Western Civilization is a Dead Man Walking. Here’s Why.

John G Heyburn II

Judge John G Heyburn II

It slipped past quietly, while we were ordering roses for Valentine’s Day and chattering about the latest political gaffe story.

Even those who watch these things were distracted by the stench of death rising from Belgium in the wake of their parliament’s vote to allow doctors to euthanize children and people with dementia.

It got lost, mostly, in the many federal court rulings hacking down votes of the people concerning marriage in the various states. These decisions keep coming with the click-click-click of falling dominoes as unelected judges flatten the will of the people.

We didn’t notice that one of these federal judges reached up and switched off the light.

If his ruling stands, Judge John G Heyburn II will go down in history as the man who killed marriage.

Last week was the week that marriage died, along with the notion that the evil of euthanasia is at least contained inside the platitudinous promises we’ve heard for so many years that it is about “helping” people die who are terminally ill and suffering unendurable, untreatable pain, and who ask for and consent to it to exercise their “right.”

Now we kill children and those with dementia who can not, by definition, either understand or consent to such a thing. We kill those whose minds are muddled by dementia, but who may not be suffering either physical or emotional pain at all. They may, in fact, be quite happy. The only reason for granting them the “right” to be medically murdered is that they are a burden to someone with the wits to “consent” to their death for them.

The Belgian Parliament’s crime against humanity was quite enough for most of us. It slipped right past most people that this ruling by this federal judge was a lot more than another member of our imperial judiciary, doing his part to destroy our culture by one falling domino at a time.

This ruing is different. It is, as they say, the whole ball of wax. Federal Judge John G Heyburn II ruled that Kentucky must recognize gay marriages that are enacted in other states.

Judge Heyburn did not issue this ruling based on a vagary of the Kentucky law. He extended last summer’s Supreme Court decision in the Windsor case that overturned DOMA to the states. What I mean by that is that he did not overturn the Kentucky law, he created a new law.

Judge Heyburn extended the DOMA ruling to the states. That federalizes marriage and legalizes gay marriage by fiat in all 50 states. Even though his ruling did not require the state of Kentucky to allow the performance of gay marriages within its borders, there was considerable verbiage in support of that move within what I can only describe as the patronizing preaching of the ruling.

What Judge Heyburn did was require the state to extend the full legal protections and privileges of marriage to homosexual marriages that are performed elsewhere.

At the same time, he clearly and specifically placed homosexuality under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. He defined sexual preference as a class of people rather than a trait found in many classes of people.

If this ruling is upheld, it will have the effect of forcing every state in the union to recognize gay marriage. It also has implications that go far beyond the question of marriage.

It’s no longer click-click-click. It is now, zip-zap-game-over. Marriage is federalized and the states have nothing to say about it. In less than a year, last summer’s hydra-headed DOMA decision will have done its do.

That is why I say that last week was the week when Western civilization became a dead man walking. These two actions — the legalized killing of innocents and the destruction of marriage — taken together, are the end of who we have been and the beginning anew of what we spent a very long time in our ancient history overcoming.

Congratulations Judge Heyburn and members of the Belgian parliament. Your footnote in history is reserved.

  • Jeff Jankowiak

    You are off your rocker. The world is not coming to and end. Just maybe the delusional world in your head.

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      What a charmer. And you go around insulting people because?

    • FW Ken

      She didn’t say the world, she said western civilization. Perhaps you think western civilization ifs the world, but we aren’t. Our perhaps you just can’t never bothered to read.

  • Elizabeth K.

    From the ruling: “For those not trained in legal discourse, the questions may be
    less logical and more emotional. They concern issues of faith, beliefs,
    and traditions” Well, my oh my. What breathtaking arrogance. How patronizing, How dangerous. secularism=logical. religious=emotional and irrational. Dead man walking indeed.

  • FW Ken

    Where do these judges come from? Who are they? They seem to have decided, based on New York Times editorials, I suppose, that gay is a normative variant of human life and religion is irrational and bigoted for not going along.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    I said this before: I am an exile in my own country. This isn’t America any more.

    • http://platytera.blogspot.com Christian LeBlanc

      Yes…hadn’t thought of the term “exile”. My wife and I think of ourselves as secessionists.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        LOL, I know the feeling.

  • yorkshirebruce

    Feb 13, 2014 to July 13, 2017 (the 100th anniversary year of the Fatima secrets) = 1260 days, 42 months, 3 and ½ years. These are unlikely the days of the AC, but it looks like one hell of a dry run.

  • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

    We were promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail. We never were told that they would not make a Hell of a good try. Killing marriage? One overpromoted twerp with a silly grin? He may have destroyed American law as law – in the sense that a law that is not based on the search for justice is not law – but it is not within his power to alter the basics of human personality.

    • hamiltonr

      Good point, Fabio. I was speaking of America, but didn’t make that explicit.

  • dart

    Wow.
    Is the author really putting these two on equal footing? The ruling to recognize
    homosexual unions is nowhere close to the tragedy of euthanasia.
    It’s not even in the same universe. The author claims, as do many, that
    allowing homosexual marriages (or civil unions, however the State wants to
    define the union) is the death warrant of marriage and therefore downfall of
    society. I make the claim that we heterosexuals and our Judeo-Christian
    based society have done the downward-spiraling deed ourselves. Look
    at the current divorce rates and the rates for the past century. Currently they stand anywhere between 40%-50%. They reached a peak in the 1960’s and 70’s with the passing of new divorce laws (now you can claim irreconcilable differences as justification). Look at current and historical rates of domestic
    abuse and spousal rape, is this a true and functional traditional marriage? Look at the minute-chapels and the much sensationalized celebrity marriages and subsequent public divorces. Why do we still make the claim that it’s homosexual marriage that is the cause of downfall? In a society that is devaluing a stable two
    parent family, and a society in which a single parent home is becoming the norm
    (and in some areas, is the norm), we should embrace the concept that two people
    – who love each other, who want to commit themselves to each other, who want to raise a family in a stable environment, (regardless of their gender, ethnicity,
    sex, or religious creed) – want their union recognized by the State for equal
    protection. Contrary to what the author states above, it’s not death. It’s the exact opposite. It’s life. And we should celebrate it.

    • hamiltonr

      That’s an interesting question. I’m going to take it up in more depth in future posts, but for now, why would I see them as connected? Anybody agree? Disagree?

      • dart

        Thank you for the chance to comment and your follow on question. These are great discussions to have.

      • SisterCynthia

        In the sense of being disordered, selfish, sinful thinking which continues to promote a society that is further and further and further from the expressed will and teachings of God, a society happily running to and thru the gates of Hell while sticking its tongue out at those fuddy-duddy Christians (and Orthodox Jews, for that matter), they both are indeed cut from the same cloth. Do they look the same in the moment? No. But just as a death sentence executed via electric chair doesn’t look like death delivered via lethal injection, and both still result in the same event (death), yes, they are both part of the death of civilization.

