You are here: Home / Archives for Proposition 8

Homosexuality: The Political Battering Ram

April 12, 2013 by 8 Comments

“I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people.”

- Chai Feldblum, an open Lesbian who was nominated to serve as a Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Barack Hussein Obama

The lid has yet again been blown off of the radical homosexual agenda. As the Supreme Court held hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8, Obama spent $350 million on sexual indoctrination classes for children. The timing is impeccable.

Through the Personal Responsibility Education Program, students will be taught that no type of sex is wrong and that the only “unsafe” behavior is becoming pregnant.

One can look to New York City, which implemented a similar type of sexual indoctrination on NYC schools in 2011. This curriculum is taught to grades 5, 8, and 10, which students receive standardized testing on.

Here are some examples of their twisted curriculum:

  • High-school students go to stores and jot down condom brands, prices, and features such as lubrication.
  • Teens research a route from school to a clinic that provides birth control and STD tests and write down its confidentiality policy. (Interesting, I will say that again – they are to write down the confidentiality policy. Did you hear that, parents?)
  • Kids ages 11 and 12 sort “risk cards” to rate the safety of various activities, including “intercourse using a condom and an oil-based lubricant,’’ mutual masturbation, French kissing, oral sex, and anal sex.
  • Teens are referred to resources such as Columbia University’s website Go Ask Alice, which explores topics like “doggie-style” and other positions, “sadomasochistic sex play,” phone sex, oral sex with braces, fetishes, porn stars, vibrators, and bestiality. (See Exodus 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Do not those who developed this curriculum belong in jail?

Within a year after this perversion was implemented, an article was released in the Wall Street Journal that revealed cases of sexual misconduct by teachers and that the teachers’ unions were protecting the teachers who received little to no consequence for their crimes against children.

For example, teacher William Scharbach was found to have inappropriately touched and held young boys. “Respondent’s actions at best give the appearance of impropriety and at worst suggest pedophilia,” wrote the arbitrator, the fox in the chicken coop who was hired by the union to protect the union, before giving the teacher only a reprimand. The teacher didn’t deny the touching but denied that it was inappropriate. This is criminal!

Also coinciding with the radical push for sexual deviancy upon America’s children, we cannot forget about Dan Savage, a radical homosexual who dared God’s justice by authoring a book titled “Skipping Towards Gomorrah.” Savage uses the guise of anti-bullying with his Obama-endorsed organization “It Gets Better” – which is nothing but an attempt to normalize homosexuality. Savage attacked the Bible and bullied Christian teens at a high school journalism conference. Yes, I said “high school.”

It was reported that the first thing the bully said was, “I hope you’re all using birth control,” that the Bible was “bulls—”, and then spewed out sexual innuendos during his speech. The bully also set an atmosphere of hostility towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on himself – he was attacking students while crying “victim”. More than 100 students stood up and walked out of his derogatory, perverted, deranged, vulgar, and backward-meaning speech.

If Dan is not licking doorknobs in hopes that others get sick with the flu, then he (and his husband) is a guest at the White House for President Obama’s 2011 LGBT Pride Month reception, as well as attendees at the White House anti-bullying conference.

Keep in mind this is the same president who overlooked the ICE investigation into the Pentagon (5000 Pentagon employees were investigated for child pornography), who appointed over 225 homosexuals and transvestites into key positions in government (including Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who “queerified” Harvard), and who appointed as safe school czar Kevin Jennings- who wrote the forward to a book entitled Queering Elementary Education. Jennings’ hero was Harry Hay, an icon for NAMBLA (North American Man and Boy Love Association) whose motto is “sex before 8 before it’s too late” when marching in gay pride parades.

The NEA has worked hand in glove with this agenda as well. They already had an LGBT caucus for teachers but in 2010 felt it necessary to celebrate a new caucus: the “drag queen” caucus. The NEA also refused to pass Amendment I-24, designed to protect students from sexual misconduct by teachers. Many feel that they refused to pass the amendment in order to protect teachers who have sex with students.

No wonder this bully felt so emboldened to attack a bunch of high school students (and right under the noses of their parents.)

Dan Savage is also the same radical homosexual who said on HBO he wished all republicans were “f—ing dead.” In 2006, Savage said that a particular candidate for Senate “should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope,” which, by the way, stands contrary to the radical homosexual agenda’s premise for hate crimes legislation.

