A Heaven or Hell Decision


Intro to Smith ‘A Heaven or Hell Decision’

Intro by John R. Houk

Author: Justin O. Smith

Posted September 11, 2015

Kim Davis should contemplate changing her political affiliation from a Democrat to a Republican or Independent. Ms. Davis was recently incarcerated for being in contempt to a judicial order to issue same-sex Marriage Certificates to homosexual couples. She refused to violate the conscience of her Biblical faith. Ms. Davis’ Democrat political party’s platform is supportive of various Biblically ungodly stands including the Dem’s homosexual rights stand (1980 and 2012).

Justin Smith addresses the constitutional issues and judicial activism in relation to Kim Davis’ persecution for her Christian convictions. In relation to the Christian faith Justin looks at the majority opinion of Justice Hugo Black (examining Justice Black through the lens of Everson v. Board of Education – looks at consistency more than criticism) in the 1947 decision attached to Everson v. Board of Education. That SCOTUS case made words written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church pertaining the separation of Church and State as part of America’s rule of law over 150 after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The thing is there is NO SUCH LANGUAGE in the U.S. Constitution including the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

Justice Hugo Black tossed out constitutional Original Intent in favor of the fallacious concept of a Living Constitution that can be judicially modified to fit any court’s concept of what is a valid right for the present. The Living Constitution concept essentially circumvents the Constitution’s paradigm for alterations to said Constitution. Understand this: The Constitution does not empower the Judicial Branch to create law on any level including the Supreme Court.

The Christian Answers Network takes a brief look at judicial case law that led up Justice Black’s 1947 decision in Everson v. Board of Education. If you at that web page you will notice how SCOTUS slowly began to assert Judicial Activism for creating law ex nihilo. Here is a great quote on SCOTUS judicial fiat/law ex nihilo:

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Judiciary would be the weakest of the three branches of government, but over time and with the expansion of the power of judicial review it has arguably become the strongest. The problem with this is that justices now routinely substitute their own personal judgment for what is equitable rather than deferring to the Constitution. What has resulted is unelected, unaccountable judges making policy decisions for the country.

Far from the intent of the Founders, this is neither democracy nor representative government; it is five judges imposing their desire for social change on the country by judicial fiat. READ ENTIRETY (The Same-Sex Marriage Decision: Ruling by Judicial Fiat; By Zack Pruitt; Acton InstitutePower Blog; 6/26/15)

The Zack Pruitt quote above was inspired by five Justices forcing same-sex marriage upon the all the States of the Union by fabricating meanings from words in the Constitution that plain and simply DO NOT match the judicial logic of the SCOTUS majority; viz. Obergefell v. Hodges.

It is this Judicial Fiat by five Justices that another Judge in a lower court jailed Kim Davis for her Christian refusal to issue Marriage Licenses to homosexuals.

JRH 9/11/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

A Heaven or Hell Decision

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 9/10/2015 12:12 PM

“To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision.” – Kim Davis

America was founded on religious freedom and the right to sustain and protect one’s beliefs and conscience, and yet, the American people were recently forced to bear witness to one of the most ignominious and unconscionable acts perpetrated by the third branch of government, the judiciary, in over 150 years, as a U.S. citizen was jailed for staying true to her own Christian belief and her conscience.

With the Ten Commandments still carved in stone above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kim Davis, a Christian Democrat and Rowan County Clerk (Kentucky), was jailed by U.S. District Judge David Bunning on September 3, 2015 for contempt of court. He erroneously asserted that Mrs. Davis “arguably violated the First Amendment by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expense of others,” because she steadfastly has refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Keeping in mind that religious liberty is protected by the First Amendment; that marriage is defined in the Kentucky Constitution as being between “one man and one woman”; and that over 75% of voters in Kentucky passed the Kentucky Religious Freedom restoration Act (2013), which provides for accommodations to be made for just such religious objections as Kim Davis holds, one must ask the following question: Aren’t the courts “adopting” their “policy” and agenda when they magically create “law” based on mythical “rights” that cannot be found and are not presented anywhere within the U.S. Constitution?

Instead of deciding an issue with any new law through the actual text of the U.S. Constitution and through logical and full consideration of all available historical evidence, the Supreme Court, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and judge Bunning have perpetuated the same bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of education (1947) and has not yet ended with Obergefell v Hodges (2015). Through their hubris and their ignorance or contempt of the U.S. Constitution, they have advanced a fallacious understanding of the Constitution and the First Amendment, which has resulted in judicial tyranny.

Before Everson, the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of “separation of church and state.” Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court’s excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America. The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute “separation of church and state” and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

On New Year’s Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist, clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”

If anyone’s First Amendment rights have been violated, they were Kim Davis’s rights, as she was jailed illegally and denied habeas corpus, in order to coerce her to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. This violated her right to freedom of religious conscience.

Kim Davis asked the perfect question before she was jailed in Carter County detention Center: “Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?”

Only Congress can make law according to the U.S. Constitution, so exactly what “law” did the Supreme Court make with its ruling on Obergefell v Hodges? No law has been written and passed that allows same-sex couples to marry, although the Supreme Court and five black-robed tyrants are claiming this is “the law” after Justice Kennedy “found” this imaginary “right” to homosexual marriage in the 14th Amendment, which dealt with states’ rights, citizenship for freed slaves and ending the Civil war.

During her incarceration, Kim Davis’s lawyer, Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel founder, worked towards her release, since the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act already provided for accommodations that should have been immediately sought in order to save her from Bunning’s abusive order. Massive crowds of supporters arrived in Grayson, KY to protest her confinement, and presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz came to her aid, and they all stood by her side on the day of her release.

Bunning released Mrs. Davis, because her deputy clerks were signing marriage licenses with “Rowan County,” thus satisfying “the law”; however, Mat Staver’s comments before the crowd seemed to suggest that this fight may not be over until these “marriage” licenses for homosexuals are issued through a different office and someone else’s authority, which the Governor could handle by executive order. Both Staver and Davis reiterated her intent to do her job without violating her Christian beliefs and conscience.

On a larger front, this battle over the definition of “marriage” and against homosexual marriages is far from over, all across the nation. Millions of other Americans, such as Nick Williams – a probate judge in Washington County, Alabama and Molly Criner – a clerk in Irion County, Texas, are declaring that “natural marriage cannot be redefined by government,” and currently, numerous counties across America are following the example set by Kim Davis, including eleven counties from Alabama alone.

Judge Williams told the New York Times: “When you’re elected you don’t check your beliefs at the door. If you’re a true believer, you can’t separate that from who you are.” Judge Williams was evidently well versed, by someone in his youth, on the Founding Fathers’ beliefs.

Even though Kim Davis was released on September 8th, she never should have been arrested it the first place. She broke no Kentucky law. She broke no federal law in her efforts to uphold her Christian convictions. And never again, for all times hereafter, should any American be jailed simply for standing by their religious conscience.

With traditional Christian and Jewish faith and their civilizing principles under increasing attack by black-robed tyrants, who have shown a willingness now to jail people of deeply held religious beliefs, all God-loving Americans must stand in defense of religious liberty and the right to one’s freedom of conscience in the manner envisioned by our Founders, otherwise all Americans will suffer terrible consequences. we must refuse to obey unjust and unConstitutional “laws”, that seek to silence and punish religious speech and diminish the God-ordained institution of marriage and the family to a distant memory, just as prescribed by St. Augustine, rather than allow our society to be reduced to the shambles of a secular and humanist cesspool of sick, demented, twisted criminal and immoral perversion ___ Hell on Earth.

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

Islam, Elsa and I


Traditional Biblical Faith and Non-Traditional Thinking

John R. Houk

© September 7, 2015

I had cross posted an email from Elsa Schieder by some thoughts her email inspired. The title of that post is “My Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage & Nobel for Pastor Mulinde”. The subject title of Elsa’s email was “Honor Umar Mulinde – we stand with this man”. If you don’t know, are uniformed or are multiculturally brainwashed here are some quotes on Islam from experts and Muslims alike – HERE and HERE.

The reason I added some personal thoughts on same-sex marriage is because after promoting Pastor Umar Mulinde for a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize for being a Christian Pastor persecuted for his faith with a Muslim acid bath Elsa addressed some flak on her position on same-sex marriage. Evidently she lost a huge amount of subscribers who looked forward to her Counterjihad newsletters.

Here is an excerpt of the email addressing the cancelling subscribers:

And now I will come back to the response to my piece saying that I don’t see how permitting gay marriage threatens marriage. A few people wrote comments like, brilliant! They were in the minority. I also had a couple of thoughtful responses against gay marriage. Again, these were in the minority. I’ve never had so many people cancel – including people who have been getting the updates for 3 years, since I started the initial interview series. Several cancelled with comments like: “God says homosexuality is a sin. Just what don’t you understand?”

