The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Opposing Gay Marriage Not Bigotry – Forcing It On Americans Is!

The Arianna Nation, besides its “Youth Movement”, also indoctrinates its readers through false religion and spirituality.  So called “Rev.” Susan Russell decried New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s veto of gay marriage, calling it an act of “bigotry” and “déjà vu all over again”, with regards to California’s Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the two that someone as inept, and as liberal, as the “Rev.” Russell has overlooked in taking her arrogant, condescending and un-American position that such a dramatic and historic change in the definition of marriage ought to be decided by legislatures and courts, rather than through the people directly.  The New Jersey legislature did not want, and would not allow, the people to vote directly on whether gays and lesbians would be given the right to marry.  Why would the New Jersey legislature be so timid?  What if the people had voted, by a majority, to support, and make legal, gay marriage?  However they would have voted, they were denied that opportunity.  Isn’t that a form a tyranny?

Look at California, and Prop 8, and their decision to reject gay marriage and keep intact the definition of marriage as being between one man/one woman.  The “Rev.” Russell is the bigot.  She is the one who denounces the will of the people to decide marriage – if and only if that decision results in an unfavorable (to her) vote.  And although proposition 8 was decided by the people directly, “Rev.” Russell would support a court overturning the will of the people.

Now, what if the people of California had voted to allow gay marriage, but a court later overturned that decision?  Wouldn’t she condemn the court for interfering with the will of the people?  Of course she would.  As all hypocrites – and “Rev.” Russell is one of those too – she only wants decisions to be made which she supports.  That is why she comes down hard on Gov. Christie for vetoing the gay marriage initiative at the same time she comes down hard on the people of California for vetoing Prop 8.

In “Rev.” Russell’s perverted outlook, she not only wants it both ways, but any way which results in her position being favored over someone else’s, including the will of the people.  That is bigotry!  When a court does overturn Prop 8 (it’s inevitable) “Rev.” Russell will rejoice and proclaim that an injustice has been corrected.  And yet, if there is a lawsuit against New Jersey to compel the state to recognize gay marriage, and a court finds in favor of the lawsuit – she will rejoice in that as well.  The same can be said if/when the people of New Jersey vote to allow gay marriage in their state.

On the other hand, “Rev.” Russell will be infuriated and flabbergasted if the people (although she supports them exercising their right to vote as long as that is a vote she supports) vote to keep the definition of marriage between one man/women in New Jersey.  “Rev.” Russell is convinced that gay marriage is already a constitutionally protected right (which it is not).

Says “Rev.” Russell:

“And as we continue on the journey toward equality here in California, we count not just the cost of the damage done to gay and lesbian families and those who love them, but the cost of years of litigation to defend what shouldn’t need defending: the equal protection guaranteed all Americans.”

Where in the Constitution is gay marriage an “equal protection”?  The founding fathers never even conceived of the idea that at some point in our country’s history men would want to marry men, and women would want to marry women.  And if they had, they never put anything in the Constitution, not even in a secret code to be deciphered by a more “liberated” generation.

If gays want to marry, this is one of those historic and sweeping decisions that must be made by the people directly.  And when the people, as a majority, are ready for gay marriage, they will vote, as a majority, to include gay marriage as part of the over-all definition of marriage.  Conservatives may not necessarily approve of it, but we at least support the will of the people to have a direct voice in deciding such important matters, rather than left-wing judicial courts and seedy legislatures and politicians who aren’t acting in our best interest.

That is why we support Prop 8, and why we, as conservatives would support a proposition on the New Jersey ballot which allows the people of that state to vote on gay marriage for themselves.  The so-called “Rev” Russell, and all liberals, oppose the will of the majority, especially, and only, when that majority goes against their own ideas and positions.  That makes her the real bigot, and the real hypocrite.

And what makes America great is when people have the power to vote on matters of great interest and importance, even when we don’t necessarily agree with those decisions.  People like “Rev.” Russell will never accept that because people like “Rev.” Russell don’t really have any love for America and the values which have made America the greatest, and most coveted, nation in human history.   “Rev.” Russell is willing to throw all that greatness away by demanding a minority, be it of people in a legislature or people in a court, decide a matter, any matter, which will then be handed down upon all the people, even if the majority opposes it.

