Same sex marriage proponents say they want such marriage so that such couples can have hospital visitation rights, tax benefits or anything else they can think of. But, when it comes to Liberals, whenever they say it is about “A”, you can rest assured that it is about “B” instead. All of these so-called legal arrangements can be accomplished via legal tools such as powers of attorney. This whole same sex marriage thing is all about the Left attacking anything they perceive to be religious in nature. It is an active conspiratorial attempt by the Left to remove anything and everything considered to be religious from government, and replace it with worship of the federal government. Some comments on my same sex marriage posts attacked me as being some kind of religious fanatic. One commenter called me an evangelical bible thumper along with some other choice pejoratives without knowing anything about me. It is clear that this commenter believes that marriage is a religious arrangement, and therefore predisposed to believe that all who oppose same sex marriage do so because of religious reasons. I oppose same sex marriage because I see it for exactly what it is…an attack on family, parenting, society, and freedom with the intent of replacing it with a government controlled utopia.
One question that was posed over and over to me by same sex marriage supporters was why do I want to discriminate. This discrimination notion is central to their argument. They call same sex marriage bans discriminatory while invoking slavery, Jim Crow and other clear violations of civil rights with the hope that everyone else will equate the two completely different situations.
First, let’s discuss discrimination, because discrimination itself isn’t illegal. Discrimination occurs anywhere and everywhere, and it is perfectly legal. It is legal to discriminate based on age even though there are laws that say such discrimination is illegal. For instance, the 26th Amendment to the Constitution gave 18 year old’s the right to vote. That amendment is discriminatory to all who have not reached 18 years of age even though they may be better equipped to make an informed vote. The FBI has minimum age requirements of 23 years, and that clearly is age discrimination. There are examples of discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, and race, and all are perfectly legal. The issue isn’t whether or not it is discrimination, but whether or not it is illegal discrimination.
All laws discriminate against those who want to do whatever the law precludes, and as such, same sex marriage bans discriminate against all who want to marry someone of the same sex. Same sex marriage proponents want everyone to believe that homosexuals are the only ones who want to marry a person of the same sex, but that belief would be wrong. Same sex marriage bans not only prevent same sex homosexual marriage, but also prevent such marriages for heterosexuals and bisexuals, or any other strain of sexuality out there, and since all sexualities are treated the same, not only is there no illegal discrimination, there is no discrimination, period.
Lastly, marriage generally is no more a civil right than driving a car, entering into contracts, or getting any other license issued by a State. These are all legal arrangements governed by State law. No branch of the federal government has any authority to make law on, or rule on marriage. The State government and the citizens of that state are the only ones duly authorized by the United States Constitution to make law on marriage.
The left is trying to resurrect its war on women with this 77 cents nonsense as if it is soooo terrible that women earn less than men. This statistic is so misleading and intentionally distorted, as are many statistics used by political partisans. This statistic if it is even true is the difference of wages generally, not the differences in specific professions, but that doesn’t keep them from distorting it by adding “for doing the same work.” Let’s try the truth and an accurate portrayal of this statistic.
Whatever difference there is in the annual incomes of men and women, those differences are the result of several factors, none of which have anything to do with unfairness. The main and overriding factor that affects the pay of women the most is childbirth and children. Women are more likely to get into professions that have a low obsolescence rate so that they can spend time with their children while they are young, and return to the workforce later. These long absences from the workforce cost women the seniority and experience that add a great amount of value to their labor, and women generally don’t want to do the physically demanding, filthy, and hazardous professions that usually pay a great deal more.
When it comes to comparing the wages of a man and a woman the only comparison that is completely valid is that of a man and woman who have never been married, have never had children, and are performing the same profession. When that woman is compared to that man, the woman earns as much or more than the man. It is complete nonsense that employers are discriminating against women, because if an employer could hire a woman the do the same work as man for 77 cents on the dollar, the unemployment rate for women would be zero.
The recent discussions about same sex marriage requires an additional post. It was argued that same sex marriage bans are discrimination based on sex. This is a baseless argument because if one sex is not treated differently from the other there is no discrimination, and both sexes are treated equally. It’s not sexuality discrimination either, because it applies equally to all sexualities. Proponents want desperately to equate same sex marriage bans not only to interracial marriage bans, but also to civil rights violations in general of the past even though homosexuals have always had the right to vote, have never been slaves, and always have had the right to marry.
