**sensitive language alert**
As I've been soaking in the news, this was of course going to be worth a comment, I have quite a bit to say on this....but first thing, let's get to the heart of the matter.
MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT! MARRIAGE IS NOT I REPEAT NOT A RIGHT!, not for me, not for you, not for anyone, orientation irrelevant...We've discussed the reasons why, but I'll happily repat them for your viewing pleasure
a. There is no obligation to be married to any person
b. Marriage can be freely renounced
c. You have no right to someone elses' soverignty
d. You can't transfer your marriage to another person.
e. Tax benefits, visitation, are not necessary for a marriage to exist.
f. There are restrictions as to who can marry, without meeting these conditions, one can't be married.
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE SOMETHING EQUAL THAT ISN'T EQUAL..That is to say there are fundamental differences...
a. All marriages have the possibility of life, which is necessary for the continuation of civilization.
b. It is not possible for 2 people of the same sex to bring life out of their relationship
c. Love is not merely an emotional high, love is first an act of the will that involves sacrifice and the giving of self to another, it is not possible for people of the same sex to conjugate...
Even if the scotus says otherwise, there is no changing the above, while the law contradicts the natural order, laws do not change the natural order, just the temporal.
I completely disagree with the decision that scotus (no longer capitalized) came to for the following reasons:
a. The legal means via California law were followed to add an amendment to the state constitution, and was approved by the AG to be voted on, and while slim, the measure was approved.
b. Since the state of California did not choose to defend the law (as it has the legal obligation to do)...the fact that someone else substituted for them, should not infect the decision making process.
- judge Walker had a vested interest in the case and should have recused himself from the trial.
- The things such as visitation, insurance, hospital rights, can all be determined without marriage.
- Effectively, if someone fails to defend a law, we’re out of luck. Of course, that shouldn’t surprise anyone...The feds don’t even let the states enforce the fed’s own laws on immigration. This translates to we need to put people in power that will defend the laws we put on the books. Of course in California there’s an epic case of stupid that’s been going on for probably longer than I’ve been alive. We keep putting in the same politicians expecting different results....I’d have to say my home state has a case of insanity...Especially since they expected the that’s so 70’s (or 80’s I forget when Brown was governor last) re-run of governorship...
What’s pathetic about this is that the will of the people is once again overturned in the cases of activist judges who seek to put their own agenda above the will of the people. (If we’re going to have self governance, the will of the people might as well happen) and the not so wonderful geniuses in the supreme court have agreed with this non sense....
II. Apparently, I’m a homophobe for disagreeing with SSM. Now let’s get this straight, I’m not afraid, I’m absolutely disgusted by such behavior, it nauseates me to my stomach. Forgive my language the thought a man sticking his penis in another man’s anus (or boys for that matter) flat out disgusts me. I do not think such a behavior is right, or should be practiced anywhere....the fact that people want this kind of behavior recognized in public ceremony...bad news, public knowledge gives me a right to speak my opinion...I am under absolutely no obligation to accept such behavior from anyone, nor do I have to give a public assent to this.
I’m sure someone’s bound to ask, how does SSM hurt you, well, I’ll be happy to tell you: An ex of mine (who shall remain nameless) cheated on me with a girl...that was one of the most demoralizing, embarrassing experiences that I have ever had to go through in my life. And I hope that none of you would have to go through this in your life. It’s the fact that I gave everything, and to be treated in such a matter is absolutely repulsing....and some may say you’re using that to judge others, darn straight I am, quite frankly, anytime this behaviour comes up....those painful memories come haunting back...it absolutely disgusts, and repulses me, and if that makes me a bigot or homophobe, so darn well be it.
- Whenever someone has a vested interest in something one should not be involved with the case. Trials are supposed to be objective insofar as they can be made. Why, because every person has a right to a fair trial with a jury of their own peers. In the case of defending laws, we have a right to make sure the opinions of people do not get in the way of the judgement of a case based upon its merits.
IV: Who visits you in a hospital is up to you the individual person, if you want someone there with you, by all means, get a legal document stating so (a will or whatever the document is...lawyer friends can help me on this)....tax benefits are not necessary to have a marriage....If you want tax benefits...learn how the system works, then manipulate it to your own advantage.
To the reading homosexual:
What you do in private, is none of my business, unless you proceed to tell me, then I may do with the information as I wish. Those that are living homosexual lives in public are surprised by the backlash, I ask, why? You’re putting it out there for people to see, what are you expecting people to do, look at you and say “okay?” Tolerance does not require acceptance. You see, the problem is that you could have been minding your own business, but once you told everyone, people will do as they do....Public acceptance is not required in order for you to live your life....;)
The DOMA law had 3 parts, but only one of them was challenged
- That the federal gov’t did not have to recognize SSM.
Now here’s the thing about this case, it started of with a so called SSM in Canada (the same place that infected us with Justin Bieber (yes, I will not let you Canada live that down))....The US did not have to recognize this marriage at all seeing as this is not a one world gov’t. This is how DOMA came into play, to prevent this marriage from being recognized.
Those of us that believe differently than 2% of the population, do not hate you, rather, we simply disagree with you....I know you might think that we’re hateful and vengeful people and want to deny you of “rights” (But since it’s not a right for us, it’s most certainly not a right for y’all)
I will say though, that on the DOMA decision I do not agree with the logic at all for the basis of the decision, but the conclusion is valid....An amendment should be added via the constitution if we wish to protect marriage on the federal level....
Now that I’ve spoken my piece on these 2 acts....
As we all know there’s filth in the Church, and while the Church in her human nature is by no means just all saints, as we all struggle for holiness and live the life accordingly, some sins are graver than others....homosexuality in the clergy...
This video below should be of no surprise...but homosexuality has infiltrated many....and it’s one of those things, We need to be brought to the light so that the Passion of the Church can go....My anger is beyond words...more to come...Pax Vobis