The Truth about the Gay Marriage Issue

Friday, November 14, 2008

The issue of gay and lesbian marriage in California is of such great importance due to the wide scope of its social and legal implications. Just the simple act of the California state government recognizing gay marriages as legal and legitimate would cause a great blow to the constitutional foundation of “law by consent of the governed” through judicial tyranny, infringe upon the rights of one group of citizens by granting an oppressive, illegitimate “right” upon a minority, and destroy the until-now universally protected definition of the institutions of marriage and family. While supporters of gay marriage would have you believe the issue is all about granting fairness and equality, the truth is it is about protecting personal freedoms, constitutional rights, societal wellbeing and the fundamentally stabilizing institution of the family. Far from being “intolerant bigots” for opposing same-gender marriage, we wish to preserve the institutions in our society and government that have proven the test of time to ensure success, happiness and goodness—all aspects of the “American Dream”—from those who would tear it down to justify their immoral behavior. The following points describe the true issues at stake:


Democracy vs. Judicial Tyranny

The most sacrosanct of all rights guaranteed in the Constitution is the right of freedom from tyranny. Tyranny can simply be defined as a group of people being forced to submit to a set of laws or ordinances against their will. Having experienced a healthy dose of tyranny from King George and his parliament, our founding fathers vowed that Americans would never again have to submit to any laws that were not first consented to by a majority of the populous. The framers of our Constitution were very careful to set strict safeguards and boundaries through constitutional procedures and division of power to assure that no small group of rulers could ever impose their will upon the majority.

Unfortunately, one branch of our government has since increased their power to include the ability to “overrule” the constitutionally-protected will of the majority. The state and federal Supreme Courts were constitutionally given the power to interpret laws (and annul them if necessary) to be in accordance with the structure and rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Unfortunately, this branch of government has lately taken to the habit of changing and nullifying laws according to their personal beliefs, effectively overruling the legally determined laws of our land—whether created through ballots or legislation—whenever they “feel like it.” The Constitution never intended our judges to be sovereign rule-makers, they were meant to be protectors of the Constitution.

Few examples will be more blatant of our judicial politicians overstepping their constitutional bounds then if they overrule the recently passed constitutional amendment in California defining marriage to be only between a man and woman. Voters in California passed the very same statute eight years ago but it was overruled by the state Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. Now that it has again been voted by a majority of the populous to be added into the state constitution, there is talk of the state Supreme Court again overruling it. How can you declare a part of the Constitution unconstitutional?!! The judges, state lawmakers and the highly activist minority to which they are sympathetic are seriously exploring doing just that.


The Granting of Illegitimate “Rights” That Impose Upon the Rights of Citizens

Now there is a time when the Supreme Court should rule against the will of the majority. The framers of our constitution were aware of the possibility of “tyranny of the majority” over minority groups. For this reason they specified that certain “inalienable rights” must be protected for all citizens of the United States: life, liberty, property, freedom of conscience and the pursuit of happiness. While we as a country have not always been perfect at equally securing these rights for all, our country took great strides towards ensuring equal rights for all people regardless of gender, race, religious beliefs, ideology, etc. For the most part, these changes of laws and statutes were done through the ballot box or legislation. A few times, the Supreme Court decided that certain racist laws contradicted these inalienable rights and nullified them. All of these legal actions were within the powers granted by the Constitution.

Proponents of gay and lesbian marriage claim that the issue of “gay rights” is identical to the civil rights that were granted to African Americans in the 1950s and 60s, when the Supreme Court overruled the will of some state majorities to grant the equal rights. They therefore claim that the Supreme Court—of California or the United States, whichever will do it for them—should likewise force all citizens to accept their redefinition of marriage. This is, however, a false argument because the comparison is completely false. Many African Americans were initially enslaved, the exact opposite of the American doctrine that “all men are created equal [and] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Then, after they were granted their freedom, they still did not enjoy suffrage or equal access to public property and services. Then, even after they were legally guaranteed the right to vote and equal access to school and public institutions, these rights were infringed or even ignored. The federal government took bold steps in forcing state and local governments to enforce equality of rights for African Americans. To a lesser extent, similar freedoms were enabled for women, American Indians and other minority groups. Though they dreamed great, the founders of our nation lived in a still barbaric and feudal world and it has taken our country two centuries to reach the fruition of their ideals. Like other countries, the United States has committed many horrible injustices, but we have progressed to a society where we can in almost every situation enjoy equal rights for all citizens of our great country.

