jump to navigation

Cultural Earthquake hits Califorinia–So called Same Sex marriage 16 May, 2008

Posted by David Anderson in Uncategorized.

Coast to Coast Insanity is here.  4 justices count more than millions of voters and thousands of years of human wisdom.  The California Supreme Court has found that it is discriminatory to give civil unions to same sex couples and recognize marriage of only mixed sex couples.  That is like saying it is discriminatory to require an insurance agent to know about insurance and a lawyer to know about law.  Why can’t the lawyer just pass the insurance exam?  Isn’t there some law involved in it?  That’s silly, you say.  They are serving different functions and they don’t do the same thing.
Neither do same sex couples and mixed sex couples.  Forgive me for having to go back to basics.  Nature says a man and a woman fit together in a unique way.  They complete each other.  Sexually their organs are made to compliment each other.  Emotionally, they are made to balance each other.  Spiritually, they are made to complete each other.  Biologically, only a man and a woman can perpetuate the species.  The species is one in which the offspring are best raised in a mixed sex environment.  Unsurprisingly, thousands or millions of years of experience (I am not arguing origin theory here) has led to the evolution of an institution to best channel that reality.  It exists in the most advanced of cultures and the most primitive of cultures in one form or another.  We call it marriage.  It consists of a mixed sex relationship or relationships for the purpose of raising families and bonding between the sexes.
Marriage over different cultures has different variations.  Some have more than two partners.  Some are exclusive for life.  Some have an escape valve.  Yet around the world, it is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.  It is not a confusing proposition.  It is not open for judicial guessing.
Yet, again and again some on the far left insist on “progressive” social engineering.  They place the feelings of some over the strength of society.  The fact that an institution exists in a basic form throughout written history in thousands of different cultures is not a reason to keep it, but evidence of the need to change it according to these people.  Everything done in the past was not based upon the wisdom built up as we went from herding nomads to farmers to manufacturers to information engineers.  It is based upon prejudice and discrimination.  The will of God is considered a repressive scam which must be overturned.
I reject the premise and the goals of the secular progressive left.  I proudly stand for tradition, the Bible, and the collective experience of billions of people over the nonsense of a radical elite.  I call for a return of a common sense conservatism.
I understand what is at stake.  In the few countries which have tried this brave new world, marriage rates are already declining.  The stability of the family has worsen.  We already see the wreckage caused by a society based upon single parenthood.  It causes disconnected males.  It gives higher crime rates, higher poverty, a lack of commitment to anything, and a dispirited youth.  It causes government to expand to make up for the lack of family and gives a corresponding decline in freedom.  If even the tradition of marriage is not sacred, then all others are weakened.  A society without tradition is no society at all.  It is just a collection of people who happen to live at the same time.
Marriage and family are basic building blocks of civilization add in civil government, organized religion, and economic exchange (business) then you have a strong society.  Take away any of those and you tragically weaken the ability of any people to function as a community.
My critics are going to say that I am claiming gay people are destroying civilization.  No, I am saying the secular elite is destroying our civilization.  Gay people don’t hurt us by being, loving, or discovering their own institutions.  It is not the business of government to involve itself in emotional or economic relationships unless all of society benefits from it. Therefore government should not interfere with gay relationships, but neither does it have an obligation to pretend they serve the vital function that marriage does.  I don’t have a problem with gays.  I have a problem with those who wish to use gays to advance their radical agenda.  They don’t care about gays or straights.  They care about building a new social order as a shrine to their enlightened wisdom.  I say it is time to care about the common good and stop them in their tracks. It is time for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

It is an election year.  Make your voice heard.   The people have spoken time and time again. There are no more excuses.   This issue will be one of my top 3 casting my vote this year because not much else has as much impact on the future my children will inherit.



1. sex partners - 16 May, 2008

[…] has found that it is discriminatory to give civil unions to same sex couples and recognize marriage?https://stoptaxing.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/cultural-earthquake-hits-califorinia-so-called-same-sex-m…Key events in California’s same-sex marriage debate The Fresno BeeSome important dates in […]

2. Carrie Wigal - 16 May, 2008

Technically it’s also “discrimination” to recognize marriage as being between the opposite sexes and not recognizing marriage between the species. I mean why can’t a man marry his dog?

You present a great case for the institution and value of traditional marriage. I’m sold.

3. Traditional Marriage Declared Unconstitutional - 20 May, 2008

[…] David Anderson brought this ruling to my attention a few days ago, and today I received an email from Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family covering this issue on his radio broadcast. […]

4. Ty Wigal - 21 May, 2008

Well said and well done. I enjoyed this article. Traditional marriage is also on the top of my list of issues when considering how to use my voice and my vote.

It is not easy to run roughshod over a nation that has a strong traditional family as its building block. It is much easier to conquer a nation of single mothers and absentee fathers. There is no passing on of wealth, power, knowledge or tradition. It is a big, endless and debilitating cycle. To complete the circle, throw in infanticide and same sex marriage and nothing will be left but the complete devastation of society, leaving it ripe for the plunder. If I had an impervious superpower as an enemy and no moral values, I would employ these very tactics to undermine a nation. This would be but a part of the agenda in an ugly bag of tricks.

“Why fire a shot?” asked the barbarian. “Rome will crumble from within.”

5. david anderson - 22 May, 2008

Very true, the history channel is having a series on the barbarians today. The difference between civilization and barbarian culture is very small yet the result is night and day. Civilized society has a standard; the barbarians just do what they feel like doing. Massacre, plunder, and destroy. We have build institutions to teach the values which civilize us. The most basic is the family. It must be protected. This is not the greatest threat to the family, but it is just one more step down the slippery slope.

Life is miserable for the masses unless we have civilization.

6. Brian - 22 May, 2008


Our Constitution is our standrad of civilization and the tolerant values of the enlightenment are our standard. We are not Puritans any more, so I respectfully disagree with this argument. The Constitution was written specifically to protect the rights of both the minority and the majority in all things. If we give up that standard we might as well declare the constitution and the enlightenment dead start beting the drums and burning the books. Voltaire would be going ballistic over this post and the fact that people agree with it.

7. david anderson - 23 May, 2008

You have a right to disagree my friend, but you have enough respect for the Democratic process to make your case there. These judges didn’t. The minority opinion was correct in that this is an end run around the Constitution not an upholding of it.

Of course the only thing Voltaire and I agree upon is the battery so I would agree with you. 🙂 I wish we would return to the old pathways. That is my right to advocate through the Democratic process.

One of my points is that the Constitution does not require a redefinition of marriage. The framers never intended it to used in that way. It would offend the vast majority of them as it does a majority of Americans today. This is not a Constitutional issue; it is a cultural issue. You don’t implement cultural change on this scale through dictatorial means. The civil rights laws and amendments passed through the democratic process then they were implemented by the courts. That made all of the difference.

8. Wendy - 29 May, 2008

If it is indeed “time to care about the common good”…it is definitely then NOT “time for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.” This is a hot issue for folks on both sides, but a constitutional amendment?

9. david anderson - 29 May, 2008

Permanent values should be apart of our constitutional law. The courts have no role in overriding the represenative government with new policies. New rights have to go through the constitutional process.

I want to end this silly debate. I respect the Constitution that is why I refuse to ignore it. Having these two states with this defination of marriage could pose an issue for the rest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: