Posted on 04/03/2009 12:00:09 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
Today Iowa becomes the first state not on either of the nation’s two liberal coasts to impose counterfeit, homosexual ‘marriage’ or its mischievous twin, ‘civil unions,’ on its citizens through judicial tyranny. To call this decision bankrupt is to understate its perniciousness. The evil genius of the pro-sodomy movement is that it targets noble institutions like marriage and adoption in the name of ‘rights,’ and then perverts and uses them to normalize aberrant and destructive behaviors.
'Homosexual ‘marriage’ is wrong because homosexual behavior itself is wrong and destructive – as proved by its role in the needless, early deaths of countless ‘gay’ men. We must shake loose of the secularists’ and libertarians’ amoral nonchalance regarding ‘same-sex marriage’ by asking questions like this: how exactly would two men consummate their ‘gay marriage”’ Answer: by engaging in what one Founding Father, Noah Webster, writing in saner times, rightly defined as a ‘crime against nature.’
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," said abolitionist Wendell Phillips, and the evidence keeps pouring in that the entire homosexualist agenda is at war – not just with our nation’s Biblical heritage – but the freedoms that made the United States of America great and blessed among nations. When the courts order society to effectively pretend that changeable sexual misbehavior is a ‘civil right,’ the law itself becomes perverted by punishing people of faith for their proper opposition toward deviant sex. The battle between ‘gay rights’ and religious freedom is a ‘zero-sum’ game – as even lesbian Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum admits.
I’m afraid that the pro-family movement – eager to provide secular, public-policy arguments against ‘gay marriage’ – has failed to convey the monstrous evil of expanding, state-sanctioned homosexualism in our midst. Our Creator is pure, perfect and holy, and homosexual behavior is diametrically opposed to His will for people’s lives and His purpose for sex within the healthy boundaries of marriage, for the procreation of children. This same God graciously provides a way out of this sinful lifestyle through His son Jesus Christ, a path many former homosexuals have taken – including those now living in real (man-woman) marriages.
It is high time for pastors, in Iowa and across the land, to shake off their stifling, politically correct timidity and again become the prophetic voices for Truth they were called to be: by boldly warning Americans – Christian and non-Christian alike — about the perils of our growing accommodation with the sins of proud homosexuality, and sex outside marriage in general.
Judges on Homosexual Marriage in Iowa: “Rule it and they will come.”
“Hurley acknowledged that until a constitutional amendment could be placed on the ballot, there’s nothing gay-marriage opponents can do to stop gay couples from marrying in Iowa. The soonest such a vote could take place would be 2012.”
Not true. Religious leaders are already conferring about an appeal that could be made within the next few days. There is a rock solid legal argument that this new social engineering abridges the rights of religions institutions to refuse to perform artificial homosexual unions. The new ruling threatens to criminalize preachers and ministers who believe that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and immoral. Just like the public decency and morality clauses that many civil service jobs require, the clergy cannot be forced to acknowledge such perverted same-sex union.
“A neighbor had reported a ‘disturbance’ and the police entered. The police had probable cause to enter. The neighbor, however, later admitted to lying about it, and pled no contest to filing a false police report.”
Same thing. If someone calls the cops and reports they saw someone being bound and gagged in a neighbor’s home, the police have an obligation to investigate. Even if the neighbor lied, if the police find a homosexual inside the home abusing a child, they can still prosecute. It was all done under probable cause. As much as liberals want to condone homosexual sodomy, it was illegal at the time. So the cops were only following the law.
I didn’t say the police acted improperly. I was just correcting the assertion that they entered the home to execute a warrant to arrest someone. They did come with a warrant.
“In the end it will be difficult for the opponents of gay marriage to work their way around the Equal Protection Clause.”
How so? Sexual preference is a behavior, not a physical trait like skin color. The liberal DemRats are always trying to equate the two, but that argument is totally illogical. There is no “Equal Protection” when it comes to a sexual lifestyle choice. Otherwise polygamists and others would have special rights.
From Colin Powell’s autobiography:
“I think it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline to try to integrate gays and lesbians in the current military structure.” “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”
“The new ruling threatens to criminalize preachers and ministers who believe that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and immoral. Just like the public decency and morality clauses that many civil service jobs require, the clergy cannot be forced to acknowledge such perverted same-sex union.”
How is the Iowa ruling different from, say, the one in Massachusetts? I’m asking sincerely, and not to be contrary. I’m just wondering, since you don’t hear about clergymen in other states with legal gay marriage talking about being FORCED to marry people.
My church can refuse to marry anyone they want right now. Do you really believe that this ruling would change that?
DR, Hawk720 is right.
Except - it was a put up job by the two queers so they could file this very suit. They WANTED to be arrested.
You are absolutely correct. If "sexual deviancy" is covered under the Equal Protection Clause, then not only homosexuals, but polygamists, pedophiles, zoophiles and voyeurs enjoy equal coverage.
Scalia broached this very point in Lawrence, but SCOTUS ignored it. Consequently, the courts are setting precedents that will inevitably result in even greater coarsening of society.
Illegal aliens under the Equal protectin clause cannot be denied admission to a public school.
Being an illegal alien is a behavior.
bump
Plyler is certainly the “odd man out” when it comes to the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence. It’d be a mistake to rely on it for much of anything. The behavior argument is unlikely to come into play anyway in future Court decisions on the matter.
Oh, and you seem to be equating support for sodomy laws with opposition to Lawrence. That’s pretty ridiculous. I’m gay and opposed to such laws , but I think Lawrence was decided on pretty shaky constitutional grounds .
“Being an illegal alien is a behavior.”
So is choice of religion. But I sure hope your not equating freedom of religion to those who choose an immoral and unhealthy sexual practice. There is no connection whatsoever.
“I’m gay and opposed to such laws”
Please don’t take offense to this, but I would like to get the truth from the horse’s mouth so-to-speak. Wouldn’t you agree that the liberal homosexual activists in your community have a definite agenda which includes normalizing the behavior and getting it to be condoned in the school system? What can we as Conservatives do to stop that? I have nothing against homosexuals, just their lifestyle choice and unhealthy sexual behaviors. We just want what is best for our kids and to steer them clear of alternative lifestyles.
While Plyler may be the odd man out, it is still the law of the land.
And sooner or later, the question of gay marriage will go to the SCOTUS and such bans will be overturned.
That is not what I wish to see happen, but rather what will happen when gay marriage question is plugged into the Equal Protection Clause.
Is 6 years later too soon for the legalization of polygamy?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2211457/posts
Our neighbors to the north seem to be heading in that direction-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2212532/posts
Interesting quote from the article here-
“Given the impact on dependent children, it will not be long until plural marriage is fully legalized, either by statute or by the cumulative weight of court decisions dealing with the practical issues arising from polygamy. It took almost four decades to move from the decriminalization of homosexuality to the legalization of same-sex marriage. I doubt it would take a decade for polygamy to follow the same path.”
Way-out hyperbole on the "always".
When my mother and dad were teens in Iowa during depression years it was anything but liberal.
One dumbass judge doesn’t make a whole state liberal.
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.