I could have answered that we don’t all believe in the same god. Quite a few of us don’t believe in any cosmic force.

But that would have been a response to the words, not to the emotion.

What I saw most was that my not being against gay marriage touched what I might call a hot button, often a hot anger button. Game over. Get out now. No more updates ever. (Found in post “My Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage & Nobel for Pastor Mulinde”)

I have to admit I did not read Elsa’s supportive email for same-sex marriage. Nonetheless, if I had read it I would have gone through that inner search that weighs what I am acutely aware about Islam as anti-Western and anti-Christian (and numerous anti-this or that which should alarm the full scale of the political spectrum) in its revered writings measured against the Biblical principles that homosexuality is a sinful abomination. Here are a couple of blog posts that will give some insight into my stand on the Bible pertaining to homosexuality:

o Homosexual Sin and the Christian Approach

o Introductory portion to “This is Why we Call the Gay Lobby Fascist!

I responded to Elsa with surprise that subscribers left a Counterjihad subscription because of a stand that Conservative Americans (including myself) would disagree. I still believe in her role as a Counterjihad writer regardless of disagreeing with her stand on same-sex marriage. Here is an excerpt from what I wrote about same-sex marriage:

In the matter of same-sex marriage: For me there is no way around the fact that marriage is a religious oath of fidelity. As far as the Bible informs then, same-sex marriage should not be performed or accepted by Christians. However, a civil union as in a defined and binding contract is Constitutional according to even [Constitutional] Original Intent and a matter of choosing Life in Christ or death in the Last Judgment with Satan and his deceived minions. Christians should never give up on showing a person lost in sin the Light of Christ and the path to eternal redemption. (I added “Constitutional” for clarity – John R. Houk; My Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage & Nobel for Pastor Mulinde)

I am fairly certain that some fellow believers will find the “civil union” concept as something still unacceptable. Nevertheless we do live in a nation of laws. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are central to American culture. It is our Constitution that allows some sort of agreeing harmony among Leftists, Conservatives, religious adherents, Secular Humanists and atheists pertaining to the respect for law and order. Constitutional interpretation is becoming a wider gap in the American political spectrum. I have come to the conclusion that Multiculturalism and politically correct Left Wing thinking has eroded the American harmony into more and more conflict.

Elsa’s email response to my thoughts on same-sex marriage relate to the point that not all people have my perspective on the supremacy of a monotheist God from the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible. She wrote as follows:

Hello John,

Thank you for writing. I don’t see anyone as insignificant.

I have also noted your many efforts on google plus. Not insignificant.

Much more, I know we are not insignificant as ourselves, who we are.

Yes, we disagree on gay marriage – however, like you I want to do this respectfully.

On my side, as you must know, my spirituality, and also my beliefs about the more-than-5-sense-world, are different from yours. So what for you is sin and death, for me is fine – freedom unless you are hurting someone (hitting, insulting, etc.).

The most amazing thing for me: this experience with traditional Christians is something new for me – except for some encounters with Jehovah’s Witnesses as a mid-teen. Yours is an alien inner landscape for me.

My sense is we come to counter-jihad from different angles – for me Islam is against freedom, the right to flourish.

And now I want to tell you about a strength of the traditional Christians I have noticed (and you most likely know).

I’ve had to hold out against political correctness on my own – through thinking. Most people around me have gone the brain-wrecked route of political correctness.

Traditional Christians have more tools – starting with being encouraged to stand strongly for the truths they believe in, not caving in if someone else is offended.

And yet, like the non-religious politically correct people, so many of them have caved in as well.

Anyway, I find it vital that we can stand for our beliefs – and also learn – and discuss.

From my “experience” (meaning, one can’t verify as one can verify the experience of a sunset) of the “cosmic” (or however one might designate it), I don’t see that my view on gay marriage will ever coincide with yours.

By the way, re-marriage – I think you read my viewpoint: the different religions should have the option to marry (or not marry) in accordance with their beliefs, except when this violates the law (like marrying a child). I know, for instance, that the different branches of the Lutheran church have very different understandings of the biblical texts – re: women, gays, etc. (I am not going to mix into this argument – not mine.)

A big thing, for me: respecting each other, even when there is disagreement.

Again, thank you for writing,

All the best,

Elsa

On 2015-09-01, at 2:18 PM

When I asked for permission to use Elsa’s permission to post her email, she gave permission and responded thus including a quote from my intro to her promotion of Pastor Umar Mulinde for the Nobel Peace Prize (“My Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage & Nobel for Pastor Mulinde”):

I agree:

“(E)ven in disagreement there is still ground for agreement. Christians (of all Denominations), atheists, Secularists and other religions not Islamic should unite and agree that Islam is a threat to all of our lines of thought and beliefs.”

All the best to all of us on the side of life, love, freedom,

Elsa

There is a time when political and social disagreements need to be set aside in Western Culture. The theopolitical tenets of the revered writings of Islam inspiring Sunni and Shia aspirations for a global Caliphate at the expense of the Liberties and Freedoms that have come to pass in West should/MUST unite a common goal to stop the un-Western concepts of Islam from finding any kind of ascendance. Since I am an American this unity must especially coalesce insuring the efficacy of the United State Constitution.

JRH 9/7/15

Please Support NCCR

My Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage & Nobel for Pastor Mulinde


Pastor Umar Mulinde – 2011 – BEFORE Muslim Acid Attack

John R. Houk

© September 1, 2015

Elsa sent a World Truth Summit email update on Sunday and I managed to get to it today on Tuesday. She starts her email with the heart of her update which is support for Ugandan Pastor Umar Mulinde who was persecuted by Muslims by getting an acid bath in his faith. I concur with Elsa that Pastor Mulinde deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for standing for his Christian faith in the midst of intolerant Islamic hatred. Then Elsa proceeds about some flack she received for defending same-sex marriage. I don’t agree on homosexuality but I do agree on Pastor Mulinde.

Below is the beginning of an email reply I sent to Elsa on the same-sex issue which I follow with some supportive thoughts on Pastor Mulinde. Then following all my thoughts I am cross posting Elsa’s email alert.

Elsa I am probably an insignificant among your subscribers. But here’s my two cents anyway.

I’m as a Christian Right Conservative as much as I am Counterjihad supporter. In saying that I am definitely not one who is pleased you are a supporter of homosexual same-sex marriage. Indeed I am not a supporter of anything the Bible condemns and that means the entire lifestyle of homosexuality and that group’s fight for equal rights as in a special recognition as a separate but equal cultural subset.

On the other hand I am an American that believes in the U.S. Constitution and the Rights specified in the Bill of Rights to be applied according to their Original Intent. As such homosexuals that are American citizens should be afforded the same rights as any other American citizen. This is not a call to support the homosexual agenda (which has been unfortunately quite successful) but rather to recognize any American as an American with Constitutional Rights. What people do in the privacy of their home (heterosexual or homosexual) is no one’s business if doesn’t impose on the Rights on another citizen. As long as sin is not against the law, be a sinner. Choosing a sin lifestyle or choosing spiritual death is both a Constitutional Right and a choice offered to all by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Christianity the instant death in this required by the Law of Moses is suspended to be answered for in the Last Judgment according to how one accepts and believes in Jesus Christ the Risen Savior. Jesus doesn’t end the Law, He fulfills it. Jesus came to Save sinners and His Atoning Blood is available in this life right up to a sincere repenter’s last breath.

In the matter of same-sex marriage: For me there is no way around the fact that marriage is a religious oath of fidelity. As far as the Bible informs then, same-sex marriage should not be performed or accepted by Christians. However, a civil union as in a defined and binding contract is Constitutional according to even Original Intent and a matter of choosing Life in Christ or death in the Last Judgment with Satan and his deceived minions. Christians should never give up on showing a person lost in sin the Light of Christ and the path to eternal redemption.

Now to Pastor Umar Mulinde. His story is an amazing one: A former Muslim who found Jesus Christ the Savior, became a powerful preaching Pastor in Uganda, victimized by Muslims intolerant of converting to Christianity with acid in the face and treated free at an Israeli hospital essentially saving Pastor Mulinde’s life.

VIDEO: Muslims attack Pastor with Acid: The Umar Mulinde Story

 

Published by Maoz Israel

Published on May 6, 2012

On Christmas Eve 2011, two Muslim terrorists threw acid in the face of Ugandan Pastor Umar Mulinde. This video shares his amazing story of coming to faith, reaching other Muslims and how he ended up in Israel to receive medical treatment. Maoz Israel and our partners are paying for his hotel and meals, while he receives outpatient medical treatment in Tel Aviv. If you would like to help this dear man of God, you can go to www.MaozIsrael.org/Mulinde [Blog Editor: Link not found. HERE is MaozIsrael.org article about Pastor Mulinde posted in May 2012] to make a contribution. Please pray for Pastor Umar, that he will know the next step for him and his family in their journey with Yeshua.

