Posted on 11/22/2008 8:50:11 PM PST by troparion
The cornerstone of modern propaganda, PR, and advertisement is this: repetition, not truth, formulates popular convictions. We continue to hear in the media the argument that redefining marriage has led to abolishing anti-miscegenation laws (which forbade marriage between whites and non-whites) in the United States, and that those who claim to protect marriage today have the same mindset as those who promoted laws against interracial marriages in nineteenth-century America. This sophist non-sense is part of the continuous battle against traditional marriage, and a new moral smokescreen to trick those unaware of the history and purposes of marriage as a sacred institution. Those who argue with such lacking logic make it sound like marriage was always based on racial or class divides, and that modern laws, which struck down anti-miscegenation, revolutionized and redefined marriage to include racial equality. They basically want us to think that what we know as marriage today was the product of some modern democratic revolution, and that it can be changed and redefined on the same basis.
Again, the facts prove them wrong…
Laws banning interracial marriage were designed to redefine traditional marriage in the first place, not the other way around. They are modern laws that replaced the justifications which existed during slavery. They are only valid if one subscribes to modern racist theories that rank humans according to their races; such beliefs are simply heretical by any Christian standard. On the other hand, humans are created as man and woman, a biologically and psychologically compatible design that is meant for their unity and regeneration of life. Interracial marriage was never an issue in itself, and no mainstream religion has ever opposed or rejected it.
The people who argue for redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage ignore these facts intentionally regardless of their threat to the wellbeing of society. In reality, marriage is a socio-religious institution and not some customizable political concept one can possess whenever and however one wishes. Just as anti-miscegenation laws were modern violations of the traditional Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian concept of marriage, which is where the definition comes from in the first place, gay-marriage is also a violation of that same concept and qualifies as immoral by any standard we measure marriage by, be it biblical, sociological, or biological.
The Supreme Court should not invent moral codes to suit personal views of a handful of judges. On what grounds and with what authority did they come up with such a divine fiat? Gay marriage is simply an oxymoron with obvious anti-culture goals. Its stated goal is to say that Sodomy is not an exception, as it has always been, but the norm, or a norm, which must not be criticized or rejected by anyone no matter what their moral or logical stands are.
Homosexuality was not related to marriage in ancient times, and those who love to refer to ancient Greece or Rome to make that point simply mix the two issues and delude people into believing that gay-marriage was practiced or advocated in these cultures. The same goes for those who attack Christians with ridiculous claims that homosexuality or gay-marriage were accepted by the early church, and that some saints were homosexuals. Whenever two males expressed “love” it is immediately interpreted as sexual by post-modern perverts, and a word like “eros” (Greek έρως), which was used in the past to describe one’s love to God and his fellow human beings, becomes exclusively sexual and somehow proof that sexual bonds existed between people of the same sex in early church history. Sometimes, such brilliant theories can only be excused by profound ignorance, but in many cases it is obvious that they are meant to be intentionally misleading. After losing the moral battle to justify their stand, activists began to resort to race-based arguments, and recently to intimidation and force, because apparently, they also have the “right” to win.
I don’t wish to repeat what I’ve already stated in my previous entry, “When did Homosexuals Become a Race?” So I’ll leave it for the inquisitive to go back and read it.
Traditional marriage goes back much further than the Romans. Asian societies considered marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman not between 2 men or 2 women.
In the future, remember that the Activism sidebar is reserved for News/Activism of the FR chapters and not this.
This is one of the best vanities I’ve ever read. Great job and thanks for the post, excellent grammatical structure too.
Again I must implore the HomoActivists to please leave me out of it, leave my tax dollars out of it, and leave the kids out of it. If you HomoActivistst continue to try to redefine marrige upon the guise of some sort of Civil Rights thing, You will be sorry. I’m f’n tired of this, how many times must the people vote? Mayhaps Californians need to petition/demand that the 9th circuit be abolished? I don’t think that there are any laws that prevent a court to be abolished.
Gay folk, you get to be gay, and hardly anybody cares anymore, please STFU. 9th Circuit, you wanna get sucked down (oops wrong term) with this crowd? No, your’re on thin ice as it is. The Cali people will find a way to rid themselves of you if you keep defying them.
Similarly, a law stating "no homosexuals are allowed to marry" would be unjust - it applies to a person due to their innate orientation, rather than any voluntary action or factor under their control (assuming for a moment homosexuality is inherent.) The difference here is that the law prevents EVERYONE from marrying someone of the same sex. The law applies to me, as a heterosexual male, equally as it does to a homosexual male. The fact that I have no desire to "marry" men has no bearing. It is exactly the same as someone who might be born addicted to cocaine. Drug laws apply to that person and myself equally - just because they are more likely to run afoul of the law doesn't men the law in unequal.
I agree.
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices:
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices…So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed.
Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself..."
(see also: United States v. The Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.)
How ironic for the homsexual cultists who want “separation of church and state,” that the court case they want to base their argument upon was used against the LDS church to justify the statutory regulation of marriage in the United States!
What does the 9th Circuit have to do with anything?
Nothing yet. But just stick around a bit. Pretty soon the 9th Circus will have the opportunity to declare the California State Constitution un-Constitutional.
L
The 9th “jerkit” (credit Mark L) court of appeals is one of, if not the worst, offender of judicial activisim.
Supposedly the most liberal bench in (US) history. and certainly the most liberal on the left coast.
This court has been overturned by the SCOTUS more times than any other.
They need to go away.
I lived in Cali for a while, and I only liked the fact that sometimes I got to go to the local establishments, and while at home, listen to good AM radio, folk like Rick Roberts, Mark levin, Sean H, Billy O, And the RushBo, (Doc Mike is.. ok.., but he’s not my fave).
Even if the 9th had nothing to do with prop 8, I just want those scumbags to go away.
Bump for later Sunday reading
What is funnier is that advocates of same-sex “marriage” do not want any comparison to polygamy.
Could it be because of what happened to Utah polygamists back in the nineteenth century.
The law can regulate behavior but not biology. Homosexuality is a behavior while race is a biological fact. One is about the will and the mind, the other is about the body. A body in a casket can be black or white, but it can’t be gay.
That’s the bottom line, and it’s why laws against gay marriage and interracial marriage can’t be grouped together. They’re fundamentally different, but of course that doesn’t stop the gay rights Left from trying to blur the difference.
What’s incredible is that this stuff has to be argued and defended at all. It shows how successful the leftist assault on reality has been.
I don't know who coined it first, but Savage calls them the 9th Jerkit Court of Schlemiels. Makes me laugh every time.
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.