By Sam Pierce -
(Note: The intended title of this post was "Homosexual Is Not the New Black and DOMA Is Not Constitutionally Appropriate," but then I thought I should check into DOMA to be sure. I misunderstood DOMA. I believed the hype and misdirection that seems to be part of the media's proper role in the anti-society agenda. My assumption was that the federal government has no business in marriage, but that is not, despite what the liberals and disingenuous Libertarians would have you believe, what DOMA is about! The text of the bill as passed by the House and Senate will be included later in the post.)
Imagine, if you will:
The lost continent, sometimes known as Atlantis, was more commonly called Homosexia by the intelligentsia of the time. Before it sank into the depths, never to be rediscovered, it was the native land of the race known as Homosexuals. No one knows with any certitude, how Homosexuals came to populate the land, as they did not engage in sexual reproduction. This one amazing attribute of the race differentiates it from every other race in the hisory of mankind. Some postulate that the progenation of the race had something to do with a series of big bangs, but again those theories don't pass scientific tests. We may never know how a race came to be or how it continues without the benefit of sexual reproduction.
All was not happy and gay on the vast continent. While some Homosexuals wanted nothing more than to live in peace, there were tribes who sought to exploit their fellow Homosexuals for profit. The Barnifrank barbarians would venture over the Rock of Hudson and plunder the peacefully fabulous territory of Liberace. A predecessor to the progressive politician, the invaders claimed their actions were for the benefit of the invaded. Homosexuals from Liberace to New Sodom were captured, bound, and transported to the port of Debmell (named after the sister-in-law of Lord Helmet Hair Effingolden, Conqueror of Topinka), to await a terrible fate.
Traders brought goods to the port and bartered with the barbarians of Barnifrank for the captured Homosexuals and occasionally visited the congressional brothel. During this era, there were statesmen who turned their backs on the plight of the Homosexuals. These "leaders" often made such excuses such as, "my mother-in-law did it, so it must be the right thing to do" (reportedly uttered by Representative Edsullivan of Ill). No one stood against the trade of human beings and for more than two-hundred years, Homosexuals were transported thousands of miles across vast oceans to live in bondage and serve their masters as hairstylists, fashion designers, and interior decorators.
Homosexuals endured bondage for centuries before conservative-minded people were able to overcome the progressive, liberal, Democrat elements that fought to maintain the servitude. The struggles did not end with the abolition of the forced servitude. Homosexuals could not participate as equal citizens in their communities for a century subsequent to abolition.
Now, back to reality. Did the above story ring true? Silly, idiotic, and reaching, you say? Agreed, but no more silly, idiotic, or far-reaching than the vile and degrading technique employed by the preposterous voices for the homosexual agenda when they continue to equate the plight of the homosexual to that of the black person! Sure, accusations of homophobia, bigotry, intolerance, and hatred will fly, but they will be hurled by those who are the truly intolerant and hateful ones.
This is not about dislike of homosexuals or any group of people that identifies primarily by sexual preference or any other physical, mental, or emotional attribute. This is about reality, the systematic degradation of society, and the forcing of leftist agenda items on the average citizen. This is not about disapproval of sodomy or anything two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their domains. It is true that some activists will claim such privacy concerns while thrusting their activities in your face and demanding you cater to their whims.
False intellectuals of the liberal and libertarian movements will argue their bullet points, while ignoring obvious actions that contradict their assertions, and accuse those who believe in marriage of bible-thumping and aspiring to theocracy! They hypocritically accuse conservatives opponents of redefining marriage of hypocrisy regarding the limitations of government. Naturally, not one of the "intellectual" progressives will admit that the government force associated with their agenda will be terrible and widespread. How many lawsuits and actions taken by county prosecutors against private businesses must occur before at least the phony Libertarians admit their foolishness?
Back to DOMA. I was preparing to argue with those who share many of my values that the federal government has no place in the arena of marriage. I then found the text of the bill as passed by both houses of the 104th Congress:
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six
To define and protect the institution of marriage.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.
SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
`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.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:
`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:
`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States andPresident of the Senate.
It seems, judicial over-stepping aside, that the primary purpose of DOMA was to protect the citizens of reasonable states from the ridiculous activities of unreasonable (sometimes known as "blue" states). If some bankrupt (financially, and in other, less measurable facets) state such as California wanted to decide that two consenting adults of the same gender could be united under the designation "marriage," a decent state would not be forced to recognize the perversion of the institution. Of course, the people of California have voted to recognize that marriage is what it is, but the progressives in power only recognize votes that align with their agenda.
Want to ban guns? "Democracy is sacred!" (The polls show that the voters believe they have the right to protect themselves.) "This isn't a democracy!"
Polls taken by those who share the vision of the homosexual agenda indicate that the people thirst for same-sex marriage. (Ahem, please disregard any official, statewide votes to the contrary.)
Is there an endgame to the LGBT lunacy? Apparently it will not be sufficient to force private citizens to violate their consciences or risk losing their businesses. No, we can't stop at forcing religious institutions to worship at the altar of the liberal agenda. We must ensure that no tradition or common sense practice remain unspoiled. How long before the latest polyp of the agenda metastasizes from California eastward? In California, a woman can get prostate screenings and a man cannot be denied mammograms. Taxpayers must spare no expense in enabling the Bizzaro World residents who don't know that if one needs a prostate checked, in the words of Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery, "that's a MAN, baby!"