Elsa’s email is primarily about getting Pastor Umar Mulinde on the nomination list for the next Nobel Peace Prize. I fully support that thought.

Elsa notes in her email that the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize was won (or actually shared) by young Malala Yousafzay. Young Malala was the Muslim girl from Pakistan whose life (actually shot) was threatened by the Taliban for daring to be a female getting an education.

After winner her portion of the prize money Malala committed to donate $50,000.00 to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which is essentially a fund conduit to the Islamic Terrorists known as Hamas which control Gaza like a sovereign nation. Hamas is the same organization of Islamic Terrorists committed to wiping Israel off the map and kill Jews – not only Jewish men but also Jewish women and children.

Pamela Geller writes this about the Muslim heroine for education for Muslim girls:

When a UNRWA school that Malala funds is discovered to be storing weapons to kill Jews, will she apologize? Don’t hold your breath.

Hamas is the Taliban. I am sure Malala’s $50,000 will be used by Hamas to acquire more deadly rockets to slaughter Jews. Well done, Malala.

Malala would do well to fund an education initiative dedicated to expunging Islamic texts and teachings that command jihad, misogyny, oppression and subjugation of non-Muslims and heretics with a particular emphasis on the sharia ban on non-Islamic education. It was why she was shot in the head.

Islamic Jew-hatred: even more powerful than a bullet to the brain. (Malala donates $50,000 to rebuilding Gaza schools; By Pamela Geller; PamelaGeller.com (Atlas Shrugs); 10/29/14)

Yup, I have a problem with that and you should too.

Get involved with Elsa’s petition to get persecuted by Muslims Pastor Umar Mulinde a Christian man and preacher.

JRH 9/1/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Honor Umar Mulinde – we stand with this man

By Elsa Schieder

Sent: 8/30/2015 4:14 PM

Sent via World Truth Summit

The last time I wrote, I knew many of you would disagree with my view on gay marriage. I’ll come to that.

But first, this time I’m sure we agree: honor Umar Mulinde, Christian pastor and bishop, ex-Muslim, acid burned.

We Honor Umar Mulinde

Umar Mulinde- acid burnt by Muslim & treated in Israel

I first heard of him in late 2012. It was at the time when Malala was front page news. Malala, the Muslim girl shot by other Muslims (called Taliban, not Muslim, in the mainstream media). She was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Umar gripped my attention at least as much, but wasn’t mentioned by the mainstream media.

My response: I set up an online petition, a small website, and a Facebook page. I did all I could to get the word out. The petition closed, in 2013, with 1,012 signatures.

Malala went on – as expected – to get the Nobel Peace Prize. And as is not surprising to most counter-jihadis, she has given a considerable portion of the prize money to the so-called Palestinians, disregarding the tunnels that had been built into Israel from Gaza targeting children at a day care, children who would have been murdered in cold blood had the tunnels not been discovered.

Time has gone by.

A few days ago I finished a short video celebrating Umar Mulinde.

VIDEO: Umar Mulinde. He chose to live his truth, despite the threat from Islam.

 

Published by Creativity Emporium

Published on Aug 26, 2015

Over the past couple of days, I’ve updated the site, Nominate Now.

You can see it here:

And I’ve re-opened the petition, which you can access from the site, or directly here.

I don’t know if the response will be larger now than in 2012. I know there’s more awareness of Christian persecution by Islam, and more awareness – largely courtesy of ISIS – of the content of Islam re non-Islamics.

We will see.

Malala, in the mainstream media, seemed to stand for “Muslims” – as the mainstream media wanted Westerners to see “true Muslims.”

Perhaps, if enough of us take action, Umar may come to stand – truthfully – for all those persecuted by Islam.

I don’t, by the way, hold out the hope that he will actually get the Nobel Peace Prize – unless someone with the stature of Donald Trump takes up his cause!!!

And now I will come back to the response to my piece saying that I don’t see how permitting gay marriage threatens marriage. A few people wrote comments like, brilliant! They were in the minority. I also had a couple of thoughtful responses against gay marriage. Again, these were in the minority. I’ve never had so many people cancel – including people who have been getting the updates for 3 years, since I started the initial interview series. Several cancelled with comments like: “God says homosexuality is a sin. Just what don’t you understand?”

I could have answered that we don’t all believe in the same god. Quite a few of us don’t believe in any cosmic force.

But that would have been a response to the words, not to the emotion.

What I saw most was that my not being against gay marriage touched what I might call a hot button, often a hot anger button. Game over. Get out now. No more updates ever.

Nothing else counted.

What comes to mind, for me, is the rage of some Southerners at the forced integration of white schools in the early 1960’s. One incident stands out for me: hundreds of whites lining the sidewalk as 2 10-year-old black girls walked to a previously all-white school. The black girls only got safely to school because National Guard troops held back the taunting whites.

Note: as I mentioned last time, I’m against forcing any religion to perform marriages it disapproves of. And I will add here: I’m against destroying the livelihood of people who don’t want to bake wedding cakes or provide flowers for gay weddings. I think of conscientious objectors who will not serve in the army because of their convictions. I was always in favor of their being allowed to follow their conscience without penalty. It doesn’t make sense, for something much smaller like refusing to bake a cake, to fine conscientious objectors $100,000. (I know this is a complex issue – one for another time.)

I will come back to that hot button around gay marriage another time.

Right now you may be asking: what am I doing, standing up for Umar Mulinde?

You may also be asking: how does he stand on gay rights?

My answer: I don’t know.

The motivation, for me, is caring about human rights and freedoms, including the human right to safety. I think it is utterly vital that we do that.

As always, comments welcome.

To life and to love – l’chaim and l’ahavah,

Elsa

PS. A couple of news items which show major differences re human rights in Canadian political parties [Blog Editor: Elsa is Canadian]:

The Canadian prime minister, Harper (Conservative party) avows his support for Israel

A Liberal candidate wishes an Israel supporter had been aborted with a coat hanger. That Liberal candidate has since stepped down, but I did not notice mainstream castigation.

PPS. Yet one more example of mainstream media bias. As noted at TheRebel.media, there was a lot of mainstream media criticism of the Conservative government when funding was cut off from the Canadian Arab Federation, and there was also coverage on the Federation’s suing of Jason Kenney, the minister in charge. But now that Jason Kenney has won, there is general media silence.

PPPS. For a quick look at my ethicshttp://elsasemporium.com/reality-based-ethics.html

_______________________

My Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage & Nobel for Pastor Mulinde

John R. Houk

© September 1, 2015

______________________

Honor Umar Mulinde – we stand with this man

© Elsa Schieder

 

The First Freedom


Justin Smith captures the essence of SCOTUS joining the American Left to destroy Christianity in a stealthy slow whittling manner.

JRH 7/6/15

Please Support NCCR

************************

The First Freedom

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 7/4/2015 1:41 PM

Natural law – God’s law – will always trump common law. God will have the final word in this matter.” – Alveda King, a Christian leader and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece

The Supreme Court’s recent egregious and error-filled ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, favoring homosexual marriage, has seriously endangered the liberty of all Americans, through its gross distortions of the documents fundamental to American liberty. This ruling, facilitated by five Progressive Justices acting like oligarchs, created through judicial decree a previously non-existent “constitutional right” to sin-based “gay marriage,” and it showed all Americans that they can never again trust in the rulings of the Court, when Liberty hangs in the balance.

The First Freedom — Religious Liberty — is currently in crisis, because the many activist federal judges and “conservative” Justices, like Anthony Kennedy, are willing to move Left, even if they must defy the Constitution. Too many conservatives have refused to stand in defense of religious liberty, and they follow rules that Democrats ignore, as these Progressives unfold their Machiavellian plan. If religious liberty can be undone by decree, and the people allow it, then so too can every other liberty be undone.

The Framers of Our Constitution thought that Congress’s “power of instituting impeachments,” explained by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, would be an “important constitutional check” and would provide “a complete security against the justices’ deliberate usurpations of the authority of the legislature.” [The Essential Federalist Papers; Edited by Steve Straub; The Federalist Papers Project; 10/3/13; Federalist 81- pg. 24 of document – pg. 25 of PDF] But, with Congress currently lacking will and backbone, any prospect of impeachment is virtually non-existent and still offers no remedy.

