Posted on 11/16/2008 8:19:21 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
There has been much "hate" described in media reports since election day in the nation, much of it related to the passing of Prop 8 as a Constitutional Amendment for that state and as such is no longer touchable by a state sanctioned court. Yet hate has abounded, not from the corners of Jewish synagogues, Mormon temples, Christian churches or Catholic cathedrals. Those are just the places we've been told "hate" resides.
The "hate" was also not found in any single ethnicity, political party, or geographical demographic.
No the side that has been doing all of the hating since election day in the troubled parts of our nation have been militant activists radicals, who happen to be mostly white, mostly godless, and nearly completely all choose to engage in homosexual behavior.
It is the radical activists roaming the streets, pushing elderly women to the ground, staging obnoxious protests outside places of worship, and in some cases interfering in the midst of worship services that have expressed all of the hatred seen since election day. They have even taken to harassing people on their way to or from the church door and their car.
But these haters are ignorant and as such, many Christians, Mormons, Catholics, and Jews have shown compassion upon them.
How are they ignorant?
For one they don't seem to understand the validity of Constitutional authority, Constitutional law, and Constitutional rule. They are running around ginning up the pathetic gatherings of theirs to "override" Prop 8. They don't seem to understand that the court is under the authority of the Constitution in the state of California. They don't seem to understand that if some Kangaroo judge attempts to hijack the resounding will of the people, having now passed in two landslide victories--even when outspent on the matter 6 to 1, they will have anarchy on hand. Given that to shred the explicit language of a state's sovereign constitution is to suspend all law, and all authority found in the law.
Secondly they don't seem to understand that those of us who choose not to engage in homosexuality, and even those who do--but do not take to acting like the equivalent of broodish animals--aren't fooled by what is attempting to be done. The activists keep marching, screaming and forcing spittle to fly in little old ladies faces, for what end? To change the definition of a word. Prop 8 didn't say that those who are protesting like wild coyotes can't create a contract in which every arrangement in life that they would like can be legally protected and allowed for. There is no discrimination going on against those who choose homosexual sex, they may still practice it, obsess about it, discuss it, believe it, and do it. But there is also no value in looking at the sacred sexual union of a man and a woman--with all the societal potential that such a union provides--and summarily saying that all other sexual unions should be considered the same exact thing. They are not the same biologically, emotionally, nor physically and it is easy to determine this.
Thirdly they are being grossly dishonest. No one has attempted to refuse a constitutional right to any of these persons. Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. The society has a right to sanction such a union because of that union's potential to insure the future of that society. Those who engage in homosexual actions cannot conceive. Those who do, do so simulating either heterosexual behavior either with a human or via artificial means. But nonetheless the ingredients that are required must be present to bake the proverbial cake.
But further on this point those who engage in homosexual behavior are still under NO discrimination. They can legally protect their estate, visit their partners in hospitals, and even dictate the conditions under which fidelity to that union be observed or insure adulterous penalties.
In California, the civil union law is one of the most liberal in the nation. But even if it were not the drawing up of a legally binding document insuring rights is now, and has been available since before the term "gay marriage" was even considered.
The true reason that the radical activists wish Constitutional authority to be undone, is very simple. Those who have been displaying rage and hate at the houses of worship, publishing the names of people on blacklists on the internet and encouraging violence, harassment, and worse against Prop 8 supporters--ironically--is due to their desire to see "hate crimes legislation" not only be passed, but amended to include those they would label "religious bigots."
The activists here are merely mirroring the history in the Scandinavian nations, and Canada in wanting to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Eventually it will be considered a crime to even say that choosing to engage in homosexual activity is immoral, or unhealthy, or heaven forbid, just plain wrong.
The activists have displayed bigotry in their protests as well. Choosing not to protest churches in--shall we say "economically challenged" neighborhoods like--Compton, they instead of made primarily white voters the victim of their hate-filled tirades. And while it was 1.6 million Barack Obama voters--many black and latino--that really served to make the win the decisive victory for marriage that it turned out to be, they have shied away from the churches attended by these same groups.
The Prop 8 H8ters lost for simple reasons, they do not recognize Constitutional authority, they do not respect the disagreement of their opponent, they are dishonest with the facts, and they are far less tolerant than what the majority have ever endured from the most homophobic person they've ever met in person.
These points have been made to me in mail that I have received from--wait for it--homosexuals, who themselves are embarrassed by the animalistic tendencies of those who are garnering all the attention on newscasts these days.
