The True Reason Gay Marriage Was Legalized, And What It Really Means For The Future

Just married couple, holding hands and walking in nature

Just married couple, holding hands and walking in nature

Steve Baldwin August 11, 2015

The Obergefell decision was perhaps the most fraudulent Supreme Court decision in US history. The logic was non-existent, the arguments were phony, and the decision itself was a totally political one that, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “has no basis in the constitution or this court’s precedents.” And the ramifications of this decision are disturbing, with significant impact on children, on American culture, on the institution of marriage and on the First Amendment rights of Americans — in particular churches, Christian-owned business, and religious schools. Justice Samuel Alito warned that the decision will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

First, the issue of same-sex marriage should never have been before the Supreme Court. This is an issue our founding fathers would have insisted be decided by the democratic process. The Supreme Court can’t “interpret” something that is not addressed in the Constitution. Even more significantly, because marriage was NOT originated by human law, civil government has no right to redefine it.

Second, for same sex marriage to be ruled “constitutional”, then, obviously, those who wrote the constitution would have to have been in favor of it and would have indicated so in the Constitution. Neither is true. And the views of our founding fathers on this issue are the opposite of what the five elite lawyers in black robes claimed they were.

Indeed, homosexuality was looked upon by the founding generation as a deviant sexual behavior, which, by the way, continues to be documented by reams of social science research. The only time homosexuality is mentioned anywhere in the law by America’s founding generation is at the state and local levels; and then it was in defining the crime of “sodomy,” and always with steep penalties attached.

Third, the idea that the Supreme Court trumps the other two branches of our government is a bizarre notion with little historical evidence to back it up. The founders gave it the power to offer interpretations in cases brought before it, but never gave it the power to create policy. Many of our founding fathers – Washington, Madison, Jefferson, etc – mocked this idea as one that would destroy the democratic nature of our government. It wasn’t until the Marbury v. Madison decision and some subsequent decisions that the Supreme Court essentially voted to give itself more power. But Congress never ceded them this power; and even today, there exists nothing in our founding documents that prevents the States from simply refusing to obey a Supreme Court ruling. Nullification, as it is called, by a state was common in the past and should once again be used by the states to counter an out-of-control Supreme Court.

Fourth, Anthony Kennedy claimed in the majority opinion that homosexuality was something one is born with – “immutable” he said, a completely false notion. Genetic researchers have never discovered a “gay gene”; and the Human Genome Project, involving 150 of the world’s top geneticists, was not able to find a “gay gene.” None of the professional organizations like the American Psychological Association or even the pro-homosexual Kinsey Institute will claim that homosexuality is genetic. Kennedy made up this phony claim because if homosexuality is not genetic, and thus only a behavior, it is too flimsy of a foundation upon to redefine the ancient institution of marriage. What’s strange is that even the proponents of this case did not make the claim that homosexuals are born that way. Where is Kennedy getting this info?

Fifth, the majority wrote that “The 14th Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.” No it doesn’t. This is a bald-face lie. A first grader could read the history of the 14th amendment and deduce that it says nothing about homosexual marriages. It was ratified in 1868 and was about giving blacks first-class citizenship. No one in 1868 even knew what same sex marriage was. The justices lied again.

Sixth, the majority wrote that “they too may aspire to the transcendent purpose of marriage.” Huh? The transcendent purpose of marriage for thousands of years has been to perpetuate the human race by creating a stable and loving environment for children. There is little evidence that homosexual marriage has anything in common with heterosexual marriage. The average homosexual has a few hundred sex partners in their lifetime, and an astounding 43% of homosexuals report having more than 500 sexual partners. And research shows that most homosexual marriages are “open” marriages in which both partners agree to be free to have sex with others.

Seventh, the majority argued that same-sex marriage “safeguards” children. What? Quite the contrary, the most recent large scale research on children raised in homosexual households is not pretty. It shows they fare much more poorly than do children raised in heterosexual households in many different categories: education, drug use, criminality, etc. Homosexual “marriages” with multiple lovers are not a stable environment for children. Just read the horrifying stories of children raised by homosexuals – they’re all over the internet. The court majority lied again.

The homosexual former New Republic writer Andrew Sullivan wrote in a famous 1989 article that “Much of the gay leadership clings to notions of gay life as essentially outsider, anti-bourgeois, radical. Marriage, for them, is co-optation into straight society.” Sullivan then argues that legalizing homosexual marriage will somehow be good for the homosexual movement because it will encourage more of them to enter into committed and stable relationships. But that hasn’t happened in states with civil unions, either here or abroad; and research shows that homosexuals in legal partnerships continue to favor multiple partners and reckless behavior.

