Today a friend asked me if I had seen the interview that the queen of fake sincerity, ABC’s Diane Sawyer, conducted last week with woman-in-waiting, or woman in man’s body, or “her,” as he likes to call his true self, Bruce Jenner. When I said that I had, she asked me what I thought of it. I explained that whenever I see the latest celebrity-based shiny object that the Lame Stream Media decides to use to distract the ignorant, the confused, and the stone-cold stupid from real information about the destruction of our country by Obama and his merry band of Marxists, I ask myself “why this story?”
In this case, it’s all about advancing the same agenda that the Left has had for 100 years; specifically, to attempt to normalize abnormal and even deviant behavior, to exact payback against the traditional society that has unfairly marginalized those who engage in “alternative lifestyles,” and most important to destroy the traditional family.
How perfect that an American Olympic hero, the epitome of masculine power and athleticism, has “come out” as a transexual! It’s like cultural Marxist Christmas, if there were such a thing.
As you well know, that three-pronged agenda is also what is behind the aggressive efforts by militant “gay activists” over the last twenty years to ram so-called “same sex marriage” down the throats of the American people. We have documented the strategy conceived back in the late 1980’s, and described in the book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, to overcome opposition, and eventually, normalize homosexual behavior.
Now, the ridiculous notion of two men being pronounced “husband and husband” has made it all the way to U.S. Supreme Court, and as a result, like some sort of huge backed up toilet, the usual suspects as in the learned commentators on-line or on cable TV are unleashing a torrent of emotionally-driven clap trap about what should be a serious legal issue. This kind of thing is why my work is never done. So, as a public service, to help you confront the BS that you almost certainly going to hear over the next couple of weeks about “gay marriage,” here are the facts that you need to know.
The Word “Marriage” Does Not Appear Anywhere in the Constitution
The Supreme Court is supposed to decide Constitutional issues, which the issue of marriage is not. Throughout our nation’s history, marriage and family law have been determined by state law, but why should that matter now that we live in these “historic” times? As Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto, “communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
There is no “fundamental right” for Two People of the Same Gender to Marry
In Constitutional jurisprudence, “fundamental rights” are those objectively rooted in this nation’s history and legal traditions. Given that just three years ago no less a brilliant compassionate light of liberal enlightenment than Barack Hussein Obama, who his supporters mischaracterize as “Constitutional law scholar,” opposed so-called same-sex marriage, I think it’s safe to say that so-called “same-sex marriage” doesn’t pass the “fundamental right” test.
The Supreme Court Ruled Against Same-Sex Marriage Over Forty Years Ago
In the 1972 Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Nelson. the Supreme Court declined to review the decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide a fundamental right for two men to marry, citing the lack of a substantial federal question. Yep. That about captures it.
If Congress Had Done The Right Thing When it Passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), We Wouldn’t Be in This Mess
The lower federal courts are complete creatures of Congress, which can restrict their jurisdiction to whatever they choose. When Congress passed DOMA in 1996 , it could have limited the jurisdiction of the federal courts to review the law. The failure to do so was a major misstep. In 2004, there was a hearing on limiting the jurisdiction of these courts to protect marriage, but it went nowhere. That was very unfortunate indeed.
Here They Go Again: The Left Resorted to Liberal Activist Federal Courts When They Failed at the Ballot Box
Thirty states passed, most by huge majorities, state constitutional amendments banning so-called same-sex marriage. When the militant homosexual movement realized that they were getting nowhere fast at the ballot box, they did what they always do. They looked to activist liberal judges to rescue their agenda, which, of course, they did.
The 2013 Windsor Decision Does NOT Require That Same-Sex Marriage Be Legalized Across the Entire Country
The Windsor case that rejected DOMA’s definition of marriage under federal law involved a legal marriage that was considered legal in the state of domicile of the plaintiffs. It’s quite a stretch to say that this decision means that “marriage” must be redefined for the whole country. Sorry to throw that pesky legal logic on celebrants who are giddy thinking about picking out their matching tuxedos to “marry” “who they love.”
If Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsberg Had Any Integrity, They Would Have Recused Themselves
Federal law 28 U.S. Code § 455 states:
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
They’ve both performed same sex marriages. They have both made statements in favor of same sex marriage. Seems like a no brainer, doesn’t it?
The 1967 Loving v. Virginia Case Did Not Establish a Right to So-called Same Sex Marriage
As sure as the sun rises in the East, proponents of so-called same sex marriage incessantly bleat about the case that struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. Conflating discrimination based on an immutable genetic characteristic like race with a behavior, like doing the horizontal mambo with someone of the same sex, is not only silly. It’s also demeaning to those who fought for civil rights for blacks, who were subject to blatant de jure (as in it was the law) discrimination. Loving did not redefine marriage. Rather, it stated that the state could not restrict the choice of who a person wanted to marry based on race. It’s apples and oranges, if you can forgive the fruit analogy.
The Case Lawrence v. Texas That Struck Down a Texas Law Against Homosexual Sodomy Does Not Require That States Legalize Same Sex Marriage
It’s one thing to say a state can’t criminalize homosexual sex. Despite the flowery, touchy-feely language in that case, that decision does not mean the state has to CELEBRATE this conduct, and give it the state’s official imprimatur.
The Obama Regime Has Admitted That Religious Institutions Could Lose Their Tax-Exempt Status if They Get Their Way on The Issue of So-Called Same Sex Marriage
In the Supreme Court hearing on 4/28/15, under questioning by Justice Alito, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli admitted that one consequence of the Court ruling that there is a “fundamental right” for two people of the same sex to marry could be the end of tax-exempt status for religious schools and even churches. Yay! Another victory for the glorious gay civil rights movement!
Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, the flagship show o”f the Informed America Radio network, The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in vivid red, white and blue, Sundays 5-7 pm Eastern time (4-6 pm Central) at teriobrien.com and http://www.spreaker.com/show/the-teri-obrien-show, and anytime on demand on iHeart Radio, Stitcher Radio, and iTunes.