…. that is when we, as a society of moth-like lovers of freedom attracted to the blinding light of liberty – mutilate the institution of marriage.
The art of self-immolation not necessarily by fire but by the flame of public opinion, is never wanting of macabre innovation or hellish novelty. Thus when you slash the throat, be sure it is your own.
Killing our institution of marriage by consensus that turned our cultural values upside down is suicide – that is when we, as a society of moth-like lovers of freedom attracted to the blinding light of liberty – mutilate the institution of marriage.
The commitment of Liberals that flirt on unbridled freedom, and the passion of the promiscuous Left when it rudely and vociferously campaigns for same-sex marriages are in this regard, beyond doubt.
At home with this societal hell if we may call it that way, are also those who are against our traditional American values which they described passionately as they hate them intensely, as the cultural marks of a controlling Evil Empire, the tyranny of the Federal Government run by this imagined manic ruler of the World Order that erodes our individual freedom. That our existing marriage laws which take away the right to marry any person or anything anyone wants, erode that individual freedom. There is no doubt that if we think this way, devastating consequences would lead us to self-destruction.
To save others, how I wish millions would listen to this plea to our garish public with a different sexual orientation: That if in total disagreement to traditional marriage between a man and a woman you want to slash your throat in protest to destroy yourself, be sure it is your own, not that of others. Cutting your own and let it bleed to death is freedom you want, which in tears we grant, but not over the demise of our society that holds on to our indigenous cultural value that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Mind you this kind of marriage between opposite sexes – the only marriage known to mankind and sanctioned by divine and moral laws – is the only social rationale we have in raising a family. In the free world, that family is the very foundation of our society. Ergo, a society whose future outlook on marriage is going banana, shouldn’t commit a hara-kiri just because the dictating deviant few want to.
For, a society that promotes the freedom to wed anyone or anything anytime especially in a sacred holy matrimony — which means a self-indulgent religious insult if not a capricious claim to one’s freedom to marry without boundary — is heading directly towards the rock of our social destruction. This kind of dangerously permissive society walks recklessly the perilous path towards self-destruction.
The institution of marriage is now in the altar of public scrutiny. It is no longer what we used to know and practiced as an age-old traditional value or revered institution that marriage is only between a man and a woman not only for the purpose of propagating the human race but also in forming and creating a family — the smallest unit of our democratic society.
And yet, criticizing same-sex marriage is bigotry … that was the warning that the leftist editorial staff of the American Chronicle and its network conveyed [e-mailed] to contributing writers not too long ago. Authors were not sure whether or not this leftist member of the said AC editorial staff was gay, but the theme of the objection to critiques of a homosexual union in marriage was that it would hurt the feelings of gays across the country.
Non-political writers as well as their conservative counterparts – of course saved only those liberal contributors while leftist writers were also exempted – were reminded that VP Dick Cheney’s daughter was also gay, and that the conservative not the progressive population would get hurt if same-sex marriages are criticized.
How about the hurt of millions of Americans across the land [66% in the results of nationwide polls] who opposed gay and homosexual marriages? It is a serious faux pas, let alone an unpardonable injustice if not an extreme cruelty to ignore the opposing voice of the majority who are against homosexual marriages.
Playing the guilt trick against the majority of millions of Americans … this self-indulgent pity of the few at the expense of the masses, only shows how a pygmy mind functions in this public debate over the issue of gay and homosexual marriages. It is a threat to freedom of expression if this problem of short-sightedness comes from politically rabid leftist editors who have a formidable role in running the separate and independent Fourth Estate of our free society.
It is of great concern to this nation that gayism and homosexuality are winning the campaign for same-sex marriages in the court of law of California and of some neighboring states. It really shows that in the mind of the Liberals and the radical Left, holy matrimony before the eyes of man and God is delusional, and its celebration fictional.
Take the case of the Mayor of San Francisco named Gavin Newsom who on February 12, 2004 stirred a hornest’s nest when he unitarily “issued the first officially sanctioned marriage licenses to same-sex couples in American history. More than 3,700 ceremonies have been conducted since then.”
This offbeat nuptial affliction became contagious. “A week later, New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid intervened to stop a clerk in Bernalillo, N.M., who began issuing licenses to same-sex couples. These developments and others came after the Massachusetts high court struck down a ban on same-sex marriage, [viz] … homosexual couples are legally entitled to apply for marriage lincenses…”
All these appeared in the WorldNetDaily viewed at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37094]. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family at http://www.family.org/ had this telling remarks: "The dire ramifications of what is happening in the United States and other Western nations cannot be overstated … For millennia, traditional marriage – the union of one man and one woman – has been celebrated by every culture on Earth as the cornerstone of society. But now, we have this activist court that is arrogant enough to say that those thousands of years of culture are simply wrong."
President George W. Bush tried to stop this rising tide of marriage misrepresentation and alteration when on June 5, 2006 he called on the Senate to amend the Constitution banning gay marriages. "Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. … Our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to defend marriage," Bush declared. Millions agreed, but not the politicking politicians in the Senate who were fearful of losing the gay votes if they agree to Bush’s amendment proposal.
