Sunday, June 1, 2008

Homosexual Marriage, the California Courts, and the Decay of Society

I think what I have to say about this matter is obvious and common sense. First of all, it is clear that the California Supreme Court was not interpreting the state constitution, but they were legislating from the bench, as they have done in the past. I felt the same way when the voters in California voted to with-hold all state funded services from illegal aliens, but the California Supreme Court overturned that referendum. The same type of legislation from the bench was responsible for the Roe Vs. Wade decision. Although it is clearly unnatural and illegal to kill an unborn child who is still within the womb, the US supreme court used the rationality of "women's privacy" to justify the ruling which gave women the "right to abortion". Clearly our "Bill of Rights" guarantees all people the right to "life", liberty and property. It is quite a stretch to put the woman's right to privacy above an unborn child's life. It is not clear to me why privacy has anything to do with abortion what-so-ever. Certainly the right to life is applicable here and not privacy. However once our society has strayed from the universal spiritual principles, that our nation was founded upon, truth, honor and integrity can also be reinterpreted. Our judges and lawmakers have strayed from universal spiritual principles that our founding documents spoke of, and that our nation was built upon. Moral equivalencies are now being used to justify the most twisted reasoning. This tactic can only work in a nation whose people have lost their moral compass. In today's popular culture, we have completely lost the ability to distinguish, right from wrong, good from evil normal from abnormal and positive from negative. Moral equivalencies are constantly being used to justify negative behavior. When our courts do not follow our laws, and our legislators are not guided by morals and spiritual principles, a free people can not exist. We are witnessing the beginning of the decline and fall of a once great nation.

It is obvious that the California constitution does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have wording that prohibits this referendum. They claim that prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals are clearly not being discriminated against because they too have the right to marry. Marriage is defined as "the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, which becomes the foundation for a home and family". Homosexuals clearly have the right to marry or choose not to marry under current law. What homosexual activists are trying to do, is to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. By the same logic, the court can legitimize polygamy, incest, pedophilia and bestiality, with the same interpretation, if the participants are willing and if the court was so inclined. Those rulings would be just as outrageous as giving legitimacy to homosexual marriage.

I was unbelievably surprised to find that the definition of marriage has been changed in most dictionaries in order to fit the homosexual agenda and to include all possibilities, no matter how bizarre to the American culture. The definition that I printed above, is my understanding of marriage. However that definition was the fifteenth definition in a long list of seventeen definitions of marriage that I found on the web.

I will reprint them here. Definitions of marriage on the Web:
  • the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
  • two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
  • the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
  • a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
  • A marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition, usually intimate and sexual, and often created as a contract.The most frequently occurring form of marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife.
  • In Conflict of Laws, the issue of marriage has assumed increasing public policy significance in a world of increasing multi-ethnic, multi-cultural community existence. (conflict)
  • the ceremony of union of man and wife was a sacrament of the
  • Age-specific first marriage rates For men (or women), the age-specific first marriages rates are obtained by dividing the number of first marriages of men (or women) of a given age by the number of never married men (or women) in the same age at June
  • Socially-approved sexual and economic union, usually of a male and a female, that is assumed to be more or less
  • An alternative name for the Beatitude, the fourth stage of the after-life, conceived of as the symbolic marriage of the Spirit and the Celestial
  • 1) Holy Matrimony or Marriage is the solemn contract based on a loving relationship between a man and a woman in which they publicly promise to live together ‘for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health until death do them part’.
  • He married the author Anne Morrow Lindbergh in 1929. He taught her how to fly and did much of the exploring and charting of air-routes together with her. The two had six children: Charles Augustus Jr. (born 1930), Jon (1932), Land (1937), Anne (1940), Scott (1942) and Reeve (1945)
  • Three definitions of
  • as a feudal term, was the lord's right of giving his ward in marriage to whom he pleased—in other words, of receiving a money payment for liberty to wed
  • the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, which becomes the foundation for a home and
  • (1923), a blank-verse monologue of nearly 300 lines, blends quotations, allusions, and ironies. Observations (1924), which won the annual Dial Award, shows a marked increase in free verse among the new poems, for instance, in "Silence," "Bowls," and "An Octopus.
  • includes a void

Like I said, I am surprised to find that the dictionary has confused the meaning of marriage to the point where it is unrecognizable. I was truly surprised to find this. If you have any old dictionaries, I would very much like to know how marriage is defined in them. See if you can find some dictionaries that are 10 years old or older, and see how they define marriage.

The fact is that homosexuals are not discriminated against because they are allowed to marry, under the law, just as heterosexual people are. It is their choice not to marry someone of the opposite sex. No-one is withholding that right from them. Everyone has the right to marry as it used to be defined (before they confused the definition).

Now let me get to the crux of the matter. Let me ask this question: Do homosexuals want the right to marry or do they just want to "raise a ruckus" and seek attention and mock religion and marriage? The obvious answer is the latter.

I have written many articles about how today's popular culture, celebrates that which is bad, evil and abnormal, and mocks that which is good, righteous and normal. I have given examples of how today's youth often put grotesque jewelry through piercings on their lips, nose, eyebrows, tongue, cheeks, nipples, bellybuttons and sex organs. They often use foul language and the boys often dress like and emulate gangsters, and the girls often dress like sleazy seductresses. They often wear clothing and tattoos that depict satanic symbols and symbols of evil. These symbols may include skull and crossbones (symbol of death, poison, and pirates), the iron cross (Nazi war medal), devils, serpents, flames of hell, weapons, barbed wire bracelets, spider webs, symbols of witchcraft and the occult. Often they try to out-do each other with bizarre haircuts and hair colorings, etc. Often they install giant speakers and powerful amplifiers that blast the most obscene music from their cars. They justify this outrageous behavior as freedom of expression, but if you try to "express" your feelings to them about this negative imagery and behavior, they will hurl the most vulgar insults at you, in an effort to silence you. It is clear that they are not interested in positive expressions, but only negative, shocking and offensive expressions. It is clear to me that this bizarre behavior is a scream for attention from kids who know that something is wrong. Our society has become so upside down that the youth are making up the rules and their parents are afraid to offend them by setting guidelines and insisting on moral, respectful and considerate behavior. Ironically, it is guidelines and boundaries that the children are screaming for with their outrageous, offensive behavior. They just feel more enraged because their parents and teachers don't care enough about them to set guidelines and insist on moral, respectful and considerate behavior. Our youth craves guidance. Instead parents, teachers and other adults encourage these bizarre cries for help, which just infuriates the youth even more, and drives them to become more offensive and more bizarre.

I feel that homosexual activists and sympathizers are acting in a similar way, by insisting that we accommodate them with the bizarre concept of gay marriage. The activists are screaming for attention in a way that is sure to offend and shock normal, decent, family oriented and religious people. The homosexual activists revel in the attention that they are getting on this matter and the outrage that they are stirring up. I do not believe that most homosexuals give a hoot about homosexual marriage. I believe that the activists are raising a ruckus in an effort to get attention, mock religion, blur the line between normal and abnormal behavior and to mock that which is good. They are screaming for attention because they know something is wrong, just as many of today's youth are screaming for attention with their popular culture.

About ten years ago, I asked a homosexual friend if he was in favor of homosexual marriage. At the time, he said he was not. However, after ten years of the activists, media and public schools normalizing homosexuality and the activists pushing for homosexual marriage and raising a ruckus about it, I am not sure how he feels today.

Civil unions or legal contracts would give homosexual couples the same legal rights as married couples, yet the activists insist on using the word marriage. They have succeeded in changing the definition of the word marriage in the dictionary and on the web. They have convinced republican judges in California that marriage between same sex couples is a "right" that "should" be in the constitution. They have convinced nearly half of all Americans that they are entitled to use the word marriage and the homosexual union be equivalent to heterosexual unions. Of course this is preposterous, because no children can come from this union. Homosexuals already have the right to adopt children. There can be no reason for them insisting on this "right" other that seeking attention and mocking marriage, religion, and that which is good and normal.

About 20 years ago, a lesbian co-worker was taking the day off of work to attend a homosexual rally. When I asked her the purpose of the rally, she laughed and said "to raise a ruckus". Today's homosexual activists are succeeding in raising a ruckus. The old mantra "we're here, we're queer, and we're in your face" is the true purpose of the gay activists when they push for homosexual marriage, when they hold "gay pride parades", and when they have bizarre public exhibitions such as the Folsom Street Fair, in San Fransisco.

The exact same reasoning applies to those who oppose the military because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Many universities have kicked ROTC off of their campuses. They claim the reason to be because that the military discriminates against homosexuals. People who are fervently against the military and all that it does and stands for, are the ones protesting for homosexuals to openly be allowed in the services. These people are disingenuous because they resent the military and everything it stands for, and just use the homosexual issue as a way of attacking the military and making problems for the military. The same logic applies to those who are insisting on homosexual marriage. They resent religion and the institution of marriage and by calling for homosexual marriage they are mocking and weakening those institutions that they feel resentment toward. Marriage and family is the foundation of our society. They are too nearsighted to see that when society falls apart, they too will go down with the ship.

Unfortunately, the institutions of marriage, religion and the "intact family" have already been weakened in today's America. The Family is the foundation that our society was built on. This foundation is being removed before my very eyes. Nearly thirty percent of today's women give birth without the benefit of marriage. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Families that do stay together, often have two working parents, which often leave their children unsupervised. The results are clear to see in today's popular culture, but more importantly, I see a lack of integrity in our political leaders that I have never seen before. Our Congress have found legal ways of being corrupt and undermining our country, while entrenching themselves in power and becoming richer. This is done in plain sight of the public, but the public is so confused, they can no longer tell right from wrong, truth from lies or good from evil. While the public is distracted with this nonsense about homosexual marriage, our freedoms, our wealth, our strength and our sovereignty is being taken away before our very eyes. But that is a topic for another day.

No comments: