Friday, May 16, 2008

Oh, California, how could you! Oh, wait, you're Califoria. Nevermind

Keith here. Well it appears we have another case of judicial totalitarianism. And make no mistake, it is totalitarianism. It is vile and tyrannical. I, of course, am talking about the bench issued order that, despite the will of the people, gay couples have a "right" to marry. A little history on the California controversy. In 1999 domestic partnerships became available to same sex couples affording them the same state privileges that marriage does. That was not enough for the radical gay community. So, in 2000 proposition 22 was put on the ballot to allow the people to decide if marriage should should be limited to one man one woman. It passed with 61.4% in favor of the definition. Of course it was challenged in the court system and now in a 4-3 decision, the court has overturned the peoples will and opened California to Same-Sex marriages. Now, as a last resort of the people to govern themselves and prevent "Bench Legislation", a proposition to amend the state constitution will be put before voters in Nov. 08.

I discuss this topic with many people and it seems everyone has a different opinion. Here are my thoughts and my argument that the definition of marriage should remain one man, one woman.

First of all, we need to be intellectually honest and use the English language accurately. There has been truck loads of propaganda and demagoguery that must be corrected and dispelled.

First lets explore the notion that gays can't marry. This is utterly false. A gay couple is free to go to a supporting church or similar institution and marry. More power to them, they should live and be well. That is not enough for the radical gay community though. I say radical because obviously not all gay Americans are demanding same-sex marriages. In fact there are gays that oppose it. The radical gay community demands government recognition and sanctioning of their union. Some say it makes them feel like second class citizens to be denied marriage. This is why domestic partnerships will not satisfy them. No one is denied the ability to marry. Whether straight, gay, you name it, everyone is allowed to marry. You just can't marry a relative, or multiple people, or someone of the same sex. There is no inherent right for adults to marry whomever, or whatever you want. The attitude of the government is, as it should be in my view, that as adults, you can do pretty much whatever you want. You can marry a goat in whatever religious or similar service you want to have preformed, but the government only condones and officially recognizes a union of one man to one woman. (FYI goat-lovers, consummating your marriage is a no-no). The reason is that we as a society have decided that this is the ideal arrangement for the raising of families and creating the strongest core family structure. Obviously that opinion is also steeped in our Judeo-Christian heritage and tradition.

One truly disappointing, blatant lie spewed from the radical gay community (hereafter referred to as RGC) is that there is no difference between man and woman. It is so ludicrous that I hesitate to respond to it. However this is a major justification to their cause. They argue that children do not need a man and a woman, that children only need two people to love them. Before this came about much more talk of the shame of fatherless households could be heard on even liberal news outlets. Here is a simple exercise in common sense. Imagine an average young man. See him with a loving Father and Mother. The Father teaches him about the proper role of manhood and is an example to look up to. A disciplinarian, a guide and teacher. The Mother is active in his development with learning how to treat women properly, providing the nurturing that only a Mother can provide. Then imagine a boy with two women raising him. Who is supposed to teach him what it means to be a Man, how to behave, how to treat women? Who is his male role model? It saddens me, coming from a loving home with great parents. I have seen it work. To miss out on the unique perspectives that can only be gained from both sexes is setting up this young man for trouble, frustration and possibly failure. Again, until recently, it was agreed by all that fatherless households have been a catastrophic damage to youth, and it is widely suggested that it is the cause for the wide spread failing of the black community. Obviously the world is not perfect. Marriages fail, too easily and too often it seems these days. It is not ideal, but it is a reality, that not all children will have a Mom and Dad to raise them. Divorce, deaths, illness. Parents may not be perfect. They may be abusive or derelict in their responsibilities to their children. Many things may occur that would disadvantage these affected youth. Another myth that the RGC uses to demean traditional marriage is the ridiculous notion that there is a 50% divorce rate. The 2001 census found 166,932,000 Americans have ever been married – or 76% of all those 15 and older. Meanwhile, 48,412,000 have ever been divorced. This means that of all those who have ever been married, 71% are either still married to the person they originally wed, or else they remained married until the spouse died. Hardly the 50% claimed by enemies of traditional marriage. Not perfect, but however unfortunate as divorce or some bad parents may be, the institution does not change. By the government sanctioning same sex unions it is sending a message that fatherless households or motherless households are acceptable and supported. It is time to stop being selfish and think about the effects this will have on children.