He also said on Bill Maher’s show: “I sometimes think about f—ing the s— out of Santorum. I think he needs it. Let’s bone that Santorum. I’m up for whipping up some Santorum in Santorum.” Savage also once claimed that “the only thing stopping his d**k from being put in Brad Pitt’s mouth is a piece of paper”, speaking of legislation. Did you catch that? I thought he was married. Out of his own mouth, he just admitted that “homosexual rights” are not about marriage; they are about promiscuity. He contradicts himself at every turn, my friends.

Here is a video exposing this sad soul:

If the president and the homosexual lobby went out to prove my point, they could have not done a better job. In concert, these two radicals are clearly and literally at war with God and America as you know it.

The radicals are now operating in the light of day what they used to do through deceptive measures.

The American people have found out the radical homosexual agenda’s every deception through their “civil rights” cry, their “hate crimes” cry, and now their “bullying” cry. At every turn, their false premise is discovered.

People have seen clearly, after Savage’s demonstration, their version of tolerance and love – it is quite the opposite. Attack and then cry “victim!” is their face for the world to see. It is bigotry to the fullest – hate and intolerance towards anyone who resists their perversion.

America must come to the very realization that this agenda undermines everything we are. People like Dan Savage used to be jailed for their perversion; now, they are hailed by this corrupt administration. When paralleling the actions of the radical homosexuals such as the Dan Savages of the world to the actions of our founders, we now understand why God calls it an abomination.

America, it’s time for you to learn from historyso it does not repeat itself. We can even look to Canada, which implemented homosexual marriage in 2005, and see the moral devastation.

It is clear to see that, unbeknownst to the average homosexual, the radical homosexual agenda is being used as a political battering ram to target our children and silence anyone who opposes their deviant and criminal behavior in an attempt to demoralize and enslave the American people.

John Adams, the second President of these Untied States, said that “Our Constitution is made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, reminds us that “Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of FREE governments.”

Who is Bradlee Dean?

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

Provocative? Yes. Hateful? No.

April 9, 2013 by 3 Comments

Church Michigan SC Provocative? Yes. Hateful? No.

Two weeks ago, I wrote a column encouraging churches to take a moral stand and make their voices heard as the Supreme Court deliberates the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which voters in my home state approved in 2008 to ban same-sex marriage.

I pointed out that the fight over Proposition 8 is not just about the legality of gay marriage; it’s part of a larger effort by some factions to change the culture. In that context, I wrote: “There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality. Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.”

Was that a provocative statement? Yes, but it was designed to provoke thought about worst-case scenarios and the value of morality in our society.

Did I mean to equate same-sex marriage with murder? No, I did not, and anyone who believes that is very mistaken. I believe those who tell me they favor gay marriage out of love; but I also believe they are engaging in behavior that is wrong in God’s eyes, and I believe this out of love for them.

Should I have made myself more clear, by rearranging the sentences and adding more detail? Probably, and I regret that some people misunderstood. The topics do have the common thread of morality, but one does not necessarily follow the other.

I should point out that my concern about the future of morality in the law is well founded. Justice Antonin Scalia, whom I admire for his no-nonsense Supreme Court opinions, expressed similar concerns writing for the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 homosexual sodomy case. He noted that “state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity” are sustainable only if validated by case law “based on moral choices.”

“Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s ruling,” Scalia wrote.

Scalia, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justice Clarence Thomas were on the losing side of the Lawrence opinion; but Scalia’s dissent found many logical deficiencies in the majority opinion, which found a protected liberty interest in private and consensual sexual behavior.

Scalia’s opinion goes on to discuss Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973. The discussion was in a different context, but the topic is appropriate here.

For those of us who believe that abortion is murder, we went far down the slippery slope 40 years ago when the Supreme Court nullified morality-based abortion legislation. Infanticide now happens every day under the guise of privacy rights.

Is it outlandish to suggest that other forms of murder might possibly become legal in the future? Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, and euthanasia is legal in some foreign countries. Who knows what the future holds; the slope is very slippery indeed when society cuts its ties to morality.

Where do we go from here?

I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will find that Proposition 8 is constitutional after all. Even the majority in Lawrence stated that their decision “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”

In the meantime, we are having a great debate; and churches should add their voices.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

Is Defining Marriage The Court’s Job?

