‘Gay Marriage,’ Historical Imperatives, & Marxism

Share on Facebook2Tweet about this on Twitter2Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Share on Reddit0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someonePrint this page

Update: August 16, 2010 LA Times

No gay marriages in California before December, court rules

Full text below the fold.

According to expert testimony before the House in 1963, the 26th of the “Current Communist Goals” was:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

That is the way Don Hank began his August 11th article in Laigle’s Forum,Is “Gay Marriage” a Historical Imperative?

The broad brush of intolerance and bigotry are being used to paint those who refuse to accept “gay marriage” as an acceptable legal “right.”  Proponents claim this has been going on throughout history and it is about time to end the repression and give these hapless, innocent people the legal equality they deserve.

Is this just another Marxist tactic to indoctrinate the ssheeple?  Don Hank presents a  case and describes its dynamics:

“This activist is portraying “gay” marriage as a historical imperative.

Hegel’s concept of the historical imperative found its first application in communism by the founders of that ideology. It is an example of the Left’s inversion of all things. If you are an ordinary person, you look at history objectively in logical chronological sequence, from past to present.

Not the Leftist. He sees history’s starting point in the future utopia that he imagines. For him, all recorded history must meet one criterion: It must show unequivocally that all of history is marching toward a great egalitarian revolution, where all are equal. It is inevitable and the history books must be revised to reflect this “fact.”

“Gay marriage” is an important stepping stone in the quest for this revolutionary “equality” or “social justice.”

But do Utopians really ever bring about equality and social justice?”

Friends, man did not institute marriage and man has no jurisdiction over it. The State began requiring and issuing “marriage licenses” around the end of the Civil War to permit intermarriage of blacks and whites which had been “illegal” before this time.

In his brochure on marriage Pastor Matt Trewhella wrote:

“Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”) Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.”

[Read more here.]

Today, the UN has made declarations to define what the “World Community”, in its infinite godless wisdom, deems marriage to be. The World looks at marriage as a contractual, business arrangement, which is easily dissolved and it is therefore best regulated by government.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.'”

God established  marriage as a physical, emotional, spiritual relationship between a man and a woman (look at the corresponding body parts) which, when consummated, results in the unity of two people into one. Its dissolution is hated by its Creator and is never easy; it is a wrenching, tearing, destructive process. Just ask any child whose parents have divorced.

The governments of the world are free to regulate business arrangements and put constraints upon them as much as their populace allows, but no government can rightly redefine a relationship established and constrained by the edict and command of God.  If government can legislate the definition of marriage, what human relationship can’t it regulate?

If  marriage is simply a business arrangement, subject to regulations, then the products of the business are also open to inspection and regulation, correct? So the government can regulate your children? Is this where family social service agencies  get their authority to go into a home and confiscate the children, when any unproven accusation is made?

Is this why schools can decree that all children will be taught about sex, beginning in kindergarten, and that “no parental option to decline is allowed”? Or the school staff can take a young woman from her school to an abortion clinic and never inform the parents that she was even pregnant?

A state which is empowered to instigate these intrusive regulations of your parental decisions, is free to direct every aspect of your personal family life. This is why the State feels compelled to tell you what to feed your child, how much exercise your child should get, and why your first grader has two hours of homework, which requires you to schedule your family time around their assignments… and the State has just told you how to spend your parental investment.

The definition of marriage, family, and parent have all been changed in order to allow for a Utopian vision of “social justice” which must include equality for all sorts of  behaviors and couplings which are unacceptable to more than half of all Americans. So a small minority of varied social deviants are made equal and receive the State “seal of approval”  while the majority, moral and faithful, are disenfranchised. If this isn’t Marxism and control of every aspect of your life, please explain it to me.


“Mamacooks” is, as the name denotes, a woman of family and as her Articles and Daily Inspection entries connote, a force for superb-womanly “truth, justice, and the American way,” in this world. – GB

Update:  Three judge panel release brief order:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday agreed to keep same-sex marriages on hold until at least December.

In a brief order, a three-judge panel agreed to an expedited review of U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s Aug. 4 ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as a violation of the federal Constitution.

The panel agreed to hold a hearing on the case during the week of Dec. 6 and ordered both sides to present arguments on whether the campaign for Proposition 8 has legal authority to appeal Walker’s order.

Walker had declared Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, saying it violates gay men’s and lesbians’ rights to equal protection and due process.

The defendants in that case were Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, but they declined to defend the law. As the losing parties, they have the authority to appeal Walker’s ruling. But they hailed Walker’s decision and said they would not appeal.

A private group that opposes same-sex marriage, ProtectMarriage.com, defended Proposition 8 during the trial Walker held earlier this year. The group wants to appeal his ruling but may lack legal standing to do so.

Share on Facebook2Tweet about this on Twitter2Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Share on Reddit0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someonePrint this page

Comments

  1. So Newsweek editor, Jon Meacham, has made the case clear:

    “If a person is homosexual by nature—that is, if one’s sexuality is as intrinsic a part of one’s identity as gender or skin color—then society can no more deny a gay person access to the secular rights and religious sacraments because of his homosexuality than it can reinstate Jim Crow.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/08/12/prop-8-shredding-spurs-newsweek-editor-repeat-religious-case-gay-marriag#ixzz0wVWghHRE

    Let me extrapolate; all men have a fallen nature due to the transgression of Adam. Each seems to have a different area of weakness (as evidenced by the plethora of offenses committed each minute). According to Mr Meacham no one should be punished or even prohibited from exercising their natural bent.
    Close the prisons! Shutter the courthouses! Fire all the lawyers! Dismiss all the Law Enforcement Officers! Everyone must be allowed to act out any impulse that stems from their nature; If a person is a thief by nature- if it is intrinsically part of one’s identity, If a person is a murderer by nature – if it is intrinsically part of one’s identity, If one is an extortionist – if it is intrinsically part of his identity, if a person is a drunk driver – if it is intrinsically part of his identity….. the defense is simply, “I couldn’t help it, it’s who I am. Ask my mother”

    If this isn’t the weakest, most ridiculous statement every made… I’m just dumbfounded! BTW Christian author John Milton is surely spinning in his grave!

  2. Howdy! Do you know if they make any plugins to help with SEO?
    I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good results.
    If you know of any please share. Kudos!

  3. Hi there are using WordPress for your site platform? I’m
    new to the blog world but I’m trying to get started and create
    my own. Do you require any html coding knowledge
    to make your own blog? Any help would be really appreciated!

Speak Your Mind

*