Everything — Including the Family — Flows from One’s Social/Moral Worldview (Homosexual Activist Lobbies and the SPLC)
(2.) There has never been a law that prevented two adult people of the same sex to have a commitment ceremony and reception. (There has always been plenty of heretical/apostate churches and ministers, pastors, deacons, priests, etc to chose from).
(3.) There has never been a law preventing two adults of the same sex to draw up and agree to a legal contract sharing wills, estates, hospital visitation, retirement pensions, etc.
(How many attorneys in the country are there?).
(4.) The federal government does not and has never issued marriage licenses to anybody.
This is why this decision should not stand, is not Constitutional, and is why people like Kim Davis (a registered Democrat at the time) were/are the ones actually following and upholding the law.
(The Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v Wade was also unconstitutional, but for a different reason. Not because it is not in the Constitution, the issue of Life is definitely in the Constitution, but because the Constitution is solely on the side of innocent Life via the Declaration of Independence (the premise/preface for the Constitution) as well as the 5th and 14th Amendments. The Roe v Wade decision was/is unconstitutional, because it disregards, undermines, usurps, and attacks Life, Life that is innocent before proven guilty, and Life that is the most vulnerable, rather than uphold and protect it.)
The Natural Family is fundamental/foundational:
If you are a social liberal, or are apathetic to social moral issues, you may as well call yourself a liberal completely and entirely, or even more appropriate would be to call yourself a leftist. The breakdown of the family from its biological roots and connections and beyond as well as the devaluing of the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable individuals of any society (babies in the womb) can not possibly serve as a viable foundation for a strong national security or a secure and prosperous economy (it undermines and destroys it).
Being a social liberal makes you a leftist liberal completely and entirely. Why? Because it makes you anti-family by default. And if you are anti-family, you’re not really pro national security or pro economic prosperity either. You may think you are or you may think you can be, but you can”t. And here’s why… Society cannot hold onto a strong national security or a prosperous economy if there are more and more individuals that are walking around broken, dysfunctional, and/or diseased.
Not only is the Natural Family the ONLY family structure that promotes limited government more so than any other “family” formation or structure, it is foundational and the fundamental key to it. Any other family formation typically increases government dependency, or at the very least, increases that risk.
If you believe in limited government, a free society that has the best outcome when it comes to individual liberty and security, you would support the natural family as the fundamental unit of society. The cornerstone to the natural family and the central characteristic of this cornerstone is one man and one woman only coming together in holy matrimony. Why? Because ONLY a man and a woman provide a free society with many vital benefits such as child-bearing and child-rearing.
Although there are no guarantees in life, the complementarity between a man and the fatherhood only he can provide and a woman and the motherhood only she can provide, combined, result in a much greater chance that children are healthier, more prosperous, better educated, happier, more communal and transcendent, and physically safer.
This, as a result, minimizes government dependency.
The redefinition of marriage contributes to income inequality by compromising, segregating, and undermining family structure equality and family autonomy.
It is an attack on the basic and fundamental human rights for children. Marriage that encourages, recognizes, promotes one mother-one father is the eco-system of humanity. Otherwise, a child’s right to a relationship with his or her genetic mother and father is deliberately infringed on. Not every marriage has children, but every child has a mother and a father. See here
“The redefinition of marriage undermines that every child has a natural right to be born free, neither purchased nor sold. (Included is the right of the child to be born) Every child has a right to a mother and a father, wherever possible. Every child has a right to bond with the heritage of his or her biological parents as much as possible, unless exigent circumstances require that he or she be placed in an alternative arrangement. Every child has a right to a standard of living that satisfies his or her physical, emotional and psycho-social developmental needs. Every child has a right to be protected from sexual abuse and exploitation. This includes the right to modesty and protection from excessively mature subject matter.” – Robert Oscar Lopez (former homosexual who was raised by two women caught up in homosexual practice)
When a law or policy teaches society that it is just as good to deliberately deny children their biological roots, their heritage, and domestic segregation is just as good and loving, that will in turn teach society that broken families are a positive good. Broken families have a direct causal effect on economic security and prosperity.
