can be redefined to mean whatever a morally-velocitized culture thinks at any given time, then it truly is obsolete and why bother.

When you look at the countries that have the highest support for gay marriage and the lowest marriage rates, guess what?  They’re basically the same.

No civilization in recorded history has EVER embraced homosexual marriage, anecdotal stories aside.  The world today on the verge of the coming Antichrist and the mark of the beast and literal hell on earth has become more openly depraved than any civilization in the history of the world.

Here’s the bottom line. Homosexuals want what married couples have. It is fools’ gold; they can NEVER have it. Because the same God who blesses marriage and family hates homosexuality and literally calls it an “abomination.” Homosexuals CAN’T have the blessings of marriage; ALL THEY CAN DO IS FURTHER UNDERMINE AND DEGRADE THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE THAT IS ALREADY COLLAPSING BECAUSE OF SO MANY OTHER VILE LIBERAL POLICIES.

Homosexuals, further, argue that they are being denied the human right to marry.  BULLCRAP!  A homosexual man can marry any woman who will have him, the same as me.  The fact that he finds loathsome what God ordained doesn’t mean that marriage should be radically redefined.

Homosexuality has been a plague on the condition of the world in so many different ways it is unreal.  It is a biologically FILTHY lifestyle.  Anybody who tries to argue that homosexuality is not a gay disease is simply either a liar or a fool or a lying fool.  Homosexuality is basically worse for life expectancy than cancer.

Not God bless America.  God Damn America.

Marriage Amendment Wins BIG In North Carolina While Obama ‘Wins’ Really, REALLY Small In NC’s And WV’s Democrat Primaries

May 9, 2012

To frame what follows into proper perspective, North Carolina is a state that Obama won in 2008.

As Joe Biden told America that he and basically his boss couldn’t tell the difference between a mother and father and their children and a pair of gay guys holding hands, this is what just happened in North Carolina (as of the most recent count, the amendment passed by a 61-39% vote).

I’m posting the MSNBC version because you can almost hear the whining tone:

North Carolina marriage amendment could impact gay and straight couples
By Miranda Leitsinger, msnbc.com

Updated at 10:30 p.m. ET: North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday night banning gay marriage and – going a step further than most other states with an anti-gay marriage amendment – scrapping civil unions for gay and straight couples.

The state becomes the last southern state to approve an anti-gay marriage amendment and joins 30 others with similar measures. Incomplete returns Tuesday night showed the amendment passing by 60 percent of the vote.

The amendment, also known as Amendment 1, would make marriage the only legal domestic union that would be valid in the state. But opponents say the measure is unnecessary because a state statute has banned gay marriage in North Carolina since 1996. They say domestic partners – both straight and gay – and their children could lose health benefits.

Making this a constitutional amendment was important, said Rachel Lee, a spokeswoman for Vote For Marriage NC, because “those statutes are vulnerable to the will of an activist judge or future legislature who could overturn the law with a single court ruling or by a single vote of the legislature.”

Lee watched the election results at a party in Raleigh with grassroots coordinators and coalition members. When it became clear the amendment had passed, they cut a vanilla wedding cake topped with a figurine of a bride and groom.

“If you looked at a map of our country, you saw North Carolina as the only one in the southeast without an amendment preserving marriage between a man and a woman,” Lee said after the results had come in. “North Carolina had a target on her back.”

Half of Americans support gay marriage in new Gallup Poll

To overturn the amendment approved Tuesday night, the legislature would have to overrule the amendment by a three-fifths vote and get voter approval. Before the amendment passed, a judge or legislative majority could have overturned the statute.

“This puts up a bigger barrier,” said John Dinan, a political science professor at Wake Forest University.

Dinan said the amendment was introduced after Republicans won a majority in both houses of the state legislature in 2010.

“It’s been a pretty easy win in every southern state,” Dinan said. “It never got to the ballot in North Carolina because Democratic legislatures never let it get there.”

Dinan said the amendment’s impacts would not be immediate.

“The one place it could make a difference is in eight or nine cities in North Carolina that give out insurance benefits to same-sex couples,” Dinan said. “Lawyers might have to start taking a real close look at those insurance benefits that are given out and they might have to change those.”

Melissa and Libby Hodges of Durham could be among those affected by the amendment. They worry their 5-year-old daughter may lose her health benefits, as she is covered by Libby, who cannot legally adopt her. By Tuesday afternoon, the moms had filled out paperwork for private insurance.

Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for Protect All NC Families said he worries that the eight or nine cities that currently offer domestic partnership benefits to public employees may drop those benefits if the amendment passes.

