Attempted Rape of Angel of God – Sodomites Struck Blind
John R. Houk
© September 8, 2014
On October 6, 2014, in an unexpected move, the United States Supreme Court declined to review petitions challenging the legalization of same-sex marriage in five states, including Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The effect of this refusal to hear these petitions, or this non-decision on the legality of, or the right to, same-sex marriage for all 50 states, is that stays are now lifted on the three federal appeals courts’ decisions upholding such same-sex marriages. With these stays lifted, same-sex marriages are now legal in 24 states, up from 19.
Other states in those federal circuits are also affected by the Court’s actions on Monday, including Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. It is thought that the three federal appeals court will uphold same-sex marriages in these states as well, where such marriages are currently banned. If those bans are struck down, then the number of states legalizing same-sex marriage climbs from 24 to 30 in short time. (The Supreme Court’s “Non-Decision” On Same-Sex Marriage: The Impact On Employee Benefits After 'Windsor'; By Jenny Kiesewetter; JD Supra Business Advisor; 10/7/14)
Activist Judges from the Lower Courts to the Appellate Courts have used the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 after the Civil War to drudge Leftist ideology for homosexual rights as if that was the Original Intent inclusively for the moral depravity of homosexuality becoming normalized in our society. The very slow process of acceptance of the normalizing of the homosexuality began in 1960s with gay PhDs and MDs pushing academic flawed research to counter the Word of the Creator of ALL that exists materially and spiritually.
… [I]t’s been 50 years since Alfred Kinsey published his infamous 1948 report, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which has so profoundly and grievously affected not only American society, but the moral, social, and political order worldwide. It is difficult to exaggerate the horrendous effects of the widespread promotion and acceptance of his work. Kinsey’s "research" shook America’s moral foundations and launched the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s. Its terrible results are obvious in the skyrocketing incidence of all the social pathologies afflicting us today: divorce, abortion, sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, illegitimate births, cohabitation, pornography, homosexuality, sadomasochism, rape, child molestation, sexual crimes of all types, family breakup, endemic violence, etc. We cannot hope to reverse this destructive, downward spiral if we do not recognize and openly confront the Kinseyite falsehoods and subversive premises and ideas that undergird popular attitudes and official policies today. (Fighting the Kinsey Fraud: Interview with Dr. Judith Reisman; Interview found at Whale.to [yeah I know – Conspiracy Theory Website]; Interview took place in 2005; Dr. Judith Reisman exposed Alfred Kinsey as a fraud in his experimental findings justifying homosexuality among many other challenging moral foundations)
Do you think homosexuality was even remotely acceptable as a normal lifestyle in 1868?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [If 14th Amendment stopped perhaps a stretch to a modern inclusiveness of gender more than race, BUT it is still a stretch and emancipated former Black Slaves is the Original Intent here and NOT same-sex normalcy.]
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. [Nothing to do with gender here, but only voting age – which has since been amended as well.]
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. [AGAIN, nothing about gender in service of any form of local, state or federal government. Specificity is given to those members of Southern States that attempted to forcefully secede from the Union of the USA.]
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. [No gender here but the promise of federal government to pay debts incurred during the Civil War but NOT any debts incurred by the rebelling Confederate States.]
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. [Here it becomes a part of the rule of law to constitutionally enforce the civil rights to emancipated Black Slaves and not same-sex lifestyles. Based on Original intent, offering normalcy to moral depravity is NOT justified.] (Bracketed bold text is by this Blog Editor; 14th Amendment; present on Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute)
Unless you are a Leftist Living Constitution moron the 14th Amendment wasn’t even close to extending normalcy and special civil rights for followers of a homosexual lifestyle.
GASP! This is where all the Leftist transformers and Homosexual rise up and paint a picture these sentiments as the words of a homophobe bigot. This is where I stand up and look depravity apologists in the eye and tell them first I don’t fear homosexuals and second I join feel safe in joining the Creator of all that exists that homosexuality among males and females is an abomination in the Creator’s eyes.
Practicing homosexuals should be grateful that the mercy of God extending by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the Son of God extends forgiveness through faith in God’s Grace toward those who choose the Lord as their Savior and dedicate themselves to following Christ understanding that sinful passions are forgiven.
SHAME on the Supreme Court dodging the issue as a final authority in the rule of law by not looking at same-sex depravity and step up to the plate to make the right decision to join Nature’s God in upholding Natural Law to overrule activist Judges that validate UNNATURAL moral practices.
Here are some quotes/excerpts for Christian Bible Believers to think on when Leftists and Homosexual Activists distort the Truth in God to manipulate American opinion via a guilt complex imposition:
"Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences" describes the allegedly scientific research of Alfred Kinsey and colleagues, which largely shaped modern Western society's beliefs and understanding of the nature of human sexuality.
Today, half a century later, Kinsey's unchallenged conclusions are taught at every level of education – from elementary school to college – and quoted in textbooks as undisputed truth.
Incredibly, Kinsey's research involved illegal sexual experimentation on several hundred young children. And his survey was based on a non–representative group of Americans — including hundreds of sex offenders, prostitutes, prison inmates and exhibitionists. Yet Kinsey's grotesquely fraudulent research has served as the very foundation of modern "sex science," and his claim that one in 10 people are homosexual is central to the gay—rights movement. And now comes the greatest hypocrisy of all — the pretense of providing safe-sex instructions to children while in reality advancing Kinsey's agenda, including indulgence in high—risk lifestyles and behaviors. (Church History - the Homosexual age: [subtitle] Jesus warned us these times would come! – Subtitle by Dr. Judith Reisman; From BibleProbe.com)
The Homosexual Agenda is a self-centered set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate approval of homosexuality and homosexual ideology, along with the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for homosexuals that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see hate speech, hate crimes). Such special rights will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of broader society. The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the right of free speech today.
Strategies and psychological tactics
Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations (see homosexuality and biblical interpretation), and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others. This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This includes the use of demonstrative protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.
Influence in the academic world
Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled First Things (Aug/Sept. 1993) how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.
[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.
… READ ENTIRETY (Homosexual Agenda; Conservapedia article entry; Last Modified September 10, 2014 at 19:26)
“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.
“Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.
“Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws. – Senator Ted Cruz via The Atlantic (Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals; By ALLAHPUNDIT; Hot Air; 10/7/14 2:01 PM)
“According to the majority of this very Supreme Court in the Windsor decision, states and their citizens have the right and responsibility to define their marriage laws. It is shocking that at least six Supreme Court justices would allow unelected lower court judges to simply ignore the majority decision – and the Section of DOMA upheld in the Windsor decision.
“The only alternative to allowing these unelected liberal judges to impose their morality on all of America is to pass a constitutional amendment. To that end, last year I introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment (HJ Res. 51) to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.
“Like so many other states, the citizens of Kansas made an overwhelming decision to stand for traditional marriage when they adopted the Kansas Marriage Amendment. No one justice – no one court – no elite judicial activists should be permitted to redefine or un-define marriage to suit their distaste for traditional marriage.
“This most recent non-decision by the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates the need for a constitutional amendment on this issue.” (Huelskamp: We need a Constitutional Amendment on Same Sex Marriage; By Post Staff; Salina Post; 10/7/14)
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) would amend the United States Constitution to protect marriage, family and children by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Congressman Tim Huelskamp introduced the FMA on June 28, 2013.
… (Federal Marriage Amendment; By Tim Huelskamp Gov webpage)
H.J.RES.51 -- Marriage Protection Amendment (Introduced in House - IH)
HJ 51 IH
H. J. RES. 51
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 28, 2013
Mr. HUELSKAMP (for himself, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. PITTS, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BARTON, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JONES, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. HALL, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. WOLF, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. HULTGREN, and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
SEC. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'. (Bill Text: 113th Congress (2013-2014), H.J.RES.51.IH; Thomas Library of Congress)