April 2, 2013 by 7 Comments

US supreme court building SC Is Defining Marriage the Courts Job?

This past week, the Supreme Court was busy hearing two cases concerning the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States. No decision is likely to be made until the court takes their recess sometime in late June.

Many think that the court is going to make a wide, sweeping decision, declaring that same-sex marriage is legal. But is that really the court’s job?

The court’s job is to interpret the Constitution and our laws and to make sure the latter aligns with our founding document. However, the court has been more “judicially active” in the past few decades, meaning they have been legislating from the bench – which isn’t their job.

The fact that one of these cases, the Proposition 8 case from California, is even being heard is complete blasphemy. During the 2008 California State elections, Proposition 8 was a proposition on the ballot to amend the California Constitution by defining marriage in their state as “between a man and a woman.”

In 2008, the people of California spoke, saying that they want marriage in their state to be only between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Of course, soon after the people spoke, litigation was filed; and in 2010 in a district court, the law was ruled unconstitutional. Again in 2012, the very liberal Ninth-circuit court of appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling that the law is unconstitutional under Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses in the Constitution.

I do not believe that these two court rulings could be more wrong.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly enumerates the powers that are given to the federal government. The 10th Amendment says that any power not enumerated to the federal government is reserved to the states.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to regulate marriage. That is a power that is reserved to each individual state.

If the people of a state decide to not allow same-sex marriage, then that is perfectly okay! The same goes for any state that wants to allow same-sex marriage; it would be perfectly okay for the people of a state to allow same-sex marriage because that is their reserved power.

It is completely wrong and unconstitutional for our federal government to overstep their bounds and arrogantly believe that it is their duty to define what marriage is.

Frankly, that isn’t the government’s job at all. Marriage is purely a religious institution; and the government, on any level, should not be regulating this ageless and sacred practice.

However, I know the inevitable is for the court to throw out a decision either for or against.

Firstly, they should look at marriage under the scope of “Is it a fundamental right, or isn’t it?” If they believe it is, what are the reasonable restrictions that can be placed on it? Would marriage in the cases of incest or polygamy be okay?

These are questions that are going to have to be asked and answered before any decision can be made.

If the court decides for America that same-sex marriage is legal, what are the limits? Where is the line in the sand for the court and the federal government? A wide, sweeping decision could likely open a whole new bag of issues concerning the power of the federal government.

These court cases made the nightly news headlines all last week, but there’s one question I have to ask: Why is same-sex marriage more important than some of the bigger issues we have as a country, such as the $16.7 trillion debt?

One thing is for sure; 10 years ago, this movement didn’t have nearly as much steam as it does now. America is fundamentally changing. But is it really the change we want or need? We are going to have to answer that question come the 2014 and 2016 election cycles.

Follow Chris on Twitter

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

How America Really Feels About ‘Homosexual’ Marriage

March 30, 2013 by 5 Comments

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to give you the right answers.”– Bradlee Dean

In light of the Supreme Court hand-picking the issue of homosexual marriage this week – an issue that has been settled by our Creator, the laws of our republic, and the righteous compliance of the American people – I thought it was important to ask where the American people are deriving the belief that radical homosexual marriage is accepted by a majority of our citizens.

Fact: At least 33 states have voted down homosexual marriage.

During the state’s Proposition 8 battle, 7 million Californians voted against homosexual marriage (the majority were black voters.) Not once but twice was their voice heard. Yet, the corrupt judicial system got involved and stripped it from the hands of the people, placing it in the courts – right where they wanted it. That way, they could control the “debate”; and the state-run media were right there to help them along.

Another example dates back to May 1, 2004, in Seattle, Wash.

Approximately 25,000 people protested homosexual marriage at the Mayday for Marriage rally. Approximately 1,500 radical homosexual sympathizers showed up to protest the rally, holding up signs stating“Bigots go home!” The state-run media twisted the truth and told the public that the 1,500 homosexual supporters holding up signs stating “Bigots go home!” were the majority and made the 25,000 protesters out to be the minority, totally turning the event to be against the “bigots” instead of homosexual marriage.

The media repeated the same twisted reporting in Washington, D.C. this week.

Hegelian Dialectic

The Hegelian Dialectic is the tool that the corrupt in government use in an attempt to manipulate the minds of the people to accept their “change” when they normally would reject it.