2 very insightful articles by Stella Morabito (not necessarily a staunch Conservative) that are a must read…
Commercial surrogacy, IVF, donor-conceived, frozen embryos are all the underlying issues here that most people haven’t recognized yet. These are either inherently corrupted market ideas or market ideas susceptible to much more corruption as a result of the redefinition of marriage, at the cost of children and family autonomy.
This should be basic common sense among us as a nation. It’s only when special interest lobby groups gained too much money and influence on the media, academia, and legislatures that people started becoming persuaded to believe otherwise.
“The battle today is for marriage, the core of the natural family (mother, father, children). Every human being on this planet will be harmed if the elites are allowed to destroy it by mutation. It is no different than Monsanto destroying natural foods or seeds by mutating their DNA, or Big Pharma destroying bodies by flooding the health industry with artificial, often poisonous “remedies.” And remember the tobacco lobby deception when it came to cigarettes in our recent history? Our common paradigm in the grassroots for guiding society should be natural vs artificial across the board, including natural marriage and family: rejecting the counterfeit alternatives to the self-evident design of our ecology — and our physiology rooted in our biology.
The bottom line is this: The elite lobby and special interests always believe they’re smarter, wiser and better than you. They play the game of democracy to keep the peace, but they always follow their own agenda to the fullest extent that the people will allow by their complacency. The natural family is the eco-system of humanity! It must be preserved at all costs.” – Anonymous
Next, there are a couple things to consider here…
(1.) Not only the founder of the “marriage equality” movement homosexual activist Larry Brinkin was a detestable racist child abuser himself (Google Larry Brinkin), you may want to consider this…
(2.) HRC is the homosexual activist lobby that is front and center in the push to redefine marriage. The founder of HRC (euphemistically called “Human Rights Campaign”), again, the homosexual activist organization that is the leading advocacy group for redefining marriage, was arrested for sex with minor…
Terry Bean paid the underage boy $200,000 to make the case go away…
So consider the fact that if you are *for* redefining marriage, you are going along with the idea started by a child porn user and a racist.
HRC, by the way, has a habit of being very exclusionary toward women and certain people of color within their ranks…
Speaking of racism…
If you equate being pro (natural) marriage to bigotry or a belief akin to racism, you may want to consider that…
“The interracial marriage ban enforced the separation of men from women, based on race. It used marriage policy to keep the sexes away from each other, in certain instances.
If adults want to engage in sinful and inherently disordered sexual practices in the privacy of their bedrooms, that’s their business. But when they make it out to be a core-being of their identity and appropriate children into the mix, that’s a whole other issue that we should not be afraid to speak up and out against.
“Same sex “marriage” is doing something similar. It does not enforce a separation, but it does endorse and foster a separation of men from women, based on “sexual orientation.” It is using marriage policy to encourage the sexes to separate from each other, in certain instances.
Same sex “marriage” supporters claim to be “on the right side of history.” But as Loving v. Virginia shows us, history did NOT side with those who were using marriage policy in order to separate the sexes from each other.”
Same sex “marriage” is an endorsement of homosexual behavior, which in addition to promoting medically unhealthy sexual practices (see here, here, here, and here,) it is a promotion of a relationship that discourages men and women to marry. The reasons may be different, but the effect is the same. So does it or does it not (same sex “marriage”) endorse or promote the idea of same sex couples, same sex love, same sex sex, as the same or equal to man-woman marriage? Same sex “marriage,” by its very definition, separates males from females.”
What about the Southern Poverty Law Center and their so-called “Hate List?”…
I came across another one of SPLC’s hit piece articles attacking former homosexual Robert Oscar Lopez with the same non-sequitirs and ad hominem attacks. I decided to post the information I just shared above ^^ in the comment section below the SPLC article. I posted it twice and withing 10-20 minutes, both times my comments were removed. SPLC doesn’t want to be exposed for the fraud that it is, and would rather censor and block opposing viewpoints instead of engaging in debate or dialogue.
Here is the screen shot to show you what was posted and that it was posted…
Here is the actual SPLC hit piece article attacking Robert Oscar Lopez. Click on the link and scroll down to the comment section, and you’ll notice that the comment (that I displayed in the above screen shot) is no longer there…
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More