We’re Going to The Supreme Court! The Supreme Court Takes Review of DOMA and Prop 8!

ACLU ^ | Dec 7 - A day of infamy | James Esseks, Director, ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project

[chopperjc]

So..... Marriage and a hose are the same thing? Really?

[DBeers]

Many republicans back this as well.

ONLY the limp wristed spineless progressive leftist RINOs like Romney do!

[jonrick46]

The same-sex marriage fight is indeed a serious issue and can best be fought in the states with the support of the Church. The Obama Regime is poised to eliminate the Defense of Marriage Act if it can de-normalize heterosexual monogamy. Whether to bring the fight into the presidential campaign is a tactic, I am afraid, could distract from the issue of Obama’s economic incompetence. It is the economic issue that is the silver stake into the heart of the Obama Regime. And it is the failure of Keynesian economics, which was proved a failure during the FDR Regime, that Obama revived for its same failed effect. We need to get to the bottom of why he revived this failed economic plan. That answer should kill his credibility on this issue.

On the perversion of the family issue, we need to formulate a clear message that defends monogamous heterosexual marriage. We have a huge electorate who does not know the implications of normalizing homosexual relationships and has been dumbed down by the Hollywood media. You see them clapping on shows that promote homosexuality and same sex marriage. Most American have no clue what the battle is about. The media indoctrination for same sex marriage has been irresponsible and non-stop. How we stop the propaganda campaign will be a challenge.

Basically, same-sex marriage violates the natural parent-child bond in every family, and the right of the family to protection by society and the state. It will discard the fundamental understanding that the family based upon the heterosexual marriage is the very foundation of society. Same sex-marriage will de-naturalize the family by rendering in their entirety familial relationships as ever changing expressions of law. That universal understanding for thousands of years that the family is a small society (a sovereign state) with unique rights and responsibilities independent of the state will be no longer. Instead, the family will become mere policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state. The family (this society) founded more immediately in nature—the proles (procreation or fruitfulness)—will no longer have the distinction of sexual difference, with its distinctive quality of generative power. The family must continue to be the natural and fundamental group unit of society. With a change in the definition of marriage the family will have no direct connection to nature. This leaves the parent-child relation open to increasing intervention by the state. And with the possibility of the state being influenced by foreign forces, the definition of the family could be expanded to include such barbarous practices as marriage to children and polygamy.

With the definition of marriage redefined, the state with its new found power, will undermine further the sovereign nature of the family, and the sphere of the church or religious community as well—the two spheres where divine and human rights independent of the state are located. This will come as an all out assault on hetero-sexism, or anything that seems to privilege the male-female binary or the nuclear family. It will enable the state to indoctrinate our children and deprive us of the power to intervene. The individual—men, women and children—will be reduced to be subjects of the state with no divine rights. We must understand the serious nature of this fight. There will be no peace to be had by capitulation.

The big question is can this fight be fought in the midst of a presidential campaign? Could it backfire and be used against our candidate? Remember, we are dealing with an indoctrinated public who is ignorant of the real issues and their consequences. Can smart minds formulate the argument sufficiently that they will not be painted with the wide brush of political correctness?

This fight must be be vigorously taken up by Christians who can boldly declare that marriage is a gift—something we receive with creation, not something we invent—and that only what is capable of being a marriage act is natural sex. I believe that this issue can be fought on the moral level as it presents itself to the sovereignty of the family. It should be made a human rights issue. Then, it ceases to be a Republican or a Democratic cause, and spun to justify an attack against our presidential candidate.

[Cvengr]

The obvious way God designed it. The arrogant don’t have a clue.

[chopperjc]

I understood your point I just think your analogy is demeaning to marriage.

Marriage is a lot more than that IMO.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Meanwhile, in Phoenix, a police supervisor claims two gay city officials interfered with his supervision of the police “gay outreach” officer, who has now been arrested for raping two boys.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2012-12-06/news/gay-city-officials-accused-of-meddling-in-phoenix-pd-investigation/

[Jumper]

Some if this is already a moot point with concern to Government Employee Benefits: Obama directed Hillary at the State Department to enact an entire body of law, predicated on Foreign Service Regulations and Manuals. All that is required to have a domestic partner is to fill out a form and declare your dependent; then you can live in diplomatic housing provided by the government, your partner has the same hiring rights as a spouse or child, they get security clearances at the Top Secret Level to work in any embassy, consulate or those nifty Annexes in Libya..., you get travel and other paid benefits that military and state department family members have always been entitled to under the Joint Travel Regulations. All of this without an actual line item authorization by the Congress or Senate, but rather funded from those authorizations for family members - should be an issue in the Budget, no? :)

[ExxonPatrolUs]

What’s next is pushing Christianity indoors and out of sight because the Dems say we only have a right to worship in designated places. Next is limiting deductions on charitable contributions to 2% of your income - never mind we strive to tithe 10%. Next is taxing charities same as any other business. Next is telling a Christian adoption service who to give the orphans to. Next is telling Christian hospitals which patient to kill and which doctor to lock up for not following the rules.

[chopperjc]

Actually on social issues it always seems to be expansion not contraction. From handicapped rights to affirmative action to abortion and guns now LGBT. I really haven’t noticed were these rights have contracted.

[KittenClaws]

Regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks, or what many of us think...the Supreme Court is not made up of Supreme Beings.

After Obama care passed, I learned the supreme courts’ number. They do not have my respect . After passing the unconstitutional health care bill, none of us should have good faith in this court . If the rule is for or against our beliefs, it is still to be brought into question.

Or, we could be sheep and bah, bah, bah, all the way to slaughter.