Jersey Gets Same-Sex Marriage Right

All across the United States and all across the spectrum of ideas, liberals and progressives have been attacking traditional American values for the better part of a century now. These attacks have gained momentum in recent decades thanks to persistent, pervasive, and often subversive campaigns by leftist organizations.

One of the most recent attacks came in the State of New Jersey, where a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage was being pushed through the legislature and being vocally supported by ultra-liberal Governor John Corzine. In today's editions of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Corzine actually implied that gay marriage is a "fundamental human right" and to deny it would be a violation of civil rights and liberties.

Thankfully, the New Jersey Senate did not see it that way. They voted by a solid 20-14 majority yesterday to protect marriage as solely between a man and a woman, as God intended. The vote comes on the heels both of New York's rejection of the idea and the electoral victory of Chris Christie over Corzine in November. Christie will take over the Governor's office in 10 days and had promised to veto such a measure should it have passed.

The 'gay marriage' (sic) issue is yet another in a surge of issues over these last few decades that liberals and progressives simply could not win in referendums at the ballot box, and so they have resorted to pressuring and bribing politicians, infiltrating the media, and bringing law suits in jurisdictions where the courts are known to be solidly liberal in their rulings.

Traditional Americans are beginning to both understand these threats and to grasp the seriousness of their nature when taken individually and as a whole as threats to our society. True mainstream America has begun to fight back and win. In November 2008, California passed 'Proposition 8', which put an end to court-backed gay marriages begun months earlier and recognized marriage as only between a man and a woman. Maine voters then followed suit in November of last year.

The issue, of course, is not one of whether or not some State or Commonwealth may come up with some type of civil union legislation allowing couples of the same sex to reap the same civil benefits as opposite-sex couples. The issue is the protection of a particular type of union called 'Marriage' or 'Matrimony' the basis for which was established by God Himself as being between a man and woman at the creation and which has been in existence for millenia.

If there are men out there who wish to insert their penis in another man's anus or mouth and call that a normal, loving, sexual experience with a straight face, that is their business within the privacy of their own home. But for them to foist such an idea on the rest of society as something that we should all embrace as a normal, human act to be celebrated and sanctioned under the moral umbrella of 'marriage' is ludicrous on it's face.

Marriage about morality? You bet it is. How does that jive with the legality of divorce and the practice of adultery? It doesn't, frankly. Having gone through them myself, I can tell you that divorce and annulment are serious processes that should not be entertained, supported, or granted frivolously, and that certainly have no business being celebrated. And adultery may be the dumbest and most hurtful thing in which any married person could ever engage.

The marital ceremony is about bringing together a man and a woman as one, as were Adam and Eve by God. Marriage is about a loving celebration on a daily basis between a man and woman, husband and wife, in the course of developing more fully their own relationship with one another and with God, and in attempting to build a family. If you are not a man and a woman committed to these concepts, then you shouldn't be married or entertaining the idea.

I am extremely fond of my dog, Petey. He is a good dog. Loyal, faithful, fun. We have lots of great times together. In fact, I would say that I care more about Petey than some gay people care about their partners. Should I be allowed to marry Petey? I mean, I love him, and would love to have society pay for his veterinarian bills. If I have to pay for the medical bills of some gay person's 'partner' then why shouldn't they pay for Petey's vet bills?

Once men can marry men, and women can marry women, would we move next to allowing such further obscenities to the institution of marriage as me marrying my dog, or some farmer marrying his cow, or some shepherd marrying his sheep? What about a computer programmer marrying his computer-generated, life-like, animated, 3D female character? Where does it end?

Think that is stupid, inane, ridiculous, trivial? Well that is exactly how many of us in normal society sees the idea of men marrying other men, and women marrying other women. It has nothing at all to do with hate, or fear, or discrimination against gay men or lesbians. It is about protecting a particular God-given institution and Sacrament that is meant solely to be between a man and a woman. There is no Biblical or historical basis for, or constitutional right to gay marriage.

Currently there are 39 of the 50 U.S. states already fully and specifically prohibiting gay marriage with laws modeled after or pre-dating the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, including Pennsylvania, which thankfully despite the ultra-liberalism of the Philadelphia area actually remains the most socially conservative state in the northeast region.

We can no more make a gay person straight than we can make a stone come to life. Gay people were created that way by God. It is something with which they will have to go through life dealing. We don't need to hate, we need to be compassionate. But compassion does not extend to supporting every action of an individual. It also does not mean surrendering our most cherished institutions and our God-given Sacraments to the ideology of a tiny minority.