In March of 1788, Robert Yates, a New York judge, published the ‘Anti-Federalist Papers’ under the name “Brutus.” [You can find the text to all Brutus Anti-Federalist essays HERE.] He noted that the Supreme Court would favor the increase of federal power at the expense of the states [Blog Editor’s opinion: These Brutus essays are must reads to ascertain Justin Smith’s exegesis of Robert Yates’ on SCOTUS, the States and Legislature – XI, XII, XIII and XV], just in the manner we now see state laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman recently eradicated. Brutus also worried that SCOTUS could use its interpretive “principles, whatever they may be” to explain its own power and define that of the legislative branch through the threat of having its laws declared unconstitutional; so the precedent of Obergefell v. Hodges portends terribly evil events surrounding any future legislation on abortion or marriage.

Justice John Roberts’ dissent proves the truth of Brutus’s words:

“The majority’s ruling is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution … The majority expressly disclaims judicial ‘caution’ and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own ‘new insight’ into the ‘nature of injustice.'” [Entire Roberts Dissent]

Isn’t it curious and sickening that homosexuality, considered a mental disorder throughout the 1970s by the American Psychiatric Association and considered perverted and criminal by society until this century, is now supposedly acceptable, with homo-marriage “a constitutional right”?

Obergefell v. Hodges effectively nullified the votes of 50 million Americans, representing 60% of votes cast on the matter to date, and negated their affirmation that marriage is between one man and one woman. Thus, five Black Robes — the Court — trampled on the constitutional authority of the American people and our elected representatives to make marriage policy.

In part, Justice Antonin Scalia’s scathing dissent stated [Search Page: “SCALIA, J., dissenting]:

“The five Justices … have discovered in the 14th Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds … John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand … Hugo Black … could not. ,,, These Justices know that an institution [marriage as defined as being between one man and one woman] as old as the government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until fifteen years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance and bigotry. … The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

Any honest reading of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause would conclude that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, “gay marriages”; however, while the First Amendment guarantees the freedom to “exercise” religion, the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges omits any mention of the free exercise clause, suggesting only that the Keepers of the Faith may continue to “advocate” and “teach” our views of marriage.

Without a doubt, a total purge of America’s Judeo-Christian principles and values is underway in the public square and our education systems, and this “gay marriage” and sodomite deviancy nonsense is nothing more than a move to force Christ’s faithful, under penalty of law to abandon Biblical Truth and accept sexual sin in their midst, with the endgame essentially being the silencing of all Christian dissent: I will not let them silence me.

Pat Buchanan recently asked (in ‘Quo Vadis’),

“Does moral truth change? Are the Ten Commandments and Christian tradition and Natural law as defined by Aquinas just fine for their time, but not for ours?”

Todd Starnes (Fox News Radio) recently reported that Linda Barnette, from Grenada County-Mississippi, left her County Clerk position after 24 years of service, rather than issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. She wrote, “I choose to obey God rather than man,” in her one paragraph resignation letter. Unfortunately, the Court Clerk of Rutherford County, my home, did not have the same moral compass, resolve and strength of conviction, issuing homosexual “marriage licenses” immediately.

This homo-marriage ruling comes straight from Hell’s abyss, even though it supposedly still protects religious liberty. Aside from creating new furious debate, this ruling will also increase Christian persecution, through Leftist Progressive lawsuit abuse against Christian individuals, like Cynthia and Robert Gifford, who recently appealed a $13,000 fine they received for refusing to host a “gay wedding” at their privately owned Liberty Ridge Farm (Albany, NY) in June, as they argue that the lower court did not consider their constitutional freedoms and religious beliefs.

More than equality under the law — more than toleration — the “gay” community wants to force all Americans to validate their immorality. And, as such, Christians must refuse to comply with any ruling that forces us into any unwanted association with homosexuals, and we must demand that Congress restrains the Court by defunding it, if necessary: America — do not obey this rogue Court’s ruling.

Christians must tell the truth and fight back hard, if they don’t want to become second class citizens. Tell about a nation founded on Religious Freedom and rights that don’t end the moment we leave church, and fight for the 70% of Americans who claim to be Christians. Tell about the raw hatred for Christians that is driving the illiberal Progressives to crush religious freedom just as Marx and Engels mandated, and fight for religious freedom acts in all fifty states in order to counter today’s open warfare on Christians by the Left.

By Justin O Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations


Bible-- Homosexuality Ungodly Abomination

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2015

 

What do Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and Pastor Chuck Baldwin have in common? Include in that commonality these organizations and Ministries: National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.

 

What they ALL do have in common are the U.S. Appellate, Supreme Court and Traditional Marriage. They all are taking a stand against homosexual same-sex legally mandated marriage ESPECIALLY as the Judicial Branch making it legal as opposed to State legislatures and people’s State Initiatives.

 

ONLY a handful of American States have made same-sex marriage legal by legislative action or a voter’s Initiative. A significant majority of American States have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage at the hands of the Federal Judicial system on every level. 

 

SO, I have to wonder. What Constitutional Article or Amendment gives the Judicial Branch to legislate laws? My understanding of the U.S. Constitution is that only the Amendment process of the U.S. Congress and/or each individual American State has that authority. All the Courts should be involved with is ruling if a law is constitutional or not. Then order the appropriate action from Congress to correct any unconstitutional provisions of a law. AND if the U.S. Constitution does not address an issue each individual State has the Liberty enact a law pertaining to its jurisdiction.

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Here is a pretty good picture of the Original Intent of the 10th Amendment which includes the legal marriage of the 9th Amendment:

 

Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

 

Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

What was the original purpose of these two Amendments? … The truth of the matter is that the two Amendments were intended to be a pair that would secure the rights of the people by ensuring a federal government of limited powers. The original purpose of what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is embodied in a letter from James Madison to George Washington in 1789. Madison wrote, “If a line can be drawn between the [federal] powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.” In other words, what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments serve virtually identical and reciprocal purposes. (Bold-Italic text added by this Editor)

 

… The Tenth plainly says that there is a federal government only of limited enumerated powers. This is of course a most important principle to announce and clearly enshrine in the Constitution, but it alone is not enough precisely because those powers can always be interpreted to be limitless. … The Ninth was therefore also included to say that in applying those federal enumerated powers, it is forbidden to construe them to the point where everything conceivable falls within those powers so long as they do not violate a right specified in the previous listed Amendments to the Constitution that became the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment stands for the proposition that there is only an enumeration of powers and no more, and the Ninth stands for the proposition that the notion of limited and defined powers is to be taken seriously.

 

Federalist (those who argued for the ratification of the Constitution) Governor Edmund Randolph clearly expressed this intent behind what would later became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788. He asked, “If it would not fatigue the house too far, I would go back to the question of reserved rights. The gentleman supposes that complete and unlimited legislation is vested in the Congress of the United States. This supposition is founded on false reasoning… [I]n the general [federal] Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it?–for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless… [Regarding a government] body arising from a compact, and with certain delineated powers…a bill of rights…would not be [necessary]… for the best security that can be…is the express enumeration of its powers” (emphasis added). The “retained rights” of the Ninth Amendment are reserved by the Tenth Amendment’s making clear there is an enumeration of powers. It is in making sure that the federal government is one of limited and defined powers, and that these limitations are taken seriously, that the reserved rights of the people are protected.

 

Nonetheless, this concern underlying the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is in contravention with Supreme Court jurisprudence. The principles announced in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments has been intentionally gutted by the modern Supreme Court since the New Deal.  … The Court stated in the most famous footnote of Constitutional law, in Footnote 4 of the US v. Carolene Products (1938) decision, that there is a “narrower scope for operation of the presumption of Constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments.” The idea expressed by the Supreme Court is the most famous footnote precisely because it is still the framework for much of Supreme Court jurisprudence today. The footnote states that there is a “presumption of Constitutionality” given to federal laws unless a right enumerated in the first ten amendments is at issue. This specifically turns the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment on its head, it contradicts the very purpose of the Ninth Amendment’s inclusion at the end of the Bill of Rights. SHOULD READ ENTIRETY (Original Purpose Of The Most Significant Ignored Amendments To The Constitution: The 9th And 10th; By Steve Lackner; Free Republic; 6/30/11 [at SteveLackner.com – dead link at time of posting] and 7/1/11 3:32:19 AM [at Free Republic])

 

Undoubtedly a little more research will uncover more SCOTUS overreach, but I want to draw attention to a report by Bob Unruh writing for WND. Unruh’s post is the source of the organizations and Ministries I listed above that are taking a stand for Religious Liberty and a stand against the moral abomination of homosexual same-sex marriage.

 

Those great Christians are confronting the SCOTUS Justices with the Word of God and the fact that SCOTUS rulings are infringing on the Rights of individual States to define what marriage is.

