The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage should give marriage defenders in California reason to be thankful during this week of thankfulness and family celebration.
Hang on … I’ll explain in a moment, but first the gut-wrenching reality that has become our rogue judiciary.
Every immoral slide created in California creeps east, swallowing the rest of the country. From this state’s “belly of the beast,” to the nation’s Beltway, the “immoral blob” slowly decays every pillar of common sense and foundational reference of righteousness as it rolls eastward. But in the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, there was a slight turn of fortune.
The Old Bay State’s “supreme thinkers of law,” or better suited, the “supreme ‘tinkerers’ of law,” ruled that same-sex couples are legally entitled to marriage under the state constitution. With this ruling, we have one more example of our out-of-control judiciary creeping into the individual and separate roles of the executive and legislative branches of government, implementing a new way to law in America, a new legal paradigm for America and her constitutional process.
Being a strong constitutionalist, I never thought I’d say this … I believe it is now time to support an amendment to the Constitution that defines and recognizes marriage as the institution of one man and one woman. I’m not a fan of constitutional amendments. I believe our Constitution is a solid document, not a living and breathing flex of emotional and cultural thought. But in this battle with the left’s rogue judiciary artillery, this culture cannot lose the institution to a lifestyle that is nothing more than envious of marriage, not essential in the meaning thereof.
The court’s ruling cited as a reason to extend marriage to homosexuals due in large part to their opinion that homosexual relationships can nurture love and mutual respect. Stating that “gay” marriages can bring stability to society, provide legal, financial and social benefits, impose legal, financial and social obligations, in an attempt to find equality in purpose if not in behavior. Truth be told, homosexual relationships cannot perform these ingredients to the same value and level as real marriage – heterosexual marriage. To ignore this obvious fact is nothing more than political and social engineering through ignorance.
Another opinion referenced the 1967 Supreme Court ruling, removing a ban on interracial marriages and equating this to discrimination. I, for one, am ashamed that we had a ban on inter-racial marriages, as late as 1967 in America, but we are not talking about bigotry over ethnicity of race or skin color, we are talking about a choice of lifestyle.
There is no discrimination in denying marriage to homosexual couples. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman it has nothing to do with denying anything to anybody! The question was “whether marriage should be extended to include gays?”. The answer is no, because the institution and the definition is conclusive and exclusionary.
Another opinion outside the law was an old stalwart for the Supreme Court: choice. This court ruled that marriage is simply about “choice” of a marriage partner, with the only qualifier being the “health of the relationship and the offspring.” It took lunacy to offer this up as logical reasoning for expanding the institution of marriage to “individuals” who “chose” to love another, no matter the consequences to themselves, their offspring or society itself.
Try halting polygamy or incest under this category of marriage? Imagine if brother and sister desire to be married, (if they both “chose”), currently we don’t deny anyone the right to marry when they have serious generic diseases and possibilities because they are heterosexuals – even if odds are high. We warn them, but we don’t ban the relationship or the marriage. Consider the same standards applied for polygamy and incest marriages.
Time to call this ruling what it really is … nothing more than a well operated (financed) agenda looking to create an equal standing between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Their silver bullet – due to the Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit” clause: Other states will have to honor marriages performed in Massachusetts under a reciprocity agreement, a loophole for homosexuals to travel to Massachusetts, get hitched, steal the institution of marriage and run to their home states and claim the same.
Quite the battle plan, wouldn’t you say? The announcement hit the news media like a ton of bricks. Citizens from east to west were quickly engaged in debate and conversation – some might say agony – over what would happen next. Will we be ready to defend the institution that has benefited society and creation, or will we become myopic in our apathy, offering the common statement, “Well, it doesn’t affect me and my marriage”?
This is where the rejoicing part comes in, a point of rejoicing over some forethought and offensive action from those who believe in the created institution. As I was preparing for my morning show and conversation, I paused for a moment of thankfulness.
There needs to be some congratulations offered to the supporters of California’s “Proposition 22,” which defended the institution of marriage for the Golden State and was passed by nearly 64 percent of the voters in California. Without this piece of legislation, now law, the citizens of California would be battling the next Supreme Court marriage heist. For now, California has secured the institution of marriage.
I know, many of you are concerned about the essence and bartering of marriage with the “name game” of civil unions, but remember without Prop 22 we would have no ground to stand against this rogue mentality and behavior inside of the nation’s judiciary. Your vote in support of Prop 22 – and the effort of those who lead its existence – needs to be congratulated!
The Prop 22 effort not only saved marriage for future generations in California, it forced the “immoral blob” to go east for a change. If nothing else, it reveals to the country that not all of the immorality happens in California and where the darkness is the darkest, those who carry a candle of light shine the brightest. Thank God for foresight, obedience and commitment of those who spearheaded Prop 22 for California … we should all be thankful today.
Now, let’s get to work on that amendment, shall we?