        Now, have heteros made a joke of marriage by throwing aside the seriousness of their covenants? Yes, indeed. For decades. So much so that many heteros have taken to skipping vows altogether and just shack up for as long as they feel like it (the only reason divorce rates aren’t even higher!). But even tho that is true, how does that somehow make homosexuals pretending to marry into a legitimate expression OF marriage and something to “celebrate”? If I am a bad baker, does that mean someone else is justified in offering mudpies for dining, because what I put on the table wasn’t all that palatable, either? It remains a sinful, pitiful parody of the relationship God created with the first humans, no matter how sincere those in the relationships are, just as “shacking up” among heteros is a sinful, pitiful parody of the relationship they won’t bother fully engaging in, and abusive marriages are a sinful, pitiful parody of what marriage is supposed to be. It isn’t “nice” to say so, but that doesn’t make it untrue.

        • Ray Glennon

          Sister, As someone that was in an abusive marriage for many years and, after an annulment, has been happily married for for 5+ years, your observation about “…a sinful, pitiful parody of the relationship God created..” touched me and helped to clarify my thinking and to reinforce the importance of the “marriage” debate. Thanks.
          Twittter: @rayglennon:disqus

      • Ray Glennon

        Regarding Dart’s thoughful question on gay marriage — While I understand and accept the Church’s teaching, I am torn on this issue due to specific situations (yes, plural) within my own family. I value your thoughtful perspective and look forward to your response in future posts.
        Regarding why I think you see them connected — In both cases, courts of (secular) law are making decisions that are contrary to the natural law that has guided the development of Western civilization for millenia. As John Paul II said in his 1995 homily in Baltimore, “Every generation of Americans needs to know that freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” And what we “ought” to do has been placed in the hearts of humanity as “natural law.”

        • oregon nurse

          I think this points to an important truth about looking at things from a personal perspective vs a public-good perspective. It’s almost impossible to see the latter when one’s emotions are clouded by the former. It’s the same reason we don’t have judges try cases of people they love and doctors don’t treat family – there can be no true objectivity and emotion will prevail.

          • xJane

            This is an incredible argument, thank you for it. It is very true that, the more people who know [gays/women] who are close to them, the more likely they are to support rights for [gays/women]. Even if such support is, in your opinion, a public ill.

            • oregon nurse

              Well, yes. That’s why moral relativism is so harmful to societies when it invades our laws.

              Are you hoping for popular support of ssm laws to get more of them passed?

              • xJane

                Popular support of marriage equality is less important to me than the right; rights are not based upon popular support (if they were, we would have the tyranny of the majority, which is why we have courts to step in when the democratic process in our republic fails to protect people). What is most interesting to me is the acknowledgement that it is harder to demonize a group of people when you know a member of that group—and the assertion that one must guard against that instinct.

                • oregon nurse

                  You see, where you make your mistake is in calling an objection to ssm a demonization of a group of people. It is not. People who approach morality in a strictly personal and therefore relative way, in my experience, have a very hard time separating the person – who has worth and dignity in their very being – from their behaviors. I suspect that’s why you see this as demonization and in turn why people like me who object to ssm are demonized by others who don’t. It should demonize no one and no group to have expectations for or against certain laws/behaviors regardless of personal feelings or desires.

                  • xJane

                    I was not calling marriage equality the demonization of a group of people, I was making the note that demonization of a group of people (whether that group is gay, or female, or Muslim (see my prior comments)) is harder when one knows a person from that group. You’re drawing a distinction between “a group of people” and “the actions of people”, which is fine, except that some groups of people are actually defined by their actions (say, soccer players) or beliefs (say, Wiccans). So yes, there is demonization of groups of people, sometimes based on their actions. I was simply, again, acknowledging the interesting argument that, since it is easier to demonize a group of people than a single person-one-knows, there is a need to guard against this impulse after meeting a [gay person/woman/Muslim/Wiccan/vegan] and finding out that this particular person isn’t so bad after all.

                    • oregon nurse

                      And I would reply that there is a need to guard against the morally relative impulse to approve ssm just because you know a ss couple who are really nice people and seem very much in love. And yet that is what I most often hear people say is the reason they won’t fight against ssm (most people really don’t think it’s right). They don’t really approve of it but they get hung up on not wanting to ‘hurt’ people they know so they won’t disapprove it either. It leads to all kinds of problems in all areas of life, legal and otherwise. That’s why I view moral relativism as a toboggan (to use an Olympic metaphor ;-) on the slippery slopes of society and culture – it’s a moral race to the bottom even when it’s well intentioned because that’s how human nature works.

      • Mrshopey

        These two are the tail end of the downfall/death. They couldn’t have come about without the contraception/no fault divorce/abortion on demand.
        Also, the same sex “marriage” isn’t a celebration of life. There are no acts in a same sex “marriage” that can produce life. They are sterile by choice. So they all fit together.
        When key laws we hold as the sanctity of life are removed, then you have bigger problems.

        • dart

          You addressed my point that we should celebrate these marriages. Thank you a very good point in response. Don’t overlook the fact that many valid marriages don’t produce life, either by choice or physical inability. But we still call those valid marriages, right? And what about the same sex couple who decide to foster life and adopt children who need a home with parents that love him or her. So yes, it is a celebration of life because through that union, God can and does work.

          • Mrshopey

            Those in a marriage who are sterile by no choice of their own are seen as
            accidental, They are not the same as those trying to enter a same sex
            “marriage”. Two females can not conceive a child. They both may be
            fertile and capable of having a child. The man/woman who can not
            conceive are different in that you could heal/remove whatever is causing
            this and they could conceive – life. Even if they were not able to heal/remove what was causing this, their union is still a witness to a proper order and a child could be adopted, giving them a mother and father. This will never happen in a
            ss”m”. So, it isn’t celebrating life but their choice to make their
            friendships a “marriage”. God doesn’t bless something He has told us is very against His laws. But you are right, he does keep drawing the sinners out of sin, conversion.

            • xJane

              But, again, two opposite-sex people who enter into a “marriage” knowing that either or both of them are sterile (in a manner that cannot be “heal[ed]/remove[d]“) still enter into a “marriage”.

              So your argument basically sits only on the fact that you believe children are entitled to have one mother and one father (no more, no less). Which is fine—but that must be your argument and not that the purpose of marriage is to create life.

              If, then, your argument is that children are entitled to have one mother and one father, is it better to have no parents (an orphan) or be adopted by a loving couple—whether that couple is same-sex or opposite-sex?

