Home » atheism, Blog, End Times, evolution, family, General, homosexuality, human rights, Liberalism, marriage, morality, original sin, philosophy, politics, Progressives, Secular Humanism » The Death of the Republic and Gay Marriage

The Death of the Republic and Gay Marriage

I have spoken out against gay ‘marriage’ from a number of different viewpoints on this blog but there is one angle that I feel reflects the real danger that gay ‘marriage’ presently poses, and that, in the United States, is the death of the Republic altogether.

There are of course all the other arguments, but ironically, pro-gay ‘marriage’ advocates like to brush those aside as being ‘religious’ in nature, and demand that you only bring ‘secular’ arguments, but this argument actually is secular.  Irony on top of irony, their arguments are the ones religious in nature.   I should mention this very important thing:  gay ‘marriage’ is only the latest manifestation of an acid that has been eating away at American society for decades, if not even more than a century.  In a nutshell, we are witnessing the near collapse of the rule of law and the effective disenfranchisement of a huge majority of the American people, all brought about by relentless manipulation and propaganda coming from our schools, our media, and the government itself.

I would like you to consider how it is that we are on the verge of having gay ‘marriage’ codified as the law of the land right now, considering that over the last ten years or so, state after state, referendum after referendum, constitutional amendment after constitutional amendment, has gone against gay ‘marriage’ and explicitly affirmed a ‘traditional’ understanding of the term as denoting a lifelong relationship between one man and one woman.  To achieve this, gay ‘marriage’ proponents have essentially burned down the country to get what they want.  Perhaps they deem that this is worth it.  Obviously, they must.  However, and I am totally sincere in this warning, with no malevolence implied or intended, this kind of precedent can come back to haunt them in some serious ways.   There is such a thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face.  Some may see some poetic justice to such a thing happening but again, there is such a thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face!

To put it another way, if only the gay ‘marriage’ proponents had worked patiently and persistently within the system, respecting the wishes and will of their countrymen, I would have been thoroughly against their position and terribly displeased by it, but hey, in our system of government, if you can play by the rules and garner up the necessary legislative support for you position, I say more power to you.  This is precisely the courtesy that has been denied to those with my position, with the added insult that we already played by the rules and garnered up the necessary legislative support for our position!  And how has this been done?

By the whimsical judgement of a handful of men and women–probably not more than 30 people, out of a population of 300,000,000 plus–who have seen fit to override the will, as expressed explicitly at ballot box after ballot box for fifteen years, that’s how.

Yea, that can’t end well.

But perhaps you cannot grasp the full scope of what has happened and just how quickly it has.  Allow me to produce some documentation.

First of all, we clearly knew where things were going for awhile.  In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), was passed by Congress.  Consider these stats:

In the House, the ‘yeas’ were 342 and the ‘nays’ 67.  In the Senate, the ‘yeas’ were 85, and the ‘nays’ 14.  It was signed by the lusty Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

While 224 of the ‘yeas’ on the House were Republicans, 118 Democrats voted against their comrades to support the bill (118-65).

In 2013, SCOTUS struck down DOMA as unconstitutional;  so much for SCOTUS not wanting to intervene in matters best decided by the people through their elected representatives.

I know what you are saying.  Why are we talking about a piece of legislation that is 150  years old?!?!?  How can this be relevant today?!!?  People’s attitudes can change after 150 years.  We’re talking about a bill that was passed years and years and years ago–not only are the people who passed it dead, but the children of those who passed it are dead!

Oh, wait.  What is 2014-1996 again?  Quick, can a recent graduate from a New York public school get out a calculator and figure this out?  Is it 150?  I apologize.  I’m sure its closer to 100;  ages ago, at any rate.

Oh, wait.

The writing was clearly on the wall, and of course everyone knows you can’t very well trust the Feds, so now the states get involved.  Wikipedia has very helpfully helped organize the sequence of what came next.

These are all amendments to state constitutions rejecting gay ‘marriage.’ Do you know how hard it is to get constitutions amended?  It’s hard work, Jim.  Nonetheless:

  1. In 1998, Alaska ratified its ban on same-sex marriage with 68% of the vote.
  2. In 2000 AND in 2002, Nevada did the same, with 69.6% and 67.1% of the vote, respectively.
  3. In 2000, Nebraska did, with 70% of the vote.
  4. In 2004, Mississippi passed its with 86% of the vote.
  5. In 2004, Missouri did, with 72%.
  6. In 2004, Montana did with 67%.
  7. In 2004, Georgia did, with 76%.
  8. In 2004, Kentucky did, with 75%.
  9. In 2004, Louisiana, did, with 78%.
  10. In 2004, North Dakota followed suit, with 73%.
  11. In 2004, Ohio concurred with 62% support.
  12. In 2004, Oregon did, with 57%.
  13. In 2004, Utah did with 66%.
  14. In 2004, Oklahoma did with 76%.
  15. In 2004, Michigan did, with 59%.
  16. In 2004, Arkansas did, with 75%.
  17. In 2005, Kansas passed theirs with 70% of the vote.
  18. In 2005, Texas did with 76%.
  19. In 2006, Colorado did, with 56%
  20. In 2006, Tennessee did with 81%.
  21. In 2006, Alabama did, with 81%.
  22. In 2006, South Carolina did with 78%.
  23. In 2006, South Dakota ratified theirs with 52% of the vote.
  24. In 2006, Wisconsin did with 59%.
  25. In 2006, Virginia did, with 57%.
  26. In 2006, Idaho did, with 63%.
  27. In 2008, Arizona did, with 56%.
  28. In 2008, Florida did with 62%.
  29. In 2008, California did with 52%.
  30. In 2012 — CENTURIES AGO! — North Carolina did theirs with 61%.

Only in one state did an amendment to ‘clarify’ what the human race has heretofore considered ‘marriage’ fail, and that was in Minnesota, in 2012.

Let’s count.

30-1.

Setting aside for now how ancient these efforts were, let us observe first of all how in the vast majority of the cases, the ‘traditional’ definition won out by margins that would be considered a landslide in any other context.

Second of all, these were just the constitutional amendments.   If we add state statutes, the numbers run even higher, although in order to make a point, I want to highlight just one of them, California.

California has been voting overwhelmingly liberal and Democrat for quite a long time.   Despite being a bastion of the left, there was still widespread desire to ensure that when native English speakers use the word ‘marriage’ they mean what native English speakers have always meant.  Being a bastion of the left, the citizens could not get their representatives to follow through, so they went straight to the people;  Proposition 22, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, was passed by referendum in 2000 with 61.4% of the vote (4,618,673 people.)

IN CALIFORNIA.

Surely this was just a fluke.  They couldn’t possibly believe all that jazz there on the Left Coast, could they? A handful of judges decided it must be so, and tossed it out.  This forced Californians to really get serious if they wanted their will represented, so they went for the whole kit and kaboodle, by way of a constitutional amendment.  Even after nearly ten years of some of the best propaganda you’ve ever seen, Proposition 8 still passed, IN CALIFORNIA.  This time it was ‘only’ 52.24% of the vote, but look at the raw numbers!  In that election the ‘yeas’ numbered 7,001,084 votes.

That is more than the population of many states, and is in CALIFORNIA.  When did this happen?  145 years ago, you say?  Oh.  In 2008.  Quick, someone give me a calculator… 6  years ago…

Do you know how many people voted for Obama in California in 2012? 7,800,000.

So basically, about the same number in California that did NOT want gay marriage DID want Obama.  I did say it was a liberal state.

And even in a liberal state, when the people were allowed to speak, they were quite clear on what they had to say.

California wasn’t the only leftist utopia where even leftists wanted to affirm a ‘traditional’ definition of marriage.  Massachusetts comes to mind, and we find a similar story, where the people tried to state their mind, but were overruled by a tiny handful of individuals.  The people of Massachusetts did not have the same success as those in California, though, and I’d be willing to bet that if that state had the same ability for citizens to create referendums on the fly that California did, that would have ended differently.

Now, there is no question, of course, that there has been strong support in some areas for gay ‘marriage.’  Still, we are told that there is massive support for it, but the above litany tells a different tale altogether.  Within the last two, three, five, and ten years, going back to DOMA itself, there has been huge opposition to gay ‘marriage’ that has dwarfed the public support that the gay ‘marriage’ proponents could muster.

What to do… what to do… ah, right.  Judicial activism.  The go-to mechanism for liberals for decades.  What could go wrong?

Bam Bam Bam… in 2013, California and Utah’s CONSTITUTIONAL amendments were overthrown and in 2014 (that is this year, fyi) Oregon,  Okalahoma, Virginia, Texas, Michigan, Arkansas and Idaho had theirs reversed too.

And were they reversed via that time honored tradition or repealing it, like Prohibition was repealed!  Why yes… wait, no!  All fell victim to a tiny sliver of men and women in black robes.  Millions and millions and millions of people, working hard to follow the rules and govern themselves thwarted by a tiny handful of people.

What could possibly go wrong?

In the meantime, of course, public sentiment seems to be bending towards gay ‘marriage.’  In my estimation, if similar votes were held today, many of these amendments wouldn’t have passed, or they wouldn’t have passed with the high margins that they did.  A friend wags his finger at me, “Why, Johnnyboy, don’t you know that according to the latest polling, like 52% of the American public is in favor of gay ‘marriage’ today!  How dare you insinuate that the will of the people is being thwarted!”