“We know the consequences that we’re listing, but there’s a whole bunch of unintended consequences that we probably haven’t even thought of yet that will come up in the courts after this,” Kennedy said.

Thomas Peters, cultural director of the National Organization for Marriage, which supports the amendment, said children of gay parents in other states where similar amendments have passed have not lost their health insurance. He said he doubts that would happen in North Carolina.

Lee said the amendment would “in no way impact domestic violence protections, child custody or end of life desires.” 

Voting began early Tuesday on the marriage amendment and candidate races in the 2012 primary, but 512,000 people – or 8 percent of registered voters – already have participated through absentee ballot, according to the State Board of Elections. That record turnout surpassed even the 2008 primary, which included Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot, according to Democracy North Carolina.

Several high-profile figures – from former President Bill Clinton to evangelist Billy Graham – and national advocacy groups have weighed in on the amendment.

“We’re having a great debate about marriage in this country, and it’s not at all settled about which way we’re going to go,” said Thomas Peters, cultural director of the National Organization for Marriage, which supports the amendment.

In only one of the 30 states is the constitutional amendment facing a challenge: In California, where a federal judge’s decision to overturn it was set aside pending appellate review. The last state to approve a constitutional amendment was in 2008. Eight states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage.

But the Human Rights Campaign, which works on equal rights for the LGBT community, said that backing for anti-gay marriage measures was falling over time, citing statistics that showed the percentage of defeat at the ballot box dropping from 2004 to 2008.

Back in Durham, Libby and Melissa Hodges are debating whether to move to another state, where gay marriage would be legal.

They moved to North Carolina from Georgia in part because at the time, North Carolina allowed gay partners to adopt their children. That is no longer legal.

“My brother said, ‘If the amendment passes, North Carolina will be more backward than Georgia, will you move back to Georgia then?’” Melissa Hodges said. “I said, ‘You’re so wonderfully sweet, but no.’”

But leaving North Carolina would be hard. Both are city planners close to being vested in the state’s pension plan. Selling their home would be difficult, Melissa Hodges added, and their daughter was accepted into their first-choice kindergarten. Plus, another move would take her away from her brother, with whom she is close.

On Tuesday night, the Hodges watched the results online after putting their daughter to bed.

“She asked us before we put her to bed to make sure to tell her in the morning that we won,” Melissa Hodges said. “She doesn’t get the stuff with health insurance, but we told her that we’ll always take care of her, not to worry about that.”

Msnbc.com’s Isolde Raftery contributed to this report.

It’s rather funny that the people who were dedicated to overturning anything SHORT OF a constitutional amendment are crying about how this measure was unnecessary.

Of course no it’s not; I live in a state – California – which passed a measure defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman TWICE only to be overturned by fascist judges who frankly couldn’t give a rodent’s hindquarters about the will of the people.  In 2000 Californian’s overwhelmingly passed Prop 22 with 61.4% of the voters approving the one sentence definition of a valid marriage.  Fascist judges said screw you; it is our very essence as fascist judges to impose our will on the people.  And then we passed Prop 22 and of course a homosexual judge did the same damn thing and overturned it.  And then he resigned so he could enjoy the rest of his life collecting benefits paid for by the people whose will he just pissed all over.

In Iowa, judges who decided that their feelings mattered far more than what the rest of the state believed just got honored for pissing on voters:

May 7, 2012 11:40 AM 
Iowa judges ousted after legalizing same-sex marriage to receive Profiles in Courage Award

(CBS/AP) BOSTON – President John F. Kennedy’s only surviving child is celebrating what would have been his 95th birthday this month by honoring three Iowa judges who were ousted after the court unanimously decided to legalize same-sex marriages.

Caroline Kennedy will also recognize the U.S. ambassador to Syria who risked his life to support opponents of President Basher Assad’s regime.

Kennedy heads the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, which promotes the late president’s memory and legacy. She is set to present the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award on Monday to former Iowa Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit, all of whom were pushed off the bench in a 2010 retention vote that capped a contentious campaign.

The three judges will receive a sterling silver ship’s lantern symbolizing a beacon of hope. The award, which was designed by Kennedy’s husband, Edwin Schlossberg, and crafted by Tiffany & Co., resembles one belonging to the U.S. Navy’s oldest commissioned warship, the USS Constitution, or “Old Ironsides.”