 

Unfortunately the Unruh article only focuses on First Amendment violations forced on We The People rather including the imperative of the 10th Amendment and I discovered in reading up on this issue, the significance of the 9th Amendment.

 

JRH 4/8/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************

SUPREMES WARNED: ‘GOD’S JUDGMENT’ NOW LOOMING

‘Scripture attests that perversions violate the law of the land’

By BOB UNRUH

April 7, 2015

WND

 

In a stunningly blunt brief, a team of lawyers acting on behalf of a number of Christian and liberty-focused organizations has told the U.S. Supreme Court that to mandate same-sex marriage is to invite God’s judgment.

 

And that’s probably not going to turn out well.

 

The brief was filed by the William J. Olson law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and pastor Chuck Baldwin.

 

The Supreme Court is to hear arguments later this month in a case coming from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which judges said state residents are allowed to define marriage in their state. The appeal to the Supreme Court contends barring same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

 

Other briefs already have pointed out that marriage existed before any government, law or constitution, so the judiciary doesn’t have the authority to allow people to simply change the definition.

 

The new brief goes much further.

 

“Should the court require the states and the people to ‘ritualize’ sodomite behavior by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the nation,” the brief warns. “Holy Scripture attests that homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is ‘defiled,’ the people have been cast out of their homes.”

 

The brief cites Leviticus 18:22 and 24-30, a biblical passages that seldom finds its way into popular discourse.

 

Verse 22 states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

 

And the subsequent section warns against such defilement.

 

“If you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. … Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them,” the Old Testament passage states.

 

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly doesn’t mince words in her astounding new book, “Who Killed the American Family?” blaming “feminists, judges, lawmakers, psychologists, school districts” and others.

 

The court filing, citing the book of 2nd Peter, continues: “Although some would assert that these rules apply only to the theocracy of ancient Israel, the Apostle Peter rejects that view: ‘For if God … turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha (sic) into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly’” (King James Version).

 

The brief says the “continuing application of this Levitical prohibition is confirmed by the Book of Jude: ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrha (sic), and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

 

The brief argues: “Whatever justification any judge may believe compels a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples, it is not found in the Constitution, nor is it based in any constitutional principles. For any judge to require a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples is an usurpation of authority that he does not have under the laws of man or God, and is thus illegal.”

 

Christian evangelist Franklin Graham defended traditional marriage on his Facebook page Tuesday.

 

“God’s Word doesn’t need a majority vote. God’s Word is true regardless of the winds of moral change, and we must stand up for biblical truth in the midst of a depraved society.”

 

WND previously reported some of the top names in Christian ministry – including the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the Chuck Colson Center, Southern Baptists, Albert Mohler and Charles Stanley – asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect marriage as God defined it.

 

Their brief also was filed in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, where the 6th Circuit ruled residents of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee can define marriage for themselves.

 

That brief was filed by Liberty Institute on behalf of the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.

 

“In reaching its decision, this court should reaffirm that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects religious dissenters who disagree with state-recognized same-sex marriage and to reaffirm the importance of free debate and free inquiry in this democratic republic,” the brief states.

 

Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford said religious liberty and free speech “are our first American freedoms.”

 

“We hope the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to affirm the Sixth Circuit and reaffirm the constitutional rights of all Americans to speak and act according to their beliefs,” he said.

 

When the Alabama Supreme Court prevented a federal judge from imposing same-sex marriage there earlier this year, it argued the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of states to decide the issue when it overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor case.

 

In its order, the Alabama court wrote: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.’”

 

The Alabama court noted that in Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.

 

“Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”

 

The Alabama court thus asked: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?

 

“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”

 

The new brief makes several other points, including that the “constitutional foundation” for the “‘right’ to marry any person of one’s choice” is simply fabricated.

 

“The same-sex advocates have posited that their right to marry is an evolutionary one, having gradually emerged from the dark ages of the common law into the full bloom of a social science consensus of marriage equality,” the brief explained.

 

But to travel that path would be to “ignore what [the court] clearly acknowledged in Marbury v. Madison – that the power of judicial review is limited by the words of the Constitution, and by its original purpose – to secure the right of the people to limit future governments by principles designed to be permanent, not to empower this court to change the Constitution to fit the changing times.”

 

On the issue of homosexuality, the American people “have seen a flurry of judicial opinions with ‘no foundation in American constitutional law’ overturning laws which were ‘designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality’ desired by the people.”

 

“These opinions together constitute what [was] described as ‘an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will.’”

 

The problem is social science isn’t static, the document said.

 

“Prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association consensus was that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Now the consensus is that homosexuality is a positive virtue. Who knows what tomorrow may bring.”

 

The brief said today people are being told that marriage cannot constitutionally be based on “a divinely revealed moral foundation, but only according to the secular reasons of men.”

 

Beware, the brief says.

 

“The nation was not so founded. The Declaration of Independence, the nation’s charter, grounded our nation on the biblical ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ embracing the principle that all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,’ putting its case for liberty before ‘the Supreme Judge of the world,’ and acting in ‘firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.’”

 

Such a change would require the “entire revision” of every family law in the country, closure of adoption agencies and government persecution of those who preach against homosexuality, the brief warns.

 

And there would be no logical barrier to three men or three women marrying: “Why not an uncle and a niece as in New York?”

 

“The current accepted vernacular is said to be “lgbttqqiiaa+,” standing for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, intergender, asexual, ally and beyond,” the brief notes. “Indeed, some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece.”

 

Nearly all orders for states to recognize same-sex marriage have come from federal judges. The judges have simply overridden the will of the state’s residents who voted, often overwhelmingly, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

 

That was the scenario in California, where the fight over marriage ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled only on a technicality – the standing of those supporting the state constitution – and not the merits of the case.

Of the three dozen states that now have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage, only a handful enacted it through their own legislative or administrative procedures.

 

The Alabama court noted: “Only 12 states have accepted same-sex marriage as a result of choices made by the people or their elected representatives. The 25 other states that now have same-sex marriage do so because it has been imposed on them by a federal court.”

 

California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter warned of the fallout from approving same-sex marriage in 2008.

 

Baxter said the court’s decision to overturn a “deeprooted” standard for marriage opened a Pandora’s box.

 

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

Two justices of the U. S. Supreme Court already have made a public stand for same-sex marriage, having performed ceremonies.

 

The actions by Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have prompted citizens groups to call for them to recuse themselves from the coming decision, but they have declined to do so.

 

Kagan performed a Sept. 21 same-sex marriage for her former law clerk, Mitchell Reich, and his partner in Maryland. Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., in August 2013.

 

“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases already before the Supreme Court,” the American Family Association said.

__________________________________________

Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2015

_________________________________

SUPREMES WARNED: ‘GOD’S JUDGMENT’ NOW LOOMING

 

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

© Copyright 1997-2015. All Rights Reserved. WND.com

SCOTUS, Gay Marriage and Need for Constitutional Amendment


Sodomites struck blind for angelic attempted rape

Attempted Rape of Angel of God – Sodomites Struck Blind

 

 

John R. Houk

© September 8, 2014

 

 

On October 6, 2014, in an unexpected move, the United States Supreme Court declined to review petitions challenging the legalization of same-sex marriage in five states, including Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The effect of this refusal to hear these petitions, or this non-decision on the legality of, or the right to, same-sex marriage for all 50 states, is that stays are now lifted on the three federal appeals courts’ decisions upholding such same-sex marriages. With these stays lifted, same-sex marriages are now legal in 24 states, up from 19.

 

Other states in those federal circuits are also affected by the Court’s actions on Monday, including Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. It is thought that the three federal appeals court will uphold same-sex marriages in these states as well, where such marriages are currently banned. If those bans are struck down, then the number of states legalizing same-sex marriage climbs from 24 to 30 in short time. (The Supreme Court’s “Non-Decision” On Same-Sex Marriage: The Impact On Employee Benefits After ‘Windsor’; By Jenny Kiesewetter; JD Supra Business Advisor; 10/7/14)

 

Activist Judges from the Lower Courts to the Appellate Courts have used the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 after the Civil War to drudge Leftist ideology for homosexual rights as if that was the Original Intent inclusively for the moral depravity of homosexuality becoming normalized in our society. The very slow process of acceptance of the normalizing of the homosexuality began in 1960s with gay PhDs and MDs pushing academic flawed research to counter the Word of the Creator of ALL that exists materially and spiritually.

