State job is not to redefine marriage

Moron Mormon Times

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to “gay marriage,” is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

Really? Bush violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments of the Constitution, and you think democracy is thriving, two gay guys get married and the Republic collapses?

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

Could you show me ONE new law a judge made?

Excuse me, Sparky, but that’s not how things work. The legislature makes laws, judges decide whether they are Constitutional.

Sometimes they screw up (see Dred Scott), but eventually they get it right (see Loving vs. Virgina).

To claim that a judge striking down a law is the same as making a law is like claiming that a food critic giving a bad review is the same as cooking the meal.

In short, you have to be George Bush stupid to make such a claim.

More Card stupidity after the jump…

Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show “gay marriages” as normal. How long do you think it will be before such textbooks become mandatory — and parents have no way to opt out of having their children taught from them?

Yeah, and many of those same books teach offensive things like interracial marriage is OK, and blacks are people too, and women voting is perfectly normal, and nothing you should be afraid of.

How dangerous is this, politically? Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a “homophobe” for years.

Now, that’s not fair. We’ve called you far worse than that, but we are also taking into consideration your bigoted views on topics other than homosexuality. But, keep in mind Orson’s “mild comments” here as we go on.

This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals — the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way.

Again, hang on to see where this is going, then ask yourself whether Orson has a “pathological fear of homosexuals”.

When gay rights were being enforced by the courts back in the ’70s and ’80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage.

It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken.

First, who were these people who made this promise? Second, 20-30+ years equals “15 minutes”?

No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.

And yet, soon it will be, despite crazed religious lunatics like you.

Personally, I think you doth protest too much. I think you are compensating for those yearnings you have been trying to ignore for years, those feelings that marriage and children just haven’t quieted.

Orson then goes on, and on, (AND on) about how only heterosexuals produce “families” by which he means children.

We need the same public protection of marriage that we have of property. If we did not all agree that people continue to own things that are not in their immediate possession, then you could not reasonably expect to come home and find your house unoccupied.

Yeah, I got whiplash from that sudden swerve down a dirt road too.

Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife’s children would be his.

Orson, they have tests for this now. If you harbor doubts about the Missus, a simple cheek-swab from each of the kids will confirm, or allay, your fears. Why are you allowing you insecurity about your manhood to manifest itself in hatred of other people who don’t have these worries?

Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children.

Hmmm… notice how he fails to mention that husbands are off limits to other men, or wives are off limits to other females? For such a hysterical homophobe the omission seems telling.

These two premises are so basic that they preexist any known government. In most societies through history, failure to live up to these commitments has led to extreme social sanctions — even, in many cases, death.

Here Orson yearns for the days you could stone adulterers.

Then Orson excoriates society for not following his views on marriage, especially those that view women as property.

Yet most of these single mothers still demand that the man they chose not to marry before having sex with him provide financial support for them and their children — while denying the man any of the rights and protections of marriage.

And now, after this long rambling screed, Orson starts asking those rhetorical questions which will allow him to say he isn’t actually advocating what he is, in fact, advocating.

Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?

What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

And there you have it folks, Mr. Mild Comments postulates the violent overthrow of the government if it allows gay marriage.

For another serious smack down of Card by Cracked.com (a really funny site for those pinning for the days when Mad Magazine was relevant AND funny), go here.