Ternus, Baker and Streit were among seven justices who unanimously decided in 2009 that an Iowa law restricting marriage to a man and a woman violated the state’s constitution. Conservative groups and other gay marriage foes spent about $1 million on a political campaign to oust the judges, who chose not to raise money or campaign themselves to avoid dragging the judiciary into politics.

“The three judges are interesting and courageous on many levels,” Kennedy told The Associated Press. “… Like many of the people who get this award, they don’t consider that they are doing anything particularly courageous, they just feel they’re doing what’s right, they’re doing their job.”

Kennedy, who is a lawyer, said the three “knew when they were writing this decision that it was gonna be a pioneering decision and a landmark decision and would face a lot of popular opposition. They also were following very carefully the Iowa constitution and the rights that it gives to its citizens.”

Just imagine it being the other way around: the voters of a state overwhelmingly want gay marriage by a nearly 3 to 1 margin – and a conservative judge says to hell with all of you, only MY vote matters, and I vote to say to hell with the will of the people.  Is that judge going to be honored for his “courage,” do ya think???

Joe Biden says that the “marriage” of two men or two women is EVERY BIT as “valid” as the holy union under God between a man and a woman, and that married men and women and the families they create are no better or more positive for society than homosexual “matrimonies,” and North Carolina just responded with a great big giant “Up YOURS!”

That may have something to do with what over twenty percent of North Carolina DEMOCRATS said to Obama in the state’s Democrat primary for president:

“No preference” is another way of saying “no confidence” in the ONLY candidate on the ballot.

In West Virginia, it got even worse, with 42% of Democrat voters choosing an INCARCERATED FELON over Obama (who SHOULD be a convicted felon).  Obama has been a holocaust for that state, pure and simple.

And in Wisconsin, the hated conservative Governor Scott Walker easily won a larger percentage of the vote than BOTH of his Democrat challengers COMBINED and nearly as many as EVERY DEMOCRAT VOTE COMBINEDWith Wisconsin Republicans easily maintaining control of the state Senate.  Oh, and it’s also now known that the rabid Democrat recall effort has an unpaid debt of $17 million in back taxes.  Because to be a Democrat is to be a fascist who wants OTHERS to work and pay for what THEY then get to “redistribute” to their unions and their special interests.

Stuff like that helps me understand the dismal opening Obama got to the official opening of a re-election campaign that really never ended from 2008.

I see the potential for a major conservative ass-kicking coming.  And the ONLY thing standing in the way of that ass-kicking is the fact that Barack Obama – the worst and most cynical political whore who EVER walked the earth – has attended more fundraisers than the previous FIVE presidents COMBINED.  It won’t be easy to throw out our Crony Capitalist Fascist Whore in Chief given his enormous money-grubbing advantage.  Particularly since he has repeatedly used the American people’s taxpayer money as his own political slush fund.

Meanwhile, the same Obama who is too much of a weasel to tell us what he’s going to do with the ballistic missile shield he essentially turned traitor over, or the same Obama who is punting the Keystone pipeline until after the election so he can kill it once and for all, is the same weasel who doesn’t have the courage to look at the American people and tell them that he is going to “fundamentally transform” the institution of marriage on them.

He is a small, weak, skinny little runt in every way imaginable.  That is the essence of a weasel.

Congratulations on standing up for the sacred definition of marriage and for standing against the weasel who wants to undermine this nation’s greatest institutions, North Carolina.

Prop 8: Contemptuous Judge Overturns Will Of Both God And The People

August 4, 2010

Here’s the latest story of judicial abuse:

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights. Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.

Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That’s because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.

The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.

“Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge ruled.

This is now the third time that a judge substituted his will for the clear will of the people in the state of California.  There’s a phrase in the Declaration of Independence that no longer matters: “deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”  Of course, there are other phrases that liberals despise in the Declaration of Independence as well, such as “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

For the official record, Thomas Jefferson – who wrote the Declaration of Independence – would have led the revolt against these evil, malicious, degenerate judges and supervised their tarring and feathering.

Just one of Jefferson’s comments about such “judges” as Vaughn Walker:

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.  But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

Thus this isn’t judicial activism; it’s judicial DESPOTISM.

The people no longer have any real power in this country.  Some unelected judge overturned the will of the people in Arizona by substituting her own ridiculous reasoning for the law.  Now this.  And soon states like Missouri – which issued a 71%-to-29% smackdown to ObamaCare – will likewise fall prey to judicial despotism.  Why even bother to vote when your will is continually overturned by despotism?  Of course, that’s exactly how liberal fascists want you to think.  They want you to give up.  Because socialism is only accepted by an apathetic, defeated people.