Supporters also want to pretend that no other exotic forms of marriage will be sought for is same sex marriage becomes the law of the land. Once the boundaries are removed for marriage then all others can be claimed to be a right, and not to allow them is discriminatory.
Their arguments are purely emotional designed to make opponents of same sex marriage feel guilty, ashamed, or even fearful via their terrorist techniques. Their arguments nearly always devolve into childish name calling, if they don’t start that way of course.
One point that must be made is that no department or branch of the federal government has any authority to make rules or judgements on marriage. There is no such sanctuary in the Fourteenth Amendment, and any such sanctuary claimed is a contrivance.
This is a very contentious issue so I will finish with one last point. There was a line in the movie ‘The American President” that everyone should pay heed where Michael Douglas’ character said, “America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”
I was listening to one of the lawyers who will be arguing for same sex marriage before the United States Supreme Court. One thing he said that caught my ear was his statement that since gays are born that way that it is no different than being born black, hence same sex marriage bans are akin to inter-racial marriage bans of the past. I will start out by agreeing with one point he made. I also believe that gays are born that way, and to choose to be gay is akin to choosing to be a leper. Very few humans are born perfect. Nearly all of us are born with some kind of birth defect and being gay is one of those birth defects. Unfortunately, birth defects can exclude you from activities you might want to participate in. For instance, pedophiles have a predilection toward children. This predilection is as much a birth defect as homosexuality, but does anyone think pedophiles should be allowed to have even a consenting relationship or marriage with a child. Should someone born blind be allowed to pilot a plane or drive a car.
A counter-point this lawyer made to the point that bigamy and polygamy or any other form of marriage could be argued to be a civil right if same sex marriage is allowed was that same sex marriage would be only between two persons. What he is trying to do here is undefine marriage to a stopping point that is acceptable to him which will preclude all other exotic relationships unacceptable to him. The problem with this position is that he doesn’t get to set those limits. He is in fact advocating for the full fledged undefining of marriage. If marriage is undefined, the other exotic relationships will follow suit, and marriage will one day become irrelevant which means the family will become so also.
Another point that is made by advocates of same sex marriage is that it is discriminatory. The question that usually follows is; How can anyone being opposed to one person marrying the person they love? Well, the possibilities are endless. Parent-child marriages just for starters—they love each other. In fact, same sex marriage bans are not discriminatory because it applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
Another question that is always posed is what effect will same sex marriage have on my marriage. The very simple answer is absolutely nothing. It’s not important whether or not same sex marriage affects my or the marriage of others. Same sex marriage cheapens and trivializes the institution which in turn cheapens and trivializes the family unit. A strong family unit is the most basic building block of every society and should be protected from those who want to live the myth that their exotic relationship is as important to society as that of one man and one woman. Marriage is the most important institution on the face of the earth and should not be toyed with in such a manner.
This will be brief. The federal courts have absolutely no constitutional authority to make rulings on gay marriage. DOMA was unconstitutional and so is any decision by the federal courts.The laws of marriage are solely the responsibility of the states and the people.
I don’t know if Travis County, Texas has a flag or not, but either way they should consider creating one with a hammer and sickle with a red background. After all, that would be very appropriate for a county with officials who use the power of the legal system to punish political enemies. The two statutes, Texas Penal Code, Sect 39.02 and Sect 36.03 that Perry was indicted under clearly do not apply to his actions.
As in the Hutchinson and Delay cases, this case will end in another embarrassment for Travis County. Bailey was found not guilty after only minutes of deliberation, and Delay’s conviction was overturned by an appeals court that issued a judgement of acquittal. Liberals are very simply communists without the ability to murder their political enemies, so they do the next best thing….send’m to jail.
The response by blacks in Ferguson, Missouri is just another call by a bunch of racists who demand justice for Michael Brown by demanding a lynching for the white cop who killed him, even before the facts come out…he’s white, so he’s guilty is their belief. They are demanding this in typical black fashion by destroying the property of those who had nothing to do with the Brown killing, and they wonder why blacks are stereotyped by the other races, and why so many blacks are in prison.
