Gay Marriage is the law of the land what do we do now?
By Mario Murillo
1. We must be clear about what just happened. For the first time in American history the highest court in the land has made it illegal to be a Bible-believing Christian. That’s right; you are not legally allowed to practice your faith from this point on.
Of course the court will never admit that. And, like Jimmy Carter’s 55 miles per hour speed limit, it may not be enforced, at least not yet. That comes later when the public gains the stomach for persecuting Christians.
Let’s be extremely clear about all of this. The Supreme Court out and out violated the Constitution of the United States by overruling the right of the states to decide marriage.
Bobby Jindal is right. He said, “’The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that. This decision will pave the way for an all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.’ “
Supreme Court Justice Alito agrees: “Alito wrote, “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.”
2. The goal isn’t equality – it’s abolishing an institution.
What just happened has nothing to do with equal rights for gays. It is only about destroying marriage as an institution.
We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.
3. Destroying marriage expands the control of Government. Stella Morabito wrote the following:
Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been.
Consider also the breakneck speed at which the push for same sex marriage has been happening recently. The agenda’s advocates have been very methodical in their organization, disciplined in their timing, flush with money, in control of all information outlets, including media, Hollywood, and academia. And perhaps most telling is the smearing of any dissenter in the public square, a stigma made de rigueur by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in his animus-soaked opinion that repealed the Defense of Marriage Act.
We’ve seen also how the Obama Administration’s push for same sex marriage has occurred in lockstep with policies that are hostile to marriage, such as the severe marriage penalty written into Obamacare.
The notion of marriage equality was never about marriage or about equality. It’s all about the wrapping paper. It’s been packaged as an end in itself, but it is principally just a means to a deeper end. It is the means by which marriage extinction – the true target — can be achieved. If marriage and family are permitted to exist autonomously, power can be de-centralized in society. So the family has always been a thorn in the side of central planners and totalitarians. The connection between its abolition and the limitless growth of the state should be crystal clear. So anyone who has bought into this movement, or is tempted to do so, would want to step back and take a harder look.
The abolition of marriage and family has been a longtime project of gender theorists. Among them is internationally renown feminist law theorist Martha Albertson Fineman whose 2004 book The Autonomy Myth argues strenuously for “the abolition of marriage as a legal category.” Her treatise is breathtaking in its brazen approach to ending family autonomy and privacy.
4. Right before your eyes America shifted to a totalitarian model. The entire anti-bigotry frenzy now has people being fired for wearing a confederate flag design on their pants. This social cleansing has nothing to do with race equality but about the power of government to decide what you wear, what you say and even what you think.
The abolition of marriage and family has been a longtime project of gender theorists. Among them is internationally renown feminist law theorist Martha Albertson Fineman whose 2004 book The Autonomy Myth argues strenuously for “the abolition of marriage as a legal category.” Her treatise is breathtaking in its brazen approach to ending family autonomy and privacy.
“. . . in addition to contract rules, I anticipate that ameliorating doctrines would fill the void left by the abolition of this aspect of family law. In fact, it seems apparent to me that a lot more regulation (protection) would occur once interactions between individuals within families were removed from behind the veil of privacy that now shields them.”
There you have it. All of your social interactions judged by certain standards. Standards established by whom? The state. And lest our eyes glaze over at mention of it, we ought to think of the State for what it really is: a hierarchy of cliques, with one dominant clique at the top. (Think mean girls in charge of everything and everyone.)
“would mean that sexual affiliates (formerly labeled husband and wife) would be regulated by the terms of their individualized agreements, with no special rules governing fairness and no unique review or monitoring of the negotiation process.”
“if the family is defined functionally, focused on the caretaker-dependent relationship, the traditionally problematic interactions of sexual affiliates (formerly designated “spouses”) are not protected by notions of family privacy.”
No one blog can possibly answer the question, “What do we do now?” For starters, pastors need to issue an engraved apology to all of those voices they vilified. Men and women of God warned you again and again that the Christian church should unify and condemn the acts of Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder.
Now the Orwellian nightmare you assured us would never happen is here. Tomorrow I speak out to the core who are willing to see this disaster turned around
