Saturday, July 17, 2010
WITH GAY MARRIAGE, YOU GET...
Mass Marriage Problems
Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Thursday, July 8th, a Massachusetts judge ruled that the federal law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. This judge’s claim that there’s no reason whatsoever for marriage to be defined as one man and one woman should go down as one of the most outrageous rulings in court history!
When I was growing up, friends of mine would often declare of crazy intellectuals, “That guy is educated beyond his intellect!” or “He is an educated idiot!” Far be it from me to pass judgment on the judge’s intelligence or education. Nonetheless, I can conclude that he has not ruled with long-term social wisdom. Before I give my reasons why his decision is flawed, let’s review his legal ruling.
US District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) interferes with the right of a state to define the institution of marriage. The law therefore denies some federal benefits to married gay couples. In his opinion it forces the state of Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens. In a different case delivered on the same day Tauro also ruled that DOMA violated the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.
These rulings, if not struck down by superior courts, are designed to chip away at part of the legal authority of DOMA. Further, I believe that this an element of a coordinated national plan by same-sex marriage advocates to undo DOMA nationwide. There is a sophisticated legal strategy being here.
Students of the civil rights movement of the ‘40s through the ‘60s will acknowledge that cultural change through the courts is a slow, painstaking process. Although the comparison of the “substance” of the pro same-sex marriage movement and civil rights movement is “spurious,” the legal strategies employed by same-sex marriage legal advocates are very much in keeping with the incremental approach that Thurgood Marshall and his mentor, Charles Hamilton Houston, took from the ‘40s onward.
The book, Roots and Branch by Rawn James, Jr., outlines the strategy behind the legal fronts shaped the opinions of the masses concerning civil rights for blacks. What the civil rights legal team of the Houston and Marshall era did was to keep their interests alive in both the courts and the newspapers until public opinion about black civil rights changed.
In America, we have an interesting shift occurring as it relates to same-sex marriage. More people believe that gays are discriminated against generally in various areas of life than a decade ago. On the other hand, a growing majority believes that same-sex marriage and its implications on education and community laws are bad for America. Take for the example the debate going on in Helena, Montana. School children are going to be assaulted with inappropriate information at very early ages.
Same-sex marriage activists repeatedly declare that their victory is “inevitable.” These declarations remind me of the threats youthful bullies made in my community when I was growing up. Taunting, jeering, and name-calling were all apart of their reign of intimidation.
In the name of some kind of “inevitability,” marriage redefinition is actually a matter of cause and effect. The judge said there is no logical reason that traditional marriage should be protected under DOMA. He seems to have forgotten at least 2 “inevitable” outcomes of this action:
1. The cry for even more dramatic transformation of marriage will rise: a call for legalization of polygamy, which includes polygyny (a man with multiple wives) or polyamory (which may be two men with a woman or any imaginable combination)will be in the courts next. Surprisingly, both types of polygamy are being explored legally today in Canada. Some predict that should the marriage freefall continue, the absurd concept of humans marrying animals will also be introduced.
2. Federal benefit changes will affect the already exorbitant cost of proposed healthcare reform. In the opinion of Julian Pecquet, a writer for DC insider publication, The Hill, this ruling has “rekindled conservatives’ hopes that their arguments against the healthcare reform law will prevail.”
There is coming an unprecedented political backlash against same-sex marriage being forced down our collective throats. Outraged parents, churches, and other civic groups are waking up to the ramifications of a massive change to the definitions of marriage, family, and education.
Activist judges like Tauro are an example of why it’s so dangerous when judges usurp law-making authority and rip public policy decisions out of the proper hands. During the last two years runaway state legislatures and over-reaching judges have played a tug of war with the people concerning the world’s oldest social institution. In cases like these that have major structural, social changes, the voice of the people needs to be heard as laws are re-crafted or modified. Individual states shouldn’t have the right to impose a radical redefinition of marriage on the rest of America.
Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman by the federal government. In fact, it was a condition of statehood that marriage be defined as between one man and one woman during the battle over polygamy in the 19th century. Most people intuitively understand that the conjugal union of a man and a woman is the ideal family structure to nurture, develop, and train children.
Marriage defenders have over 5,000 years of history, proven social science, natural law, the teachings of every major religion, and common sense on their side. We should be strengthening and protecting marriage, not allowing a single judge to radically change it. More damage to marriage can only increase the number of broken families and the harm caused to society, especially children. Judges shouldn't have the power to deny children their right to be raised by a mom and a dad.
