Law: A Queer Thing Now

So right now there’s a lot of discussion and spewing of hatred over the SCOTUS’ decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which now demands that all 50 States allow Queers to marry under the law. Most of the hate being spewed is, unsurprisingly, coming from the Liberals and Progressives and is both an orgy of gloating and implied threat of persecution – persecution now more likely after Obergefell.

In all truth, I’m rather ambivalent about this ruling from the SCOTUS. I’ve read the decision and it seems a solid and well-founded piece of law overall, but with one glaring problem – Judicial Tyranny over the States and the unintended negative consequences that bit of overreach may very well engender.

Queer Judicial Tyranny
The Law Seems A Queer Things These Days

While I have exactly zero issues with the idea of queers being able to marry and have always been an opponent and detractor of DOMA I firmly believe that the SCOTUS’ hearing of this case and rendering such a broad opinion is contrary to best interests of the nation and flies directly in face of previous SCOTUS rulings – utterly ignored by Justice Kennedy and the four Liberals on the Court – that unequivocally stated in Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo that all laws pertaining to marriage are the purview of the several States and not the Federal Government.

Insofar as marriage is within temporal control, the States lay on the guiding hand.

“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States, and not to the laws of the United States.

Indeed, I’m displeased by Obergefell for exactly the same reason as I was against DOMA. Marriage law has historically been a province of state law in the United States and it should stay as such. While the Supremacy Clause does allow the SCOTUS to do what they’ve done – it’s perfectly valid under Constitutional Law – one should not do something merely because one can or one feels for some person or group of persons.

And yes, this is what Justice Kennedy did. He ignored history and the long-standing weight thereof, previous SCOTUS rulings, and the negative impacts of the legal precedent this sets so as to lend aid and comfort to a group he favors – homosexuals. Remember always that Justice Kennedy is the one who through judicial action effectively legalized sodomy in America with his opinion on Lawrence v. Texas.

So, to all the queers out there – I’m honestly happy for you but I shudder to think of the damage you’ve caused the nation by how you’ve gotten what you felt you deserved.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Biblical Marriage

In the past I’ve made some sarcastic posts about DOMA and traditional aka biblical marriage. To continue in that vein here’s an instructional video by Betty Bowers on traditional marriage as defined by biblical precedent:

Betty Bowers on Traditional Marriage Per The Bible

Yes, the video is needlessly harsh, insulting, and sarcastic. It also uses some pretty far-fetched interpretation of biblical passages – e.g., there’s no theological basis for saying Eve seduced Cain; it’s far more likely that he took one of his unnamed in the Bible sisters to wife. That doesn’t, however, mean that it doesn’t contain a number of simple truths about what Yahweh supposed endorses by way of marriage.

King SolomonChristians, you need to read your Bible; it is, after all, your holy book and, as such, more than worthy of individual study.

In it are many passages that show that Abraham’s God seemed to have little or no problem with many forms of marriage beyond “one man and one woman.” Indeed, nowhere’s in the Bible is monogamy ever explicitly described as a requirement or even the preferred choice.

Divorce, contrariwise, was expressly forbidden in both Old and New Testaments.

On the other hand, the Bible does maintain that same-sex marriage, along with a number of other acts now generally considered OK, is right out, forbidden, and an abomination to be treated with abhorrence and lethal violence.

Remember, God hates fags – though possibly not lesbians, multi-cropping / under-planting, poly-cotton blends, gaudy jewelry, and shellfish. 😛

So, my dear Christian sometimes-allies, have some fun with this if you can. Think a bit on it though; there’s truth buried in any bit of humor, elsewise it wouldn’t be funny.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Copyright Thuggery

Perez Hilton aka Mario Lavandeira is the latest thuggish agendist to try to (mis)use US Copyright Laws to silence criticism of his actions and agenda. The queer “media personality” is attempting to get an embarrassing video removed from YouTube, falsely claiming that it violates his copyright of the material.

The video that Perez is bothered by was produced by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a group that rather virulently opposes gay marriage. As part of the one-minute video is a three-second clip of Hilton calling Miss California Carrie Prejean a “dumb bitch.”

Perez Hilton: Queer Copyright Thug

NOTE: I’m not sure how long this video will remain online. YouTube has a long history of bending over for homosexuals, Islamists, and other related groups who dislike Free Speech when it’s contrary to their respective agendas, so this video could be pulled at any time. I’ll try to find other sources for it if that happens.

Laviendra’s attorneys have issued a DMCA takedown notice over a TV ad posted to YouTube. YouTube, of course complied – but the video is viral enough that they’ve been, so far, unable to remove all copies of it from the site.

I guess that, since Lavandeira has decided to reinvent himself as a queer rights “activist,” he thinks that he has gained some form of entitlement. That’s abhorrent and pathetic since Lavandeira’s greatest claim to fame or celebrity – well, the greatest claim that can or should be mentioned in polite company at least; he might have others – was posting photos of celebrities – without permission from the copyright owners.

Lavandiera, of course, defended himself against the lawsuits that resulted by claiming that his defacement of the images with sophomorically crude scribbling of penises, cocaine, and semen on the subjects’ faces rendered his conduct Fair Use.

Perez Hilton aka Mario Lavandeira Does, in what passes for Perez Hilton’s deranged mind – AIDS Dementia Complex? – scrawling a few comments and/or crude and insulting graphics on an image is fair use, but including 3 seconds of video in a 30-second ad is copyright infringement? Most likely not.

Lavandeira/ Hilton is just another queer – though worse and more disgusting than most – who is more than willing to use any means available to damage and hopefully silence those who don’t “bend over” for the queer agenda in America.

I’m no great fan of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), and they’ve in the past also over-utilized copyright laws against their detractors, but I certainly hope they use any and all means at their disposal to defeat and break Perez Hilton over this.

Tags: | | | | | | | | |

In Defense Of Marriage

In order to truly represent the Will of God as set forth in the Holy Bible it is needful and good to amend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) so that it truly represents the provisions required for this holy union. To properly adhere to the biblical standards for marriage the DOMA should be changed to reflect the following truths:

  • Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
  • Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron11:21)
  • A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)
  • Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
  • Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
  • If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

For the source of this material plus other interesting bible quotes and relating to marriage and sexuality go here.

Tags: | | | |