Let me address the specific objections to traditional marriage:

“Equal protection”? How is that violated by a law that defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman?

A gay man has the right to marry any adult woman who will have him – the same as me.  There’s your “equal protection.”  On a platter.

If a gay man doesn’t want to take advantage of that, then that’s his loss.  But radically redefining marriage into something it has never been in the history of this nation – or for that matter the history of Western Civilization, or for that matter any civilization period – is not a response that any morally intelligent individual would descend into.

How about the concept of “due process”? How does redefining marriage from an institution to a convention that can be radically transformed by judicial fiat encourage due process?  All it does is create undue process.  How will this judge now prevent three men from marrying?  If you can redefine the “one man and one woman thing,” why can’t you redefine the “two people” thing?  And by what objective standard that can never be overturned?  And if three people can marry, why can’t fifteen or more?  Just who are you to impose your narrow-minded morality on thirty people who want to get married to each other?

The same thing goes to inter-species marriage: just who the hell are you to say that that weird woman next door can’t marry her Great Dane?  Or her Clydesdale Stallion, for that matter?  Why can’t I marry my canary?

And you’d better have a damn good reason for restricting each of these, or they’ll probably be legal next month.

Gays want the right to marry.  The North American Man/Boy Love Association wants the right to have men marry boys.  Unlike homosexuals, pedophiles actually have something approaching a historic case: the Roman world had something called pederasty, in which men gave boys mentoring and help with their futures in exchange for the boys giving up their virginal backsides.

The liberal culture says a twelve year old girl has the right to an abortion on demand without her parents’ consent.  That’s a very adult decision, not unlike a very similar adult decision to have a relationship with the adult who impregnated her in the first place.  Why not give NAMBLA what it wants?  It’s not fair to allow two people who love each other not to marry, after all, right?  That’s the argument we keep hearing, so let’s be consistent.  Why are we denying the right of men and boys to marry whomever they choose?

NAMBLA once actually had United Nations status, due to its membership with the “legitimate” International Lesbian and Gay Association.

NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.

Today the gay community excludes NAMBLA as a matter of pure political expediency.  Harry Hay, the founder of the first gay organization in America, ultimately condemned the “gay community” and “reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability.” The simple fact is that the gay community is just a bunch of narrow-minded, intolerant bigots and naked political opportunists who want to deny others the basic rights they demand for themselves.

And, of course, President Obama appointed a pro-NAMBLA guy to be the “Safe Schools Czar,” so we have a pretty high-level endorsement right there, don’t we?  We’re talking mainstream stuff here, these days.

Given the fact that judges can usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose their own “morality” as they choose, it is guaranteed that we will legalize the buggery of young boys down the road.  Secular humanism  simply doesn’t have the moral resources to prevent it.

Who are you not to allow your little boy to get married to some forty-year old “lover,” you intolerant pig?

People who defend traditional marriage have an easy and powerful defeater for these objections.  Gay marriage proponents have none.  If I’m wrong, then just finish this thought: “A marriage of three people will never be allowed by a court to happen because…”.  And don’t say that it won’t ever happen because marriage is a particular type of thing, because that was our argument, and you ran roughshod over it.

The last idea is this commonly-heard challenge: “How does allowing gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?”

That one really isn’t very hard to answer.

For one thing, it cheapens marriage to the point of meaninglessness, which is why marriage has declined markedly in every single country in which gay marriage was imposed.  I mean, given how marriage becomes a mere convention, why even bother getting married?

Gay activists look at the gay-marriage countries and argue that divorces have leveled off.  But the problem with that line of reasoning is that divorce only becomes a factor if people actually bother to get married in the first place.  And the fact of the matter is that they AREN’T bothering to get married.  Because marriage is being destroyed.

When a young man today says “I do” in a marriage to his wife, he is continuing an institution that his parents, his parents’ parents, and his parents’ parents’ parents – going all the way back to Adam and Eve (i.e., and NOT Adam and Steve).

We go back to the very beginning when GOD instituted marriage.  And God said:

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

“Shall cleave to his WIFE” – not to whoever or whatever the hell happens to turn his fancy.

Gay marriage does to marriage what cancer does to the cells of a body – it alters it, it corrupts it, and ultimately it destroys it.

Marriage is no longer a holy union between a man and a woman under God that the state recognizes; it becomes a convention BY the state APART from God that can be changed at will by powerful elites who have determined that they know better than God.

So yeah, gay marriage hurts legitimate marriage.  Because it destroys the very concept of marriage.