Let’s all vote for people in the 2010 election that understand the basics - marriage is between one man and one woman!
BREAKING NEWS: The DC Appeals Court has just ruled that the people of the District of Columbia will not get the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage. We are sure that their decision will follow similar logic as the Massachusetts Court case. This decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court. More to follow…
WHICH LEAD TO THE FOLLOWING FREAK SHOWS and TRAIN WRECKS...
Napoleon and the Gay Samoans
”If education were a product we would be suing,” wrote the mother of a 2010 high school graduate. Her e-mail was so eloquent, it warrants no editing:
“Today I asked my son what country Napoleon was from. He said Rome.
He just finished 12 years of public schooling in what has been called one of the top high schools in the nation. Although he’s not a bookworm, he is a decent student. He has better than a B average.
He doesn’t know which country Napoleon was from – let alone what he did. I don’t think he was sick that day.
On the other hand, I’m going through his Social Study papers and see that he did learn that homosexual men in Samoa may perpetuate gay genes by being good uncles…
Twelve years. If education were a product we would be suing.”
But the suit would likely be lost. Reason left the classroom and the courts long ago. And homosexual apologetics have been promoted so aggressively through the National Education Association, that faculty or staff dare not express an objection. Public school hallways display rainbows and trumpet Gay Pride and Days of Silence, while renderings of the Ten commandments are forbidden. In Deerfield, Illinois, a required Freshman orientation class features gay, straight, lesbian and bi-sexual students telling 14 year olds the ins and outs of homosexual sex with their young audience strictly forbidden to tell their parents. In schools across the nation homosexuality is taught in every discipline from the use of math word problems related to same gender sex to the science of non-existent gay genes to history claiming Abraham Lincoln had a love affair with his law partner, Billy Herndon.
In Alabama an entire prom was cancelled because a lesbian student was not allowed to bring her girlfriend. And in that rare case where homosexual students aren’t allowed to bring their partners to proms, local houses of worship are hosting gay proms in church basements.
Massachusetts, Vermont and California have blazed the trail on these matters…providing co-ed bathrooms in schools and allowing students even in some grade schools to alter their gender if so led.
After the legalization of Civil Unions in Vermont, Outright Vermont, a homosexual advocacy organization hosted a weekend seminar funded by tax dollars that taught middle schoolers about a violent homosexual act called “fisting” and girls how to remove healthy breasts if they preferred to be boys…complete with photos and live demonstrations.
In California, a group called “Gender Spectrum” recently sent out a flyer to announce a conference to students 13-18:
Come join other transgender, gender bending, gender noncomforming teens, children and families for three days of celebrating individuality, making new friends and having fun. Meet other trans and gender nonconforming teens and adults, hang out, and explore different topics on gender: school, making friends, dating.
Montana has joined the gay chorus…with a newly proposed sex curriculum to begin in kindergarten so that little Montanans can know about all the ways to have sex with anyone in any combination. Then State Senator Barack Obama advocated the same in Illinois, but was defeated.
It IS that bad. And deny it all they want, parents are beginning to realize what the concerned mom above discovered in despair: Children aren’t learning how to read, spell or punctuate. They don’t know the nation’s history…its leaders or its constitution…nor anything about the God of their fathers, but they do know about homosexual sex.
And when they get to college, there will be no one to tell them otherwise. Consider the case of University of Illinois professor Ken Howell who was just fired after nine years of teaching “Introduction to Catholicism” for writing an e-mail to students explaining that Catholic Teaching on homosexuality derives itself from moral law. A student forwarded the e-mail to the head of the Religion Department and Howell was removed from the faculty for “violating university standards of inclusivity.” A Catholic fired for actually believing and teaching Catholic doctrine on homosexuality in a class on Catholicism.
So what are we to do? Get tough. Take a stand. Make the hard choices. Speak up and take your licks. The sexual anarchists are free to practice their anarchy, but they cannot have our kids. Any government that promotes or says they can and bars parents from their rightful influence must be opposed fiercely.
Fellow angry citizens: Let’s get busy. Let’s move our kids to private schools…private cooperatives…homeschool them. The public school must either clean up its act or risk losing its power. The radicalism in Providence, Massachusetts, for example has resulted in such a reduced student population, they are closing their high school doors. Good.
We send our children to school to learn the great disciplines of English, history, math, and science...presented factually and diligently. We don’t send them to be turned over to sexual activists willing to sacrifice their young minds to achieve their own narrow agenda.
Away with the gay Samoans and up with Napoleon!
Posted by Brett at 1:41 AM