The Hegelian Dialectic is the process in which the usurping elitists create a crisis, knowing in advance how the population will react to that created crisis, thus conditioning the people that a change is needed. Once that is achieved, they will then bring the “answer” to the crisis.

They attempt to control both sides of the debate over how and why the “change” is needed, thus diverting anyone from asking the right questions, in order to avoid bringing the right answer.

With the help of the state-run media, this process is repeated over and over again to make it seem as though society is accepting of their “change.”

Rather than citing the Bible, the Constitution, or the laws of our republic, they continue their manipulative debate until a perceived compromise is reached. The outcome of the “debate” – which purposely addressed the “concerns of the public” with the mandate to do something – is enacted as public policy (never law), and their radical agenda moves forward.

The Supreme Court, the media, and this administration are exemplifying the Hegelian Dialectic today. After placing radical lesbian Elena Kagan on the bench, they have attempted to take issues such as marriage out of the hands of the people so they can push their unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal agenda.

The same can be said with the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The American people accepted the lie that abortion is legal just because the Supreme Court said so.

As William Blackstone stated, “No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.”

After 57 million babies have been aborted, the American people are finally beginning to awaken to the fact that the Hegelian Dialectic has deceived them. If they would have shown their true intent by running on a slogan such as “Support the murder of innocent children. Vote yes today!”, the populace would have been appalled; and those who would have the audacity to advocate such a crime would have been thrown in jail.

Simply put, America is dealing with less than 1.7 percent of the population that is being used as a political battering ram to upend your Constitution.

Friends, remember they will always do what you let them get away with.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

Homosexual Manifesto – Satire or Reality?

Canada Warns America About Homosexual Marriage:

Who is Bradlee Dean?

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

A Modest Proposal For Polygamy

March 30, 2013 by 3 Comments

Polygamy SC A modest proposal for polygamy

Those arguing for “marriage equality” at the U.S. Supreme Court this week should be ashamed of themselves.

They’re just as guilty of discrimination as those dastardly conservatives still bitterly clinging to their guns and their religion. Why no argument for polygamy, polyamory, and other forms of diversity? Why are they only defending their exclusive definition of diversity?

How dare those seeking to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton, or Proposition 8 ratified by the people of California, stop at just redefining marriage to include two consenting adults of the same gender. Why do these people believe they have the authority to draw a moralistic line against any consenting adults, and thus force their moral standard upon the rest of us?

Besides, society’s views on these other progressive forms of relationship diversity are shifting; and shouldn’t we always base our concept of right and wrong off what we see on TV, just like our gender-neutral maternal units taught us? Who better to consult on moral matters than the huddled masses that paid money to see all those Saw and Hostel movies? For example, there is a popular reality show on basic cable called Sister Wives about the lost art of polygamy. Showtime is airing a trailblazing show on the multiple wedded bliss of polyamory.

Oh, sure, Showtime also features a series with a creepy old dude watching 1970s porn with Z-list celebrities as well, but who are we to judge?

Why would those seeking to redefine marriage to include homosexual monogamy play right into the hands of those Draconian religious fundamentalists who think they and their alleged “God” have the authority to narrowly define love among consenting adults? Why aren’t those arguing for “marriage equality” being inclusive by including marriage among multiple consenting adults as well? Besides, polygamy is in the Bible no less. Abraham, David, and Solomon are just some of that dusty old book’s heroes who were polygamists. No member of the American Taliban can claim their puny God destroyed a whole city over polygamy, so why not be more inclusive?

If the government has no power to discriminate against relationships involving two consenting adults of the same gender, then why does it have the power to discriminate against multiple consenting adults of any gender? Next thing you know, we’ll be back to banning interracial dating!

If we’re truly champions of diversity, it’s time to embrace polygamy, polyamory, or “multiple marriage.” What better way for children to learn about different cultures and belief systems than to grow up around them in their own families? Imagine children being born into a household where each dad has a different religion, each mom speaks a different language, and then sometimes the dads are attracted to one another as well as the moms (and vice versa). Talk about covering all your bases!

It’s time for the marriage equality movement to stop being hypocrites and cease practicing its own form of discrimination and to stop compromising with pro-marriage bigots. Take a principled stand. Either all of us get to do whatever we want with as many whomevers as we want, or none of us are equal.

Steve Deace is a nationally syndicated radio host.