The Manhattan Declaration As The New Barmen Declaration

November 25, 2009

Christians are hearing about the Manhattan Declaration with great excitement.  It is a tremendous document with tremendous support from some tremendous Christian figures.

The actual declaration (linked to above) is some 4,000 plus words long, and is available to read at the link above.  But here is the nutshell version:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

  1. the sanctity of human life
  2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
  3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

I hope you stand with me – and with (at last count as of November 24, 2009) 106,738 other believers – and sign this declaration.

It reminds me of another time, and another declaration: the Barmen Declaration of 1934, which was a point-by-point denunciation of the fascist and racist ideological doctrines of Nazism and a positive expression of true Christian faith against a government and a culture that had become evil.

Adolf Hitler attempted to redefine – or “Nazify” – the Church and transform it into a component of his ideological agenda.  At one point in its history Germany had been the seat of the Protestant Reformation, and while Germany had since become the most secular humanist nation in Europe, there was still a vestige of Christianity remaining.  And Hitler wanted to harness that still-influential vestige toward his own ends.  The government thus passed resolutions to limit the influence or dictate the agenda of the church.  One demanded the purging of all pastors who rejected “the spirit of National Socialism.”  Another resolution categorically rejected the very foundations of Judeo-Christian transcendent morality even as it tried to conflate “being a German” with “being a Christian”:

“We expect that our nation’s church as a German People’s Church should free itself from all things not German in its services and confession, especially from the Old Testament with its Jewish system of quid pro quo morality.”

The German Confessing Movement was a reaction against the German government’s attempt to impose its agenda upon the Christian Church in Germany.  As Gene Edward Veith put it in his book Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview:

The Barmen Declaration thus sets itself against not only the German Christian aberration but against the whole tradition of modernist syncretism that made it possible.

[Article 1 affirmed Christ as the transcendent authority and source of values (as opposed to the German race, the Nazi revolution, or the person of Adolf Hitler)].  Article 2 asserts the sovereignty of Christ over all of life.  Article 3 asserts Christ’s lordship over the church and rejects “the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political conventions.”  That is to say, the world does not set the agenda for the church.  Article 4 teaches that church offices are for mutual service and ministry, not for the exercise of raw power.  Article 5 acknowledges the divine appointment of the state, but rejects the pretensions of the state to “become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well.”  Article 6 affirms the church’s commission to proclaim the free grace of God to everyone by means of the Word and the sacraments.  “We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans [pp. 60-61].

One article, entitled “Hitler’s Theologians: The Genesis of Genocide,” takes time to describe how various key German liberal theologians systematically tore apart the Bible and orthodox Christianity – and in so doing systematically undermined the ethics and morality of the German people in preparation for the hell to come.  The author begins with Friedrich Schleiermacher, called “the founder of Liberal Protestantism,” and profiles the “contributions” of Friedrich Nietzsche, Julius Wellhausen, and Adolf von Harnack.

Georg Lukacs has observed that tracing the path to Hitler involved the name of nearly every major German philosopher since Hegel: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dilthy, Simmel, Scheler, Heidegger, Jaspers, and Weber [page 5, The Destruction of Reason].  And Max Weinreich produced an exhaustive study detailing the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime entitled Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People.  Ideas have consequences, and it was the ideas of these liberal theologians, philosophers and scholars who provided the intellectual justification and conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  Thus Nazism did not merely emerge from a liberal theological system, but from a distinguished secular humanist intellectual tradition as well — a distinguished intellectual tradition that had repudiated all the moral and spiritual values inherent to the orthodox Christianity of the Confessing Church.

Josef Hromadka wrote that:

“The liberal theology in Germany and in her orbit utterly failed.  It was willing to compromise on the essential points of divine law and of “the law of nature”; to dispose of the Old Testament and to accept the law of the Nordic race instead; and to replace the “Jewish” law of the Old Testament by the autonomous law of each race and nation, respectively.  It had made all the necessary preparation for the “Germanization of Christianity” and for a racial Church.”

Veith subsequently says, “in deciding whether or not to sign the Barmen Declaration … the dividing line was clear.”  And he states, “The German Christian theologians predictably denounced the confessional movement as being ‘narrow’ and ‘fundamentalist.'”  He rightly described the opponents of the Barmen Declaration as being “modernists,” “existentialists,” and “dialectical” in their thinking.  The theologians who rejected Barmen were men like Emanuel Hirsch, who taught that the resurrection of Christ was only a spiritual vision, and that the idea of a physical resurrection distorted Christianity by focusing attention to the hereafter rather than to the culture and community of the present.

