Posts
The U.S. Supreme Court soon will hear arguments in a case in which the justices, two of whom already have publicly endorsed same-sex marriage by performing ceremonies, will have an opportunity to eliminate “all sexual boundaries” and formally establish that “children are sexual from birth.”
But the high court should not take that step, contends a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the marriage case that is to be heard April 28 in Washington. It comes from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled states have the right to define marriage for themselves.
The decision conflicts with the rulings of federal judges who have imposed same-sex marriage on state populations who largely have voted against it.
“This court cannot – and should not – erase millennia of human history and dismantle the granite cornerstone of society in favor of an experimental construct that is barely a decade old,” said the brief, filed by lawyers with Liberty Counsel.
“This case presents the court with the opportunity to affirm and preserve the unique, comprehensive union of a man and a woman, the foundational social institution upon which society was built and the future of the nation depends,” it said.
WND has compiled a “Big List of Christian Coercion” with dozens of cases in which Christians have been fined, threatened or penalized for recognizing the biblical definition of marriage. A petition has been created in support of ordinances that allow Christian business owners to live by their faith.
“Changing millennia of history must always be approached with trepidation. In this case, the change must be rejected outright not only because it is seeking to redefine something which cannot be redefined, but also because the proposed change is grounded in fraudulent ‘research’ based on skewed demographics and the sexual abuse of hundreds of infants and children,” the brief states.
“The ‘research’ upon which petitioners based their artificial construct of same-sex ‘marriage’ is contained in Alfred Kinsey’s books on male and female sexuality, which legitimized homosexual conduct and ushered in a societal transformation that has now affected three generations and every aspect of America life.”
The brief was filed on behalf of Judith Reisman, perhaps the world’s leading expert on Kinsey and the child torture that produced his reports on sexuality. She is author of “Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences,” “Sexual Sabotage” and “The Kinsey Corruption.”
The brief explains that homosexuality was condemned in America until after Kinsey’s publications on sexuality, which included data purporting to show a 5-month-old infant was capable of three orgasms in a few hours.
However, at the time of the publication of Kinsey’s reports, few asked how he acquired the information. Reisman’s work over the years has revealed that an “orgasm” for a child, according to Kinsey, was “body tensions, twitching, rigidity, extreme tensions with violent convulsions, hysterical laughing, collapse, fainting, excruciating pain and screaming.”
Get the definitive works on Kinsey, in “Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences,” “Sexual Sabotage” and “The Kinsey Corruption.”
And the “data” he used for his studies came from, among others, “1,400 convicted sex offenders, 329 other prisoners, 450 homosexuals and 300 from the underworld.”
That is the background to the reports in which Kinsey presented his ideas of “a sexual utopia” that reflected his own desires and “private aberrant lifestyle.”
“Kinsey was secretly a bi-homosexual adulterer whose numerous male sex partners included his co-authors and interviewees. He was addicted to pornography and masturbation and was observed engaging in self-mutilation which apparently contributed to his contracting ‘orchitis,’ a sexually transmitted disease, and his untimely death in 1956,” the brief states.
Reisman, a Ph.D., has spoken, lectured and testified worldwide on the fallacies in Kinsey’s work.
Reisman is a consultant, the scientific adviser for the California Protective Parents Association and former president of the Institute for Media Education. She has been a consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Her scholarly findings have had international legislative and scientific import in the United States, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia.
The brief notes that, based on Kinsey’s influence, the Supreme Court decriminalized same-sex sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas.
Judith Reisman
“Now this court is being asked to again use aberrant research created by aberrant researchers based on the sexual abuse of hundreds of children to make fundamental changes to American law – this time to demolish natural marriage,” the brief explains.
“The request to ‘define’ or ‘redefine’ marriage reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the institution, a misunderstanding that is exacerbated by societal changes spawned by Kinsey’s fraudulent research,” the brief explains.
After all, a court opinion in Alabama noted that marriage is “pre-political,” meaning it was created by God in the Bible and not “by law.”
Liberty Counsel’s brief explains that in 1942, the Supreme Court said marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
“Older than the Constitution and the laws of any nation, marriage is not a creation of any government, but it is an obvious relationship between one man and one woman. Marriage is a natural bond that society or religion can only ‘solemnize,’” said Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel.
Among Kinsey’s claims, the brief explains: Ninety-five percent of American men were engaging in sexual conduct that was illegal under existing laws. And 50 percent of farmers had sex with animals.
“For the past 67 years, purportedly objective scholars, lawyers and judges have undertaken fundamental societal transformation by embracing statistically and scientifically fraudulent “data” derived from serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles and pederasts misrepresented as average Americans,” the brief explains. “Now these same change agents, still covering up the fraudulent nature of the Kinsey ‘data,’ want this court to utilize it to
demolish the cornerstone of society, natural marriage.“This court should not countenance such a destructive move.”
The brief warns that this coming ruling could join the ranks of Dred Scott, which legitimized African-Americans as slaves, and Buck v. Bell, which “validated” the forced sterilization of people, as dark days for the American judiciary.
“The consequences … would exceed the disastrous consequences of Dred Scott and will be as irreversible as the court-sanctioned sterilization of ‘imbeciles’ in Buck.”
WND previously reported many of the top names in Christian ministry – including the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the Chuck Colson Center, Albert Mohler and Charles Stanley – were asking the U.S. Supreme Court to protect marriage as God defined it.
In a brief filed in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, the leaders ask the high court to affirm the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that residents of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee can define marriage for themselves.
The brief was filed by the Liberty Institute on behalf of the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.
“In reaching its decision, this court should reaffirm that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects religious dissenters who disagree with state-recognized same-sex marriage and to reaffirm the importance of free debate and free inquiry in this democratic republic,” the brief states.
Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford said religious liberty and free speech “are our first American freedoms.”
“We hope the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to affirm the Sixth Circuit and reaffirm the constitutional rights of all Americans to speak and act according to their beliefs,” he said.
When the Alabama Supreme Court prevented a federal judge from imposing same-sex marriage last month, it argued the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of states to decide the issue when it overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor case.
In its order, the Alabama court wrote: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.”
The Alabama court noted that in Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.
“Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”
The Alabama court thus asked: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?
“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”
Baxter said the court’s decision to overturn a “deep-rooted” standard for marriage opened a Pandora’s box.
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”
At stake in marriage case: All sexual boundaries
Bob Unruh
Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:09:56 GMT
0 comments:
Post a Comment