              • Mrshopey

                We don’t have orphanages here. We have foster care/homes. Largely they are with a mother/father figure/guardian. Those still in need of adopting have aged out – meaning they are less desirable as most want babies. As can be seen with ss couples renting out wombs or ivf instead of adopting or trying to adopt those children.
                So, would it be better for those children to stay in foster care instead of being in a s/s household? I think there are very good reasons to not adopt them to ss couples.

                The fruit of a marriage is children. It is a gift and not a right. So, it is part of a marriage and has been – no matter if the couple suffers from infertility, which is not the case with s/s couples.

                • dart

                  I hope that you really don’t mean this: “So, would it be better for those children to stay in foster care instead of being in a s/s household? I think there are very good reasons to not adopt them to ss couples.”
                  I am interested in hearing those reasons.
                  Foster care is temporary, and for most cases, not stable, b/c the child has not been adopted and is not legally tied to that family. Wouldn’t all children do better in a stable, permanent environment than being moved from home to home? In regards to your comment that same sex couples “rent out wombs”, I’d hazard a guess that the complexity of adoption law for same sex couples (if not explicitly banned or statutorily banned) is one of the reasons same sex couples would prefer that method.

                  • Mrshopey

                    “Wouldn’t all children do better in a stable, permanent environment than being moved from home to home?”
                    It would depend on how you view stable.

                    The fact that a child can be influenced, and/or confused in their sexuality (esp since they have things stacked against them – broken home) would be a good reason not to.

                    Foster care is complex as the goal with some are reuniting them with their biological parents. That is the best, their mother/father.
                    The next best, which can not replace their mother/father, is foster care with man/woman guardian etc.

                    As to those renting wombs/ivf, I was thinking of the well known cases where s/s adoption is allowed in their state. In those cases it would not be because of laws anymore.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            I’m not at all sure I can call the ones that withhold life by choice valid marriages.

            Physical inability through no fault of the participants is much harder, but I’d place homosexuality in the same choice camp as contraception.

            And I know Catholics who have gotten annulments over contraception- declarations that the marriage is invalid.

            • Mrshopey

              Although there is a similarity between those contracepting and homosexual acts (same camp) they are still different. They are different in that the couple could remove the contraception and validate the marriage where the s/s couple would have nothing the remove as their acts will always be sterile.

              • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                The homosexual couple can also choose to break up and have valid heterosexual marriages. Many have.

                • hamiltonr

                  Don’t agree with you here Ted.

                  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                    Not surprised- but I’ve read too much from the ex-gay writers to believe any different. Reparative therapy may be bunk, but there were a few success stories.

      • Mrshopey

        Further, because those who support ss”m” rely heavily on making these acts normal by comparing themselves to animals, it is a matter of time where other laws will make little to no sense. Especially if your goal is to behave like animals. I feel like we are getting toward the end of Animal Farm.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        I agree, because I see homosexuality as the natural outgrowth of the sexual revolution that began with the medical attempt to separate sex from procreation in the 1920s. Divorce is a natural outgrowth of that as well.

        The root is seeing sex as being for something other than procreation of a family.

        • hamiltonr

          Ted, homosexuality existed in antiquity. It’s not a new thing.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            It did. In a very different form than today. And Christianity did away with it for a reason. That reason was eliminated in the 1920s, and all manner of sexual chaos is the result. I don’t see the sexual revolution as a good thing, but it is all connected.

            • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

              Theodore, Christianity did not “do away with” Greek or Roman homosexuality (as a matter of fact the two things were rather different, although that is not commonly known because of the prevalence of Greek ephebophilia in works of literature); She condemned them, but the condemnations stayed on the books for a reason. The temptation is constant. I myself read the record of an Inquisition trial from about 1375 in which a schoolteacher was convicted of abusing a boy student – how things change, eh? And the Renaissance had a positive fad for ephebophilia, imitated from Greek originals; the playwright Marlowe is supposed to have said something like, if you haven’t tried young boys you don’t know what life is about, and that kind of ribaldry was pretty common. The old beasts are always ready to rise again and rage.

          • FW Ken

            Rebecca -

            The whole notion of “homosexuality” is a 19th

            century invention which transposed what had been behavior into a supposed “orientation”. For a while, it was the thing to dismiss St. Paul’s prohibitions on same-sex behavior because he didn’t understand same-sex orientation. I think it was Aristophanes who did actually describe what we would call a “gay man”.

            From here:

            http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

            Michel Foucault, an unexpected ally, details the pedigree of sexual orientation in his History of Sexuality. Whereas “sodomy” had long identified a class of actions, suddenly for the first time, in the second half of the nineteenth century, the term “homosexual” appeared alongside it. This European neologism was used in a way that would have struck previous generations as a plain category mistake, designating not actions, but people—and so also with its counterpart and foil “heterosexual.”

    • oregon nurse

      So because our culture has failed heterosexual marriage (you get no argument from me how bad it is) you think completely collapsing the institution and all it USED to stand for – what you seem to be lamenting, no? – is somehow the answer to making it better? That is some crazy (il)logic.

      • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

        Even more illogic is you speaking about “your” culture as though you came from somewhere in outer space. If there is any collective responsibility, madame, you are right in it.
        EDITED IN: this is the result of an extraordinary misreading. For some reason, I read “your” instead of “our”. I sincerely apologize.

        • oregon nurse

          What on earth brought on that bit of nastiness? You don’t even make any sense.

    • WildeKurt

      This farce that is homosexual marriage is really the last or nearly last nail in the coffin. I’m beginning to wonder if the continued expansion of federal power over the states as well as increasing gap between the left and right may again tear this country apart as it did in the 1860′s.

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      You’re right, we are not only in a downward spiral just because of SSM. We have been going that way for the past fifty years. But SSM is the latest manifestation. The reason that they are connected is that divorce, sex outside of marriage, abortion, considering homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, same sex marriage all attack the foundation of the Judeo-Christian worldview. By attacking it you are basically saying it is meaningless. Actually more than that: those that attack it put forth the argument that the Judeo-Christian worldview is harmful and deleterious. We on the other hand argue that a tradition has been established for significant and imperceptable reasons and when you undermine the tradition, you don’t get a different tradition, what you get is chaos. Today our culture is in chaos. The nilhists and anarchists of a hundred years ago are celebrating in their graves.

      • dart

        I think you make excellent and well thought out points. And as we explore this thought provoking topic, I think it’s important to keep in mind that there are a multitude of issues that can be discussed with this one topic. To expand on my point made earlier, it is my personal belief that the state (not a requirement for the Church) can expand the recognition of marriage based on couples who are in love and want equal protection under the law in order to raise families, an act which would not ruin the marriages of heterosexuals (if I am wrong, please let me know so I can continue learning). My 2nd point would be to your proposition that those who attack traditions are saying it is meaningless. The Church is always in reform and our theology is deeper than it ever has been because of 2,000 years of saints growing the Church into what it is today. But that doesn’t mean it stopped with the men and women that came before us. Our understanding of all things Divine is still developing, and it’s very possible that our understanding of the institution of marriage is still rudimentary. I’m not claiming that I’m right. I learn and develop through these conversations.

