By whatever means...
That must surely be the motto of homosexual activists.
They'll try democracy and the will of the people if they think they've deluded society's moral compass enough to fool them into advancing the homosexual agenda.
If that fails, use the imperial courts to advance their agenda.
If the people try to regain control of their own government, smash them and force the agenda on the people.
That's the strategy being played out across America and in California.
In 2000, the people of California said they agreed with the historical understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Homosexuals fought that through the court system until they got the Imperial Court of California (aka the California Supreme Court) to grant them the "right" to call their unions "marriage."
The people of California were already planning to put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to protect marriage from the Imperial Court, but the Court struck first. Still, the amendment initiative is going forward.
Now homosexual activists want to rob the people of their right to participate in their own government, claiming the amendment (which simply states what humanity has understood for thousands of years, and is already in California law) so fundamentally alters the social fabric of California that it constitutes a "revision" which would require a constitutional convention. And they're asking the Imperial Court to block the vote.
Liberty Counsel founder Mathew Staver told WND that if there was any radical reconstruction of California's social fabric, it was done last month when the state Supreme Court ignored over a century of precedent in the its definition of marriage with a 4-3 ruling that deemed a law defining marriage between one man and one woman unconstitutional.
"They're suggesting the Supreme Court can rewrite the entire institution of marriage, but people can't amend the Constitution to go back to its historical definition," Staver said. "It's absolutely ridiculous to argue that courts can turn society upside down in 30 days, but the people have no right to define it."
Criticizing homosexual marriage's legal advocates, Staver said, "Their agenda is to trample the will of the people and elevate by force the will of four individuals on the Supreme Court over the will of millions of voters."
I think I've seen more of this "pot calling the kettle black" brazenness in the past month than I've seen in my entire life.
Homosexual activists and their allies in the Imperial Court institute by judicial fiat what the people have rejected--something which goes against the Bible, against nature, and against thousands of years of common understanding--and they have the gall to claim that defenders of marriage want to alter the social fabric of California?
That's doublespeak propaganda on a level that would amaze even George Orwell.