Tag Archives: Gay Marriage Homosexuality Lesbianism Marriage Family Gender Civil Unions Domestic Partners

How “Marriage Equality” Could Destroy Everyone’s Liberty

chained

Whenever the phrase “equality” is used to make anything legal, look out, it’s not about fairness or liberty; it’s about having whatever one personally wants no matter the consequences to society and life in general.

The phrase “equality” is a very compelling argument. After all, here in the United States where liberty reigns and the Constitution upholds our natural rights to God-given liberty, we don’t want to take away anyone’s liberty.

Everything beyond our natural rights is a privilege individuals must work for—unless it is marriage. In that case, we are talking about something that has never been equal, because religions and societies are not equal.

Marriage is not listed in the Constitution, and for good reason: Marriage is a religious liberty instituted by God before governments ever existed. Government did not create marriage, government should never be allowed to dictate marriage or people will indeed lose private life. That’s why marriage is state-by-state.

But don’t think for one moment government would not like to get its expansive paws on marriage and dictate the rules of marriage and divorce.

Think about it: Do citizens apply for marriage licenses in Washington, D.C. or local town and city halls? If Americans sought D.C.’s permission to obtain marriage licenses, leaders would have the power to control how and when individuals marry, and heaven forbid, control marital life.

So, whenever Americans hear talk of “marriage equality,” look out, it’s an open door for government to finally become completely involved in private life, and when that happens, don’t think marriage affirmative action won’t be next on the list.

And therein lay the problem and questions no one’s asking both sides of the marriage argument.

What would the government do if marriage is taken from individual state’s and those rights are handed over to federal power?

There goes another Fourth Amendment liberty right down the tubes!

We must ask serious questions rather than assuming “that will never happen in America,” because too much of what we thought would “never happen here” already has and we are on the verge of all-out socialism.

Do readers really want marriage socialized and determined by the Federal Government? Could the Federal Government actually take control of marriage if given power to define marriage? If so, what are the possible repercussions?

If the Federal Government is given power over marriage, it would no longer be a state-by-state issue; a state’s right.

If the Federal Government has the power to define marriage, Washington could hold all Christian churches in contempt of the law if they refuse to perform same sex marriages.

Suppose the Federal Government were to twist Biblical scriptures “Judge  not lest you be judged,” and “whoever casts the first stone,”  falsely claiming scriptures demand no church can say no to same sex marriage or churches are violating scripture. Just imagine the Federal Government holding churches in contempt of the scriptures.

Never put anything past those who want to control the lives of citizens and use the Bible as a weapon against Christianity.

There goes more religious freedom.

Americans aren’t taking into account religious freedom; not having government impose its will upon our lives, which includes marriage. If we completely lose religious freedom, and we’ve lost much to the Left, Americans will in fact lose all liberty, because religious freedom is the foundation of this country.

Open the doors and let government into marriage and we wind up saying “I do” to the government.

As if we aren’t already.

Again, marriage has never been government instituted, but many determined to have rights to marry in all 50 states by-way-of  federal government mandate are not considering facts: They too will lose all rights to private life if the Federal Government is allowed to define and mandate marriage.

If given power to define marriage and give it “equality,” government could have power to define and determine who gets married and when.

How does Marriage Affirmative Action sound to readers?

Suppose the Federal Government said Christians can’t be married this year because the Federal Government does not have an equal quota on all marriages Christian, Jewish, gay, Hindu, Atheist, Muslim, black, white, Asian, etc.?

What if  race-card panderers, who claim America is too white, place a quota on white marriages to lesson American’s birthing more whiteness?

Never assume power-hungry, vote-grabbing politicians, those with race-card platforms, and those who hate Christians and traditionalists, would never do any of the above to Americans.

Here’s another question: If the Federal Government has control over marriage, couldn’t it have the say over who can and cannot divorce?

Just imagine the Federal Government telling abused women they cannot divorce dangerous husbands who beat them.  Or denying Muslim women rights to divorce Muslim husbands threatening to behead wives, because Islam says women are second class citizens. Islam would no doubt demand Sharia Law marriage equality in America since it does in Europe. Abused women, Muslim and non-Muslim, already face difficulty when trying to free themselves from abusive situations; if government gets involved, government could say America has too much divorce, and then watch the real war on women begin.

Imagine the Federal Government not letting women divorce pedophile husbands on the grounds some claim pedophilia is a life-style choice, or, because some psychiatrists consider pedophilia a mental disorder that needs understanding and not condemnation.

Why would that be far-fetched when courts free pedophiles all the time on grounds of mental health disabilities rather than declaring them violent criminals and imprisoning them for life.

And let’s not forget divorce attorneys! They must rubbing their hands with glee over the fact they might become twice as wealthy if gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

Never assume this could not happen in a country where the Federal Government long-ago overreached it’s 17 Enumerated Powers into the states.

And let’s not forget polygamists; they consider their marriages religious liberty.