Well not so fast you racists for do you remember the Duke lacrosse team? Whatever injustices some white persons committed against some black persons in the past has nothing to do with the officer involved in this shooting. There is no grandfather clause that makes all whites living today guilty for the actions of whites who came before. Everyone deserves justice in this whole sorry episode, and we have a race industry in high gear that isn’t interested in justice. If the Officer killed Brown unnecessarily, then he should go to jail, but destroying the personal property of those who had nothing to do with Brown’s death certainly is an injustice, and is a scene fit for the movie “Jumanji.”
They want all the facts to come out about the officer, but want to suppress the facts about Michael Brown. In particular the fact that he committed a strong armed robbery of a convenience store. They didn’t want this video shown because it shows that Brown was not a little saint. He in fact was a man, a man looking for trouble, and the release of the strong armed robbery video is extremely important in showing Brown’s state of mind and also that he in fact was not a saint.
Obama has ignored his responsibility to protect the legal citizens of the United States from the invasion of illegal aliens from the south. He has fostered a policy of allowing illegal entry into the United States from the south, but now wants to claim that the law prevents him from immediately sending the recent invaders back home, pronto. So, he wants to ignore the law in order to allow such invasion to occur and up to the point that he can, then claim sanction of the law that prevents him from correcting his previous ignoring of the law. In a nut shell he allowed the illegal activity to occur until it became legal—how handy.
Actually, the law in question does not even apply to this recent invasion. The children who are part of this recent invasion are not here because of trafficking of any sort. They are here because they think they will be allowed to stay once here, and who can fault them for thinking in such a way, after all Obama has encouraged it.
Secondly, many of these so-called children are not of the teddy bear age group who came crawling across Mexico after mommy and daddy strapped a bottle and spare diapers to their backs and sadly embraced as their youngster scurried off into the sunset, but are of the give “me my gun so i can meet up with my MS13 pals” age. Also, from much of the video I have seen, many of these unaccompanied children are in fact adults. I guess they are classified as adult children.
So the tactic goes this way. Liberals talk about this invasion as if it is nothing but a bunch of poor little unfortunate babies who constantly cry for their mommy and daddy. Then say any who oppose the invasion are evil child eaters.
The answer is very simple……send’m back. They have no right to be here, and we real Americans have no responsibility to allow them in. If they want in, they can apply for entry via the immigration system like many others have done before them. The immigration system is broken, but only because the laws are ignored, except of course those laws that can be incorrectly invoked in order to facilitate invasion.
C.S. Lewis had the most spot on quote I think I have ever heard.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
I think this quote sums up a great deal the liberal mindset, but I think it does leave out something else. It is apparent to me that Liberals possess a god complex. Why do I say that? Well, Liberals believe that they can engineer the perfect economy which will end the unequal distribution of income. They believe they can create an economic system controlled by the Federallies that is capable of herding the trillions of economic decisions that over 300 million Americans make on a daily basis to the corral of economic fairness. No human, or group of humans are capable of such an endeavor.
Liberals also believe they can alter the currents of the skies and the tides of the seas. They attempted to scare everyone with the notion of global warming in order to implement their freedom and pocket book robbing environmental policies, but they ran into a big problem – there was no global warming. They were then forced to change the scare from global warming to climate change. By changing the scare tactic to climate change they were then actually freer to blame everything on it. They have blamed climate change for forest fires, too much snow, too little snow, too much rain, too little rain, low temperatures, and high temperatures. I remember a few years ago that there was a drought going on in Florida I believe, and a few hundred miles away there was flooding in the Mississippi River basin which of course according to our liberal gods was the result of climate change. They actually believe that the climate can discriminate so drastically between areas so close.
Liberals like to think of themselves as the great thinkers, logical and scientific, but are the first to ignore the most important way to learn…….history. Liberals live their pathetic little existence here on earth and presume to know what normal weather is. They ignore the fact that the world is millions of years old and has had periods that were warmer and periods that were much colder than now. When it comes to the economy they ignore the fact that no country, no government, no group of persons, and no person have ever engineered and managed an economy with success. All such endeavors have been complete failures.
The Liberal god complex very simply is an infatuation with eugenics. Climate eugenics, economic eugenics, and abortion.