Homosexuals already enjoy the same rights as everybody else. They can vote, own property, attend public schools, go into any public place that anyone else can; they are free to talk about their beliefs just as anyone else. Several states have even created a special legal definition for their committed relationships known as “civil unions” that legally gives them the same rights and privileges as a married couple. If homosexuals enjoy the same rights to life, liberty and happiness like everyone else does—even equal treatment of their committed relationships—, what is it that they are fighting for?

What homosexuals and their sympathizers really want is universal acceptance of their lifestyles. This poses a great challenge since homosexuality is condemned by all of the major religions. Their game plan is to attempt to re-educate all they can to believe that homosexuality is entirely normal and acceptable. They are diligently underway with this plan in making homosexuality appear normal and harmless in the media and coercing and brain-washing children in public schools to accept homosexuality, in spite of the morals taught to them by their parents. In addition, they are diligently active in government and legal forums petitioning to make homosexual relationships appear equal to heterosexual ones.

All of these actions are done under the justification that homosexuals are exploring and securing their “rights.” The problem with these so-called rights is that they infringe upon the rights of non-homosexuals. Why should homosexuals have the “right” to educate our children to accept homosexuality as normal and okay, even if we are opposed to it on religious grounds? Why should homosexuals have the “right” to place indecent objectionable images and literature in public places where our children will be exposed to them? Why should homosexuals have the “right” to take an institution that has been universally honored and set apart as a sacred and fundamentally conservative institution and unit and destroy any of its meaning by including their immoral behavior in it? Homosexuals have the same rights as anybody else, but they do not have the right to take away our rights. They do not have the right to redefine and destroy marriage just because they want us to accept their lifestyle choices. They have the right to engage in homosexual activities in the privacy of their own homes, but they do not have the right to force us to accept it as okay.


Protecting Our Society from Destruction

At the time of our country’s founding, most of its inhabitants were devoted Christians. While there was a diversity of specific sects, essentially all of them shared the same ideals of religious values and decency. Children were taught high morals both at home and in the classroom. The framers of the Constitution ensured that with this diversity of sects (and later, religions), freedom of conscience was ensured and no one religious view could dominate over another. However, every one of them also knew that religious morals must be taught and followed in their country or it would fall into ruin. Today we have gone absolutely overboard in “protecting” our children and selves from religious views, but we have forgotten the founders’ much more important point: “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” America does not need to be Christian to be great, but it does need to be good.

Due to the diligent efforts of many activists, America is ceasing to be good and accepting the relativist dogma that the designations of good and bad are meaningless. The ironic thing is, the very people to want us to accept this dogma obviously don’t believe it themselves. Most everyone agrees that murder, rape, stealing, etc. are “bad.” In addition to these universal morals, homosexuals clearly believe that our religious beliefs regarding their behavior are bad. In fact, many of them are outright hostile to religion, which is why it has been outlawed from all public places. I’m sure our founding fathers would have been flabbergasted to see the topsy-turvy would we live in today where religion has been limited to private settings and homosexuality has been placed in the schools’ curricula!

But our basis for determining homosexuality as destructive goes beyond religious tradition and teachings. From a Darwinian standpoint, the homosexual behavior inhibits the survival of the human race and therefore should not be encouraged. A large body of research has shown that children raised by gay or lesbian parents develop much more emotional and sociological problems than children raised by heterosexual parents. Experience has also shown time after time that individuals who participate in the homosexual lifestyle experience much more unhappiness (not to mention exposure to STDs, drugs, etc.). It stands to reason that we would want to protect our children and others from ever getting involved in such a lifestyle choice.

The jury is still out on the cause or origin of homosexual tendencies, but what does seem true is clear: Certain individuals, whether by genetics or life experiences, experience intense desires to become sexually involved with people of their same gender. We should not condemn them for this desire if they did nothing to encourage it (which is sometimes, though certainly not always the case), but that does not mean that we have to accept the act of homosexuality. If a young man has a strong desire to have sex with a girl but does not act upon it, he is likewise faultless. Such a young man should posses the strength of character to put such selfish, lustful thoughts out of his mind and pursue a morally acceptable and socially beneficial marriage before satisfying his sexual drives. But a youth who indulges in sexual relations outside of marriage, especially with multiple partners, is creating a situation for great sorrow and social destruction about him. Because of its emotionally distorted nature, homosexual inclinations encourage multiple sexual partners, dangerous situations and unstable relationships. Society thrives with monogamous marriages and the families that result from them. Society is destroyed about sexual promiscuity, whether heterosexual or homosexual.


