Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Media Admits: California Proposition 8 Passed

With more than 95% of the vote counted, even the "mainstream" media is now throwing in the towel and acknowledging that California's Proposition 8 has passed.

The margin looks like it will be 52-48%.

Protecting marriage in California was of paramount importance. With the nations largest population, homosexual "marriage" there could have cascaded over the nation in everything from lawsuits by homosexuals "married" in that state, to the revamping of textbooks by scholastic companies to accommodate California's twisted sense of marriage and family.

According to DOMAWatch.org totals, that will now be 30 states with marriage defined in their state constitutions as being between a man and a woman--putting marriage beyond the reach of homosexual activists and their activist judge friends.

Those states are:
California
Arizona
Florida
Oregon
Nevada
Idaho
Utah
Montana
Alaska
Hawaii
Colorado
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Missouri
Arkansas
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
Ohio
Michigan
Virginia

This bodes well for the remaining states that only have a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) protecting marriage (which, as the judges in California illustrated in May, means nothing). If a marriage protection amendment can pass with a solid majority in California--perhaps the most liberal state in the union--it should be able to pass in any state.

States that only have DOMAs to protect marriage are:

Washington
Minnesota
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Florida
North Carolina
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
Delaware
New Hampshire
Maine

States that are totally defenseless before homosexual activists and activist judges are Wyoming, New Mexico, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont and Rhode Island.

Activist judges have already succeeded in sanctioning counterfeit marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

While we have a federal DOMA, now more than ever we need a federal marriage protection amendment to keep homosexual "marriage" from being forced on the states. Barack Obama has vowed to see the federal DOMA repealed, force "hate crime" legislation on the people of the United States, allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and push for easy access to homosexual adoption of children.

But it will be tougher than ever to get such a federal amendment with Barack Obama in the White House and a Democrat-controlled congress.

Yet the fight must be waged. With Obama able to make judicial appointments to replace retiring Supreme Court judges, and a Democrat-controlled congress in place to approve ultra-liberal judicial nominations, marriage and family will be in great danger for the next several years.


10 comments:

Josh Johnson said...

I am very happy that I stumbled across this ridiculous article. I am very glad that Bigotry still is omnipresent in rinky dinky DAKOTA

The Segatarded Blogging Newbie said...

Prop 8 passed. Holy crap! It's the state telling the church what to do. Apparently some retarded people don't know that they were separated for a reason.

Bob Ellis said...

Apparently moral bankruptcy is still omnipresent where ever you're from, Josh.

Remvaras said...

Haha, This is great!

Yeah, It's always fun to troll the web for people to laugh at, it is literally an endless ocean of bigotry.

I've just been trying to figure out why, why, why, people care so much about persecuting others.

I think the next step should be banning sex except for procreation. Certainly that's more morally bankrupt then gay marriage.

Bob Ellis said...

Bigotry is what the immoral call sound judgment and common sense, so thanks for the compliment.

Banning sex except for procreation isn't necessary; God makes it clear he approves of sex for pleasure and intimacy within marriage. He equally makes it clear that homosexual behavior is immoral and a violation of his design for human sexuality.

But hey; pointing out that homosexuality is immoral and unhealthy is just "bigotry" to the morally bankrupt, right?

Brent said...

Separation of church and state does NOT mean religious people cannot vote according to their beliefs. Non-religious people can vote according to their beliefs, so why can't religious people? You people go on and on about rights but you only think they apply to people who agree with you. As for bigotry and intolerance, look no further than the anti-Mormon ad No on 8 campaign put out.

Prop 8 is for protecting the basic unit of society. Gay rights activists had a problem with that definition, but that doesn't mean the definition was created to persecute gays. It is what marriage has always been, for good reason.

I am shocked at the complete carelessness and indifference people have had for the foundation of society and its implications for children. I am amazed at the hypocrisy of those who pretend to care so much about rights while attacking religious freedoms.

taylorveee said...

One thing I question is in the bible it states that "god forgives all sins" then if you truly considered being gay a sin... wouldn't god forgive them?

My mom is gay, and I find it extremely lame that people want to define marriage... It's not necessary. I believe they are denying people happiness.
"The Pursuit of Happiness" is guarenteed in the Constitution... is it not?


*sigh*
i think some people need to start trying to put themselves in other's shoes.

Bob Ellis said...

taylorveee, pursuit of happiness is referenced in the Declaration of Independence. However, the right to redefine basic human relationships and institutions is NOT found there, nor is the right to commit immoral acts.

I think some people need to start doing the right thing and putting society's health ahead of their own selfish desires.

Anastasia said...

marriage is a contract. Period. That is what it is in the government of the United States of America. I do not understand how a goverment can put restraints on a contract between two people based upon sexual orientation. The law in California does not require any religious official to wed same sex couples nor does it persecute them for refusing to do so.

Also with the argument of the sanctity of marriage, honestly same sex marriages should be the least of your concerns, especially with 36 hour marriages, a 50% divorce rate, along with child abuse being more prominent in "traditional" families. what sanctity is this? Instead of persecuting those with a different lifestyle perhaps you should be more focused on the other problems our society faces.

Bob Ellis said...

I have a contract with my cable company; it ain't marriage.

The erosion of marriage and the family is probably the single greatest domestic problem our society faces. We should not add to the problem by allowing marriage to be counterfeited.

 
Clicky Web Analytics