In short, it was Christians who thought like the evangelicals and fundamentalists of today who signed the Barmen Declaration and openly opposed Nazism, and it was “Christians” who thought like the mainline liberals of today who stood for the German Christian Nazification of Christianity and for the resulting Nazification of German ethics and morality.

Confessing Church pastors and priests who resisted this Nazification of the church paid dearly.  Thousands of clergymen were hauled away to the concentration camps.  According to the Niemoller archives, 2,579 clergymen were sent to Dachau alone – and 1,034 of them died in the camp.  And that only refers to the priests and pastors – not the untold thousands of devout Christians such as the Ten Booms who perished in the death camps for their opposition to Nazism.

An article entitled “Asking ‘Why Nazism?’” reviewing a book by Dr. Karla Poewe has this:

“One of the dangers of liberal Christianity, where all sorts of interpretations are permitted, is that it can easily slip into becoming a new religion,” Poewe says. “This is what happened. In a bid to rid Germany of what it saw as Jewish Christianity, several home-grown practices sprang up, including some that incorporated Icelandic and pre-Christian sagas, as well as ideas from German Idealism.”

Although initially these new religions were separate and disorganized entities, they eventually came under the umbrella of what was known as the German Faith Movement. Hitler saw in it a mechanism for transmitting and reinforcing the National Socialist worldview. “He shaped its followers into a disciplined political force but dismissed its leaders later when they were no longer needed,” Poewe says.

We’re clearly not to the point where Jews, or Christians, or anyone else are being gathered by the thousands and placed in death camps.  But we’re beginning to see a trend that is frightening, as government, with the assistance of liberal “Christian” churches and organizations, are trying to impose their will upon the church and its agenda.

We’ve had a “hate crimes” law imposed upon us that makes homosexuality a protected behavior.  And one evangelical expresses the Confessing Church position in a nutshell:

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a written statement the bill “is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality.”

In another recent case, a Christian mother who has homeschooled her child is being forced to put her ten-year old child in public school, not to improve her academic education, but to limit her exposure to Christianity and forcibly expose her to a government-approved “public” point of view:

According to the court order, the guardian concluded that Amanda’s “interests, and particularly her intellectual and emotional development, would be best served by exposure to a public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and…Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior.”

This is a shocking case, in which the government is usurping both parental and religious freedoms.  And there are many similar usurpations today, in which our government is actively opposing Christian values.

Nearly fifty million babies have been killed in this country by a government-sanctioned “pro-choice” system.  Gene Edward Veith addresses the “pro-choice” movement and its philosophical underpinnings:

Existential ethics brackets the objective issues on abortion entirely.  At issue is not some transcendent moral law, nor medical evidence, nor a logical analysis.  The content of that choice makes no difference.  If the mother chooses to have the baby, her action is moral.  If she chooses not to have the baby, her action is still moral.  If she bears a child against her will or aborts a child against her will — then and only then is the action evil.  Those who believe that abortion should be legal do not consider themselves “pro-abortion.”  They are “pro-choice.”  The term is not only a rhetorical euphemism but a precise definition of existential ethics.

Existentialism is also reflected in those who are “pro-choice” but personally oppose abortion.  They do not believe in abortion for themselves, but refuse to impose their beliefs on others.  In this view, a belief has no validity outside the private, personal realm of each individual.  Moral and religious beliefs are no more than personal constructions, important in giving meaning to an individual’s life, but not universally valid.  Or, to use another commonly accepted axiom, “what’s true for you may not be true for me.”

Such a view of truth flies in the face of all classical metaphysics, which sees truth as objective, universal, and applicable to all” (page 96, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview).

We can return to the historical analysis of Nazism presented by Karla Poewe, and what happened when such “anything goes” belief systems were allowed to rule.  [I have written an article describing how existentialism became a primary component of Nazism, and link to it HERE].

Before we leave the issue of abortion as a vile violation of Christian ethics and morality, let us consider one more voice:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

Christians should fight for life.  And allowing a human being to live should not be a “choice,” but a duty.

In 2003 one David Allen Black wrote an article bearing the question, “Do We Need A New Barmen Declaration?”  No Christian with a knowledge of history can answer any other way than, “YES!

The Barmen Declaration was written in 1934, but in many ways it was already too late: The Nazis were already in power.  Hitler was in his second year of power; and the ideas of the liberal theologians, the existentialist philosophers, and the amoral intellectuals were already firmly in place.