This raises a couple of issues, but the first has to do with the categorical difference between THIRTY constitutional amendments and polling with sample sizes of a couple of thousand or so.  It’s as if the whole world has gone clean out of their mind–it is hard work to get a constitution amended, and you can’t do it without a huge amount of public support.

Of course, all those people wasted their time, because as various courts have made plain at this point, it doesn’t matter what they believe.  Even so, the fact that they played by the rules whilst the gay ‘marriage’ proponents violated the law left and right and pursued in the courts what they couldn’t dream of accomplishing in the ballot box sets these far apart from the latest Newsweek polling.  I should like to have seen some of the gay ‘marriage’ proponents try their hands at a constitutional amendment.  Ha!  I know.  Fat chance.  But my contempt for their cause would be far less then it is at present, because they would have at least made a good faith effort to engage their fellow citizens in the marketplace of ideas where it all comes (theoretically) to a head, the ballot box.

The second issue, though, is probably far more serious, and pregnant with much more cause for deep concern.  Let us imagine for a moment that in the course of a single presidential cycle, the entire country has moved from one side of the equation where they exerted themselves strenuously, even going so far as to pass amendments in state after state, but now has genuinely come to a point where a shade over 50% will collectively shrug their shoulders over the prospect of a scant 5% of the population redefining ‘marriage’ come hell or high water.

To what do we owe this huge swing in a matter of four or five years, tops?

My friend bemoans the influence of ‘big money’ on elections and in the Prop 8 fiasco, described above.

Isn’t it as plain as the nose on your face that if there is ‘big money’ propaganda involved here, it has got to be from the side of the homosexual activists?  Or do we really want to believe that  hundreds of millions of Americans, between the time it takes their eyes to blink, genuinely changed their mind without any kind of coercion or manipulation?

I think not.

In my opinion, the opposition to gay ‘marriage’ is still quite strong, so what we’re going to continue to see is judicial oppression in order to make it ‘stick.’  (What could possibly go wrong?)

However, I will concede that to some extent there has been a real shift of attitudes, but I do not at all believe these gains by the homosexual lobby have been gained honestly.  I don’t know who you are, but I know you are out there, oh ye manipulators of public opinion, oh ye proteges of Bernays and what not.  I can’t see you, I don’t know your name, but millions of people simply don’t change their minds on such a fundamental issue unless someone like you is at work.  I know you’re out there, I can hear you breathing.

And just remember, two can play that game.  Don’t whine when the shoe is on the other foot.

In the meantime, as far as I’m concerned, this whole burning down the Republic in order to get your way thing cannot end well, not for you, and not for me.  I do hope you change your tune before something really dire happens.  After all, you didn’t think you could destroy democracy without it having some kind of negative effect, did you?

I know, I know.  I can see you sitting their all smug, cigar in hand.  You think its cute that I still think we have anything that passes as a democracy.  Consider it the last splinter of idealism I have left.

 

 

 

 

 

share save 256 24 The Death of the Republic and Gay Marriage

57 Responses to The Death of the Republic and Gay Marriage

  1. From philosopher James Rachels, in his “Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism” we read:

    Can it really be true that Darwinism, which overturns all our former ideas about man and nature, has no unsettling consequences? Traditional morality is based, in part, on the idea that human life has a special value and worth. If we must give up our inflated conception of ourselves, and our picture of the world as made exclusively for our habitation, will we not have to give up, at the same time, those elements of our morality which depend on such conceptions? … There is a connection between Darwin’s theory and these larger matters, although the connection is more complicated than simple logical entailment.

    I shall argue that Darwin’s theory does undermine traditional values. In particular, it undermines the traditional idea that human life has a special, unique worth.

    pg 3-4.

    More from Rachels:

    There is an idea about how Darwinism might be related to ethics that is older and deeper than either ‘evolutionary ethics’ or sociobiology. Darwin’s earliest readers realized that an evolutionary outlook might undermine the traditional doctrine of human dignity, a doctrine which is at the core of Western morals. Darwin himself seems to suggest this when he says that the conception of man as ‘created from animals’ contradicts the arrogant notion that we are a ‘great work’. It is a disturbing idea, and Darwin’s friends as well as his enemies were troubled by it.

    … Surprisingly, philosophers have not taken this thought very seriously. I shall argue, however, that discrediting ‘human dignity’ is one of the most important implications of Darwinism, and that it has consequences that people have barely begun to appreciated.

    pg 79-80.

    And I guess I should add that Rachels is firmly in Darwin’s camp. I did not just quote a critic of Darwinism, but an adherent, and not a dead one who wrote in the 1920s, but a contemporary.

