Friday, March 29, 2013

[Victims of Court Corruption] The Raging Court Battle Re: Redefining "Marriage"

fn:Ron Branson
adr;dom:;;P.O. Box 207;North Hollywood,;CA.;91603
title:National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
note;quoted-printable:Ron Branson=0D=0A=
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief=0D=0A=


The Raging Court Battle
Re: Redefining "Marriage"

March 28, 2013

The Supreme Court and Faux-marriage Fallacies

By Selwyn Duke

The Supreme Court is behaving as a reluctant agent of social engineering and not an ardent guardian of constitutional integrity in its approach to the last two days of oral argument on marriage. Furthermore, the pro-marriage (conservative) contingent is likewise confused, making the case that striking down Prop. 8 would be the wrong kind of social engineering.

Thus have we heard arguments about the "sociological" impact of faux marriage and about awaiting "additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing." Justice Anthony Kennedy, who could be the swing vote in the case, weighed in on both sides of the social-engineering debate, saying, "There's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have 5 years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more." But he also claimed that California's "40,000 children with same-sex parents...want their parents to have full recognition and full status" and asked pro-marriage attorney Charles Cooper, "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

My answer?  No, it isn't.

The only voice that matters is the Constitution's. The whole point in having rule of law is that its application is not dependent upon what the "voice" of a given group of Americans might say at any given time (or upon some smaller group's conception of what that voice demands), regardless of how sympathetic that group may be. Would you want First Amendment rights to be negotiable based on how a compelling "voice" may be able to tug on heartstrings?

And the Constitution is silent on marriage, meaning that the issue is the domain of the states. What, though, if the states legislate a marriage standard that has negative "sociological" impact? Well, what if a state institutes a poorly conceived driver's test or productivity-stifling tax laws and regulations? The proper remedy is the ballot box. The Constitution prohibits unconstitutional ideas -- not merely bad ones -- and these two categories often don't intersect. Thus, a justice's legitimate role is not arbiter of sociological impact, but only of constitutionality. Yet many today behave as if "bad" is synonymous with "unconstitutional" and as if both are defined as "whatever I don't happen to like."

But then we come to the equal-protection matter. Shouldn't homosexuals have the right to marry if other Americans enjoy that right? Yes, they should.

They have a right to form that union with a member of the opposite sex that we call marriage.

This isn't just semantics. It is in fact a point that gets to the very heart of the matter, and traditionalists ignore it at their own peril.

Before you can debate whether or not there is a right to a thing, you have to know what that thing is. What is marriage? If we agree that it's the union between a man and woman, then there is no argument because no one is trying to stop any adult American from entering into such a union. Ah, but the anti-marriage side will reject this time-honored definition, and this brings us to the point: the marriage debate is not a matter of rights.

It is a matter of definitions

It is also brings us to the Achilles heel of the anti-marriage side. They attack traditionalists with the notion that the time-honored definition of marriage is exclusive and discriminatory, but then defend themselves by saying that their agitation for faux marriage won't lead to polygamy and other conceptions of "marriage" being legalized. But what is implicit in these claims is contradictory. For if they're putting forth an alternative definition -- such as marriage being the union of any two adults -- they're also being exclusive and discriminatory, as any definition excludes what does not meet it. Yet if they don't put forth an alternative definition and exclude something, they are including everything. And everything means polygamy and any other conception of "marriage" imaginable. It also contributes to the destruction of the institution because the closer marriage gets to meaning anything, the closer it gets to meaning nothing.

This brings us to traditionalists' great mistake: falsely accusing the other side of redefining marriage. They've done no such thing because they haven't, in fact, consistently propounded any alternative definition. To do this would be, once again, to relinquish their illusory high ground of inclusivity and the bigotry hammer they use against traditionalists. So if the anti-marriage side isn't redefining the institution, what are they actually doing?

They are "undefining" it.

This is, again, a process by which marriage is rendered meaningless and is ultimately destroyed. This definitional problem is why the left has very smartly framed this issue as a matter of rights. And, tragically, traditionalists have fallen into the trap of arguing it on this basis, of letting the left define the debate.