I also publicly wonder if McCain supporters acted this way (who lost in just as big a fashion as did the opponents of Prop 8), how long they would be allowed on the street, threatening peaceful voters who had done their civic duty and voted their conscience.
These activists h8te God, they h8te those who believe in God, and ultimately their argument is with Him and against Him.
And if they believe America is uncomfortable as it is now, wait until they are faced with more eternal choices--should they choose to reject Him.
Good summary of the disaster we call RADICAL LIBERALISM. Truly a mental disorder, and there is nothing AMERICAN about it....
All of the NO on Prop 8 arguments make the assumption that it’s discriminatory, when it is not. You can only discriminate against someone based on visual clues, not what goes on in someone’s head. First the left gets the term GENDER added to civil rights cases when there are only two sexes in the world. Basically they have taken a particular mental illness and classified it as social class, how observed. It makes as much sense to give rights to sexual orientation as it does to Sauerkraut lovers. Besides there is no requirement to prove that one is heterosexual to get married, so how are homosexuals discriminated against?
Society has a right to determine what it will Prohibit, Permit, and Promote. It permits homosexual couplings, but it promotes marriage between a man and woman. In order to survive and grow society needs stable families with two parents, a mother and a father because this is the only coupling that can produce children. It can get along just fine without homosexual behavior.
Excellent article! Thank You Kevin McCullough.
bfl
“Thirdly they are being grossly dishonest. No one has attempted to refuse a constitutional right to any of these persons. Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. The society has a right to sanction such a union because of that union’s potential to insure the future of that society. Those who engage in homosexual actions cannot conceive. Those who do, do so simulating either heterosexual behavior either with a human or via artificial means. But nonetheless the ingredients that are required must be present to bake the proverbial cake.”
No matter what they want... in their relationships, they ALWAYS are in a situation where one mimics the male and one mimics the female. They have to...there is no other template! But they want everyone else to accept this mimicry.
Outstanding article. I whole-heartedly support prop 8 and pray the courts don’t overturn it. If a sexual “preference” makes a person a minoroty then where does it stop? What about people who prefer children, animals? Where does it stop?
If gays argue that sexual preference is “from birth” does that also apply to those who prefer children? If so then it is a birth DEFECT!
Unfortunately this may not be true. There is now a lawsuit stating that Prop 8 was a "revision" rather than an amendment, which the CA Supreme Court has agreed to hear. According to the tortured reasoning, because it removed an "existing right" (invented by the court), rather than simply making an addition it "revises" the constitution. The CA Constitution requires that revisions must be placed on the ballot by 60% of the legislature, whereas amendments can be placed on the ballot by voter petition, ala Prop 8. Given the reckless disregard for democracy of the original decision, it wouldn't surprise me if they overturned it. Which is why we need a recall for the 4 judges who were responsible for the first decision.
That said, I believe that marriage purpose is procreation, and family, and that strengths the species. Secondly, I believe that children should be raised with a father and mother, again because it is good for the species.
So the Gay community feels bad because they have this defect, which the didn't chose, and transfer their “hate” onto others.
<><
Exactly the right come back on the "equal rights" question. Marriage is covered under contract law. Gays have every right to create whatever contract they want.
As to the religious covenant...well that depends on the congregation I guess!
The only grey area is when employers offer medical benefits to domestic partners. I was gun-shy about getting married a second time, so I looked into signing Mr. Cat up on my benefits as a "domestic partner," since my employer offered those benefits. I found out that the benefits would be treated as taxable income, supposedly based on the fair market value of them. If they wanted to fight this extra taxation, I would be in their corner, because I think it's stupid for the government to discourage people getting non-government medical care.
Bookmark
ditto
It becomes more and more clear to me overtime why the meek inherit the earth. (and what meek really means, besides the definition in the dictionary, in God's world as stated in the bible.)
And that includes the Governor or California, the Mayor of LA, and the LA city council (I am sure there are many more besides the protesters, but these three are the most vocal.)
The activists here are merely mirroring the history in the Scandinavian nations, and Canada in wanting to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Eventually it will be considered a crime to even say that choosing to engage in homosexual activity is immoral, or unhealthy, or heaven forbid, just plain wrong.
Bingo!
Home run article Kevin. Bless you for writing the truth with such strength and clarity. (and thank you 2ndDivisionVet for posting it. :-)
Saturday the Prop 8-ers (mostly young college kids) were protesting in DC on The Mall. It started pouring rain at 3:30 p.m. and they all ran for Starbucks and pubs.
God took care of the situation.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.