It is my fervent hope that we finally have that “New Barmen Declaration” to answer the evils of our own day.  If we already should have written one, then every day that passes is one more day wasted; if we are acting pro-actively, then let us thank God that we acting before it is too late.

From the UK Telegraph:

At last, Christians draw a line in the sand against their PC secularist persecutors

By Gerald Warner UK Last updated: November 24th, 2009

At long last, Christian leaders have faced up to their persecutors in the secularist, socialist, One-World, PC, UN-promoted axis of evil and said: No more. In the popular metaphor, they have drawn a line in the sand. For harassed, demoralised faithful in the pews it will come as the long-awaited call to resistance and an earnest that their leaders are no longer willing to lie down supinely to be run over by the anti-Christian juggernaut. This statement of principle and intent is called The Manhattan Declaration, published last Friday in Washington DC.

It is difficult to believe that so firm an assertion of Christian intransigence in the face of persecution will not have some beneficial effects even here. For this Declaration is no minor affirmation by a few committed activists: on the contrary, it is signed by the most important leaders of three mainstream Christian traditions – the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and Evangelical Protestants. For an ecumenical document it is heroically devoid of fudge, euphemism and compromise.

The Manhattan Declaration states that “the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions”.

For Barack Obama, the PC lobby, the “hate crime” fascists and, by implication, their opposite numbers in Britain, the signatories have an uncompromising message: “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.” That is plain speaking, in the face of anti-Christian aggression by governments. The signatories spelled it out even more unequivocally: “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we will under no circumstances render to Caesar what is God’s.”

In a world where a Swedish pastor has been jailed for preaching that sodomy is sinful, similar prosecutions have taken place in Canada, the European Court of Human Rights (sic) has tried to ban crucifixes in Italian classrooms, Brazil has passed totalitarian legislation imposing heavy prison sentences for criticism of homosexual lifestyles, Amnesty International is championing abortion, David Cameron has voted for the enforced closure of Catholic adoption agencies, and Gordon Brown’s government has just been defeated in its fourth attempt to abolish the Waddington Clause guaranteeing free speech – this robust defiance is more than timely.

The signatories are unambiguously expressing their willingness to go to prison rather than deny any part of their religious beliefs. Those signatories are heavyweight. On the Catholic side they include Justin Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia; Adam Cardinal Maida, Archbishop Emeritus of Detroit; the Archbishops of Denver, New York, Washington DC, Newark, Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Louisville; and other Bishops. The Orthodox include the Primate of the Orthodox Church in America and the Archpriest of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. There are also the Anglican Primates of America and Nigeria, as well as a host of senior Evangelical Protestants.

In terms of influence on votes and public opinion, this is a formidable coalition. It has served notice on the US government that further anti-Christian legislation will provoke cultural trench warfare and even civil disobedience. As regards the sudden stiffening of resistance among the usually spineless Catholic leadership, it is impossible not to detect the influence of Benedict XVI.

We need more declarations like this, on a global scale, and the requisite confrontational follow-up. This is Clint Eastwood, make-my-day Christianity – and not before time. From now on, any governments that are planning further persecution of Christians had better make sure they have a large pride of lions available for mastication duties. The worm has turned.

As a young Christian, I was inspired by the music, lyrics, and album cover of Keith Green’s album, No Compromise.  The cover says it all:

The Manhattan Declaration – like the Barmen Declaration – calls for Christians who are willing to stand up and be singled out even in the face of persecution or punishment.

I hope you are willing to be one of those Christians.

Gay Rights Groups Using Vile Intimidation Tactics To Attack Prop 8 Backers

November 22, 2008

Here’s one example from before the election via the Daily Kos:

But when the church and its members invest millions of dollars in an attempt to write discrimination into my state’s constitution and divorce my friend Brian against his will, there will be hell to pay.

So what am I asking you to do?

Some distributed research.

There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here’s a mirror with slightly worse formatting.

Here’s what I’m asking for:

This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign–donors to the tune of at least $1,000 dollars.  And, as you can see, there are a lot of them.  It also indicates if they’re Mormon or not.

If you’re interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality, here’s how you can help:

Find us some ammo.

Use any LEGAL tool at your disposal.  Use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to…shall we say…less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious.  If so, we have a legitimate case to make the Yes on 8 campaign return their contributions, or face a bunch of negative publicity.

There are a crapload of donors on this list–so please focus on the larger ones first.  $5,000 or more is a good threshold to start with.

Feel free to use Lexis-Nexis searches as well for anything useful, especially given that these people are using “morality” as their primary motivation to support Prop 8…if you find anything that belies that in any way…well, you know what to do.