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          Let me take address your point number 2 first. The Church is in reform in terms of organization; it is never in reform in terms of theology. It cannot change on SSM, because the Magisterium has decided. It is codified. The Church can expand theology but not change it. As to your first point, I’m not disputing the state’s ability to define marriage. That’s done all the time. I would even willingly accept SSM (though it is still an absudity by natural law) as a civil law if we can turn back the clock on divorce, the sexual revolution, abortion, and so on. It is the satuartion effect that has destroyed western civilization.

          • Elizabeth K.

            You’re right, Manny. I would only add that the special disaster ssm brings to the mix is that it actually undermines monogamy. Here’s how: it eliminates “tradition” as a reason for keeping marriage limited to one man and one woman–so what, pray tell, is the logic for limiting it to two people at all? Surely the number has even less meaning than gender does. The only way to argue for marriage remaining two-person institution is to invoke precisely the arguments SSM undoes. Legally, it cannot stand. Those who think it can are, without realizing it, actually clinging to the ideal of one man and one woman, and saying that two members of the same sex somehow approximate that ideal situation. BUT to have the two genders enter a union, you cannot at the same time claim opposite gender as an ideal. Gay marriage didn’t build the coffin, but it does provide the final nail.

    • The original Mr. X

      You mean like how if somebody’s in hospital with serious food poisoning, you shouldn’t bother about preparing his food in unsanitary conditions, because hey, he’s got food poisoning already, what’s a little more going to do?

      • dart

        No, I’m saying that some in society misdiagnosed what made him sick. You diagnosed it food poisoning, he really had appendicitis. And what you thought was an unsanitary way of preparing his food (hence the reason you thought it was food poisoning) was a method that actually made no difference to the quality of the food.

  • xJane

    Technically, “If this ruling is upheld, it will have the effect of forcing” the Western District of Kentucky—potentially as much as the Sixth Circuit—”to recognize gay marriage.” But yes, DOMA is the only thing that kept the Full Faith & Credit clause from applying to marriages. This judge did not create new law, he interpreted the law in exactly the manner expected by the Supreme Court when it struck down DOMA. If anyone is “forcing” states to recognize marriage equality, it’s the Supreme Court.

    • FW Ken

      If memory serves, the SCOTUS struck down part of DOMA. The rest remains in effect.

      • xJane

        That’s correct.

        There are three parts to DOMA: the title, the recognition-by-states-of-marriage, and the definition of marriage. Only the second part was struck down (in its entirety, it states, “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

        The third part (and the title) remains and requires an interpretation of federal laws that use the words “marriage” or “spouse” to only refer to opposite-sex marriages.

      • hamiltonr

        All of the decisions that I’ve read go quite a bit further than the Windsor decision and make new law, this one included. Applying the Windsor decision to the states is new law. Broadening the application of the 14th Amendment to this extent is also new law.

        • kenofken

          On what grounds would the remaining sections of DOMA untouched by Windsor be inherently untestable by the 14th Amendment? State laws have been vulnerable to the 14th and the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution for a long, long time. I don’t know how the application is so much broader than prior decisions either. I am certainly willing to consider how they may be, but Brown vs Board and Roe were certainly wide-reaching applications of the 14th and radically re-shaped the legal and cultural landscape in ways which are at least as fundamental as this Kentucky ruling.

          • hamiltonr

            That’s actually a different line of argument than whether or not the judge made new law — which he did. The question you are raising is whether or not his application of the 14th amendment in this way is valid. Brown v the Board of Education was based on the 14th Amendment, which if you know your history, you also know was written specifically for African American people. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled repeatedly that the 14th Amendment did not apply to women, which is why women had to have a separate constitutional amendment nearly 50 years later to allow them to vote.

            The question that arises from the application of the 14th amendment to homosexuals in this manner is multi-pronged.

            First is homosexuality a trait or a dysfunction or what? Is it biological, psychological, social, or a combination of all of these?

            One of the underlying assumptions in Judge Heyburn’s ruling was that homosexuals are a distinct group of people in the same way that people of different races are distinct. Is this true?

            Second does the discrimination suffered by homosexuals rise to the level experienced by African Americans, who were slaves on this continent for several hundred years and who the Constitution itself had, previous to the Civil War, defined as a fraction of persons rather than whole persons, and in certain rulings of the Supreme Court not as persons at all, but as chattel.

            African Americans subsequent to the Civil War were subjected to systematic legal and social segregation. The Brown ruling was a reaction to this level of discrimination against the group of people for whom the amendment was written.

            Third, is the discrimination against homosexuals abating without draconian court rulings? I think it is obvious that it is, which renders such rulings not only unnecessary but destructive to the body politic and social fabric of the country.

            Fourth, is the estate of marriage a federal question?

            Fifth is marriage a “right” a “privilege”?

            There are other questions, but these are the main ones I see that come from your line of questioning.

            • hamiltonr

              Btw, I’m out of this discussion for a while.

            • http://kingscriercommissions.blogspot.com/ thekingscrier

              According to the leading psychiatric organizations, homosexuality has not been listed as a mental or sexual dysfunction for almost 30 years.

              • hamiltonr

                I didn’t say what I meant. What I was trying to say is that no one knows exactly what homosexuality is or what causes it.

              • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                That the leading psychiatric organizations are biased against heterosexuality and guilty of accepting bribery to come to whatever conclusion they are paid to come to is well known.

            • http://kingscriercommissions.blogspot.com/ thekingscrier

              Considering that marriage is a federally-recognized union between two people involving property and monetary resources, that should be obvious.

              The Brown vs Board of Education ruling removed seperate but equal discrimination because it became glaringly obvious the separate part was applied but not the equal part.

            • Bill S

              “…draconian court rulings”?

              Draconian for whom?

              • hamiltonr

                Our whole society Bill. Can you honestly say that Roe v Wade had been good for this country? It has damaged it beyond reckoning. The Court itself acknowledged this with its ruling in Windsor. However, Windsor is rapidly turning into another Roe by different means.

                • Bill S

                  The thing that will ruin this country is the deficit. When we have all we can do to pay the interest we are in big trouble. This is not to be blamed on abortion or gay marriage or euthanasia. Ironically, all of those just happen to be more likely to help reduce the deficit/debt than increase it. Married gays don’t put a strain on the economy or the debt. Nor do people who have abortions or have a doctor assist them in dying.

                  You won’t like this and I am only saying it because it is true. What’s ruining this country are the things we spend the most money on: entitlements and healthcare costs much of which go to caring for people who can’t help themselves. You could say it is what we do to help people in need that will do us in. I’m not suggesting that we stop providing welfare, caring for the elderly, etc. but that is what is dragging us down, not immorality.

