Kevin McCullough
h8kim.jpg
Not!

I was at lunch with Ivan, one of our fabulous volunteers at the Xtreme Radio Show talking "automation" systems for the broadcast when we looked up and saw the news coming across the television screen.

I immediately Twittered the news to my facebook community, and the reaction started coming in from across the nation shortly thereafter.

Even the TH trolls who daily vent their vain imaginations on my pages, began begging for my response.

California had done the unthinkable...

I proffered on this site just last week my severe doubts as to why the California Supreme Court would even take up the case unless it had a below-the-surface reason to throw out the work of the people of that state.

California has specific rules for how the Constitution of that state can be altered. The proponents of Prop 8 did so meticulously and in doing so gave the court no real reason to judge the "constitutionality" of the matter.

As I wrote last week, I firmly felt that the court even taking the case was akin to putting themselves in a position of authority ABOVE the constitution. In taking on the case they were essentially putting themselves in position to say that their authority outranked the document by which the entire legal system in the state of California is organized, operated, and established.

They ruled in the only way they possibly could to save face and not create absolute tyrannical legal chaos and anarchy. For if they HAD taken out the scissors and claimed that a part of the constitution was actually NOT a part of the constitution, they would have in essence destroyed the entire document.

Nothing in it would have been safe, and it would have simply become a matter of who had the most guns.

(When there is no ruling authority, it always comes down to who has the most guns, and if there is no state constitution, there is no state government, no charters for city or county governments and thereby no law enforcement with legal authority.)

The protests in the backlash of today's ruling seem to have been much more quiet than the groups who took delight in knocking little old ladies to the sidewalk, flinging poo on them, and cursing at them as they came and went from their houses of prayer.

For the self control of the disappointed activists I do offer my sincere thanks, and congratulations.

Now let me explain why one can insist upon the definition of marriage not be changed and still not be a person of hate...

Marriage deserves its UNIQUE role amongst sexual unions for three simple reasons:

1. It is a distinct sexual union in that it encompasses the total universe of biological possibility. (Homosexual unions only have half the universe present, and therefore are inherently inferior unions. This does not make the people involved in those unions inferior, merely the unions themselves.)

2. The traditional marital sexual union is also unique in that it is the only possible sexual union by which future generations of our nation's citizens, and the human species, are able to be created. (Eggs & Eggs don't make babies...)

3. The traditional marital union is also vital to the health and stability of the society. Without strong heterosexual marriages, children grow up without ALL of the ingredients they need. Fathers provide specific strengths to the life of an intact family, mothers do as well. Two mothers over emphasizes what is offered in one direction, two fathers in the opposite. Balance for the children of that union is found only in the Father/Mother combination. Healthy families are the building block of a healthy nation, and without man/woman marriage - there is no path to creating a majority society of healthy families.

The real problem on the issue of marriage came years before this debate we presently see being argued.

The problem was never redefining marriage to include homosexual unions. The problem was the court allowed marriages to be dissolved with no penalty in the first place.

"No fault divorce" is a laughable term that has done much to injure the stability of the environments that children are raised in. It was pushed for a generation ago who merely wanted to recreate society according to their likes or dislikes with no concern for how it would impact children, communities, and the future.

The activists then insisted that it was provincial and antiquated to suggest that someone's libido be brought into conformity with any objective set of moral norms. To suggest fidelity within marriage, and marriage for a lifetime became the unenlightened viewpoint, and one that increasingly was met with scorn.

Those same moral anarchists of that era have given birth to nearly the exact same arguments today for now changing the actual definition of the term marriage.

Then they just wanted to get out of it without penalty for being reckless with their behavior, now they desire to destroy the meaning of the term all together for the exact same reasons.

Ultimately because marriage is a picture that scripture utilizes to describe Christ's relationship to his followers, the enemy himself has intentions on how to destroy that picture.

If Christ (as the perfect groom) says that He will never leave, betray his "bride" (the church), then the enemy scores a great victory in attempting to distort what that picture appears as.

Since monogamy, in homosexual relationships is nearly non-existent, then fidelity to that union is something that gets redefined with it.

Marriage ultimately is a term that has meant something since the beginning of time. It is a relationship that God created when he took Eve and created her from Adam's rib. It is a symbol of His undying fidelity and purity of commitment to those who name Christ as Lord. It is a vehicle of raising children that gives them the healthiest advantages for all that they will face in life. And it is ALWAYS focused on what is best for the other person, and the children. It was never intended to be about "what I do or do not get" from the government.

Civil unions, legal agreements, and equal protections already exist for people who are in non-marital sexual relationships. In California those rights and agreements are far more extensive than in most states. This "Constitutional" exercise was only ultimately about one thing: shutting up people who dare to teach their kids the truth about human sexuality, humanity, and their relationship to their Creator.

In every nation where the definition of marriage has been changed, ultimately preachers are thrown in prison for reading from Romans where homosexuality is spoken of negatively. Ultimately the passage of redefined marriage, causes heterosexual couples to have reduced incentives to see marriage as anything important at all, and more couples begin having families without legal contracts protecting children in place. Marriage rates always go down, and numbers of children depending on government help always increases.

It is also interesting to point out that in these same nations, there are also no longer prohibitions on incestual unions between brothers and sisters. In fact presently the whole of the European media is making scornful faces at the German government for still having a ban on brother/sister incest in place. The European media doing this reacting to a case in which a brother and sister have fathered four children together...

Marriage is distinct, unique, and vital for a society. It has always been the union of a man and a woman. It provides for the best possible environment for children.

And in California... at least for now... it is still a constitutionally protected institution!

Praise God!


TRACK KMC 24/7:
http://www.brtstage.org/images/myspace_logo.jpg