More Attacks on Our Rights and Constitution

The recent actions of homosexual “rights” activists have shown without a doubt their regard for our constitution and system of government. They are willing to do anything to get what they want, whether legal or not. In addition to their efforts to circumvent the results of a fair and legal election through judicial tyranny, hundreds of them have taken to protesting outside of religious houses of worship, profaning those sacred places with vulgar signs and chants, vandalizing and trespassing. There have also been several reports of individuals being assaulted or attacked by gay rights protesters.

Some gay rights activists, in cooperation with media outlets such as The San Francisco Chronicle and Google, have made available lists of traditional marriage supporters. Already a couple of these individuals, who have not publicly taken a stand but simply followed their consciences in donating money to the side they believed in, have been publicly denounced and humiliated and been forced to resign from their jobs for supporting traditional marriage!!! Opponents of Prop 8 notoriously stole signs, intimidated and used hate slurs against their opponents. On the contrary, I have not heard a single report of the supporters of Prop 8 participating in any harassment, violence or hate speech. For a minority that claims they are abused, intimidated, threatened, attacked, etc. it seems like they’ve got it backwards. They are the ones who are out destroying property, threatening and attempting to hurt the decent people who followed the laws and outlawed same-gender marriage fair and square.

The homosexual-sympathetic media has done their part too by describing the results of the election as “sad and disappointing,” and refusing to report on the actions of the gay protestors. Some of the more extreme media have even started denouncing religious organizations, slandering their members and claiming that they “want to take over the government and install a Taliban-like regime where they can force you to follow their religious dogmas.”


When Good Men Fight for the Right, It Prevails

Clearly, there is much more at stake regarding homosexual marriage than just letting more people into the marriage club. Our individual rights, our Constitution, the sanctity of marriage and family and even our very society are under attack. As I have said before, the reason homosexual activists are so desperate now is because they are terrified. They thought that things were going great, according to their plans. They thought all of California was either sympathetic to their cause, or too scared or apathetic to speak out against it. Never in their wildest nightmares did they imagine that a majority of the electorate opposed their agenda and would actually vote accordingly. So they have stepped up their efforts in an attempt to intimidate their opponents into submission. Their only hope now is that with their noisy protests they will convince us that it is too much trouble to fight them anymore.

But what they will never understand is why we oppose them so strongly. We are all Americans. All of us have had ancestors that sacrificed much so that we might enjoy the fruits of liberty, happiness and peace—some of them even died for it. WE WILL NOT LET ALL OF THAT GO TO WASTE. The good people of California and other states are now doing something many of them have never done before: They are taking a stand for social stability and decency, for their rights and freedoms, for the future of the country that their children will live in. They are making it known, to their friends and family, to their civic and government leaders, that they will not stand for what gay activists would do to our society and country. With all of our power as an electorate, we must take back control of our governments and make it support the principles, laws and institutions that encourage a prosperous society. We must make it support the rights and sovereignty of individuals and families, instead of encroaching upon their rights to try to control them. We must all become patriot activists to counter-balance the propaganda of immorality and liberalism delivered constantly by our media and public schools. Teach your families, your friends, your neighbors the true principles that will bring about happiness and success in our country. If we all do our part, we can turn this country around and once again enjoy the principles of morality, industry and fairness that our founding fathers left for us.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Tyranny can simply be defined as a group of people being forced to submit to a set of laws or ordinances against their will."

So isn't prop 8, by this definition, tyrannous?

"Anonymous"... Did you read the rest of the article?

Prop 8 was made a constitutional amendment by the majority "will" of the people. That is democracy. Three Supreme Court Justices want to overrule it because they think it isn't right. That's tyranny. Since Prop 8 did not violate any "inalienable rights" it cannot be Constitutionally "trumped" by the Supreme Court.

That is the way our government was designed to work and that it the only way it will work without destroying itself. Can you think of a better way for our government to work that will allow less "tyranny"?

Gay Mom said...

“What homosexuals and their sympathizers really want is universal acceptance of their lifestyles.” - Absolutely FALSE. I have no interest in you accepting me or my family. I want federal equal rights, plain and simple, and civil unions don’t provide that at all. I have heterosexual children (presumably) who are discriminated against because my co-parent is another women. If she adds me to the deed of our house, I have to pay taxes on her equity. Not so if we’re married; the government doesn’t penalize married citizens for sharing property. If we are in a civil union and I’m insured under her health care plan, we have to pay extra taxes on the value of that medical insurance. Married people aren’t taxed on their family’s medical insurance. If she dies, we can receive a lump sum as beneficiaries of her retirement plan, but that is only about a fifth of it’s full value, and we’re taxed on that sum by the state and federal government as well. If she were a male marital partner, not just a “civil union” partner, our family would receive her entire retirement package, which is about five times the amount we can receive as beneficiaries. That’s the law, the IRS rules, and the reason civil unions are actually “separate, but not equal.”