 

… [I]t’s been 50 years since Alfred Kinsey published his infamous 1948 report, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which has so profoundly and grievously affected not only American society, but the moral, social, and political order worldwide. It is difficult to exaggerate the horrendous effects of the widespread promotion and acceptance of his work. Kinsey’s “research” shook America’s moral foundations and launched the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s. Its terrible results are obvious in the skyrocketing incidence of all the social pathologies afflicting us today: divorce, abortion, sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, illegitimate births, cohabitation, pornography, homosexuality, sadomasochism, rape, child molestation, sexual crimes of all types, family breakup, endemic violence, etc. We cannot hope to reverse this destructive, downward spiral if we do not recognize and openly confront the Kinseyite falsehoods and subversive premises and ideas that undergird popular attitudes and official policies today. (Fighting the Kinsey Fraud: Interview with Dr. Judith Reisman; Interview found at Whale.to [yeah I know – Conspiracy Theory Website]; Interview took place in 2005; Dr. Judith Reisman exposed Alfred Kinsey as a fraud in his experimental findings justifying homosexuality among many other challenging moral foundations)

 

Do you think homosexuality was even remotely acceptable as a normal lifestyle in 1868?

 

Amendment XIV

 

Section 1.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [If 14th Amendment stopped perhaps a stretch to a modern inclusiveness of gender more than race, BUT it is still a stretch and emancipated former Black Slaves is the Original Intent here and NOT same-sex normalcy.]

 

Section 2.

 

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. [Nothing to do with gender here, but only voting age – which has since been amended as well.]

 

Section 3.

 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. [AGAIN, nothing about gender in service of any form of local, state or federal government. Specificity is given to those members of Southern States that attempted to forcefully secede from the Union of the USA.]

 

Section 4.

 

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. [No gender here but the promise of federal government to pay debts incurred during the Civil War but NOT any debts incurred by the rebelling Confederate States.]

 

Section 5.

 

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. [Here it becomes a part of the rule of law to constitutionally enforce the civil rights to emancipated Black Slaves and not same-sex lifestyles. Based on Original intent, offering normalcy to moral depravity is NOT justified.] (Bracketed bold text is by this Blog Editor; 14th Amendment; present on Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute)

 

Unless you are a Leftist Living Constitution moron the 14th Amendment wasn’t even close to extending normalcy and special civil rights for followers of a homosexual lifestyle.

 

GASP! This is where all the Leftist transformers and Homosexual rise up and paint a picture these sentiments as the words of a homophobe bigot. This is where I stand up and look depravity apologists in the eye and tell them first I don’t fear homosexuals and second I join feel safe in joining the Creator of all that exists that homosexuality among males and females is an abomination in the Creator’s eyes.

 

Practicing homosexuals should be grateful that the mercy of God extending by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the Son of God extends forgiveness through faith in God’s Grace toward those who choose the Lord as their Savior and dedicate themselves to following Christ understanding that sinful passions are forgiven.

 

SHAME on the Supreme Court dodging the issue as a final authority in the rule of law by not looking at same-sex depravity and step up to the plate to make the right decision to join Nature’s God in upholding Natural Law to overrule activist Judges that validate UNNATURAL moral practices.

 

Here are some quotes/excerpts for Christian Bible Believers to think on when Leftists and Homosexual Activists distort the Truth in God to manipulate American opinion via a guilt complex imposition:

 

Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences” describes the allegedly scientific research of Alfred Kinsey and colleagues, which largely shaped modern Western society’s beliefs and understanding of the nature of human sexuality.

 

Today, half a century later, Kinsey’s unchallenged conclusions are taught at every level of education – from elementary school to college – and quoted in textbooks as undisputed truth.

 

Incredibly, Kinsey’s research involved illegal sexual experimentation on several hundred young children. And his survey was based on a non–representative group of Americans — including hundreds of sex offenders, prostitutes, prison inmates and exhibitionists. Yet Kinsey’s grotesquely fraudulent research has served as the very foundation of modern “sex science,” and his claim that one in 10 people are homosexual is central to the gay—rights movement. And now comes the greatest hypocrisy of all — the pretense of providing safe-sex instructions to children while in reality advancing Kinsey’s agenda, including indulgence in high—risk lifestyles and behaviors. (Church History – the Homosexual age: [subtitle] Jesus warned us these times would come! – Subtitle by Dr. Judith Reisman; From BibleProbe.com)

 

*******

 

The Homosexual Agenda is a self-centered set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate approval of homosexuality and homosexual ideology, along with the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for homosexuals that other people don’t have, such as immunity from criticism (see hate speech, hate crimes). Such special rights will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of broader society. The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the right of free speech today.

 

 

Strategies and psychological tactics

 

Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations (see homosexuality and biblical interpretation), and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.[32] This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be “judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”[33], as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This includes the use of demonstrative protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.

 

 

Influence in the academic world

 

Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled First Things (Aug/Sept. 1993) how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.

 

[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as “homophobia – a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality – is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.[63]

 

… READ ENTIRETY (Homosexual Agenda; Conservapedia article entry; Last Modified September 10, 2014 at 19:26)

 

 

******************

 

“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.

 

“Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.

 

“Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws. – Senator Ted Cruz via The Atlantic (Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals; By ALLAHPUNDIT; Hot Air; 10/7/14 2:01 PM)

 

*************************

 

“According to the majority of this very Supreme Court in the Windsor decision, states and their citizens have the right and responsibility to define their marriage laws. It is shocking that at least six Supreme Court justices would allow unelected lower court judges to simply ignore the majority decision – and the Section of DOMA upheld in the Windsor decision.

 

“The only alternative to allowing these unelected liberal judges to impose their morality on all of America is to pass a constitutional amendment. To that end, last year I introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment (HJ Res. 51) to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.

 

“Like so many other states, the citizens of Kansas made an overwhelming decision to stand for traditional marriage when they adopted the Kansas Marriage Amendment. No one justice – no one court – no elite judicial activists should be permitted to redefine or un-define marriage to suit their distaste for traditional marriage.

 

“This most recent non-decision by the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates the need for a constitutional amendment on this issue.” (Huelskamp: We need a Constitutional Amendment on Same Sex Marriage; By Post Staff; Salina Post; 10/7/14)

 

*******************

 

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) would amend the United States Constitution to protect marriage, family and children by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Congressman Tim Huelskamp introduced the FMA on June 28, 2013.

 

… (Federal Marriage Amendment; By Tim Huelskamp Gov webpage)

 

******************************

 

H.J.RES.51 — Marriage Protection Amendment (Introduced in House – IH)

 

HJ 51 IH

 

113th CONGRESS

 

1st Session

 

H. J. RES. 51

 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 

June 28, 2013

 

Mr. HUELSKAMP (for himself, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. PITTS, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BARTON, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JONES, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. HALL, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. WOLF, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. HULTGREN, and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

 

JOINT RESOLUTION

 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.

 

SEC. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

 

The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

 

Article–

 

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’. (Bill Text: 113th Congress (2013-2014), H.J.RES.51.IH; Thomas Library of Congress)

 

JRH 10/8/14

Please Support NCCR

In Support of Eugene Delgaudio


Eugene Degaudio

John R. Houk

© December 14, 2012

 

You should Google the name Eugene Delgaudio. The inevitable first impression you will from the links provided is that Delgaudio is an evil homophobe. The word “homophobe” would indicate an unnatural fear of homosexuals. However, homosexual activists and Leftists will turn “homophobe” from fear to hate. Thus a homophobe is a person that hates homosexuals. The word “hate” indicates a propensity to act on hate such as verbal diatribes, violence or worse the act of murder.

 

Are there people that hate homosexuals so much that those diatribes that are threatening, a crime of violence or the downright horror of murder will be committed? I stipulate such people are not homophobes, rather these kinds of people are of the malicious minded truly demented in their thinking and worthy of prison or a death sentence whichever is appropriate.

 

How about those people taking a stand against homosexuality because their religious beliefs proclaim the act of sex between two people of the same sex to be morally repugnant? Are these people that hate or fear homosexuality? In the case of Christianity loathing homosexuality is not hate or fear, rather loathing homosexuality is lining up with Father God that calls homosexuals an abomination (Since our current President is pro-same-sex marriage maybe the word could also be ‘Obamanation’).

 

Thus it is quite infuriating when homosexual activists label a person promoting the Biblical Christian of homosexuality as a hating-homophobe.

 

Eugene Delgaudio’s mission in life is to fight the moral acceptance of homosexuality which is viewed by Biblical Christians as a perversion. Delgaudio is only a hater if he speaks and writes that violence and murder should be exacted on homosexuals. Delgaudio is no friend of homosexuality yet he is not a promoter of violence say like Obama’s old friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn that spent their youth working to bring down the USA with violent bombings replacing Freedom with Communist despotism.