So the questions we should ask here are obvious. If the left cannot say what marriage is, how can they be so sure about what it isn't? If they cannot put forth what they're sure is the right definition of it, how can they say with credibility that the time-honored one is wrong?

This also should inform judicial decisions. If the Supreme Court were to reflexively accept the time-honored definition of marriage, it would simply say that homosexuals already have a right to marry -- to form a union with a member of the opposite sex -- and that's that. Barring this, however, it seems that before the justices could rule on laws pertaining to this thing called marriage, they'd have to rule on what this thing is in the first place, something clearly beyond their scope. And why should they even consider redefining the institution when the movement represented by the plaintiffs before them hasn't even bothered to do so?

This is also why, when crafting pro-marriage laws and amendments, framers should not use language stating that "marriage will be limited to a man and a woman"; rather, it should read, "Marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman." This makes clear that it isn't people being limited - but an institution. This matters because people have rights; institutions don't. If you extend legal recognition to some Americans' marriages, you may have to extend it to all marriages. But this doesn't mean that if you extend legal recognition to one conception of marriage, you have to extend it to all conceptions.

Of course, winning the debate in the realm of reason won't hold sway with people awash in the effluent of emotion. But it doesn't help if conservatives conserve nothing but yesterday's liberals' victories, one of which is to convince us to speak of "gay marriage" and "traditional marriage," as if the former actually exists and the latter isn't a redundancy. So remember that this debate isn't about rights but definitions, and something that doesn't meet the definition of "marriage" doesn't exist as a marriage. And you cannot have a right to that which doesn't exist.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Understanding The Nature of Homosexual Perversion
By Ron Branson

Many do not understand what the homosexual agenda is. Ignorant People think such behavior is only an alternate (different) lifestyle, but it is not! It is a life style of chosen rebellion against God, "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." Romans 1:28.

The current feud over the "right" for homosexuals to get married is merely a ruse for them, and not an honest dealing with reality. Even if the homosexual cause would prevail, the homosexual world will not be be appeased in satisfaction, for they must continue the feud and unrest as long as they have life. Ever wonder why God commands the death penalty up homosexuality? Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

So, you ask me, Ron, then what do they want that will satisfy them. The fact is, they cannot  be satisfied so long as they have breathe in their lungs. I am about to say something highly provocative, a statement which will raise the ire of most everyone reading this. What they want is their homosexual conduct be universally adopted, and if they cannot obtain unto that goal, that want everyone to be receptive of homosexual  behavior. In other words, they will not be satisfied even if they obtain, carte blanc, out-right black and white law stating clearly that they have a Constitutional Right to marry each other, but they want laws that condemns conventional marriage between a man and a woman. You say, Ron, are you saying that they actually want to make it a crime for a man to marry a woman? Yes, that is what I am actually saying. How do I know this? I know this because the Word of God sets forth the universal depravity of mankind in Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

Let us go back to the days of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Here, the city was filled with homosexuals doing what homosexuals do to and with each other. Although they had available to them all the sexual partners their heart's could desire, they were not satisfied. They wanted what was not only available to them, but that which was forbidden to them. They wanted unwilling recipients who would not accept their advances, and nothing less would do.

So, the issue was not sex, or sexual satisfaction, but rather the desire to be repulsive to those who refuse to participate with them. In affect, I am saying, it is no fun "raping" an attractive willing recipient, rather they want a screaming young woman kicking and fighting off their advances, whether a virgin or not. The pleasure is not in the sex, but in the assault. Genesis 19:4 & 5 says, "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:  And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." Genesis 19:4 & 5.

In lieu of these men, Lot actually offered them the services of his is two virgin daughters. But they did not want willing virgin subjects, as these would have been easy victims. They wanted what was not available to them, i.e. the two Angeles, and nothing less.

If you are one who does not approve of homosexual behavior, then you are an ideal target. You will not have to necessarily commit a homosexual act, but you will have to loose your belt and drop your pants.

I know that my words may sound offensive to some of you, but truth is often offensive. Those engaged in homosexual activity are not going to admit to what I have just said, but I am not looking for their approval, but God's approval. And we know the mind of God from His Eternal Written Word.

Ron Branson


Post a Comment

<< Home