                  • hamiltonr

                    That’s an interesting misdirection Bill. Since you are so vociferous about supporting euthanasia, I can’t help but ask: Are you saying we should kill all these folks who can’t care for themselves to save money?

                    • Bill S

                      Even though that would solve our financial woes, no one is suggesting that we do that.

                      That is what a Hitler or a Stalin would do. Even the New Atheists can see how wrong that would be.

                      I guess, taking a step back and looking at the situation, I could see a utilitarian purpose in promoting those things that Christians oppose including abortion and euthanasia as well as contraception opposed by the Catholic Church.

                      To do so, it would be necessary to make religion irrelevant.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      “Even though that would solve our financial woes, no one is suggesting that we do that.”

                      You’ve been suggesting that we do exactly that on my blog for the last several months.

                    • Bill S

                      Ted,

                      I did not say that. We discussed the impact of Oregon’s Death with Dignity law on the State healthcare insurance.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      Previous to that you discussed the relative value of human life, in materialistic terms, in relation to both euthanasia and abortion. Did I misunderstand you claiming that dependent life has less value than productive life? And thus, we should be allowed to end dependent life when the economic equation suits?

                      —–
                      Disqus really needs a search feature. I don’t have time today to add the cite needed to continue this discussion when Bill doesn’t remember the conversation that I remember, as I have written hundreds of articles on euthanasia and abortion in the last 5 years.

                    • Bill S

                      There is no place on your blog where I have said anything remotely like that. What should be allowed?

                      1. Abortion for a woman who doesn’t want the child. That should be legal (as it is).

                      2. Euthanasia for a person wishing to die.

                      I didn’t say that on your blog, but I have said it here. I think it is consistent with my lack of religiously induced scrupulosity.

                  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                    How does reducing the number of taxpayers reduce the deficit?

                    That’s like saying you can solve your credit card debt by quitting your job.

  • http://kingscriercommissions.blogspot.com/ thekingscrier

    When you discriminate against a group of people, sooner or later the law will remove that discrimination. As an example: I imagine there were many in the religious communities in the South who decried the 14th Amendment you mentioned as government interference. I’ve noticed in the past that the only time
    a group, whether conservative or liberal, uses a form of the phrase “activist judges” it’s involving an idea they are firmly dead-set against.

    Kentucky, like many states in the South (including my own), set up laws based solely on religious grounds to stop an entire segment of the population from receiving the same legal recognition and benefits the majority of residents enjoy. This is discrimination, any way you slice it. And much like the religious discrimination that stopped such things as interracial marriage, it will eventually be struck down.

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      “When you discriminate against a group of people, sooner or later the law will remove that discrimination. ”

      That just shows how pathetically ignorant you are. You know no history at all except a few anecdotes about the South which you are incapable of putting in context, since the context is wholly alien to you. And you do not want to learn, for to know any history would damage your ability to pontificate ignorantly.

      • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

        I repeat: you know no history at all except for some anecdotes from the South. Tell me, do you know anything about the development of Russian law from the middle ages to the Age of Enlightenment? French? Italian? About Roman law from late republican to late imperial times? I do. I won’t even ask whether you stopped to consider non-western societies, most of which have an inbuilt class or caste system, and all of which, with the exception of the Australian Aboriginals, know slavery as a matter of course. Your total ignorance of European legal history, let alone of the anthropology of law, comes out clearly exactly in that statement I condemned: “When you discriminate against a group of people, sooner or later the law will remove that discrimination. ” Total rubbish. The history of most legal systems in the world shows increasing and increasingly graded discrimination between classes, even when we are not talking of caste societies like India or of all-slave societies such as Ottoman Turkey, where everyone was, in terms of law, the slave of the Sultan. Learn some history beyond your little provincial area and retjhink your assumptions.

    • FW Ken

      Except, of course, same-sex attraction is not a racial characteristic.

      • http://kingscriercommissions.blogspot.com/ thekingscrier

        Second, it is a characteristic of some members of the human species, similar to skin color, that has been used as the basis for discriminatory actions ranging from the loss of job opportunities to the loss of lives and adequate health care.

        Let us say for a moment that you are a Christian and America was a Muslim majority country. Let us suppose that this Muslim majority insisted that due to their religious teachings, no Christians can receive legal protection from job discrimination, no marriage benefits, etc. How would feel at such discrimination? What would you do to remove it?

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          Move to another country.

        • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

          You would keep your trap shut and do exactly as your Muslim owners told you. Otherwise you would be likely to get your throat cut. And it might happen anyway, merely because they feel like it. You have absolutely no idea how things work outside your little corner of the world, and keep insisting on talking as though everyone else behaved exactly as they do in Tupelo or Little Rock.

        • xJane

          Incidentally, religion is the only accepted protected category—all other categories are “immutable”. You cannot change your race/nationality/legitimacy/gender*/orientation, so they are protected. People change religions every day.

          *Okay, fair, this is now possible, if difficult.

        • FW Ken

          Not at all like skin color. The rest of your comment is not germane. In fact, Christians are second class citizens in Muslim societies, but being gay is not like being a Christian, either.

    • Cha5678

      Not quite. Discrimination against the rich in taxes appears to remain a permanent feature of law. Discrimination against the young in social security benefits predicts to remain a permanent feature of law. All laws discriminate. Such is necessary to define the law and to serve the law’s interests. In some cases, that discrimination increases over time. In other cases, that discrimination decreases over time.

      I think what you mean to say is that we’ve reached a point of our culture where promotion of family and protection for children has lost its appeal. Such marriage laws that served those interests now seem unnecessary to many. As such, we change the law by changing the discrimination and definitions of the law.

      Those that say marriage is being redefined are right. But then again to admit that the society and civil authorities have changed their mind would expose the pro-SSM movement as a sham. Instead of the narrative being society losing interest in family-centered marriage, they argue marriage is being saved by a culture full of infidelity, instability and inherent sterility. Instead of the narrative being activists radicalizing against our once-shared societal and civil interests towards family-centered marriage, they argue it’s all a campaign of animosity and demeaning.

  • Chuck Farley

    If 20 years pass and your dire predictions do not come true will you adjust your opinion? Maybe 20 years isn’t long enough. How long, in your opinion, until western civilization breaks down because of these two things?

    • hamiltonr

      I hope I am wrong. However, based on the social dissolution that has come about in the past 50 years, that seems unlikely. The trajectory is set.

      What you seem to refuse to see is that social dissolution is already far advanced.
      The steady advance of legalized killing of innocents in the past 50 years has been breathtaking. The destruction of marriage through divorce, cohabitation, widespread acceptance of infidelity and now doing away with it as a firm social construct and turning it into an elastic political-thingy that can be defined … however and according to whatever fad, is social dissolution on a huge scale.