If Americans seriously think polygamists are not hoping the Supreme Court sides with gay marriage and the Federal Government makes marriage legal for everyone, America is wearing rose colored-glasses. Polygamists want equal rights to marriage,  they’ve already jumped on the bandwagon for “marriage equality” and are demanding federal rights to marry multiple wives, including young girls forced into polygamist marriages in Colorado City, Utah.

Hey, give one group rights to marry, you must then provide full liberty and equality to all, right?

No one realizes how much power “marriage equality” holds for government to overreach state’s further and completely intrude on and order everyone’s fourth Amendment rights if marriage is government controlled.

Don’t ever think the Federal Government would never do that.

How obama’s Gay Marriage Views Have ‘Evolved’

obama announced Wednesday that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his public opposition after feeling pressure from several Democrats, including his own Vice President, Joe Biden.

obama’s position on same-sex marriage has changed several times during his hideously dishonest, radically motivated, meteoric career. In 1996, he was in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. Then, in 2008 his view “magically” switched to “marriage is between a man and a woman”. More recently, up until Wednesday, his opinion was “evolving”.

What this reveals about obama is how coldly calculating is his timing. Each and every reversal of position coincidentally benefited obama’s political prospects enormously. It’s clearly not an accident that each shift in his position happened at exactly the right time…for him.

Back in 1996, while running in a Democratic primary to become an Illinois State Senator from Chicago, he took the position that suited the views of that electorate. He was an open supporter of same-sex marriage.

When obama announced in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman, he was running a nationwide campaign for president. He clearly understood that Electoral College votes might not fall his way if he openly supported gay marriage. Naturally, since the ends justify the means, a dishonest shift in his position seemed perfectly appropriate to him. As was his tactic in the 1996 State Senate campaign, he tailored his views to suit the electorate.

Now in 2012, when he’s struggling to raise funds for his re-election, obama suddenly supports same-sex marriage…again.

It’s no mystery that the gay community makes big donations to Democratic campaigns. Since obama needs donations from the deep-pocketed gay community, don’t expect him to change his position on same sex marriage again. That is, unless and until it becomes politically expedient.

Since he first took center stage within the national public eye, obama’s constantly preached about how he will have the most transparent administration in American history. In this instance, on this issue, that claim carries a semblance of truth.

What are the odds?

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/how-obamas-gay-marriage-views-have-evolved/

The Fiction of Same Sex Marriage

The Fiction of Same Sex Marriage

Some things just can’t be changed. In nature and science, fire is hot and ice is cold. Wind always blows and the sun always shines. The aforementioned facts are not up for discussion or debate. Facts are facts. There is no movement underway to “redefine” or “better understand” these facts. They are accepted because they are tested by time and have been proven to be true.

With the advent of the destruction of an absolute authority in society (the Bible), has also come a redefining of many things. For instance, gender is up for debate. A “Christian” college some years ago offered three types of housing to its students: male, female, and transgendered housing. The transgendered was for those students who were not sure of their gender. Huhhhh! Without being crass or too improper, there is a real easy way to find out. The answer is so common sense, it does not even need mentioning. This sad event is due to the destruction of absolutes.

The definition of murder was changed years ago when it was given new names such as “choice,” “abortion,” “birth control,” and “freedom,” to name a few. The fact of life beginning at conception used to not even be a question, but an accepted truth.

There are many absolutes in life. Here are some more:

1. Death is the absence of life,
2. A sperm from a male and an egg from a female are required to begin a new life, and
3. Politicians, both Democrat and Republican, will always raise taxes if given one-tenth
of a percent of an opportunity.

Things are not always as they appear. The union of two people of the same sex may appear to some to be a marriage, and it in fact may be a union, but brother, it ain’t a marriage and no amount of name changing, redefining, compassion, or tolerance will change the truth.

And speaking of civil unions, they should not even be allowed. A civil union for “domestic partners” is a mockery of marriage and an endorsement of fornication by “legally” allowing two individuals of the same sex to live together and potentially receive some of the benefits reserved for marriage.

If every court in the land declares a homosexual union to be a marriage, it still will not be marriage. There are certain legal qualifying factors required for a couple to be married, but the foundational requirement of marriage, is a requirement that is moral and common sense: that the candidates be of the opposite sex. And by the way, masculine and feminine roles are even found among homosexuals. Among two lesbians, one tends to be masculine and among homosexual men, one partner tends to be more feminine. Even in a homosexual relationship, an attempt is made to represent the two genders, which validates the common sense fact that a normal relationship requires one of each gender. There is also the common sense fact that homosexuals do not physically “fit” one another, not to mention the emotional misfit.

The recent push for perversion is not just an attack on marriage. It is an attack on God, the creator of marriage. Nevertheless, you better get ready. Buckle your seat belts. This push endorsing homosexual marriage as the real deal will continue to grow as this current administration and politicians eagerly endorse it for votes.

Final thought: If Adam and Steve had been the first couple in the Garden of Eden, none of us would be here today.

Joseph Harris has been a college professor and pastor since 1987 and his writings have appeared on WND, Sword of the Lord, Intellectual Conservative, Conservative Daily News, Canada Free Press, Land of the Free, and The Post Chronicle. [email protected]