Most homosexuals view traditional marriage as constraining their lifestyle and regard the whole idea of being homosexual as a way to rebel against heterosexual norms. Indeed, one can find anti-marriage sites operated by homosexuals all over the Internet:

Kennedy’s colleagues are leftist ideologues who would vote for homosexual marriage no matter what, but Kennedy should know better. He had research before him that details the lifestyle of homosexuals. His opinion was extremely naive, and he assumes that all homosexuals want to have committed monogamous marriages. But the reality is that very few homosexuals get married. In Sweden, it’s only 2%. In Vermont, its 22%. And of those who do get married, most are not in any way comparable to heterosexual marriages. Did Kennedy read anything submitted to him by our side? Apparently not.

Few homosexuals will ever marry; and of those who do get married, it will more often than not involve multiple sex partners. This is why homosexual relationships, on average, rarely last more than two years. The research is clear: homosexual marriage is NOT about commitment or monogamy. The goal of the homosexuals is to destroy the institution of marriage and redefine it to their liking.

Eighth, the Obergefell decision was unconstitutional since Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, according to US 28 U.S. Code 455, “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” And they didn’t. Both women had actually officiated at same-sex marriages. Ginsburg even performed a second same-sex wedding three weeks AFTER oral arguments in the Obergefell case. Ginsburg also made statements in support of same sex marriage while the Obergefell case was before the court, a clear violation of Canon A (6) of the Code of Conduct. Some have suggested that the U.S. Codes governing judges don’t apply to the Supreme Court. Wrong. The Pilla v American Bar Association case makes it clear that the judicial codes governing conflicts of interest do apply to the SCOTUS.

This information regarding Ginsburg and Kagan’s violations of the codes was submitted to the court, but Chief Justice Roberts refused to make this an issue. He had the power to do so. As Chief Justice, he is the person responsible for ensuring the integrity of the court. Indeed, Roberts and his colleagues could have voted to refuse to hear the Obergefell case unless Kagan and Ginsburg agreed to recuse themselves; but instead, they allowed Justices Kagan and Ginsburg to ignore their constitutional obligations. If one looks at previous SCOTUS recusals, they involved conflicts far more indirect than the aggressive pro-homosexual marriage actions of Ginsburg and Kagan.

There was a 25 day window to file a petition to rehear a Supreme Court ruling, and it could be only done by the losing parties and typically is based on new information or erroneous actions by the court. It is clear a petition should have been filed, based on the U.S. Code violations by Kagan and Ginsburg. However, the losing parties didn’t have the stomach or the guts to pursue such an appeal, even though all of them received documented information about the illegal actions of Kagan and Ginsburg. For the record, the losing parties were Mike DeWine, the Republican Attorney General of Ohio; Herbert Slatery, the Republican Attorney General of Tennessee; Bill Schuette, the Republican Attorney General of Michigan; and the lone Democrat, Attorney General Jack Conway of Kentucky.

Nor does it help that the conservatives on the court have ignored the recusal issue, apparently preferring to not upset the collegiality of the court over preserving heterosexual marriage, and thereby subjecting generations of Americans to an era of homosexual assaults upon the First Amendment. And yes, they had to know about the actions of Kagan and Ginsburg since this info was contained in two different motions to recuse, which they had before them but chose to ignore.

When I emailed Ginny Thomas – the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas – about this issue, she was appalled at my message and responded to the effect that her husband is NOT responsible for ignoring this issue. He’s not? Ok, then who holds responsible those justices who violate the clear codes governing recusal? Santa Claus? It’s nice to know that the harmony on the court remains intact while Christians and those of other faiths are now targeted for fines and jail time by the homo-fascists and reduced to second class citizenship.

After all, it is possible that the conservative justices were somehow unaware of the code violations by Kagan and Ginsburg; and I was hoping Mrs. Thomas would bring it up with her husband. Her response was that “There are many people you can consult with. I am not in the ten zillionth position!” So apparently, Mrs. Thomas, an alleged social conservative leader, won’t even talk to her husband about the most important cultural case of the century.

So let’s be clear what happened:
Three Republican Attorneys General representing three states in the Obergefell case refused to mention the illegal actions by Kagan and Ginsburg in their written briefs, or even in their oral arguments. They had this information but did not use it. Even more significantly, none of them used ANY moral arguments in their written or oral arguments, despite the fact that NUMEROUS Supreme Court precedents have defined traditional marriage as a sacred arrangement granted to us by God.

