Gay ‘Marriage’ and the Destruction of America

I have spoken out against gay ‘marriage’ from a number of different viewpoints but there is one aspect that I feel reflects the real danger that gay ‘marriage’ poses, and that, in the United States, is the death of the Republic itself. In full disclosure, I have to admit that I have had several (for want of a better all-inclusive word) ‘encounters’ with individuals who profess a sexual preference other than what is generally considered ‘normal.’ ( )

There are of course many other arguments against it, but pro-gay ‘marriage’ advocates like to excuse them as being ‘religious’ in nature, and demand that you only bring ‘secular’ arguments to the table to discuss. However, their argument actually is secular.  Their arguments are the ones religious in nature, as ironic as that sounds.   Gay ‘marriage’ is only the latest manifestation of a series of problems that has been eating away at American society for decades.  In my opinion, 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.

We need to consider how it is that I feel 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.’ Not only that, the voters have explicitly affirmed a ‘traditional’ understanding of the term as denoting a lifelong relationship between one man and one woman.  To achieve their agenda, gay ‘marriage’ proponents have essentially burned down the country to get what they want.  Perhaps they have decided that this is worth it to them.  I am totally sincere in this warning, with no malevolence implied or intended, but this kind of precedent can come back to haunt them in some very serious ways.  Some may see poetic justice to such a thing happening but, there is such a thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face!

Let us spell it out it another way. If only the gay ‘marriage’ proponents had worked patiently and persistently within the system, respecting the wishes and the will of their fellow citizens, I would still have been thoroughly against their position. In our system of government, if you can play by the rules and garner up the necessary legislative support for you position, I have to say more power to you- this is America and you won fair and square.  This is the courtesy that has been denied to those in my position, with the added insult that I and my fellow citizens had played by the rules and we did get the necessary legislative support for our position!  How have they managed to do this?

By the whimsical judgment 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. Sorry but his cannot end well.

Most individuals do not understand the full scope of what has happened and just how quickly it has developed- or they refuse to acknowledge the chain of events.  So here are the facts or documentation.

We (traditional marriage individuals) 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 Bill (can’t keep it in my pants) Clinton, a Democrat.

While 224 of the ‘yeas’ on the House were Republicans, 118 Democrats voted against their parties wishes 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- which is how the Constitution was originally set up to operate.

Why are we talking about a piece of legislation that is what 150  years old?  How can this possible be relevant today?  People’s attitudes can change after 150 years.  We are talking about a bill that was passed years and years and years ago, right. Wait a minute what is 2015 minus 1996 again?  25 years ago, an entire generation ago.

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?

  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 — A REAL LONG TIME 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 us count the results, 30 to 1 in favor of ‘marriage’ being between one man and one woman.

Notice, 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. Obama won both elections by only 57% and that was considered remarkable.

Second, these were just the constitutional amendments.   If we add state statutes (or laws), the numbers run even higher, although in order to make a point, let us point out just one of them, California.

California has been voting overwhelmingly liberal and Democrat for quite a long time.   Despite being a citadel of the left, there was still a 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.)

That cannot be right, had to be a fluke, right?  They could not possibly believe that would happen out there on the Left Coast, you know in loony-tunevile, Hollyweird? A handful of judges decided it couldn’t 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 enchilada, by way of a constitutional amendment.  Even after nearly ten years of some of the best propaganda against it, 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. 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.

There is no question, 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 details show 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.

So what to do…judicial activism!  The go-to mechanism for liberals for the past several decades.  What could possibly go wrong?

In 2013, California and Utah’s CONSTITUTIONAL amendments were overthrown and in 2014 Oregon,  Okalahoma, Virginia, Texas, Michigan, Arkansas and Idaho had theirs reversed too.

Were they reversed via that time honored tradition of repealing it, like Prohibition was repealed!  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.’  If similar votes were held today, many of these amendments probably would not have passed, or they would not have passed with the high margins that they did.  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.

This means, all those people wasted their time, because as various courts have made plain at this point, it doesn’t matter what they believe. The fact that the traditional marriage group played by the rules while 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.  I would have liked to have seen some of the gay ‘marriage’ proponents try their hands at a constitutional amendment.  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 a 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.’

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

The illiberals say it is the ‘big money’ that has caused the change. Unfortunately they still can’t tell black from white (racial pun not intended). 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, actually changed their mind without any kind of coercion or manipulation?

In my opinion, the opposition to gay ‘marriage’ is still quite strong, so what we are going to continue to see is judicial activism and oppression of the voters will in order to make it ‘stick.’

I will concede that there has been a real shift of attitudes to some extent. However, I do not believe these gains by the homosexual lobby have been gained honestly.  All I can point to is the illiberal progressives and their lapdog media friends, the manipulators of public opinion, the protégés of Bernays[i] and Alinsky,[ii] and what not.  I cannot name you individually, but I can point to your results because millions of people simply don’t change their minds on such a fundamental issue unless someone like you is at work.

Moreover, just remember, two can play that game.  Do not whine when circumstances are reversed, because the pendulum always swings back and forth. This burning down the American Republic in order to get your way, cannot end well, not for you, and not for me.  You just do not understand what it is the end result is of the individuals you idolize.  Surely, you are not so stupid as to think you could destroy democracy without it having some kind of negative effect, did you. I know, you think it’s cute that I still think we have anything left that passes as a democracy.

[i] Edward Bernays was a pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda. He felt that manipulation of the masses was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the “herd instinct.”

[ii] Saul Alinsky was an American community organizer, and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book Rules for Radicals.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s