That was when ACLU and the Left jumped on Bush whom they perceived as a Machiavellian evil for diverting national attention from the war in Iraq, from recession and other imagined economic debacles. This anti-Bush protest was delusional, but the Left never runs out of grandstanding political mayhems whenever opportunity presents itself. Politicians likewise thought their self-interest was benefited when they took that opportunity to oppose Bush.
My evaluation of this destructive Liberal opportunism was that Bush was attacked as a mean Machiavellian president who conducts his political philosophy on gay marriages in the tradition of Leo Strauss — German intellectual fascist of Straussian esotericism, i.e., only an amoral could lead an amoral society… clandestinely portrayed as the personification of this beleaguered president. Of course the attack was half-blind, that of a one-eyed Jack. It missed the target.
Perhaps another good eye is needed to see clearly what Bush was doing: That to save the institution of marriage under attack does not make Bush or the President of the United States amoral. Our society is not amoral – yet – perhaps until it models sexual deviants as icons of morality. The attack on Bush was miles off the mark.
What this attack looks like is that it is Straussian itself where an amoral attack is launched against the President based on immoral arcane pretension.
But the real nightmare came from the legalization of deviant sexual behavior among marrying homosexual lovers after activist Justices infiltrated our judicial system.
About three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas’ Sodomy Law that outlaws the practice of sodomy. The Court ruled that sexual deviants can engage in “deviate sexual intercourse” such as the practice of sodomy in private, as a matter of right.
The US Supreme Court warned that any state that bans such practices “infringes on the individual’s privacy rights…” 
It is utterly shocking to think that the Court did not only encourage the marriage of homosexuals but also decreed as a judicial law that sexual deviants can engage in “deviate sexual intercourse”, thus declaring the practice of sodomy for the first time in the history of the United States as a matter of right.
Activist minds of Liberal Justices that invaded the Supreme Court’s bastion of legal temperance, moral sobriety and traditional Christian conservatism, knocked out similar statutory ethical defenses on marriage that were put up in several states. Rowdy protests against the Court’s ruling, were heard in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia whose marriage laws were adversely affected.
Online NewsHour Special Report on Supreme Court Watch said that “In a separate 5-4 vote, the high court also overturned its own 1986 ruling that upheld a similar law in Georgia that declared that homosexuals have no constitutional right to engage in sodomy in private.”
This impacted our traditional belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman and we have the right to express our disagreement and protest. The now legally protected freedom to choose which gender to marry, is similar to the protected right to engage in objectionable sexual behavior, like the practice of sodomy.
There is no doubt that the Court has joined the culture war.
Justice Antonin Scalia who was against this ruling of the high court, warned that this morally altered US Supreme Court:
"has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
There is no more doubt in my mind that the radically politicized justice system has thrown in the towel in this continuing fight to safeguard and secure the moral well-being of the American public. This is confirmed and highlighted when the high court showed its inability to regulate what millions of Americans consider as “harmful sexual conduct”. Legalizing the practice of sodomy in private reaches the zenith of this moral disability if not legal incompetence of the majority of Justices of the high court as guardians of the commonweal.
The adverse repercussion of this miscreant ruling is deeper than what is seen in the surface. It cast a darker shadow where the danger lies.
Let’s analyze more carefully, the impact of this wayward decision on the moral fabric of our society: When the practice of sodomy in private is legalized, it also legalized its negative influence in society. “Private lives” that practices such “abnormal” behavior, are lived not only in the privacy of the home but also in public parks, private parties, pubs, watering holes, in the Internet, radio and television, and in any and all kinds of venues, avenues and places that are called publicly “private”.
The sexually active gays and homosexuals of the population would not hesitate to practice this legally protected abnormal sexual behavior more openly, which studies show that when morally and legally liberated tends to spread in epidemic proportion. It would grab the attention of growing children whose curiosity, especially at the age of puberty, could lead to sexual depravity, if in fact such abnormal sexual orientation is not a threat to their physical, moral and mental health.
The preference of a man to marry a man and of a woman to marry another woman and the freedom to engage in any objectionable deviant sexual behavior are symptomatic of how a growing number of Liberals view the world upside down.
For, surprisingly, there is no disagreement, either in the study of behavioral science or in the philosophical dicta of the ecclesiastical realm, that this deviant sexual practice of sodomy, whether or not done in private, is an abnormality.
Thus justifying such abnormality as “normal” with the imprimatur of the U.S. Supreme Court, is neither a doctrinal medicine that would cure HIV as a result of such legalized sexual indulgence, nor would such legally anointed marriage anomaly and its underlying spiritual deformity benefit society.
It is just bleeding the institution of marriage to death by those who proclaim that to marry anyone, anything any time is an inalienable right of everyone who wants to create a gay and Godless society, in this land of the free.
© Copyright Edwin A. Sumcad. Access NWS April 11, 2008.
The author is a veteran journalist. Click on the columnist button of NWS’ homepage to know more about the writer or you may e-mail your comment at email@example.com.