 

On the other hand, I wonder how many homosexuals or homosexual activists speak or write threats of violence against Eugene Delgaudio? Regardless of threats and vilification by the MSM, homosexual activists, Leftists and even some Conservatives queasy of the well moneyed homosexual agenda proponents; Delgaudio was reelected to his County Commissioner post for the fourth time Loudon County Virginia.

 

After Delgaudio was reelected as Commissioner the homosexual and Leftists came against through the courts.

 

§  Delgaudio sued for using the sick marriage picture of homosexual couple

 

§  Delgaudio is being investigated for using County resources to raise funds

 

Frankly the civil litigation and criminal investigation has all the appearance of the homosexual version of Lawfare to make an attempt to break Delgaudio financially and to make a big effort to silence his Biblically Moral stand against the abomination known as the homosexual lifestyle.

 

So with this back drop Delgaudio is facing it is good to know he is still exposing the consequences of the homosexual agenda. Below is an email I received today sent by Delgaudio’s watchdog organization Public Advocate of the United States.

 

JRH 12/14/12

Please Support NCCR

***********************************

Disgusting!

 

By Eugene Delgaudio

Sent 12/14/2012 10:08 AM

Sent by Public Advocate

 

Washington State residents are experiencing firsthand the horrors that accompany the Homosexual Agenda.

Only days before the anti-marriage referendum passed in the state, a disgusting story surfaced.

“Colleen” Francis — a 45-year-old man who claims to be a woman — was lounging in the women’s sauna at the Evergreen State College pool when a local high school girls’ swim team came in to use the facilities.

The sauna’s glass wall gave “Colleen” full view of the girls while they were changing!

The swim coach threw the man out, but school officials quickly apologized to “Colleen” and insisted he be allowed to continue using the women’s facilities.

College officials claim that his right to violate the women’s rooms is “protected” since Washington State has given homosexuals and transsexuals a superior “protected-class” status.

As disturbing as this is, instances like this are becoming far too common.

And President Obama’s Justice Department is doing its best to make sure this continues.

Not that long ago, Public Advocate alerted pro-Family Americans to the case of “Jennifer.”

This 38-year-old man actually bragged about using the women’s restrooms at the University of Arkansas.

And when actual women complained about “Jennifer” using their facilities, Obama’s Department of Justice rushed to defend his “special rights.”

The Homosexual Lobby is determined to see their agenda anywhere and everywhere.

That’s why the efforts of Public Advocate in states like Washington get more important every day.

And why your support of Public Advocate means more now than ever before.

The Homosexual Lobby won’t settle for the recent passage of homosexual “marriage” in Washington State.

They’ll stop short of nothing but absolute victory for their agenda in the hearts and minds of our children and our country.

But with your help, Public Advocate is fighting back against homosexual “marriage” and the creation of “special rights” for deviants like “Colleen” and “Jennifer.”

For the Family,

Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate of the United States

P.S. Please consider chipping in with a donation of $10 or more to help fund Public Advocate’s fight for traditional values.

_______________________________

In Support of Eugene Delgaudio

John R. Houk

© December 14, 2012

_______________________________

Disgusting!

 

Because Public Advocate of the U.S. is a non-profit, charitable organization that fights the radical agenda of the Homosexual Lobby, contributions are not tax deductible for IRS purposes. This email was not produced or emailed at taxpayer expense. Public Advocate’s phone number is (703) 845-1808, its address is 5613 Leesburg Pike, Suite 17 Falls Church, VA 22041, and its website is http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/.

To help Public Advocate grow, please forward this to a friend.

Washington State Referendum 74


Referendum-74-Petitions

John R. Houk

© October 2, 2012

 

I am a Conservative Family Values kind of guy. Couple this to know that I grew up in a small town in Washington State (I currently live in Oklahoma). I have a tendency to pay attention to politics in the Evergreen State.

 

Two-thirds of the population of Washington State lives west of the Cascade Mountain Range. This is roughly one-third of the State.  In doing the math then obviously one-third of the population lives on the two-thirds east of the Cascades.

 

This important to know because most people think of Washington State as an in the tank people for Left Wing politics. The in the tank Leftists live west of the Cascades dominated by Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area. East of the Cascades the voting bloc is generally Conservative even if they have been lifelong Democrats.

 

When I was growing up in Washington the State was divided by just two area codes: 206 and 509. Since I have moved from my beloved Eastern Washington multiple area codes mostly on the West side have emerged. As a kid I learned to call people the Seattle Side people 206ers. Yes it was meant in a pejorative sense.

 

So in Washington State the 206ers have politically bullied the Eastern two-thirds of the State. However once in a while there is a political issue in which 206er Center Left voters agree with Right Wingers and the Center Right voters of Eastern Washington.

 

That political issue is holy matrimony. Recently the Washington State legislature made ungodly same-sex marriage legal. The Washington folks that believe marriage is between a male and a female got together to get enough signatures to get Referendum 74 on the November ballot to repeal the legislative action. Referendum 74 gives the voters the power to what is right and not Left Wing Secular Humanist Moral Relativists.

 

The Traditional Marriage folks had to deal with hostility from homosexual activists that attempted to intimidate voters by publicizing petition signers’ names and addresses. The horror of hate-mail or vandalism is a near terrorist method to strike fear into voters to keep them from signing the petition to place Referendum on the November ballot. Even with the homosexual political terrorism the Traditional Marriage folks got twice as many signatures than was needed.

 

Referendum 74 is the work of Traditional Marriage proponents. Ironically the wording of the people’s initiative to reject State legislation works out like this: a yes vote makes homosexual marriage legal and a no vote makes homosexual marriage illegal. So it is actually fairly neutral with the positive favoring same-sex marriage and the negative rejecting same-sex marriage.

 

Something I might point out: As I was Googling for information about Referendum 74. I should have expected this but I was still a bit disappointed. The top Google listings emphasized the homosexual point of view stigmatizing the Traditional Family view. A quick perusal of the pro-homosexual stands highlighted polls in which Washington State citizens and Catholics support same-sex marriage. These pro-homosexual views treated percentages between 50 and 54 as overwhelming proof that Washington voters are in the tank for same-sex marriage. Forgive me for pointing out if the poll was taken on the West side of the State those percentages are a bit skewed. If the nearly half of those poll stats are coupled with the overwhelming Traditional Marriage voters of the Eastern Washington I suspect the outcome in November will be a bit of surprise for homosexuals. OR maybe it won’t be a surprise knowing that pro-homosexual propaganda is being pumped into the Washington State voters.

 

An email from Eugene Delgaudio is what touched off these thoughts on Referendum 74. Below is that email.

 

JRH 10/2/12

Please Support NCCR

Chick-Fil Shows How Religious Freedoms Are Being Lost


Chick-fil-A Day

Ann Matos got my attention commenting on an article by Thomas Messner who writes that the Leftist and Homosexual activist attack on the Family Values promoted by Chick-Fil-A.

 

Messner’s point is that all the Leftist talk to ban Chick-Fil-A is just one more symptom of utilizing political power and money-sucking litigation to force Christians to be quiet about Biblical Morality.

 

Friends that is so evil that I can say that is Satanic.

 

JRH 8/1/12

Please Support NCCR

***************************

Chick-Fil Shows How Religious Freedoms Are Being Lost

 

By Ann Matos

Jul 30, 2012 10:44 pm

ReaganForge Yahoo Group (I believe Registration Required)

 

Use the above link to read a chilling article how Christians who express their conscience are being placed under legal, cultural and economic pressure to recant.  I feel these are signs of the end times and may indeed be unstoppable.  However, for the sake of our nation, for what it once was, for what it can be again, I haven’t yet given up hope that this situation can be reversed.  After all, when Jonah went to Ninevah, they repented.  Who knows?  Maybe we will yet have a great revival — a time of renewed Christian committment (sic), as Billy Graham prays for.  I still believe … … …

 

Ann

__________________________

Chick-fil-A Latest Example of How Same-Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Freedom

 

By Thomas Messner

July 30, 2012 at 3:30 pm

The Foundry

 

Same-sex marriage combined with nondiscrimination policies will result in significant discrimination against individuals and institutions that hold to the belief that marriage is—and should be defined in law as—the union of one man and one woman.

In the latest illustration of how this will happen, a Chickkago alderman recently explained that he plans to block the Chickkken restaurant Chick-fil-A from building a new restaurant in his ward because he is offended by the belief of the company’s owners that marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

“There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs,” the official stated. “Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.”

 

Under pressure, this official might attempt to alter his rationale for targeting Chick-fil-A—or even back down altogether like the mayor of Boston did when he was criticized for targeting Chick-fil-A in his city.

