Podcast – New Report Shows Toddlers Shooting Themselves – Ezra Klein Likes Marco Rubio – Homosexual Canadian Couple Gets a Divorce

In this episode I discuss that despite another school shooting, the left still feel it’s getting enough traction. So out comes a new report showing toddlers mistakenly shooting themselves and others, to tug on the heart strings of parents. Lefty Ezra Klein, of VOX.com thinks Marco Rubio will be the eventual nominee and a married homosexual couple gets a divorce – but not for the reason you may think. read more

Same-Sex Marriage Isn’t All That

by: the Common Constitutionalist

At this point, most of the arguments both for and against same-sex marriage have been set forth. Many of us conservatives hold to the view that government should not be involved in marriage in the first place – yet here we are.

I’ve also heard the same refrain from practically everyone on the right, me included at times. The defeatist attitude of “we can’t put the genie back in the bottle,” or “what can we do now – it’s over, now that the Supreme Court has ruled.” And the ever popular: “it’s now the law of the land.”

But evidently, that’s not how the left viewed it, for marriage between a man and woman has been the convention and the de facto “law of the land” literally forever. That didn’t stop them and shouldn’t stop us.

Although the mainstream media loves to say that polls show the American people favor same-sex marriage, I don’t buy that for a minute. I know how polls are so easily manipulated to achieve a desired result. If it was so popular, why did states refused to put it on so many ballots?

In fact 31 states voted in favor of a constitutional amendment or state referendum defining marriage between a man and a woman or, like Hawaii, at the very least, limited marriage to one each of the opposite sex, which is the same thing, I guess.

Virtually every state that put the question up for a vote of the actual voters, voted against same-sex marriage. So there is no great groundswell of support for it and never has been. read more

See I Told Ya So

Last year I wrote an article regarding the defense of marriage. How marriage is between one man and one woman. You may call a homosexual relationship anything you like, except for a marriage. I, for one, will never accept turning thousands of years of tradition on its head just to placate a miniscule portion of our society.

I refuse to even play the rename game, calling a homosexual, gay. Not because I’m homophobic. I couldn’t care less what you do with your life, but don’t go changing the correct terminology, homosexual, to gay just because it sounds more palatable. It’s like calling a black an African American, when their family has been here for a hundred years. I won’t do that either. Okay, enough ranting.

In my defense of marriage, I stated that homosexual marrige is just the beginning. It would never stop there. I claimed that sooner or later someone would suggest marrying their child, or 5 people or their pet peguin. This is what always happens when the door is cracked open. Someone sticks their foot in, then their leg and finally the door becomes useless. This is why it is so important to stop these things before they even start.

Welcome to the open door!

Legalizing Polygamy Doesn’t Go Far Enough, ASU Professor claims

by:

Arizona State University philosopher Elizabeth Brake doesn’t scare easily. An advocate of same-sex unions, she doesn’t flinch when conservatives argue that if two men are granted the right to marry, why not three? Brake boldly declares that marriage should not be restricted to opposite-sex couples, or indeed to couples at all. Her book, Minimizing Marriage, hot off the prestigious Oxford University Press, pushes traditional logic by claiming that “liberal reasons for recognizing same-sex marriage also require recognition of groups, polyamorists, polygamists, friends, urban tribes, and adult care networks.”

“Urban tribes?”

And not only does Brake support “loving” same-sex couples or groups, but she claims “loving” relationships — which she calls “amatonormative” relationships (from amor, the Latin word for “love”), should not be the standard by which we judge a “marriage.” She fearlessly claims, “amatonormative judgments are false, and … discrimination on their basis is morally wrong.”

In short, you don’t even have to like someone to have sex with him. Or her. Or them. Or be “married.”

Before terminating his campaign, Rick Santorum was criticized for attempting to frighten us with the prospect of “man on child” and “man on dog” unions should the State recognize same-sex unions. And here is where Brake’s bravery breaks down. Brake assures us that her theory “complies with criminal law.”

Ah, yes; that enduring paragon of morality, “the State” and its “criminal law.”

Of course Brake knows that in generations past, “the criminal law” punished straightforward adultery, to say of nothing deviant perversion or an anonymous hip-hop club orgy. Brake knows that today’s fears are tomorrow’s “progressive public policy,” thanks to daring lawyers and squishy Republican judges. For now, she assures us that “children and nonhuman animals … are not legally competent to consent.”

“Nonhuman animals.” I’m glad she cleared that up. I was thinking about the other kind of animals.

“Legally competent to consent.” For now. Until the law is changed and children are granted the “right” to “consent” to whatever deviants can dish out.

In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of a Christian worldview when it declared:

Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . When Noah was selected for salvation from the flood, he and his wife and his three sons and their wives were placed in the Ark; and, when the flood waters had subsided and the families came forth, it was Noah and his wife and each son and his wife . . . . The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage . . . which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary [sic] . . . . [Marriages] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation “a civil contract” to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.
Grigsby v Reib, 153 S.W. 1124, 1129-30 (TxSupCt 1913)

Brake knows that Courts don’t speak in these terms anymore. And parents who sit their children at the feet of professors like Brake in secular universities like ASU are planting the seeds of an impersonal world which substitutes anonymous “urban tribes” for a man and a woman who “love and cherish” “till death do us part.”