“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1781, Query XVIII, and on the Jefferson Memorial
Activist judges as arbiters of God …The above quote which is engraved in perpetuity on the Memorial bearing his name, could almost be Jefferson’s opinion of the dastardly actions taking place from un-elected Black-Robed Executioners who constantly seem hell-bent on forcing homosexual “marriage” on We The People in violation of both the Constitution and the overwhelming will of We The People. In the latest abominable decision this past Sunday, U.S.District Judge Timothy Burgess dissed the inhabitants of Alaska by declaring their constitutional marriage amendment of 1998 unconstitutional. An amendment that was passed by 68% of the populace of Alaska was shredded in an instant by an executioner legislating from the bench; activist judges as arbiters of God.
The question becomes – Who gave these executioners the power to change the meanings of words? More importantly, when a State votes to change its Constitution, who are these judges that can overturn a legitimate action of overwhelming ascendancy voted on by We The People? And please don’t ramble on about the 14th amendment. If the people of any State wish to have sodomy laws, and those laws are applied to everyone equally, there can be no issue with the Federal Government, especially involving the judiciary. We don’t work for the Federal Government, they’re supposed to work for us. Our States especially, didn’t join the Union to have their sovereignty stolen on the whim of one District Court executioner, and especially activist judges as arbiters of God.
In the piece coming up from Jonathan Abbamonte in today’s American Thinker, he lays bare the homosexual agenda of re-defining marriage as not necessarily “one man, one woman, one family” designed by God as the unit of civilization, but more along the lines of “anything goes” as long as the homosexual community gets its own way – supported overwhelmingly by (in many cases at least) homosexual judges of one form or another legislating from the bench; activist judges as arbiters of God.
When you remove God from the marriage discussion then it is open season on defining marriage. God created man and woman to procreate. I do not recall Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve. Marriage is defined in the 2nd college edition of The American Heritage Dictionary as: the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. (There were still moral family values when this book was printed). When anything goes, everything goes. The genie has been so far removed from the bottle and Pandora’s box has been smashed opened. These events which we are witnessing are direct results of a church which has abandoned its authority and its position as the bride of Christ. Many church denominations have determined for reasons of expediency, to remain silent and not engage the world on what should be the natural order of things. This silence, possibly due to not wanting to be ridiculed, has allowed the prince of this world, Satan, to run wild all over the world. If churches refuse to take stands against the ills of the world – homosexuality, abortion, terrorism, corruption, broken homes and poverty – while at the same time continuing with business as usual, (ie collecting tithes from loyal church members just to keep the doors open) then they will continue to be what they have become – a den of thieves, a temple of Satan – activist judges as arbiters of God.
As President Ronald Reagan so clearly expressed it: “If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be one nation gone under.”
Now to Jonathan Abbamonte …
Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, West Virginia… So much has happened in the past week on the gay-marriage front you may not have even heard about the latest example of judicial tyranny. On Sunday U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess, a George W. Bush appointee, declared Alaska’s constitutional marriage amendment unconstitutional. Alaska was the first state to pass a constitutional marriage amendment in 1998 and it was passed with the support of 68% of Alaska voters.
Judge Burgess’s reasoning for overturning the will of the people of Alaska is telling:
Refusing the rights and responsibilities afforded by legal marriage sends the public a government-sponsored message that same-sex couples and their familial relationships do not warrant the status, benefits and dignity given to couples of the opposite sex.
Apparently there is nothing wrong in Judge Burgess’s mind in “refusing the rights and responsibilities afforded” to the people of Alaska to decide issues such as these for themselves. We have to wonder if Burgess and the other revisionist federal judges redefining marriage have ever read the 10th Amendment. The Constitution does not say anything about marriage (and the 14th Amendment doesn’t say anything about it either). Ergo, this is a State issue. No federal judge has the right to declare it unconstitutional.
Essentially what Burgess fails to understand, however, is that our rights and dignity are not “given” to couples by the state. Our dignity follows from our human nature, from who we are as persons. Our fundamental rights are unalienable and can neither be given nor taken away from anyone without due process of law. Marriage follows not from the laws of men but is an institution rooted in our human nature that predates nation-states and their constitutions.
But what rights do people have with respect to marriage? How about the right for children to be raised by a mom and a dad? Rather,children are given to experimental family arrangements with gay couples. Kids do best with a mom and a dad. Just take studies on parental impact on a child’s educational outcome as an example. In intact families with a mother and a father, kids score higher on standardized tests, are more likely to complete college, are less likely to be suspended or expelled from school, to be involved in delinquent or disruptive behavior, or have a low grade point average, and are less likely to drop out of school. It is not enough for children to merely have two parents. Supportive fathers impact children’s cognitive development, language capacities, and emotional regulation. Absence of the father negatively impacts daughters as increased absence correlates to an increased incidence of teenage pregnancy. When separated from their mothers, infants display behavior and physiology of an agitated nature (i.e. changes in eating and sleeping habits, aggressive behaviors, increased heart rate, crying) and show signs of depression when reunified. This trend is present even when infants are attended to by their biological fathers for the duration of the separation.
Unelected judges in legalizing gay marriage have in essence changed the definition of marriage. In this way, they have sent “the public a government-sponsored message” that natural families are no different than any other human arrangement and that any consensual relationship based on the way people feel about one another ought to be called marriage. The complementarity of men and women has been pushed aside in favor of whatever “feels” right. Marriages are no longer rooted in biology and human nature. The possibility of bringing children into the world and raising them is no longer unique to marriage. Because children have been divorced from their mom and dad, marriage is no longer about permanent relationships between a man and a woman for the sake of their children and each other. It is only about how spouses feel about each other.
It is also significant to note that for the gay lobby’s insistence that gay marriages are just like heterosexual ones gay couples are much less likely to remain faithful than heterosexual couples. In a study of fidelity among gay couples, of the sixty percent of couples in the study who expected sexual exclusivity, not a single one had remained faithful longer than five years.
If marriage is separated from biology, where logically does it stop? What if three gay men want to get married? What about polygamy or polyandry? What is to prevent multiple partner “contract” marriages or other such arrangements? Most would correctly argue that incestuous relationships are harmful to their children. But what if the incestuous partners were sterile? If we allow gay marriage, there really is no reason for us to be “judgmental” in marginalizing these alternative marriage arrangements. We should ask ourselves, if we are willing to separate marriage from our biological nature, where does it end?
Sources American Thinker; personal archives …