Photo credit: tantek (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Corrupt Media Cheer For Homosexual Rights

March 28, 2013 by 5 Comments

Liberal Media SC Corrupt Media Cheer for Homosexual Rights

More explosive evidence of the media bias driving the campaign to change America’s culture and Judeo-Christian foundations has emerged.

Speaking at a “gay journalists” event in New York City last Thursday night, Natalie Morales of the NBC Today Show declared: “Many of us here in this room—the media—we are responsible for opening the world’s eyes to these issues and the stories that have brought about such change. When you think 18 years ago when this organization was founded—think of where the country was back then. And now, 50 percent—according to the Pew poll that we talked about on the news today—support gay marriage, and…some other polls put that number even higher. [This] reflects a change in attitudes in this country.”

This was not just an event where journalists “came out of the closet” for homosexual rights; it was a fundraiser for the cause. Our media paid big money to participate as sponsors and hosts.

My associate Peter LaBarbera and I covered the homosexual rights fundraiser, held in New York City under the auspices of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), and saw first-hand that it was a “who’s who” of media stars from every major news organization in the U.S. They included Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie of NBC, Gayle King of CBS News, Christine Romans of CNN, Amy Robach of ABC News, and Amanda Drury of CNBC.

The really big star of the evening was Natalie Morales of NBC’s Today Show, who told LaBarbera in a brief interview: “I think what’s happening here is this is a new civil rights movement…And I believe that they should be allowed to get married and love equally.”

In her remarks to the gathering, she joked about getting a lesbian kiss. “Now I have to say I’m a little flustered because on my way in here I was actually in the ladies room, and making out with a woman,” she said at the start of her remarks. “She insisted I was Jane Velez-Mitchell [of HLN]…Seriously she was screaming and shouting, ‘Jane, Jane, Jane!’ And I was like ‘I’m not…’ But I just gave in because we all know HLN stands for the ‘Hysterical Ladies Network.’ And …it was a good kiss, I’ll give her that.” She also commented on the “queens” in the audience of the reception being held in the Prince George Ballroom. CNN’s Javier Morgado introduced her.

While the atmosphere was festive and “gay,” the New York papers were catching up with news about a new strain of bacterial meningitis breaking out in the gay community. This was something that nobody wanted to talk about, at least publicly.

Contessa Brewer, formerly an anchor at MSNBC, was a major star, posing for pictures before declaring her support for homosexual rights and homosexual marriage and denouncing opponents of such as the equivalent of racists. She wanted my associate Peter LaBarbera to know, in a brief interview captured on camera, that she felt this way even though she was the daughter of a Baptist preacher.

Here is the transcript:

Peter LaBarbera: “I’m Peter LaBarbera with Americans For Truth. We’re sort of on the other side of the issue. We’re for traditional marriage and so forth….My question is: for some in the media, are you afraid that there’s not fair coverage for the other side—[that] now it’s veering so far the other way…that sometimes there’s a tendency to—”

Brewer: “You know what’s so funny about this? When we’re talking about racism, nobody ever says, ‘Do you think there’s fair coverage for racists?’ That’s my feeling about the matter. I think that there’s a difference between being objective and being fair. And sometimes wrong is wrong, and the right thing to do is say when it’s wrong.”

LaBarbera: “A lot of Christians, for example, think that racism is a sin, but they also think that homosexuality [is a sin].”

Brewer: “You know what I say? I grew up as the daughter of a Baptist preacher, and you know what my answer always is? If you think it’s wrong, then don’t do it. Thank you [she walks away].”

NBCUniversal was the big host, with other media sponsors Bloomberg, CNN, CBS News, Fox News, BuzzFeed, The New York Times, and Newsday. Company sponsors were Vodka maker Voli, JetBlue, Heineken, Hillshire, Eli Lilly and Company, General Motors, the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, and Fleishman-Hillard.

The new president of the NLGJA is Jen Christensen of CNN, who previously worked on CNN’s “Special Investigations Unit.” She says, “We are not an advocacy group,” referring to the NLGJA. But the entire evening was advocacy. There was no pretense of being even-handed in covering the homosexual rights movement, of which they are clearly a major part.

It is worthwhile to examine the nature and depth of the bias as the Supreme Court takes up important court cases on homosexual rights because of the influence of the major media in bringing the country to this point in time. This event was concrete evidence of the bias from those in the media who have driven the campaign for homosexual rights for decades.