America cannot support itself on the weight of the minority.  Right now, support for gay marriage is still in the minority.  Gays and lesbians ought to accept that and move on with other matters.  If they keep pressing it they will inevitably awaken an otherwise apathetic mood towards gays and lesbians among those conservatives who aren’t especially that religiously committed and whom don’t necessarily follow social issues as much as they do political issues.  What conservatives do follow is rule of law and constitutional law.  When we see that law weakened and abridged through corruption, we take action.

If gay marriage is to become accepted, and supported by the majority, it never will through the bigoted and tyrannical actions of the “Rev,” Susan Russell, liberal state legislatures and liberal courts who use their influence not to benefit the majority but to appease a small minority.  It must be done through the will of the people – the majority of the people.

The American people deserve better.  America deserves better.  And the “Rev.” Susan Russell ought to know better.

Single Post Navigation

8 thoughts on “Opposing Gay Marriage Not Bigotry – Forcing It On Americans Is!

  1. How can you have gay marriage ‘forced on you’? No one is making you marry anyone.

  2. That is not what is meant by “having gay marriage “forced on you”. Liberal activist judges and legislatures are making the decisions that American citizens ought to be making for themselves. When activist courts and legislatures override the will of the American people, or ignore them altogether, and hand down a law that impacts them, that is “forcing” something on the people. The people of New Jersey were denied the right to vote for themselves whether they wanted their state to allow gay marriage. Governor Christie vetoed the law making it moot for now. It will be challenged in court, and if that court decides against Christie, it too will be “forcing” a decision on the people which the people of New Jersey do not yet accept. But, if they do accept gay marriage, why is their state legislature so timid in allowing them to have a direct vote?

  3. “Liberal activist judges and legislatures are making the decisions that American citizens ought to be making for themselves.”

    Why should you get to decide if two other US citizens get married, when they are harming no one?

    “But, if they do accept gay marriage, why is their state legislature so timid in allowing them to have a direct vote?”

    Because we have civil rights, regardless if the majority of people think we should have them.

  4. Americans directly ought to “get to decide” whether or not they desire to have a fundamental change and shift in the definition of marriage. Why should we be denied that right? Nobody is trying to stop gays and lesbians from having civil weddings. They can do that now. America was founded, in part, to protect the minority from, and against, certain injustices and tyranny by the majority. However, that does not mean America lives under minority rule. It’s still majority rule in America whether we like that or not. Gay marriage was never a concept 200 years ago, nor would any of the founding fathers have thought to include it as one. Therefore, we, today, are left to decide how we will handle this situation. Because there is nothing in the Constitution that literally provides a right for gay marriage, either we need a separate Constitutional Amendment to provide that right, or we leave it up to the people to decide. Courts were not set up in America to override the majority – if the majority is exercising its Constitution right to fair representation without infringing upon an already pre-existing Constitutional right which protects the minority.

  5. If the people have a vote on it, they should also have FAIR and UNCORRUPTED polls. How sure are you that such a poll won’t be interfered with, to bring about the result that the minority (gays) want? How sure are you that government won’t threaten people that vote against gay marriage, even if the poll is supposedly anonymous?
    Same happening in Europe, over the Lisbon Treaty. Countries being deluged with propaganda, to bully people into voting the way the Elite want them to vote. Nothing is reliable any more, nothing is honest….all is corrupted and manipulated.

  6. So don’t allow a direct vote by the people because of a fear of corruption, tampering, and voter fraud? In America! There is always going to be some amount of tempering, and there will always be people who, when their issue loses will cry voter fraud. Sometimes that is correct, other times it is not. That is why we have election officials, and why we always have recounts, sometimes many recounts, and sometimes it winds up in court where the votes are scrutinized over even more. In America, the American people, directly, have the right to overturn, or pass any law they want, if they can get a particular issue on a referendum. Before they can do that, they need a certain amount of signatures. It’s a long process, and as a result there is always the fear of some amount of tampering. That is one of the prices we pay for freedom in America.

  7. Pingback: “Amendment 1″ And The Right Of The Majority To Decide – Except When The Majority Is Not The Liberal Side « Society Bytes

  8. Pingback: Gay Marriage And Why The Majority Rules, Not The Tyranny Of The Minority « The Neosecularist

What say you?

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: