There has been enormous controversy about California's Proposition 8, the so-called Gay Marriage "Ban". Most people don't know the facts behind this.

  • In 2000, 61% of Californians voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
  • After it was passed, the state legislature made efforts to overturn the will of the people but was unsuccessful.
  • The challenges continued - in court and within the legislature - and proponents knew they had to strengthen the protection of marriage and got Proposition 8 on the ballot.
  • The California Supreme Court, in a fully lawless act, 'legislated' legalization of marriage between homosexuals in California, and the Secretary of State quickly reworded the Defense of Marriage Act to be a ban on marriage. This was clearly a coordinated effort intended to confuse voters by making it appear that rights were being taken away, when in fact, they never existed.

Following are a few important points underlying the politics that reasonable people should consider:

  1. Marriage is a religious institution - the government has no business meddling in it.
    • The concept of marriage was established by the civility brought by religious faith. It is one of the many ways in which people of religious conviction distinguish themselves from others. Genesis 2:22-24 says, "Then the LORD God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said: This one, at last, is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called woman, for she was taken from man. This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh."
    • Our Constitution prohibits Congress from making any "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
    • Government is therefore establishing a religion by meddling in the religious institution of marriage. I don't believe in the false argument of 'separation of church and state', but if you won't accept my premise on the terms of government meddling in religion, then maybe you'll accept it on that premise.
    • The solution, if this is your argument, is that homosexuals can have any kind of union they want, but it cannot be called 'marriage'. It seems to me that they would prefer to make up their own rules for a union just for them, given their propensity for promiscuity.
    • Final point on this argument: marriage, having come from religious origins, has been mainstreamed in society in the spirit of its religious foundations: the concepts of exclusivity, sickness and health, forsaking all others and as long as you both shall live should be honored, revered and taught to new generations. All of society benefits by this institution.
  2. Lots of people can't marry - it's not an issue of discrimination or civil rights - it's about common sense.
    • I'm single. I'd like to be married but have not found a bride yet. Why can't I just marry myself? What kind of discrimination is it when society won't extend the right of marriage to the single? Why must there be two parties to this union?
    • I'll tell you: It's not discrimination at all! marriage isn't a one-person institution any more than it's a three+ person institution, a same-gender institution, or an institution available to animals. Marriage has a meaning, and none of the above meet that definition.
  3. Democracy's faults have never been more clearly exposed.
    • Ironic how so-called 'democrats' complain so loudly when they don't get a majority. Their claim of democracy (which means 'majority rule') turns to cries of tyranny when things don't go their way. I don't believe in democracy - it's the step society takes before reaching anarchy. Once anarchy sets in, we're vulnerable to one of three types of real tyranny: Communism, Socialism, or Marxism.
    • If Proposition 8 had failed, these 'democrats' would sing the praises of the democratic process, and would have brought tyranny down upon those who hold the religious institution of marriage sacred. So we can only conclude that Democrats are not Democrats at all; they're tyrants. They would trample on the minority opinion were they the majority - they would use their majority status to silence all opposition.

So there you have it. An attack on a sacred religious institution is narrowly defeated and will continue to be attacked in the courtroom and in the streets until they manipulate and lie their way to victory. And to what end? Most homosexuals don't want to marry. But we all know what's really being attacked here - it's not poor, discriminated homosexuals - it's the religious, who hold the world - this nation - together; who hold the line against anarchy that would open the door for Marxists, Communists, and Socialists to take over. As long as there is order - as long as we are obedient to God's laws and our nations' benevolent constitution - anarchy cannot succeed, and the wicked among us cannot rule.