Morales was ecstatic: “What a difference a year makes. Think about where we were just even a year ago—all that has happened in the news for the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] community in particular: the repeal of the military’s ban on gays and lesbians, the widening support for same-sex marriage. The world seems to be evolving slowly but surely—from the President changing his position [on same-sex marriage] last year, to most recently this week…former Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton now saying gays and lesbians are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. And last week of course Republican Senator Rob Portman said he now supports gay marriage because he wants his son, who is gay, to have the same rights to love equally. I mean this of course is 2013 but it is happening.”

Even though this event featured all kinds of media celebrities, you will not find the media reporting on themselves because it would blow their cover—and blow the whistle on the bias they are implementing on a day-to-day basis. That is why Peter LaBarbera and I covered the event. We figured the media would not hesitate to pat each other on the backs.

Now that the nature of the bias is evident for everyone to see, however, the bias will take another turn as journalists will ignore the evidence that the major media have taken one side of the debate. What is significant is the lack of any real major media opposition to this bias.

Photo credit: wstera2 (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Churches: Time To Fight!

March 28, 2013 by 7 Comments

Evangelical Church SC Churches: Time to Fight!

You can’t win the fight if you don’t put on the gloves.

A punch-drunk, old heavyweight boxer knows that’s a truism, but not the churches of America.

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state by a 52 to 47 margin in 2008 but has since been declared unconstitutional by federal courts.

Fox TV, Rush Limbaugh, and other talk-show pundits have weighed in, arguing the conservative — and moral — position that sanctifying gay marriage with the grace of the U.S. Constitution is not only wrong but a serious threat to the culture of this country.

But those media outlets often speak to those who are already in the choir. That leaves a lot of other Americans who aren’t hearing anyone preaching the conservative argument on gay marriage.

I don’t expect the GOP to provide any leadership. Republicans are too busy cat-fighting with each other and making sure their presidential choice will be whooped by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

And where in the heck are the churches on the issue of legalizing gay marriage?

Where are the Protestants, Jews, and Catholics? Have they lost their tongues? Their hearts and wills? Their institutional you-know-whats?

Where’s the moral outrage? Why aren’t thousands of our pastors, priests, and rabbis shouting from their pulpits? Why aren’t they leading their congregations through the streets in mass protest?

Why aren’t their bishops appearing on the tube with David Gregory and Piers Morgan to defend the institution of marriage as a union of one man and one woman?

Like the bank executives who are too chicken to stand up to the federal bullies in Washington, and like the energy company bosses in California who won’t stand up to the Green Socialists in Sacramento, the churches cower in fear.

Are they afraid to lose their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status by engaging in political activity? Are they afraid to be derided as religious nuts and cultural Cro-Magnons by the liberal media?

Or are our churches and their comfortable leaders simply no longer willing to fight for what is right?

This fight over Proposition 8 isn’t just about saying it should be legal in the eyes of government for two people of the same sex to get married in California.

It’s ultimately about changing the culture of the entire country; it inevitably will lead to teaching our public school kids that gay marriage is a perfectly fine alternative and no different than traditional marriage. There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality. Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.

Churches should be in the vanguard of the fight to defend the culture against legalized gay marriage, not hiding in their pews.

Sure, the mainstream liberal media will be against them and will ignore them as much as they can. But if the churches show up en masse — and make sure millions of their members’ voices are heard — the media will be forced to cover them, and even the Supreme Court will feel the political wind.

Meanwhile, as the High Court decides our fate, it’s time for the churches to get engaged and start fighting for America, instead of wimping out. If it takes them giving up their 501(c)(3) status to start fighting for righteousness, then I’m all for it.

Photo credit: NatalieMaynor (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,

‘Marriage Equality’ Spells ‘Marriage Extinction’

March 26, 2013 by 3 Comments

Gay Marriage SC ‘Marriage Equality’ Spells ‘Marriage Extinction’

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.

Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.

Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.

The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish contradiction-in-terms labeled “same-sex marriage.” Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine, and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage – or leave it alone.

They’d better leave it alone.

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality,” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

In a recent column headlined “The Revolt of Intelligence Against ‘Marriage Equality,” worldview expert Rick Pearcey addressed one prominent “gay” activist’s admission that the destruction of natural marriage signifies the left’s ultimate cultural coup de grâce.

“Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia,” he wrote. “‘It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry,’ she said. ‘But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … ‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”

Still, if counterfeit “same-sex marriage” becomes the law of the land, then a whole lot more freaky deaky will follow before marriage extinction inevitably occurs.

One of liberals’ favorite Alinskyite defense mechanisms is to ridicule the opposition if confronted with some irrefutable argument against some hallowed left-wing delusion. Such is the tactic employed whenever a thinking person walks into the room and points out this big ‘ol gay elephant: Once the government pretends that some vague combination of “love” and “consent” are all that a “marriage” requires, then other “arbitrary” and “discriminatory” parameters beyond a binary male-female prerequisite must also go poof.

That is to say, if the Court magically divines some constitutional right to “same-sex marriage,” then full “marriage equality” necessarily demands that polygamous, incestuous, and any other equally aberrant nuptial cocktail be likewise permitted.

It’s a “no-brainer,” right?

To that end, I’m very concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.

In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically redefined male-on-male sodomy – hitherto classified “a crime against nature” – as a “constitutional right.”

In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia voiced my concerns better than I can: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one special-interest group, then “equal protection under the law” requires that it remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.

Liberty Counsel made these very points in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,” noted the brief. “In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.”

Another brief filed by 18 state attorneys general voiced similar concerns: “Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,” they wrote.

The brief further observed the self-evident “no-brainer” that legitimate marriage is “optimal for children and society at large.”

It’s all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage. And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. “‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”

I sincerely hope that the honorable and learned men and women who sit on the highest bench in the land recognize that all of these San Francisco-style social-engineering games are a deceptive means to a destructive end. And it’s not the emotionalist end they’ve dolled-up and dished out. The left’s fierce push for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “marriage equality” and everything to do with “marriage extinction.”

Or, as Ms. Gessen candidly put it: “[I]t’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

I just pray that at least five justices still think it should.

 

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.

Photo credit: Dave Schumaker (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,

Chief Justice Roberts’s Lesbian Cousin To Attend Gay Marriage Hearing

March 25, 2013 by 6 Comments

John Roberts 2 SC Chief Justice Robertss lesbian cousin to attend gay marriage hearing

The lesbian cousin of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will attend Tuesday’s oral arguments examining California’s Proposition 8 ballot initiative, which bans gay marriage in the state.

Jean Podrasky, a San Francisco woman who says she hopes to marry her partner, told the Los Angeles Times that she plans to be at the court for the arguments. She told the paper the chief justice knows that she is gay, and that she attended his confirmation hearing along with other family members.
Podrasky also said she hopes to introduce Roberts to Grace Fasano, her partner of four years, during the trip to Washington, and is optimistic about how her relative will rule.

“He is a smart man,” she said. “He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going. I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction.”

But Podrasky also said she didn’t know whether her presence, or having a family member who was openly gay, would sway her cousin.

Read More at The Hill . By Justin Sink.

Photo Credit: McConnell Center Creative Commons

Filed Under: News From The Web Tagged With: , ,

Emotional Embrace Of Same-Sex Marriage

March 23, 2013 by 9 Comments

obama gay marriage sc Emotional Embrace Of Same Sex Marriage

This has been another eventful month regarding the national conversation surrounding same-sex marriage (SSM).  Last week, Ohio senator Rob Portman had a “change of heart,” coming out in support of SSM as a result of his son’s recent confession of being gay.

This week, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and famed, former mega-pastor Rob Bell both came out in support of gay marriage. Clinton, preparing for a presidential run in 2016, justified her position by saying that “gay rights are human rights” and adding “I believe America is at its best when we champion the freedom and dignity of every human being.” For her, this includes marriage.

Bell, who is in the midst of his book tour said on Sunday at San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral: “I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs — I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.”

And let’s not forget the Justice Department’s amicus curia brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8, California’s ban on SSM.

Though I don’t support SSM, I think that SSM advocates will see the legal affirmation of the gay lifestyle, and marriage will be redefined. I believe this because the case against SSM hasn’t been made consistently enough to turn the tide.

In all the back and forth on the topic, there are several issues that seem to be purposely overlooked and not discussed when the topic is raised.