 

However it turns out, though, the Chick-fil-A situation certainly adds to the growing list of cases illustrating how individuals and institutions that continue to support marriage as one man and one woman will likely face a variety of significant burdens:

 

§  A Christian photographer in New Mexico who refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony was hauled before a human rights tribunal and forced to pay nearly $6,700 in attorneys’ fees to the complainant;

 

§  Christian charities have been forced to stop providing foster care and adoption services because they cannot in good conscience comply with laws that would require them to violate beliefs about marriage and family;

 

§  Boy Scouts of America has lost equal access to public facilities and programs because of its position on open homosexuality;

 

§  A graduate student claims that she was expelled from a public university counseling program after she conscientiously objected to counseling a potential client seeking assistance regarding a homosexual relationship; and

 

§  A Christian organization at a public university was denied official recognition because it required officers and voting members to adhere to traditional Christian teachings, including a prohibition on extramarital sex.

 

This is not “live and let live.” This is the state—and sometimes private citizens and the culture at large—punishing people who refuse to recant their belief that marriage is the union of a husband and wife.

 

This kind of thing happens because proponents of same-sex marriage declare support for marriage as one man and one woman to be a form of irrational prejudice and bigotry similar to racism. In this view, support for marriage as one man and one woman is the kind of belief that should be purged from public life through legal, cultural, and economic pressure.

 

This is precisely what is happening right now to Chick-fil-A.

 

Defending marriage takes courage. For more stories of people who have demonstrated courage in standing for marriage as one man and one woman, visit the website of the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance, a group that stands up for people who stand up for marriage.

 

Posted in Family and Religion, Featured

_____________________________

The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

 

© 2012, The Heritage Foundation
Conservative policy research since 1973

It’s Time to Find Money to Counter Gay and Leftist Propaganda


Gay Theology Propaganda

John R. Houk

© June 12, 2012

Here is a classic example of Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) propagandizing the normalization of LGBT as in same-sex marriage. The New York Times has an editorial extolling growing support of same-sex marriage by Republicans to let the public know the GOP is no longer out of touch with American culture.

The fact is the percentage of actual homosexuals in America shows that the Left is out of touch with the American reality; which is that LESS THAN 5% of Americans claim to be living a homosexual lifestyle.

This means that the growing support among Republican politicians for the homosexual agenda of same-sex marriage is based entirely on Leftist and homosexual activist propaganda which is primarily being disseminated through the MSM, Hollywood and the small screen of TV. The homosexual agenda has been so successful in promoting homosexuality to the public that the more than 95% of Americans that do not live a homosexual lifestyle are made to feel like bigots by openly accepting the Biblical Moral view of homosexuality which is an abomination in the sight of God.

But what percentage of the population is actually gay or lesbian? With the debate over same-sex marriage again an emerging fault line in American political life, the answer comes as a surprise: A lower number than you might think — and a much, much, much lower one than most Americans believe.

In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or “homosexual,” the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates, approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay. Overall, “U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian,” Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian. (Emphasis Mine)

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.On the one hand, people who overestimate the percent of gay Americans by a factor of 12 seem likely to also wildly overestimate the cultural impact of same-sex marriage. On the other hand, the extraordinary confusion over the percentage of gay people may reflect a triumph of the gay and lesbian movement’s decades-long fight against invisibility and the closet. (Emphasis Mine)

“My first reaction to that, aside from a little chuckle, is that it’s actually a sign of the success of the movement for LGBT rights,” said Stuart Gaffney, a spokesman for the group Marriage Equality USA. “We are a small minority, and we will never have full equality without the support of the majority, and a poll like that suggests the majority is extremely aware of their gay neighbors, coworkers, and friends.”

In recent years, as homosexuality has become less stigmatized, pro-gay rights groups have come around to acknowledging that a smaller percent of people identify themselves as gay than some of the early gay rights rhetoric claimed, based on Alfred Kinsey’s 1948 report, “Sexuality in the Human Male.” His survey research on non-random populations in the immediate post-World War II period concludedthat 10 percent of men “were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55” and that 37 percent had had at least one homosexual experience in their lives, but did not get into questions of identity per se. (Emphasis Mine)

Contemporary research in a less homophobic environment has counterintuitively resulted in lower estimates rather than higher ones. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a gay and lesbian think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent — predominantly women — identify as bisexual. Far from underestimating the ranks of gay people because of homophobia, these figures included a substantial number of people who remained deeply closeted, such as a quarter of the bisexuals. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of women between 22 and 44 that questioned more than 13,500 respondents between 2006 and 2008 found very similar numbers: Only 1 percent of the women identified themselves as gay, while 4 percent identified as bisexual. (Emphasis Mine)

Higher numbers can be obtained when asking about lifetime sexual experiences, rather than identity. The Williams Institute found that, overall, an estimated 8.2 percent of the population had engaged in some form same-sex sexual activity. Put another way, 4.7 percent of the population had wandered across the line without coming to think of themselves as either gay or bisexual. Other studies suggest those individuals are, like the bisexuals, mainly women: The same CDC study that found only 1 percent of women identify as lesbian, for example, found that 13 percent of women reported a history of some form of sexual contact with other women.

“Estimates of those who report any lifetime same-sex sexual behavior and any same-sex sexual attraction are substantially higher than estimates of those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual,” the Williams Institute’s Gary J. Gates concluded.

One thing’s for sure: it’s hard to imagine the fact that so many think the country is more than a quarter gay or lesbian has no impact on our public policy. (Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are; by Garance Franke-Ruta; The Atlantic; May 31 2012, 2:17 PM ET)

Now if there are a growing amount of Republicans plugging into the Homosexual Activist and Leftist propaganda in order to bend our society into legitimizing homosexuality as normal, November 2012 is the time for Values Voters to make their voice even with the pressure of the propaganda the MSM exerts.

The NYT article I linked to in the first paragraph suggests that Paul Singer’s – homosexual Republican donor – brainiac creation of a Super PAC with the sole purpose of throwing money behind Congressional Republicans that support same-sex marriage will the homosexual agenda among Conservatives.

Sadly as long Social Values Conservatives continue to fail to counter the propaganda of the Left and Homosexual Activists that homosexuality is normal rather than a deviant sin in the sight of God Almighty, Singer may succeed with his millions of dollars to convince so-called moderate GOP to get on the same-sex train.

I know the MSM, Hollywood, and the small screen TV basically dominate streams of information toward the public; nonetheless we Values Conservatives need to find a way to neutralize the immoral grip of those propagandists that have convinced an overwhelming majority of non-homosexuals that homosexuality is normal.

Christians that have decided to marginalize Leftist control of the Media have developed their cable and non-cable Christian television networks. It is time for Conservatives to do so as well.

Kudos for the Fox Network that has developed the Fox News and Fox Business Channel; however Fox so far is of a singular outlet compared to the rest of the MSM. AND a host of the entertainment programming of the Fox Network and the cable FX network are not exactly developing serious programming promoting Conservative values. Indeed a significant amount of shows – unfortunately even shows that I like – are in the pro-homosexual category. There are issues even on Fox News that the pressure of Political Correctness vetoes reporting if it may rock the boat.

So what is the answer? The answer is obvious. Let’s get some Conservative millionaires and billionaires to invest in the creation of more hard hitting Conservative Networks or News Networks that not only compete with the Left leaning media but to also compete with Fox News to terminate the effects of Political Correctness across the airwaves.

Homosexuality is not normal. This is the case no matter the propaganda from the Bible-hating Left and Homosexual Activists.

Even though it is a bit off the subject here I have to add some other themes that the Mainstream Airwaves have influenced Americans over:

§  Islam is not compatible to the Rights and Liberties spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. Reject the accusation of Islamophobia as a stigma to compare Islamic culture with Constitutional Rights and Laws.

§  The globalist agenda of a One World Government under the auspices of the United Nations (as in Agenda 21 and enforced Multiculturalism) also is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution especially in the matter Sovereignty and the Rule of Law.

§  The Leftist agenda to make gun ownership illegal by American citizens is Unconstitutional. If Leftist desire a gun law change then go through the Amendment process and not cop out with the Living Constitution malarkey to use Activist Judges to make law from the bench concerning gun ownership (good luck with that).

§  Competing Conservative News agencies for that matter go after Judicial Activism that creates laws ex nihilo separate from the Constitution including:

o   Illegal Immigration

o   American Laws for American Courts (ALAC)

o   Overriding the Federalism of State Sovereignty when laws do not contradict the U.S. Constitution

o   I am sure my fellow Conservatives can add to a list of topics that competing Conservative News Networks could counter Leftist propaganda let alone homosexual propaganda.

JRH 6/12/12

Please Support NCCR