Why is my government financially discriminating against my heterosexual children? How un-American. The movement for marriage equality is a demand for civil rights, not some hope for acceptance. We’ll never be accepted by people like you. So what? Racism hasn’t gone away, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed the law, and that’s the kind of top-down, federal approach it takes to make change. African Americans and others spent years agitating for equality but the movement was stagnated until the federal government stepped forward and changed the law. Gay rights will be the same. I have faith in our US Constitution, that glorious, insightful document that proudly declares that we are all equal. How dare you claim courts are granting an “oppressive, illegitimate ‘right’ upon a minority” when they base their demand for equality on the Constitution. You are entitled to your opinion, you can think and speak badly of gay families and you can tell yourself that your relationship or family is better than mine, but you are not entitled to more rights than I am. Not in this country.

CA Prop 8 was voted for by the majority, but it will eventually be struck down, the same as slavery was abolished and African Americans were granted equal rights. You are on the wrong side of this issue, and blaming the courts for supporting equality is a losing strategy. You want your traditional marriage, go have it. But don’t get in the way of my fight for marriage equality, because I’ll NEVER stop fighting for my children.

B-Media said...

I agree that civil unions should be equal in benefits as marriage. As far as I know they are. Your situation doesn't make sense to me. You don't have to destroy freedom of religion and freedom of speech to achieve equal rights on this issue.

"Gay Mom" is most likely some over-active liberally brainwashed teenager who goes around cut-and-pasting this entry every chance he/she gets to try to generate sympathy. (Lesbians usually don't refer to themselves as "gay.") But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I will post your comment and refute it here:

1. Yes, you obviously DO want acceptance. Otherwise you would be fighting for civil unions to be completely equal to marriages. (By the way, I think your wrong and they are. You might want to check your facts on that...) The reason you want "gay marriage" to be recognized is because it will LOOK more like real marriage to the public (especially to impressionable children who are still learning these concepts) and you hope that it will bring about societal change, just like this article suggests. You should stop being deceptive and just own up to this.

2. You complain that your children are being discriminated against and vow to fight for their "rights." This is also deceptive. What you really care about is your own "rights," not theirs. If you were so concerned about the children, you would have never brought them into this situation. Children of gay/lesbian parents have a dramatically increased risk for exposure to violence and early death, emotional and social problems, and moral promiscuity (although I suppose the last one doesn't bother you at all...). How selfish of you to bring children into this dangerous, unhappy, debilitating situation just so you can get your way!

3. You say that it is tyrannical of the majority of the populous to tell gay/lesbian couples they can't call themselves married and you believe that from the "top down" the courts should force it on everyone. DO YOU KNOW WHAT TYRANNY IS? It involves a few telling the mass what they can't do, not the masses telling a few that they can't change something that the majority agrees upon. It's too bad we don't have a king that you can go to and get to force it on us all, huh? THAT would be much less tyrannical...

4. Homosexuals are shameless when they compare their situation to that of the enslaved African Americans 200 years ago. Perhaps this is why Blacks voted against Prop 8 in such great numbers: They were pissed off that gay people portrayed the two as comparable. Blacks had no freedoms, were property, just wanted to be recognized as humans and have equal rights. Homosexuals have every right that everyone else has. What they want to do is change a definition that is sacred to every religion in American to include something that is physically, morally and evolutionarily contrary to it. Sorry, the Constitution doesn't give you that right (you might want to read it sometime...) and we will NEVER stop fighting to protect our rights

Post a Comment

 
 
 

Save the Constitution

Declaration of Liberty

In memory of our God, our Nation, our Religions, our Freedom, our Peace, our Families and our Fallen Dead;

WE THE PEOPLE declare that We will Never Yield to those who would place us in bondage. We will live for the Constitution and we will die for the Constitution, for we know that it was inspired of God for all of his Children.


http://digitalnetworkarmy.com
 
Copyright © 2009-2010 Good Sense, All Rights Reserved.

Articles, quotes, comments, and images are the exclusive property of their respective authors, who own all rights to their use. Articles do not necessarily represent the views of Good Sense or its contributers. All copyrighted materials appearing on this site and not derived by contributing authors are protected by and used according to “Fair Use” as described in sections 107 through 118 of the U.S. Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).