If you find anything good, please email it to:

equalityresearch at gmail dot com.

Here’s the bottom line for me: if someone is willing to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign to take away legal rights from some very dear friends of mine, they had damn well make sure their lives are beyond scrutiny–because I, for one, won’t take it lying down.

This one is for Brian and the millions like him all across the nation.

The list of donors whose names and towns have been published is THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of names long.  And we have a call to harass and investigate them (does the fishing expedition targeting “Joe the Plumber” ring any bells?) to hurt people and punish them for exercising their free speech rights.  How DARE Joe the Plumber ask a single honest question?  And how DARE you support something you believe in if homosexuals don’t like it?

CBS had this story about the subsequent attempt to attack, harass, and intimidate supporters of Prop 8 even after the people spoke:

(CBS) For supporters of same-sex marriage, the Election Day loss in California seems to be energizing their campaign rather than ending it.

Demonstrations against Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, have been growing, CBS News correspondent John Blackstone reports.

Now the anger is moving to the Internet, where supporters of same-sex marriage are posting blacklists – the names and businesses of those who gave money to help Proposition 8 pass.

Chris Lee, an engineer who is an immigrant from China, was shocked to see his name on the Web site AntiGayBlacklist.com after he gave $1,000 to the campaign to end same-sex marriage.

“I was completely disgusted,” Li said. “This sort of blacklist should only appear in communist countries, should not be found in the United States.”

In Los Angeles, demonstrators called for a boycott of a restaurant whose manager made a personal donation of $100 to the “Yes on 8” campaign.

“She didn’t think it would be public record,” said Jeff Yarbrough.

Anger over the blacklists brought out demonstrators in Sacramento, where Scott Eckern resigned as musical director of a local theater when he was identified as a donor.

In other words, you’d better bow down to their “rights,” or they will destroy you.  Your rights don’t matter.  Your values don’t matter.  Your religious beliefs don’t matter.  Only they matter.  And they will come after you and destroy you if they can.  All they need is the power; they already have all the hate they need.

Another story serves to frame the ugliness and hypocrisy of the “tolerant” pro-gay community:

“Since Proposition 8’s victory, a series of protests against churches, small businesses and individual supporters of traditional marriage have taken place in cities across the state,” Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, wrote in a statement. “Tragically, some opponents of Prop. 8 who claim to cherish tolerance and civil rights are unabashedly trampling on the rights of others. Protests and boycotts have taken place against a Hispanic restaurant owner in Los Angeles, African American religious leaders in the Bay Area, and a musical theater director in Sacramento, among many others.”

Robert Hoehn, vice president of Hoehn Motors in San Diego County, gave $25,000 of his own money to the Yes-on-8 campaign in February. And he called what followed “a really really ugly experience.”

Before the vote, Hoehn said, he he received “dozens and dozens and dozens of really vitriolic messages” and his Honda dealership was picketed.  Since the proposition won, he said, he has received a few messages and phone calls denouncing his support for the measure.

Another story shows the blatant racial intolerance of the gay community.  70% of blacks voted for Prop 8, along with an overwhelming majority of Hispanics:

Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Los Angeles resident and Rod 2.0 reader A. Ronald says he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.

Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were “very disappointed with black people” and “how could we” after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn’t matter because “most black people hated gays” and he was “wrong” to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.

Blacks who have allowed homosexuals to depict their “struggle for civil rights” in the same terms as blacks should wake up and realize something: if being gay is like being black, then it truly IS immoral to be black.  If you don’t believe me, just look at what homosexuals are saying about you.

What if we did this stuff to them?  What if we published the names and information of opponents of Prop 8, and began individually targeting them for harassment, intimidation, and worse?  What would they say about it?

Bottom line: they are counting on the complete moral superiority of the supporters of Prop 8 not to retaliate.  They single us out and target us, even as they count on us to be better than they are and not retaliate by targeting them.  But what if we did?  What if we went to these peoples’ homes and business with the same vindictive spirit of hate these people are bringing to their cause, and to our doorsteps?

These people are hateful, vile, despicable, loathsome, vindictive, wicked, depraved hypocrites who will use any means necessary to get their way.  They are already hard at work trying to get the will of the people set aside, so that a four judges can impose their agenda on 30 million people.

In other words, the Bible is completely right about them and about their “lifestyle.”  Moses was right in calling their conduct “an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).  Paul was right in describing homosexuality as the ultimate level of depravity (Romans 1:26-32).  If nothing else, they prove it to anyone willing to look by their very own conduct.