  2. For the record, my last comments about DB not understanding what EB and I are trying to say came before I read DB’s latest response to EB. I had only read the part to me.

    DB is closer than my last remarks would have indicated. Not all the way there yet, but closer. :)

  3. 1
    Oooh three comments in a row, SJ. EB will be along shortly to chastise you.

    2

    Yes, if only evolution was scientific in the same sense that gravity was, that might be an apt comparison.

    Aaaaaaaaand we’re done.

    3
    But the theory of evolution does not actually describe anything that we can actually observe

    and

    You know that according to evolutionary theory, which has been proved over and over again by reference to antibiotics and bacteria…

    ?

  4. You forgot:

    (and mentioned over and over again, because its about the only truly scientific evidence for the theory)

    But I don’t really have anything else to add. I cited Ruse, Dennett and Rachels, and could also cite EO Wilson and Antony Flew and scores of others, including Darwin himself, to support my contention that evolutionary theory is a different animal (baddabing!) than the theory of gravity, and also WHY/HOW it is different. I am merely agreeing with them.

    I am referring specifically to the fact that Darwinism is also supposed to account for the existence of our ethical code, but it so happens that Darwin himself recognized how his theory was categorically different than the experimental science of the day, and was worried about how his theory would be accepted precisely for that reason. Even the bulldog, Huxley, even though he knew Darwinism to be true (just ‘because’, I guess) had felt that they should actually do some experiments to support the theory.

    But anyway, I’ve supported my contention by citing evolutionists who concur with my assessment, so I don’t feel like I need to say anything further. Take it up with them.

  5. It is unfortunate that men and women created in the image of GOD should deliberately ignore GOD’S commandment by doing things GOD Almighty condemn. In Leviticus 18 verses 22 ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.’ Here called actions of gay an abomination.

    In Leviticus chapter 20 verses 13 “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them” That is to say the Almighty GOD instruct that gay should be put to death.

    In view of the above, when GOD’S judgments start coming on gay, the practice of gay and supporters of gay would soon die a natural death.

  6. Someone appears to have put Rick Santorum through an Internet translation machine.

    Are you sure it wouldn’t be better for them to get the death penalty princevinco? Just in case it takes longer than expected before GOD’S judgements start coming on gay, and actions of gay, so that they die a natural death.

  7. Yes but Leviticus also says this:

    “33 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 34 “When you enter the land of Canaan, which I am giving you as your possession, and I put a spreading mold in a house in that land, 35 the owner of the house must go and tell the priest, ‘I have seen something that looks like a defiling mold in my house.’ 36 The priest is to order the house to be emptied before he goes in to examine the mold, so that nothing in the house will be pronounced unclean. After this the priest is to go in and inspect the house. 37 He is to examine the mold on the walls, and if it has greenish or reddish depressions that appear to be deeper than the surface of the wall, 38 the priest shall go out the doorway of the house and close it up for seven days. 39 On the seventh day the priest shall return to inspect the house. If the mold has spread on the walls, 40 he is to order that the contaminated stones be torn out and thrown into an unclean place outside the town. 41 He must have all the inside walls of the house scraped and the material that is scraped off dumped into an unclean place outside the town. 42 Then they are to take other stones to replace these and take new clay and plaster the house.

    43 “If the defiling mold reappears in the house after the stones have been torn out and the house scraped and plastered, 44 the priest is to go and examine it and, if the mold has spread in the house, it is a persistent defiling mold; the house is unclean. 45 It must be torn down—its stones, timbers and all the plaster—and taken out of the town to an unclean place.

    46 “Anyone who goes into the house while it is closed up will be unclean till evening. 47 Anyone who sleeps or eats in the house must wash their clothes.

    48 “But if the priest comes to examine it and the mold has not spread after the house has been plastered, he shall pronounce the house clean, because the defiling mold is gone. 49 To purify the house he is to take two birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop. 50 He shall kill one of the birds over fresh water in a clay pot. 51 Then he is to take the cedar wood, the hyssop, the scarlet yarn and the live bird, dip them into the blood of the dead bird and the fresh water, and sprinkle the house seven times. 52 He shall purify the house with the bird’s blood, the fresh water, the live bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop and the scarlet yarn. 53 Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields outside the town. In this way he will make atonement for the house, and it will be clean.”

    54 These are the regulations for any defiling skin disease, for a sore, 55 for defiling molds in fabric or in a house, 56 and for a swelling, a rash or a shiny spot, 57 to determine when something is clean or unclean.

    These are the regulations for defiling skin diseases and defiling molds.”

    So… you know… I wouldn’t take anything in there too seriously.

Click on a tab to select how you'd like to leave your comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>