The RGC also tries to play down the magnitude of this issue by assuring people that this is not a big deal and that it won't change anything, a "live and let love" attitude. Here is the problem. Imagine 50 years ago turning on the TV and seeing two men kiss passionately on broadcast networks. Imagine seeing two women embracing each other as lovers in a mall or park as you take the new Bel-air for a spin with Wally and the Beaver in the back seat. It would be an outrage, shocking, scandalous! Not that there weren't gay people back then, it just wasn't in your face. The point I am getting at is that the RGC is very patient. They work slowly, pushing the envelope little by little. You would have never thought in 1985 that gay marriage would even be an issue, it would seem absurd. The problem is that they will not stop at gay marriage. Once the government sanctions their unions and deems their practice equal, the gates will be opened to non-stop inundation of homosexual practices. For example, sex ed. When gay marriage is legal, gay sex WILL need to be taught in schools along with heterosexual sex. Does anyone find that over the line, I do. But you can't stop it because there is no difference between hetero and homo anymore. They are to be equally celebrated, not tolerated, celebrated and encouraged. They rarely let the end game slip. The tell all is found in the Gay Rights Platform. It was created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972. It is shocking to see the RGCs goals fully revealed. I couldn't make this stuff up. This is the full list. (Bold added for emphasis)


1. Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public services.

2. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance into the Armed Services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges for homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously issued, with retroactive benefits.

3. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal civil service because of sexual orientation, in hiring and promoting; and prohibiting discriminations against homosexuals in security clearances.

4. Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons and same-sex couples.

5. Elimination of bars to the entry, immigration and naturalization of homosexual aliens.

6. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.

7. Appropriate executive orders, regulations and legislation banning the compiling, maintenance and dissemination of information on an individual's sexual preferences, behavior, and social and political activities for dossiers and data banks.

8. Federal funding of aid programs of gay men's and women's organizations designed to alleviate the problems encountered by Gay women and men which are engendered by an oppressive sexist society.

9. Immediate release of all Gay women and men now incarcerated in detention centers, prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense charges relating to victimless crimes or sexual orientation; and that adequate compensation be made for the physical and mental duress encountered; and that all existing records relating to the incarceration be immediately expunged.


1. All federal legislation and programs enumerated in Demands 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above should be implemented at the State level where applicable.

2. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.

3. Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.

4. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one's personal demesne.

5. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.

6. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

Shocking isn't it. Federal #6 and State #7 really made me do a double take. Their audacity is stunning. That is their own stated mission objectives. So we are faced with a decision. Is the country they want in line with the country we want? For me it is not, and so I must resist their advances. It is not out of hatred or anger or bigotry that I stand against them. They are free to do as they please behind closed doors. I have nothing personally against them. In fact the few gay guys I know are really nice people. I just have a different view of what I want my country to be and how I want my children to be raised. That's all. And if the majority share my opinion, then I'm sorry, but they can't have it their way. Now, that said, they are free to try to convince enough people to side with them and change the laws. That is how Democracies function.

A society can and should define marriage. I have gone head to head with many a hippie on this. Many liberals who support same-sex are surprised to discover that they agree on limiting marriage, the question is, to what?
I always ask, "If same sex marriage is allowed, what about a Brother/Sister?"
They always reply, "Incest leads to genetically retarded kids, that's not right."
I then reply, "OK, you are fine with socially retarded kids from Fatherless or Motherless households, but genetic retardation, I'll buy that. What if they couldn't have kids, tubes tied, or sterile, then what?"
Answers the liberal, "Still, it's incest and that's wrong. There is still a possibility that they could have a kid."
So I ask, "OK, since your complaint is genetics, what about a guy that wants to marry two or three women or vice versa?"
Liberal "Of course the guy from Utah brings up polygamy. No, that is not good for kids, a lot of those women are abused and it's unhealthy."
So I turn it around on them, "How dare you tell those people how to live there life, they all adults who love each other. There are no genetic problems. You're a bigot!"
To which the liberal victim replies, "It's about two people who love each other, not 3 or 20 thats crazy."
And now the final blow, "So tell me why two brothers can't get married? Two people who love each other, no risk of retarded kids."
That usually stops them, they flounder for a while about incest, but really they have no argument. Eventually they concede that society can limit marriage and that it is not an inherent right.