      I think that you will not admit this because you are in favor of it and lobbying for it.

      My question to you: What will it take for you to admit that what you are advocating is social destruction?

      • Sus_1

        If the social dissolution is already so far advanced, what do you think we will gain if gay marriage goes away?

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          Very little indeed. Gay marriage is very much the end game.

          To roll back the clock, you need to get before WWI. The dissolution has been going on for a very, very, very long time.

          • Sus_1

            If there is so little to gain by making all this negative noise about gay marriage, what is the point?

            It’s just tearing people up for nothing. It’s given people against the Church more ammunition. It’s turning people away from Christ. All for nothing.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              It isn’t what we have to gain, it is what we have to lose. But I’m to the point that I consider this country already lost. Gay marriage is the proof.

              • kenofken

                You worry about what we have to lose, but why would you expect any quarter or magnanimity from gays or the SSM movement in general? You go beyond the marriage issue to essentially legitimize the imprisonments and other forms of horrible discrimination, jobs etc., against gays. I mean I hope we can move on from this as a country, but they’d be fools not to try to press their advantage against folks like you in law and culture. You seem not to regret anything that has ever been done to them, and if that’s true, the implicit promise is that you’d happily see it done again given half a chance.

                • hamiltonr

                  Ted sometimes comes across more harshly than he means. Gay people are certainly within their rights as American citizens to petition the courts and try to win elections, etc. We can disagree with them about their goals in doing this — although there claims for basic civil rights and an end to gay bashing are more than just — but not their right to do it.

                  • http://kingscriercommissions.blogspot.com/ thekingscrier

                    Miss Hamilton, I have to ask this question: If you were denied the right to marry by a religious group in the majority of this country, would you not take up the legal fight to remove such restrictions from your ability to live a normal, happy life with the same legal protections the privileged majority experience?

                    • hamiltonr

                      No. I’d just change my church.

                      That said, I have no quarrel with homosexuals exercising their rights as Americans to petition the courts and engage in the electoral process. I simply do not agree with their objectives concerning the redefinition of marriage. I think it will have disastrous consequences to the social fabric of the culture. That is my right as an American, you know.

                    • xJane

                      Wait, really? It would take so little for you to deny the primacy of the Papal See and take up [Luther's intellectual descendants/paganism/atheism]?

                    • hamiltonr

                      There is zero chance that the Catholic Church is going to do this, so that person must be speaking of another denomination/religion. If the Church denied me the sacrament because I was, due to already being married, unfit for marriage due to an unwillingness to undertake a lifelong partnership of fidelity, etc., then I wouldn’t quarrel. In fact, I imagine that I would figure that out for myself and not ask. It would not affect my being Catholic.

                      If, as I supposed, you were talking about some random denomination out there, that would be different. What I wouldn’t do is try to take said church to court to force them to do such a thing.

                    • xJane

                      I agree on two points, but I think I disagree over all. 1. Don’t force the Church to change (it ain’t gonna work). 2. Rethink devotion to that religion.

                      I think the actual outcome, however, is to become conflicted. Catholics who believe but find themselves in conflict with the Holy See turn to Tridentine, RCWP, or other breakaway sects. Eventually, they may well change religion, but “No, I’d just change my church.” is an awfully flippant way of addressing the very real conflict many believers have between what the Church says and their individual relationship with their god (see: use of birth control).

                    • hamiltonr

                      First, you didn’t ask many believers. You asked me. Second, people are free to affiliate or not with any church they choose.

                    • oregon nurse

                      “That is my right as an American, you know.”
                      That’s a true statement but there are many on the opposite side of the issue who would truly seek to remove your right to vote or act on your RCC-formed conscience on the issue simply because that violates their ill-informed notion of separation of church and state. That’s scary, especially as we see the gov taking up this same attitude, that religion can only legally exist within the 4 walls of your place of worship or a private home. Step outside those boudaries and they would seek to force you to take on whatever public (a)morality exists.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      I support them in their legal fight. What I oppose is their violence.

                    • ucfengr

                      There is no “right to marry”. You talk about marriage as if were some sort of entitlement. It’s not. When you think of it that way you totally miss what the purpose of marriage is.

                • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                  “You worry about what we have to lose, but why would you expect any quarter or magnanimity from gays or the SSM movement in general?”

                  I don’t. And that’s the reason I’m against the gay agenda.

                  I do not regret a single thing that has been “done to them”- I see them as practically begging for it all along. Even now, when many of the actual incidents of gay bashing have died down, the gay movement *invents* fake incidents, and uses drug gang violence such as that which Matthew Shepherd died from, to advance their cause.

                  Quarter or magnanimity? No, I can’t expect that from a people who have abandoned any pretense at morality.

          • http://kingscriercommissions.blogspot.com/ thekingscrier

            So back when black people had no voting rights in much of the country (or protection from racial discrimination), interracial marriage was not only taboo but an offense that could get you killed, women were stuck being homemakers and baby factories, divorce was not really an option even if your spouse was abusive; and if you were gay, you’d better marry a woman and keep that on the down-low or you’re liable to end up being beaten to death.

            You know, the good ole’ days.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              Better than the chaos now. At least we had order back then instead of moral anarchy.

              • radiofreerome

                There was order the 30′s when people like you would have been sterilized in the U.S. and euthanized in Germany. You advocate this for gays. If you get your wish, the same order will be applied to you.

            • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

              Umpteen-squinchieth demonstration that you know nothing about history.

            • FW Ken

              You’re ignorance of history is ludicrous, but typical of gay rights advocates, who generally view normal life as awful.

              • hamiltonr

                Don’t get personal Ken.

            • oregon nurse

              Co-opting discrimination against blacks and putting it on the same moral/legal plane is way off base and frankly offensive.

              A more appropriate comparison is to someone who has an addiction and wants to indulge it because it’s ‘who they are and what they want’. We don’t know where an addiction comes from, we know it is a hard burden to carry physically and psychologically, we know that it is reinforced through repetition and group acceptance, and we know that indulging it is usually harmful and not the answer.

      • Spectrall

        What will it take for you to admit that what you are advocating is social destruction?

        Causal evidence. I mean, first I’d have to see society heading in a generally negative direction, which I’m not seeing at all. Then I’d have to see it tied in some sort of causal way to gay people having equal rights.

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          When didn’t gay people have equal rights?

          What the gay agenda wants is special rights- the right to force everybody to celebrate homosexuality.

          They will do this by making discrimination against heterosexuals legal. We are already experiencing it from people like you.

          • spfix

            “When didn’t gay people have equal rights?”

            Before the Stonewall riots, for starters.

            Government at all levels in the United States were once permitted to systematically discriminate against gay people in the same way they could communists, and they did. Police across the country would use sodomy laws as carte blanche to raid private homes and establishments, as well as harass and run entrapment schemes against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation. It took a violent retaliation against a police raid in Greenwich Village to begin bringing the legal gears that allowed this to a screeching halt.

