Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


Everything — Including the Family — Flows from One’s Social/Moral Worldview (Homosexual Activist Lobbies and the SPLC)


The redefinition of marriage decision being voted on as “law of the land” by the Supreme Court was/is unconstitutional…
5-9 unelected judges can not and therefore should not decide for the rest of the population an issue that is never even mentioned in the Constitution, like the definition of marriage. The 10th Amendment designates any and all issues that come up that are not mentioned in the Constitution to be be rendered/designated, for better or for worse, to the people of each state to decide. (a.k.a. State’s Rights).
Though I recognize that from a Christian and Conservative perspective, the belief is that all the negatives eventually and ultimately effect everybody…and they’re right.  There are many other problems with redefining marriage, which this article will get into, but the first has to do with how it ultimately and eventually affects EVERYBODY towards the negative in terms of our rights and our liberty. That is, the Supreme Coourt’s decision in Obergell vs Hodges. 
Now keep these 4 truths/facts in mind:
(1.) The biological definition of marriage treats everybody equally. Every adult already has the opportunity and the chance to marry another adult of the opposite sex whether they choose to or want to or not for whatever reason.

(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.

One who have to prove these 4 facts/truths to be false in order to prove a deprivation of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
With those 4 truths/facts in mind, please consider this…
Again, what the Constitution protects is the freedom from government interference.
Justice Kennedy’s decision on the marriage case (Obergefell v Hodges) reveals how his/their decision to redefine marriage for everybody else is so dangerous. He basically said in his written statement that the Constitution now requires not merely freedom from government coercion (which is what the Constitution only requires), but proactive government recognition of whatever group screams the loudest and lobbies their special interest dollars the most. And the Court, apparently, is the one to decide which intimate choices require recognition, and when, and how much recognition each choice is due.
Can you all see why there is nothing in the Constitution that says that and how that sets a dangerous precedent FOR EVERYBODY? The Left has been creating the very theocracy they claim to be against. 
The Supreme Court and the federal government are proclaiming to be everybody’s “god” now rather than who we as individuals choose to worship. What happens when the courts and the federal government include people you don’t like or who don’t like you for whatever reason? What happens when a lobby/special interest group you don’t like has enough money to manipulate the media and politicians and other cultural institutions?

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…

Equality of people would include both sexes (male and female), not all kinds of (sexual and romantic) behaviors. Behaviors and people are not the same thing. Different behaviors result in different outcomes, therefore deserve discernment, scrutiny, and judgment. Same sex relationships and so-called same sex “marriage” excludes one sex or the other. That is not equality. There is absolutely nothing equal about that. It’s actually promoting a form of segregation. Same sex “marriage” is actually comparable to the promotion of a form of marriage that excludes one race with another (interracial marriage ban that is advocated by racists). Promoting the exclusion of one race or one biological sex are both promoting segregation, regardless of whether or not men and women can still marry each other. It is not a good thing to have a law that promotes segregation as just as good or the same as inclusion of both sexes. Like the ban of interracial marriages that promotes segregation of race within the institution of marriage, same sex “marriage” promotes segregation of the sexes within the institution of marriage as a positive good. Whether they know it or not, advocates of same sex “marriage” have more in common with the racists who were against interracial marriages.

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?”…

The SPLC’s (Slander People Like Crazy) dangerous and irresponsible (‘hate group’) disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence. Officials released video of federal investigators questioning convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who explained that he attacked the headquaters of pro-family/pro-natural marriage group FRC, because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identified them as a “hate group” due to their marriage views. “Southern Poverty Law lists anti-‘gay’ groups,” Corkins tells interrogators in the video. “I found them online, did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that.”
The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported that Corkins, who pleaded guilty to terrorism charges, said in court that he hoped to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” As Bedard explained, “the shooting occurred after an executive with Chick-Fil-A announced his support for marriage, angering same-sex “marriage” proponents.”
More actual violence and First Amendment violations incided by the SPLC (Slander People Like Crazy) at Middlebury College…
The SPLC claims that groups warrant inclusion on its hate groups list if they propagate “known falsehoods” about homosexual practice. Laurie Higgins dissects and deconstructs SPLC (Slander People Like Crazy) “known falsehoods” here. (You can disagree with Higgins’ politics and/or religious beliefs, but she doesn’t even get into any of that here)…
Another source noticed the same flaws and discrepancies in SPLC’s labeling…
The FBI has even stopped using the SPLC as any kind of reference for “hate” groups, because the SPLC has taken on a specific agenda and started labeling anybody who does not agree with them a “hate group.” When the SPLC is asked how do they determine or define who is a “hate” group?, they never give a specific answer and leave it open to a large range of possible definitions. They based it off of their own strawman criteria. The homosexual activists and their most passionate sympathizers love to use the SPLC as a reference to shut down the debate before it has a chance to begin, but they don’t seem to realize the SPLC, by their own fraudulent actions, doesn’t really have the authority anymore to label anybody anything…
SPLC sides with Islam, which holds an all condemning and punishment by death view of homosexuality…
Like the HRC, the SPLC (Slander People Like Crazy), by the Left’s standards,  has been a club for the rich white folk and therefore racists for well over 40 years…
The SPLC IRS Form 990 tax returns listed the names and compensation packages for its top executives (see pages 7-8). And the all-white winners are:
Richard Cohen — President/CEO — $340,923
Morris Dees — Founder and Chief Trial Counsel — $344,771
Joseph Levin — Director and General Counsel — $185,102
Mary Bauer — Legal Director — $168,819
Teenie Hutchinson — Secretary — $162,644
Wendy Via — Development Director — $166,760 (+$19,582)
Mark Potok — Senior Fellow — $162,206 (+$10,814)
David Utter — Director — Miami – $158,013
And a new (white) face for 2013:
Sheila Bedi — Deputy Legal Director – $129,893
Not shown is Michael Toohey, the SPLC’s Former COO, $234,309 (+$4,428).

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…


Posting Policy

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.

Trending Now on

Send this to a friend