Some say that this should be a State to State issue. Unfortunately it can not, due to Article 4 Section 1 of the Constitution, the full faith and credit clause. Just as drivers licenses are recognized in other states, so are marriages. There has already been problems with same sex marriages and non supporting states. In Massachusetts, where gay marriages are legal, two women were married. They have a little girl, I believe from a previous hetero marriage. The mother/"wife" leaves her "wife" and goes back to her home state that doesn't recognize her Mass. marriage. Now there is a custody battle, one state saying one thing, the other state saying another thing. Because of these situations and unique problems, leaving it up to states is not an option.

Marriage laws have been changed throughout our history. Women are no longer looked upon as Man's property, they did away with the "rule of thumb" (lucky you, Candice) and race is no longer a factor. These changes have been insignificant since it does not change the core belief. Allowing interracial marriages is another common argument of the RGC. They want to play victim and mock the true injustice and true suffering of the Black American community in Americas past. The difference here is that we as a people have decided that there is no significant difference between races. However, there is an astronomical difference between sexes. To deny that is to deny reality. Two men raising a little girl is vastly different from a White woman and an Asian man raising her. It is so painfully obvious!

As our society grows increasingly narcissistic it's time we step back and think of the good of the Country and the good of the kids. It's time to silence the chorus of adults singing "Me, ME, Me, ME, ME,". The liberal guilt of the baby boomer generation is a virus weakening our Nation. It is being contracted through the liberal biased media and college campuses across our land. "Reparations". "Appease the world". "Moral relativism". "How dare you say they're wrong". Those baby boomer hippies you saw at Woodstock, mating in the mud and dung, burning the flag, are now in positions of leadership and power. They are still just as idiotic, but they are politically active and motivated. They are the only generation I am aware of that never grew up mentally and socially. They have a big influence on current politics. It will take a lot of us to get off the couch and vote to overcome their numbers. I know peoples feelings are going to be hurt by this defining of marriage. I take no joy in it. But sometimes, nay, often, the hardest stand and the right stand are the same. And it is time to make a stand.

I view marriage as a great, solid hydro-electric dam, providing the energy to keep America moving by popping out little, future, tax payers. By changing the definition, it springs a leak and weakens. Nothing can stop the cracks from spreading and more leaks from popping (polygamy, incest). Eventually there will be nothing left. Just a lazy creek, wandering along with no real direction, the powerhouse will have been destroyed. All from one little crack, who'd have thought?

We live in an upside down world where judges are imposing their individual will on the people. It is because of this that I strongly support the movement to amend the US Constitution to define marriage as between one natural born man to one natural born woman. I hope you'll join the fight.
Have a great day. The soap box is all yours.


Em said...

Keith, you ABSOLUTELY KILL me! I love all your points, and think you should get a degree in Sociology like would be right up your alley! I am going to have to use the brother/brother getting married point to cause people to "flounder!" :) ha ha ha...I miss discussing these kinds of topics with you and Candice, and hope you will come back to UT one day. I have GOT to share this post with my family...they will TRULY get a kick out of it, as we are ALL ON THE SAME PAGE about this one!!!!!!

Sano Family said...

Son - Thanks for making me think and for helping me pull my head out of the sand. What would you suggest as effect ways to let our voice be heard in opposing this? I continue to learn from you. Keep that soap box and use it often. Love ya, Mom

Candice and Keith said...

Mom, thanks for the comment. Unfortunately there is not a whole lot individuals can do in this fight other than letting your elected politicians hear your opinion. In Utah, you don't have to worry too much about your representatives, but it doesn't hurt to remind them. Call their office or drop them an Email. The other, most important, thing you can do is to make sure you vote and encourage others to do the same. People can feel politically "safe" in conservative areas and forget the importance of casting your ballot. And remember, if Rocky Anderson could be elected Mayor of SLC, perhaps people shouldn't feel very safe anymore. That is all we can do. Thanks again.