Skip to comments.Marriage: The Real Fight Has Just Begun
Posted on 02/05/2014 7:56:40 AM PST by massmike
For quite a while, the efforts of key black clergy members preserved the traditional definition of marriage in Illinois. Their courageous standwhich included placing relentless pressure on black Democratic legislatorshad the opposition gnashing its teeth in frustration.
In the end, however, the well-funded and aggressive campaign to redefine marriage succeeded. It is worth noting that the margin in the House was razor thin. The measure would not have passed without the three Republicans who supported it: Representatives Cross, Sullivan, and Sandack.
The widespread support for traditional marriage in the black community has been very difficult for radical homosexual activists to understand. After all, if we are to believe their narrative, blacks should be nothing but grateful for all our gains in civil liberties since slavery. They believe that our own experience with oppression should impel us to go along with whatever homosexual activists tell us to believe.
But those who feel this way completely misunderstand what the Civil Rights Movement was all about. It was not about radically restructuring society. We appealed to the rights given to us by our Creator, who created not only mankind, but placed us in families. The family was the one institution that held the black community together through slavery and segregation. And it is the black community that has suffered most acutely as marriage has been devalued and the family has begun to fall apart.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Good article. Thanks.
I think, in the end... it may come down to whether the government does, or does not have the right to define the terms of what “marriage” is.
Seems to be a no-brainer to me. But, the courts have to think things over... forever.
Homosexuality is about sodomy, not love. Two close friends with strong emotional ties are indistinguishable from two homosexuals ostensibly. The difference is that the homoSEXuals engage or are oriented to engage in sex acts involving the same sex. When we expose our children to homosexuals and homosexual “marriage” we expose them to same-sex sodomy, for without sodomy there is no homosexuality, just close friends.
Don’t let the homosexuals mask their primary identifying characteristic by talking about love and ignoring sodomy. Remind anyone that when you talk about homosexuality, you are talking about same-sex “sex,” and that kids should no be exposed to discussions of it.
Authority has always defined LEGAL marriage, whether it was ancient Rome, or Greece, or Catholic ruled Europe, or the Quran, or New Guinea headhunters, or 1780 Virginia, or whatever.
There is legal marriage, and there is the choice to just do what you want and not comply with the law, you could do that at any time.
If you don’t want the government to recognize your marriage and prefer to just self define, then don’t comply with their law, Americans do it all the time
Thank you for referencing that article massmike. Please note that the following critique is directed at the artice and not at you.
Beware of the PC term “civil rights” of the 50s and 60s. The only guaranteed rights in the USA are those right which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect. It is very important to note that the federal government cannot make laws to protect arbitrary rights; only the states have the Article V constitutional authority to amend the Constitution to enumerate rights. In fact, constitutional lawmakers made the 14th Amendment to clarify that the feds can make laws only to strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights.
What’s going on with so-called federal civil rights laws is the following imo. Corrupt federal lawmakers have been taking advantage of widespread ignorance of its constitutonally limited powers, inventing constitutionally indefensible “rights” to win votes from low-information voters. Such ignorance also includes not knowing the difference between legislative, executive and judicial powers.
Regarding so-called gay “rights,” for example, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect such rights. So the states can make laws which prohibit gay marriage, for example, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutonally enumerated rights.
On the other hand, note that low-information voters, both rich and poor, don’t question when activist judges wrongy legislate gay rights from the bench. Corrupt judges get away with these things because, again, citizens are not being taught the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers or the differences between legislative, executive and judicial powers.