At the outset, most agree that the topic of SSM is an emotional one.  It’s emotional for those who happen to be gay and who desire to be married.  It’s emotional for those who have friends or loved ones who are gay and want them to be “accepted”- part of that acceptance is having the opportunity to be married.  It’s also emotional for those who, though they may have friends and loved ones who are gay, still hold to the understanding that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  Further still, it’s emotional for those who struggle to remain faithful to their religious worldview that impacts their understanding of marriage.

It’s precisely because of emotionalism that reason hasn’t prevailed.

The one issue that’s repeatedly raised when discussing SSM is the notion of “rights.” Advocates of SSM argue that marriage is a basic “right” that is denied to gays and, as such, is illegal.  Therefore, in the interest of fairness, marriage (by law) should be extended to gays in the same way that it is extended to non-gays.

This sounds convincing.  To deny a basic right to one group of people while extending it to another group of people is wrong and discriminatory.  And if that’s what the law does, it should be rescinded.

But that isn’t what the law does.  First, marriage isn’t a “right.”  It’s a civil institution that all societies in history have used and have recognized as the best way to legitimize, protect, and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the law doesn’t deny basic “rights” to a particular group unfairly.  When the law defines and recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman, it doesn’t exclude any gay person from marrying. The law treats non-gay people the exact same way it treats gay people in regards to marriage: both are prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.  This means that under the law, a gay person would have to marry the same way everyone else in society has to marry – someone of the opposite sex.  As it relates to all unmarried persons in America, the law is extended equally and doesn’t discriminate based upon sexual preference.

Furthermore, there is no “right” to marry- civil or otherwise- found in the Constitution.  Every single time a person or court claims the denial of the “right” to marry is “unconstitutional,” they’re lying.  The Constitution says exactly nothing about SSM.  When this claim is offered as a defense of SSM, as is currently being done before the Supreme Court, it’s legally unfounded.

Consequently, when gay advocates and gays assert that legal refusal to marry someone of the same sex is a denial of rights that exists for everyone else, it simply isn’t true.  What they’re actually claiming is a new “right” that doesn’t exist anywhere for anyone regardless of orientation- the right to marry someone of the same sex. The “right” for a person to marry someone of the same sex has been denied to everyone.

Another claim that’s continually offered is that people should be allowed to marry whom they love, especially if they’re consenting adults.  Unfortunately, this also isn’t credibly defensible, and here’s why.  Technically, gays can marry other gays.  These ceremonies happen all the time.  Numerous clergy members of varying religions are more than willing to perform these ceremonies.   The only thing that the newly married won’t receive is governmental and societal affirmation and recognition of being “married.”

But if SSM is legalized, how can that law be defended when society arbitrarily moves the discriminatory lines of separation, and how is it justified? If it’s okay for gays to marry other gays because of love and consent, why don’t we allow/legalize polygamy when the parties involved are in love and consenting? Why not aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same requirements of love and consent are present?  If it’s discrimination against gays, why wouldn’t it be discrimination against these other parties if SSM is legalized? And if it is discrimination, how is it justified in light of the qualifications that are used in favor of homosexual marriage?  If we’re to be intellectually honest, legalizing SSM means legalizing a number of other relationships based on the same criteria used for homosexual marriage.

In the end, the law doesn’t take into consideration love when defining marriage- and rightly so. If it did, the relationships above would have to be legalized, normalized, and accepted as equal.

Yet another claim SSM advocates use for legalizing SSM is to claim it’s a “civil rights issue.”  To equate the struggle of gays to selfishly redefine marriage with the struggles that black Americans underwent to gain civil rights undermines their argument because it trivializes the misery and misfortune blacks suffered through to gain the level of acceptance that exists today.  There are no “gay only” bathrooms, drinking faucets, or entrances; gays aren’t relegated to sitting in the back of the bus or forced to say “yes sir” and “no ma’am” to their non-gay equivalents.  There is no gay equivalent to Jim Crow laws; gays aren’t having fire hoses or dogs used on them merely because they’re gay – and thank God for that.  So the similarity falls short.

Rob Portman, Hillary Clinton, and Rob Bell have compassion for gays and rightly so.  But to radically redefine an institution that has existed for all of human history and sacrificing reason for sympathy- while forfeiting responsibility for the repercussions-is cowardly and transparent.

Photo credit: khalid Albaih (Creative Commons)

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,