            “What the gay agenda wants is special rights- the right to force everybody to celebrate homosexuality.”

            The “special rights” narrative in anti-SSM activism is a stale and baseless invention.

            The cause of same-sex marriage is to strip the system of all possible loopholes with which such disgust may be used as a legal cudgel to deny civil privileges to consenting individuals. This isn’t a religious issue. It is because of the 1st and 14th Amendments alone that no church can ever be forced to perform the sacraments of marriage onto anyone. This will never not be the case, nor is there any impetus for it to change.

            The only argument that opponents of SSM have states that SSM has some sort of legally palpable effect on them through the encroachment of a supposedly bogus legal status, whose ultimate end is to legally discriminate against heterosexuals (but I thought sexual preference wasn’t a Constitutionally protected class?). Yet this claim cannot be substantiated, nor can it be proven as legally possible to accomplish.

            The only reason the “special rights” narrative retains any kind of traction today is through the practice of erasing the history of the gay rights movement and denying of being gay as a legally plausible category onto itself.

            The plausible legal recognition of homosexuality under the category of sodomy laws alone would be enough to establish it as a constitutionally protected class. But it isn’t needed, because in any case, the “special rights” narrative relies on unequivocally naming heterosexuality as a class that needs protection in the same sense that homosexuality could be construed as one. It therefore makes no sense to claim that the latter does not exist. The non-logic alienates your own argument.

            “They will do this by making discrimination against heterosexuals legal.”

            See what I mean? If you wanted to differentiate the union of a man and a woman from that of a same-sex pairing without positing either as a legally plausible category, you should go back to just calling the latter “sodomites.” However, this wouldn’t help you much, anyway.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              I don’t even consider sexual orientation to be a sane category of human being. People are more than their sexual fantasies.

              But the threat to the human family and the continuation of the species is quite real, and is the entire point. I’m not about to give any credit to a mental illness.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              “The only reason the “special rights” narrative retains any kind of traction today is through the practice of erasing the history of the gay rights movement and denying of being gay as a legally plausible category onto itself.”

              The history of the gay rights movement is horribly violent and bloody on both sides of the issue, and the violence itself has turned me against any idea of integration of “being gay” into a “legally plausible category” that can be integrated into society. The current attempts to do so are nothing more than reverse discrimination.

              • hamiltonr

                Ted, I don’t know of any “horribly violent” things homosexuals have done. They’ve petitioned the courts and tried to win elections, which are well within the rights of any American citizen. There has been so social bullying and unjust name-calling from certain gay right activists. But “horribly violent?” I don’t think so.

                • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

                  Rebecca, you are wrong in point of fact. What were the Stonewall riots if not violent? But that is hardly all. There is an element of compensatory, excessive machismo in both kinds of homosexuality that always seems to threaten violence, and not infrequently unleashes it. Remember that, in spite of all the lies the media put together, the murderer of Matthew Shephard was a fellow homosexual on drugs. Homosexual home life is often less than nice. I could say that the domestic life of gay couples has a great deal more violence than that of straight couples – there are statistics that show it, and besides I have seen it with my own eyes, having house-shared with a number of homosexual couples in my youth – but then i would have to dig up all the statistics and get into all sorts of rows about their validity. So I will tell you something that is absolutely certain.

                  The homosexual movement began in Germany in the years before World War One, and it was aggressively nationalistic and militaristic from the beginning. The homosexual movement, of course, makes a lof out of the fact that Hitler, after 1934, effectively put out one of his kill orders against homosexuals, but they don’t like to have it pointed out that this was a falling-out between comrades – like the exactly contemporary fall-out between Stalin and the equally murderous but less crafty Trotsky. Until 1934, the armed militia of the Nazi Party – the SA – was a centre of homosexual activity, all of whose leaders were homosexual. Look a little at the history of the SA before 1934, and you will see that “horribly violent” is an adequate description. Until 1934, the homosexual Roehm and his very, very homosexual followers were the Party’s other soul, and, in the eyes of many, more representative than Hitler himself. HItler had known Roehm since 1919, when Roehm had hired him as a low-grade political agent for the secret apparatus of the Wehrmacht, and for fifteen years he had not only lived with his very visible habits, but allowed and encouraged the building up of a militia that was in all but name a homosexual army. By 1934, however, Roehm had got too big for his boots, and actually intended to force the Wehrmacht to become a part of his SA. Faced with the likelihood of a civil war between party and army, or of an army coup, Hitler unleashed another, hitherto insignificant, armed group, the SS, led by the heterosexual Heinrich Himmler, who welcomed the opportunity of slaughtering Roehm and his leadership and taking their place. Hitler, to make sure that the Army understood that this was not a surrender, had several generals killed at the same time, as well as a number of other inconvenient persons, including the Catholic priest who had ghost-written Mein Kampf for him. Of course, from then on most homosexuals had a target on their back, although leaders in both the party and the armed forces – beginning with Hitler’s right-hand man Goering – remained more than suspect of same-sex inclinations; but it was the by-product of an internal struggle in which the homosexual part of the Nazi party, although as murderous as the rest, underrated the double-facedness and treachery of Adolf Hitler. But until 1934, the German homosexual movement was either Nazi or in neighbouring ideological areas. And you can’t tell me that those people weren’t horribly violent.

                  • hamiltonr

                    Fabio, friends of mine have been beaten up for no other reason than that they were homosexual. In the instances I know about, the attackers (plural) picked out little guys who weren’t able to defend themselves. In the past the police did nothing about this. I personally went to the police chief here in Oklahoma City a long time ago and complained about this.

                    This was a clear-cut violation of homosexuals’ civil rights. That fact is, that sort of thing is pretty much over now. The police are actually quicker to do something about violent gay baiting than they are a violent attack on a woman.

                    I was involved as a representative in the plight of a woman who had been ganged-raped by five men who kept her hostage for 2 days. She committed suicide because of the reaction of her husband, coupled with police pressure to drop the charges. This is the single most painful thing I have ever dealt with as a representative. It haunts me.

                    Nobody put that on the front page. But if a gay person is attacked now, that is news around the world.

                    Things are changing for the better about violent attacks on homosexuals. In fact, I would say that things have changed. However, to say that they have not suffered unjust discrimination and violence, or that they have been the attackers is just not true at all.

                    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

                      Rebecca, and water is wet. Thanks for the information. If I wanted to speak about homophobic attacks, I would have; I have personally witnessed the results of one homophobic attack on the weaker member of one of those gay couples I house-shared with for years. I also went to court to protect him from a nuisance suit from a half-mad fellow tenant who was asked to leave afterwards. However, what you would not have known is that the beating the unhappy young man got from random thugs was a one-time event; whereas the domestic Hell when his partner came in drunk and did all sorts of things took place every Friday without fail, Why it should be Friday, I don’t know. But I can tell you for a fact that this victim of homophovic abuse suffered a great deal more in his liberated homosexual couple. He paid his partner back by being hurtingly unfaithful – and that, of course, kept the vicious circle turning.

