This is the "Yes on 8" ad the homosexual activists in California would love to keep off the air.
Yes on 8 is the group promoting California's marriage protection amendment, to override (again) the homosexual activists attempts to hijack marriage, and to overrule their accomplices in the judiciary.
You might recall that in May, despite the fact that the people of California voted overwhelmingly in 2000 to put in writing that marriage is between a man and a woman, judicial activists in California's Supreme Court manufactured a "right" for homosexuals to call their unions "marriage."
Proposition 8 will spell out in the state constitution what people have instinctively understood for thousands of years: that marriage is constituted by a man and a woman.
We don't need a spread of the kind of propaganda and social engineering seen in the video below to California...and then foisted onto the rest of the United States.
Featured Article
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Misleading Children on Marriage: It's Already Happened
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gay couples from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.
That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT'S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And those that want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don't want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.
It is also not the job of the courts to overrule the will of the people, nor is it the job of the courts to create law where none existed--especially when it is in contradiction to established law, as was the case with the raw judicial activism of the California court in May.
The California constitution says nothing about allowing homosexuals to call their unions "marriage" because even a box of rocks used to be able to understand the simple truth that marriage is an institution comprised of a man and a woman.
In other words, it is silent on the issue (silent because it didn't have to spell out the obvious). Therefore it is impossible to glean a "right" where none exists.
However, since homosexual activists have in the last couple of decades become intent on redefining normality, society and nature itself, we have had to start defining in law what was once common sense. That is why the people of California spelled out in law in 2000 that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The social engineering activists judges ignored the law when the made this pronouncement in May--and it is something they should be impeached for. It was clearly beyond the scope of their duty, and was a violation--actually a contemptuous usurpation--of the law, and they should be impeached on that basis.
When we attempt to call something that does not meet the definition of what we are calling it, we are undermining the distinctiveness and value of the genuine article.
This concept is illustrated in the counterfeiting of money. When you create something that looks like the real thing and attempt to use it as if it were the real thing, it devalues the genuine currency. That is why counterfeiting is illegal.
The concept of homosexual "marriage" counterfeits real marriage and thus devalues the original. If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing.
It also makes it easier to subject children to the harmful environment of a homosexual home through adoptions, foster parenting and the like.
Homosexuals have much higher rates of AIDS, STDs, hepatitis, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence. Their promiscuity rates are also much higher than heterosexuals, and have much lower rates of monogamy. Even among homosexual couples who make a claim to "monogamy," they usually twist and pervert the meaning of "monogamy" to include multiple outside partners--which makes it "not monogamy."
This is an abominable environment to subject a child to. It would be unconscionable to subject a child to such an unhealthy environment--for a multitude of reasons.
Ultimately, this is only an attempt by homosexual activists to gain an air of legitimacy for a sexual behavior which is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy--and thus can never be legitimate.
And good people will not stand for it. We will defend marriage and the family because they are worth defending.
Fortunately, none of you have any say BECAUSE YOU'RE IN SOUTH DAKOTA. By all means, keep your family and voices there.
Unfortunately what happens in California has a way of spilling over onto the other states, so we have an interest in the outcome of the defense of marriage there. We'll be watching, we'll be helping, and we'll be praying.
Post a Comment