The Republican Justices on the Supreme Court refused to even broach the issue of recusal with their colleagues. They could have convinced Kennedy of the inappropriateness of Kagan and Ginsburg voting and perhaps even blocked the case from being heard unless these two agreed to recuse themselves.
When an Amicus, The Foundation for Moral Law, submitted two motions detailing the code violations by Kagan and Ginsburg and arguing they must recuse themselves under the codes governing recusals, they were ignored. Moreover, the second motion was NOT even posted on the Supreme Court docket until three weeks after the Court received this motion; and even then, they incorrectly labeled it a “request” and not a “motion.” And the first motion was never even posted at all.
Obviously, the court was playing games. A motion would have required Kagan and Ginsburg to address the recusal issue publicly prior to participating in oral arguments. However, a “request” allowed the court to ignore the recusal issue since the court does not have to rule on a “request.” When the court illegally changed a filing from a “motion” to a “request,” the Republican Justices should have stepped in at this point and forced the recusal issue–but they chose to be silent. It is hard to believe that the Republican Justices or their staff were unaware of this highly irregular action.
Despite the illegal actions by the Court ignoring the codes governing recusal and changing a “motion” to a “request,” the three Republican Attorneys General – now the losing party — refused to use this issue to file a petition for rehearing. Indeed, they refused to file ANY such petition whatsoever. Only one, AG Mike DeWine, would even meet with pro-traditional marriage leaders and constitutional scholars to discuss this issue before declaring he would NOT file a petition. The other two Republican officials would not even meet with pro-marriage legal experts to discuss a petition.
If people want to know why Republicans are losing the culture wars, this is how. If the Supreme Court had followed its own rules regarding motions and followed the U.S. Codes governing recusals, the case would have been won by the pro-marriage side 4-3.If most homosexuals don’t want to marry, and those who do are out to destroy its real meaning and purpose, what then is the real goal of the homosexual movement? Obviously, it’s to force the rest of society to recognize their deviant lifestyle. They want to rub our faces in it. They want to force churches, mosques, temples, religious schools, religious business people, and religious charities to accommodate their lifestyle. They want to destroy the meaning of marriage by watering down its purpose. They want to redefine the First Amendment so as to be meaningless. As Justice Alito says, “[religious people] will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employees and schools.”

Folks, if you haven’t figured it out by now, this is war. The homosexuals want people of faith to be second class citizens in a country founded by Christians. This is all about revenge for the refusal by the heterosexual world to accept homosexual behavior as normal. The only question is whether we will fight back. Indeed, if the millions of conservative evangelicals, fundamentalists, orthodox Jews, Mormons, Muslims and traditional Catholics unite in opposition to the homo-fascist movement, we can ultimately win.

I, for one, will never compromise my religious beliefs. I will not attend a church that marries homosexuals or refuses to teach what the Bible repeatedly and clearly teaches about this behavior. And I urge every Christian to question their church about this. If a church caves in to the cultural barbarians, then leave it. If they are willing to compromise on such a sacred Biblical principle, they should go out of business.

If you can’t find a church that remains faithful to the scriptures, start your own home church and invite your friends. We are all used to formal church buildings and organizational structures, but there is nothing in the Bible that says anything about a “church” being in some building somewhere. Indeed, archaeologists have discovered that many of the first century churches were, in fact, homes. Remember, the “fish” sign was a secret sign used by first century Christians to indicate worship services were held within a home. Throughout the history of Western Civilization, there have been many occasions when Christians have gone underground to preserve their faithfulness to the scripture.

If your child attends a religious school that is being forced to teach that homosexuality is normal, urge the school to resist such laws; and if they won’t, leave the school. Already, schools are being told they have to now teach children how to engage in homosexual sex. Homeschooling is an option, but also consider forming a home-based school composed of a group of like-minded families and pool resources to make it work. This is already commonplace today. Parents can take turns teaching or even pool their resources to hire tutors to teach certain topics. No building is necessary as the group can take turns using different homes. There is nothing most states can do to prevent such schools.

Once the attacks on Christians begin to escalate, and Christians are being hauled into court, Christians need to get on juries whenever possible. If someone is being charged with violating a phony “hate crime” law, or a pastor is being charged with a crime for refusing to marry a homosexual couple, or a baker is headed to jail for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, Christian jury members have the power to prevent them from being convicted. All it takes is one “No” vote as a jury member. This is called “Jury Nullification,” and it is a concept that dates back to our founding days.

Most Americans have been propagandized by the judicial establishment to follow the judge’s orders and convict someone if there’s evidence to do so, but that’s not really the historic role of a jury member. Juries are also supposed to decide whether or not the law in question is constitutional. If you believe the law in question violates your faith or the Constitution, then don’t vote to convict the person. This was commonly done in America’s early days because our founding fathers actually encouraged jury members to be the final “check” on out-of-control government.

While the legal community opposes jury nullification – it threatens its power to control the outcome of cases – historically, jury members have long had the right to judge both the violation of the law and the constitutionality of the law itself. Here what’s founding father and first Chief Justice of the United States John Jay says about jury nullification: “…you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Adams, America’s second president, said that: “It is not only his right, but his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

It is also time for people of faith to withhold our votes from any and all politicians unless they pledge to support, in writing, laws that protect us from this onslaught of legal attacks coming our way. If they are not willing to protect our First Amendment rights, don’t vote for them.

Homosexual quotas in employment at Christian churches, schools and non-profits may not be far behind. To protect our First Amendment rights, Christians may need to start perfecting networking amongst ourselves to find employees, rather than publicly advertising for employees.

Christians need to become more discerning in regards to their charitable contributions. Many of America’s largest charities quietly support or fund the homosexual agenda, including the Red Cross, Boy Scouts, United Way, UNICEF, etc. Funding those who persecute us needs to stop. The best charities to support are small local charities operated by people one knows personally.

Boycott those businesses that support the gay movement. And they are legion: Staples, CVS, Progressive Insurance, etc., etc. Just Google the name of the business along with the term “gay rights,” and it’s easy to find out who they are. It’s time for the millions of American Christians to make their economic clout known in the marketplace and to quit enriching those who persecute us. Christians need to learn how to network with one another to find out what businesses can be trusted.

We need to also boycott the mainstream media. For generations, the media has misled Americans about the nature of the homosexual agenda and are now cheerleading the attacks on Christians. Many liberal newspapers are teetering on collapse. A 5% reduction in readership will kill off most of the nation’s remaining newspapers. They lie. Who needs them? Get your news from the Internet.

Finally, let’s quit being nice guys about the homosexual movement. We know that homosexuals are 6-10 times more likely to molest children than are heterosexuals. We know that as many as a third of all homosexuals have indicated in surveys that they have had sex with minors. We know that troubled youth group homes, the Boy Scouts, and even church youth groups all have huge problems with adult homosexuals targeting the children. We know that ever since homosexuals were allowed to openly serve in the armed forces, homosexual rapes have rapidly escalated, thereby destroying the morale of our armed forces.

We know that there are large scale studies by the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies that show homosexuals are far more likely to have mental breakdowns, abuse drugs, engage in criminal activity and so on – all indicators of an abnormal lifestyle. We know that the best research reveals that children raised in homosexual homes are, on average, experiencing far more problems than those raised in heterosexual families.

But most Americans know little of these studies and developments because the media refuses to report on them. The dark side of homosexuality has become a state secret; and as a result, many Americans have warm and fuzzy feelings about the homosexual community because all they see is the funny gay guy on some television sitcom. It is left to the Christian community to get the truth out, and we should.

We should not allow the media’s phony “Ozzie and Harriet” portrayal of homosexuals to remain unchallenged. If Christians have writing, research, website or blogging skills, they need to use these skills to disseminate this information. If a Christian finds out a local child molester is also a homosexual but the media leaves this detail out, he should write about it. If a Christian learns that children at a local group home are being molested, but no one is doing anything about it, he needs to blog about it and make a stink until the authorities are forced to act. If a friend reports he was sexually assaulted by homosexuals while serving in the military, encourage him to write about it and send it all over the Internet.

It is time to stop being nice guys to those who want to take away our First Amendment rights. This may sound harsh, but we are commanded to fight evil; and while I think it’s important that Churches and Christians continue to reach out to and pray for homosexuals, we cannot ignore the fact that the homosexual movement has declared war on us–and exposing what they do is a perfectly acceptable strategy. It is time to turn the spotlight on these people who seek to destroy our cherished religious freedoms.

Un comentario en “The True Reason Gay Marriage Was Legalized, And What It Really Means For The Future


Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Google photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Conectando a %s