                      As a politician, you only see people when they feel they need to see you. They will certainly not tell you about the bad and shameful parts of their own lives. But I saw them day by day over several years by living with them.

                    • Sus_1

                      Friday is pay day for many people in the States. I don’t know if that as true in Europe. In many cases Fridays is a big day for domestic violence because people have money for alcohol and drugs. They can drink and do their thing without having to get up for work on Saturday.

                      The people I know in domestic violent relationships are heterosexual. I have not seen statistics that say gay relationships have a higher rate of domestic violence.

                • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                  I’ve seen the damage done to churches in the name of gay rights. I’ve seen the direct attacks on the Eucharist and on Our Lord Jesus Christ. And I’ve experienced the bullying and hatred of homosexuals myself.

                  Look up the Stonewall riots to begin with- this entire movement *started* with violence against police who were just trying to do their job.

                  • Karl Leinfelder

                    Theodore: And of course there were those vicious attacks on the male members of the catholic church in Argentina. And no one was arrested. I certainly would classify that as violent.

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      I missed that one. Got a link?

                    • FW Ken

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOCD_T9Qqpc

                      It’s actually about abortion, although the gay thing shows up, too.

                    • Karl Leinfelder

                      Theodore: Let check and see if I can find the original article related to the attack of a large group of gay feminists on a church in Argentina. In essence there was an advance notice of them coming so a group of men and maybe some women also formed a line in front of the church to prevent their advance. When these women arrived they attacked the young men spray painting them with paint canisters. The young men didn’t retaliate. And oddly enough there were no arrest or efforts by the police to stop those insufferable women. Thanks.

                    • hamiltonr
                    • Karl Leinfelder

                      Good morning Hamilton, Thanks very much for putting the information together. I am sure that Theodore will appreciate the effort, Thanks again

                    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                      No wonder I missed it. That was a time I was extremely busy.

                    • Karl Leinfelder

                      Hey Theodore, Did you see the information that you had requested?

            • FW Ken

              So when every jurisdiction extends marriage to the few gays who actually want to marry, and all the wedding services are obedient to your every desire, and the churches which don’t serve you are stripped of their tax ememptions (and limited in their ability to serve the poor), and, of course, employees who don’t celebrate sodomy are duly punished….

              When you are in control, what will you do to make yourself feel normal?

              • http://kingscriercommissions.blogspot.com/ thekingscrier

                Tax exemption should be removed anyways. If churches want to insinuate themselves into politics so much, let them pay their admission fee like the rest of us.

                • FW Ken

                  There are a variety of reasons the entire tax exemption system should go away. Traditionally, “the power to tax is the power to control”, but these days it seems like the control is in granting exemptions. The IRS revelations are a symptom of the problem, as is the subject at hand.

                  Of course, we’ll find ways to continue serving the poor, like we always have. Education may suffer, but the secularists would like to have a crack at more of our kids anyway, higher school taxes and all.

                  But the question remains: when you still can’t control us, what will you do then?

                  • Hegesippus

                    When society picks up the tab – money and time – to cover the charity work carried out by the Church, only then will it be in a moral position to discuss the concept of taxing the Church.

                • FW Ken

                  Interesting, but I just read that the Episcopalian bishops of Kansas have come out against the law allowing a conscience exemption to gay weddings. I guess they need to lose their tax exemption, too.

          • howe

            Of course gay people have always had the equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex. They want to literally be considered “normal” in their sexual orientatation and actions.

        • FW Ken
      • oregon nurse

        Rebecca, I would add that contraception and abortion is creating a population/demographic shift that will roll through our world in destructive ways most people have never even thought of.

    • Sygurd Jonfski

      It has already broken down, are you blind, deaf and intellectually challenged?

      • hamiltonr

        Sygurd, I’m going to allow this because you are new here at Public Catholic. Please don’t attack other commenters. Take your position with civility.

        • Sygurd Jonfski

          Thanks but it wasn’t an attack, just a factual statement. There must be something wrong with not being able to see the obvious.

  • michicatholic

    It’s already broken down, but this is not the reason. The reason is more complicated. This is merely the recognition in law.

  • http://desidelerium.wordpress.com CS

    The American people and States are allowed to make Revolution if they think they’re being treated tyrannically. You might just be on the wrong side of history…

  • I.C.

    IMHO no judge can “kill Western Civlization.” He can only exclude himself from it.

  • rod mason

    I remember hearing of this ruling to murder infants and old people on the program on EWTN hosted by the Catholic Evangelist layman, Patrick Madrid, just last week, and all he could keep saying was, “isn’t that interesting”? kind of over and over, like he was in a state of shock, and who wouldn’t be? After all, the ruling was of a Hitlerian cast, something that one would’ve associated with the Nazi’s of old (?). Turns out, not so old after all. We might have thought that the age of the medical totalitarians who might issue a ruling like this one, which essentially boils down to the “Little Murders of Big Brother,”(apologies to the late Jules Feiffer), ended with the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials, but as subsequent events have shown, such is NOT the case, and we’re not in the Kansas of relief from top-down big government oppression anymore. In fact, it just be starting up all over again. And I really can’t find any way to turn said ruling to kill with impunity all those who are “useless eaters” from the proverbial lemons to lemonade; it is what it is, and I remember reading of journalist Heinrich Heine’s famous admonition quoted by Blessed Fulton Sheen back in the day, about later peoples born around, actually, now, to be born with very thick skins, because they’re going to NEED THEM. Immaculate Mother Mary, Co-Redemptrix of the human race, Please Pray for us.

  • I.C.

    “Same sex marriage” and abortion are linked.
    Both say, “To heck with your life form — my needs are more important!”

  • oregon nurse

    And another domino falls as yet another AG refuses to do her job. Oregon’s AG announces she won’t defend our ssm ban because she thinks it violates the constitution.
    http://www.katu.com/news/local/Oregon-wont-defend-gay-marriage-ban-in-lawsuit-246374991.html

  • David M Paggi

    Your post is as eloquent as the content is tragic.

  • Cha5678

    In a recent discussion with a progressive, he was unaware of how protected classes and anti-discrimination policies were established. He seemed to be suggesting that protected classes were defined by the political parties’ promising protections, not actual legislative acts. He stated that gays deserved the classification, and warned religion was subject to be removed if they continued on its path.

    We may still have a civilization and it may reside in the Western Hemisphere, but it’s increasingly one that is predicated upon liberal fascism, the supreme order of party membership, and the constant violation of law.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X