The State Senate of New Jersey got it right yesterday when they voted to hold back the abomination of same-sex marriage. They also got it right a couple of months ago when they tossed Corzine out on his typical high-taxing, low-morality, America-hating can. Here's to hoping that Americans continue to awaken to what has been going on in our country and continues to take it back, as New Jersey may have begun.

Miss California Gives Straight Answer

What was very obvious early on in the Miss USA pageant held this past Sunday night was that Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was a beautiful young woman on the outside. She was the typical stereotype of what we all would expect from a 'California Girl': blond, long legs, gorgeous face. And when it came time for the bikini/swimsuit competition she displayed the great body that you would expect to come strolling down the beach in Malibu. But what did not become apparent until right near the end was just how beautiful Carrie Prejean is on the inside. It took an incredibly controversial question under those circumstances from an incredibly outrageous, over-rated, quasi-celebrity judge in the pageant named Perez Hilton who demonstrated his own internal ugliness to bring out Miss California's inner beauty. Hilton, an openly gay male and celebrity gossip blogger, had the task of asking a question of Ms. Prejean during the final portion of the contest. All of the other finalists had to give their opinions on the somewhat difficult questions asked by a particular judge when their own turns came, but none got a more outrageous judge with a more sensational question than Ms. Prejean. Hilton asked his question with wide-eyed enthusiasm, quite obviously expecting a different response: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?" With the relative softballs that the other finalists were being tossed in comparison to this bomb shell of a question, Miss California looked momentarily lost as she searched her mind and her heart for an answer. She quite obviously knew that this was her make-or-break moment. Many people thought that she was the odds-on favorite to win, and the results of later voting showed that was indeed the case heading in to this question period. A politically correct answer, even some non-committal answer, very likely would have resulted in her being crowned as Miss USA. But fortunately for everyone in attendance and for everyone searching for good examples in these increasingly amoral days, Carrie Prejean is a Christian, and she simply could not sell out here true beliefs for a pageant crown. She stumbled through her answer as she tried hard to balance those beliefs with an answer that might still salvage the title. Some of her reply included "I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." Well hallelujah! First, a young woman with integrity enough to answer a controversial question with honesty. She very well could have gone another way with her public answer, won the crown, kept her personal beliefs to herself for now, and perhaps revealed them down the road as a 'change of heart'. But that's not how Carrie Prejean rolls. This beautiful young girl just a few short years out of high school stood on that stage in front of thousands watching her live, and millions more on television, and spoke from her heart and soul. And secondly, big kudos go out to the parents and family that raised this young woman to also be beautiful on the inside, and to understand at such a young age that truth cannot be compromised for expediency. She later would comment that she now believed that God had placed her in that position intentionally, and I would have to agree with her. Immediately, the exasperated Hilton was taken aback, and he along with numerous gays in the audience and later on the internet and in other forums had negative, hurtful, and profane comments to make about this wonderful young lady. There is only one word that comes to mind: typical. The fact is that God instituted marriage as a sacrament to be between a man and a woman. That is in no way a hurtful or sexist or demeaning statement towards gays. It is simply the truth. Though there were a smattering of boos, the large majority in the audience cheered and applauded when Ms. Prejean gave her answer, one that she had to know once she was finished would derail her Miss USA hopes. As it turns out, it was still very close. She finished as a very close 1st Runner-Up in the judges voting. In the aftermath, the Miss California Organization denounced her answer and said that they did not agree with it. Shame on them for not standing up for their girl. California, one of the most liberal states in the American union, has already turned thumbs down on gay marriage when it was put to the public for a vote, which only shows that even many people with generally liberal political and social viewpoints understand basic, fundamental truths. In response, Hilton commented that she lost the pageant because of her answer, and then later video-blogged that she did not lose because of the answer, but because she was a "dumb bitch". This one should not even be considered in any way controversial on Prejean's part, but the controversy should be squarely on Perez, who showed with his attitude and his words that he is a total and complete horses ass. Perez Hilton is a perfect representation of all that is ugly in the world today, while Carrie Prejean represents all that is right and true. After his outrageous attacks on her simple honest answer, Prejean said simply that she would pray for Hilton. Thankfully, she stood up and showed all of us her beauty on Sunday night, both inside and out. Congratulations to Carrie Prejean for her high finish in the pageant, but more importantly for her, for taking the higher ground that night and ever since. NOTE: As always, the title of this entry takes you to more information on the topic, this time to a news story that shows the Miss USA question-answer, and the controversial internet response.