On April 28th, 2015, the Supreme Court finally heard arguments regarding marriage and on Friday, April 31st, they conferenced (I am told) to give their initial 'take' on the arguments pro and con and determine who writes the majority and minority opinions. Your guess is as good as mine as to what the outcome will be; however, the questions for the Court to decide were: 1) does the 14th Amendment require a State to license a marriage of two people of the same sex, and 2) does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage of two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state?
My take? Simple - does the U.S. Constitution even address marriage? Answer: No - which automatically negates the 2nd question. So why are we even here?
You may know that many of the homosexual 'arguments' in favor of re-defining marriage cited the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and/or the DOMA ruling and attempted to use the case of Loving v Virginia to imply the whole movement was a 'civil rights' issue. Loving v Virginia involved two people of the opposite sex, one black and one white American, who just wanted to marry each other at a time in history when it was 'unheard' of. It was for all intents and purposes a civil rights issue. Loving v Virginia had to do with the color of one's skin which cannot be changed since you are 'born that way'; homosexuals don't have that problem since there is NO supporting scientific fact that they are 'born that way' so they obviously have a 'choice' (much as they'd like us to think otherwise).
So, what IS the bottom line? Many people believe that the Court will opt for re-defining marriage and if that is the case, here is what has already happened (in anticipation):
*hate crime laws discriminating against 'sexual orientation' and 'transgenderism' have already sprung up in many states;
*schools are teaching young children all about homosexuality starting, in some cases, as early as kindergarten';
*both male and female bathrooms are going to be 'gender neutral' so that, e.g. a female thinks she should really be a boy (and vice versa), they can be free to use the bathroom of their chosen identity regardless of their physical attributes (actually this is already happening in schools across the country and in some places of business);
*businesses are being sued if they won't service a 'wedding' for a same sex couple (florists, bakers, photographers, pizzarias)
*young children as early as the age of 3 or 4 are encouraged into transgenderism (!)
*birth certificates are being allowed to be altered from stating the original sex to which sex they have 'chosen' to be
*criminalization of individuals who chose to follow their religious beliefs
The future will include:
*no limit to the number or sex of people in the 'marriage' (polygamy?)
*no age limit (pedophilia?)
*sex with animals (beastiality?)
*incest (dad/daughter; mom/son; brother/sister;
*increase in STDs (directly connected to this new, deviant 'sexual freedom')
*all out attack on religious institutions which will include churches, pastors and their sermons
AND...
we can throw out the First Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees not only freedom of religion but also, freedom of speech! "One of the amendments to the Constitution...expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the other." Thomas Jefferson/Draft Kentucky Resolutions 1798
Sound too far fetched? Think so? Once the door is opened, there will be NO closing it and anything you can even wildly dream of can be the next 'civil right'. And not one enemy would have had to cross our borders to create the destruction of America that will follow!
All of this 'marriage' thing with homosexuals actually had its legal beginning in Massachusetts in 2004 by judicial fiat and legislative dereliction of duty to the people of the state who didn't want it. From that point in time, citizens in 31 states voted that the traditional and natural definition of marriage remain as it had been for "millennia" - one man and one woman and yes, even California citizens voted for tradition.
If the Supreme Court changes that, the reality is that less than 2% of the population will be telling the other 98% how they have to live and think. Additionally, they will be sanctioning a 'behavior', NOT a civil right.
At this juncture, of the 31 states whose citizens went to the voting booth and voted unanimously for traditional marriage, at least 17 of them have had their vote overruled by activist judges flying the banner of being on the 'right side of history'.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, unless Justice Roberts again uses his deductive reasoning (as he did in Obamacare) to accommodate the homosexual bullies and stand with the liberal portion of the Court, it should be a plain and simple: it's a states rights issue and doesn't belong in the federal courts. The votes in all 31 states must stand as originally decided by the people of those states!
And lastly, from Thomas Jefferson:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."
[excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nation's capital]
My take? Simple - does the U.S. Constitution even address marriage? Answer: No - which automatically negates the 2nd question. So why are we even here?
You may know that many of the homosexual 'arguments' in favor of re-defining marriage cited the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and/or the DOMA ruling and attempted to use the case of Loving v Virginia to imply the whole movement was a 'civil rights' issue. Loving v Virginia involved two people of the opposite sex, one black and one white American, who just wanted to marry each other at a time in history when it was 'unheard' of. It was for all intents and purposes a civil rights issue. Loving v Virginia had to do with the color of one's skin which cannot be changed since you are 'born that way'; homosexuals don't have that problem since there is NO supporting scientific fact that they are 'born that way' so they obviously have a 'choice' (much as they'd like us to think otherwise).
So, what IS the bottom line? Many people believe that the Court will opt for re-defining marriage and if that is the case, here is what has already happened (in anticipation):
*hate crime laws discriminating against 'sexual orientation' and 'transgenderism' have already sprung up in many states;
*schools are teaching young children all about homosexuality starting, in some cases, as early as kindergarten';
*both male and female bathrooms are going to be 'gender neutral' so that, e.g. a female thinks she should really be a boy (and vice versa), they can be free to use the bathroom of their chosen identity regardless of their physical attributes (actually this is already happening in schools across the country and in some places of business);
*businesses are being sued if they won't service a 'wedding' for a same sex couple (florists, bakers, photographers, pizzarias)
*young children as early as the age of 3 or 4 are encouraged into transgenderism (!)
*birth certificates are being allowed to be altered from stating the original sex to which sex they have 'chosen' to be
*criminalization of individuals who chose to follow their religious beliefs
The future will include:
*no limit to the number or sex of people in the 'marriage' (polygamy?)
*no age limit (pedophilia?)
*sex with animals (beastiality?)
*incest (dad/daughter; mom/son; brother/sister;
*increase in STDs (directly connected to this new, deviant 'sexual freedom')
*all out attack on religious institutions which will include churches, pastors and their sermons
AND...
we can throw out the First Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees not only freedom of religion but also, freedom of speech! "One of the amendments to the Constitution...expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the other." Thomas Jefferson/Draft Kentucky Resolutions 1798
Sound too far fetched? Think so? Once the door is opened, there will be NO closing it and anything you can even wildly dream of can be the next 'civil right'. And not one enemy would have had to cross our borders to create the destruction of America that will follow!
All of this 'marriage' thing with homosexuals actually had its legal beginning in Massachusetts in 2004 by judicial fiat and legislative dereliction of duty to the people of the state who didn't want it. From that point in time, citizens in 31 states voted that the traditional and natural definition of marriage remain as it had been for "millennia" - one man and one woman and yes, even California citizens voted for tradition.
If the Supreme Court changes that, the reality is that less than 2% of the population will be telling the other 98% how they have to live and think. Additionally, they will be sanctioning a 'behavior', NOT a civil right.
At this juncture, of the 31 states whose citizens went to the voting booth and voted unanimously for traditional marriage, at least 17 of them have had their vote overruled by activist judges flying the banner of being on the 'right side of history'.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, unless Justice Roberts again uses his deductive reasoning (as he did in Obamacare) to accommodate the homosexual bullies and stand with the liberal portion of the Court, it should be a plain and simple: it's a states rights issue and doesn't belong in the federal courts. The votes in all 31 states must stand as originally decided by the people of those states!
And lastly, from Thomas Jefferson:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."
[excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nation's capital]
No comments:
Post a Comment