Please we should not ignore the wishes of 50 million people
By Chris Briscoe, An Englishman deeply concerned about what is going on over the other side of the Atlantic
If you are a U.S. Citizen your constitutional right of representation has been stolen from you. Read why.
The U.S.A. is not a democracy; how can it be when nine un-elected Supreme Court Judges decided for 320 million people on redefining marriage, when 37 States among 50 States had already voted to keep the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman? That accounts for at least 50 million U.S. citizens, who by representation, had voted to keep the definition of marriage between one man and one woman firmly enshrined within their States’ Constitution. Yet, this democracy was ignored and nine Judges voted on the issue instead. It should not have happened this way, and Thomas Jefferson, the main writer of the U.S. Bill of rights, and the third President knew that the third Executive Branch had been mistakenly given too much power!
The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly - through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. But when, the majority of the U.S. States and its democratically elected representatives worked tirelessly to defend our historical concept of marriage, their democratic will was steam-rolled, therefore fulfilling Thomas Jefferson’s prophetical warning that when nine Supreme Judges decide against the majority of the people’s wishes, the States, they would have become “despots.”
Indeed, the United States might be labeled a “Constitutional Judicial Federal Nation” because Nine Supreme Court Judges are dictating the entire direction of 320 million of its citizens. Therefore, it is up to the other two Executive Branches to bring the checks and balances prescribed by the U.S. Constitution– in other words, among the three Executive branches of the President, the Upper and Lower Congress, and the Supreme Court, Congress needs to intervene and re-address the problem of Judicial Tyranny.
Those Nine High Court Judges have voted on an issue which is so fundamental to our society it pre-dates even the law.
There was a time when, before the law, marriage was defined between one man and one woman as an instrument to safe-guard our children and society, but now the law has redefined it and placed adults happiness before children by defining marriage as an institution to be enjoyed by the same-sex, with the benefits of adoption, no matter how detrimental to the children in the future. For traditionally, marriage was defined as the vehicle to procreate children, so that our future society thrives, and that’s why the Institution of marriage is so important -it is the bedrock of our society – if you undermine that, you undermine society, and now a silent scandal and the roots of destruction have been sowed in the name of “human rights” when just five High Court Judges decided to redefine marriage onJune 25th 2015. Please refer to the following of my previous articles on how, those Judges decided to redefine marriage even when 39 States had already existing amendments in their law to ensure that marriage was defined as only between one man and one woman at:
https://whereareweheading7.wordpress.com/?utm_content=bufferd19d6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer
It means the U.S.A. is not supporting its Constitutional duty of letting the States decide as advised by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and a host of other great Presidents, as well as the writers of the U.S. Constitution
When 37 States among 50 States voted to keep the definition of marriage as within their individual State Constitutions of one man and one woman, representing 50 million people, U.S. citizen’s whose wishes were steam-rolled.
Those five Judges decided to redefine marriage even when it was against public opinion, which, as Abraham Lincoln pointed out, they should never have the authority of doing such a thing, undermining the power of States existing democracy, to which Thomas Jefferson termed High Court Judges who do that as “despots” or “demi-gods.”
Now our society have fully accepted and supported the gay-rights movement, there will follow dire consequences for the human race. It means because our society has not respected the natural law, there will be dire consequences, and the first people to suffer are our children. It means the sex-chromozone and the demarcation between sexes, which has been protecting society and our children for over 5000 years are under attack. And these gay human rights movement’s hidden agenda is to do away with any difference between the sexes: in other words, they want the lines between the sexes completely obliterated in the name of so called “equality” and “human rights”; and our society is supporting their agenda, without knowing the floodgates of problems they will be opening up for themselves around the corner; and now the result is, we see cases of transgender cases increase five-fold, which is just the tip of the iceberg! The human species is the only species which accommodates the gay movement and transgender movement; and the U.K. Government and U.S. Government will have to pay for their foolhardiness in supporting these minority groups who have forced their slim agenda onto the majority, to the detriment of society and traditional family values as we know it, and cherish it. They are the ones who will have to cough up the money to pay for the consequences of going against nature – to pay the professionals within the health industry to treat these children and adults who find themselves confused as to their true sex-identity, within a society that encourages their feelings to follow the unnatural way.
And already the seeds of our society’s undoing has begun, when on June 26th the U.S. High Court ruled in a majority of five Judges to four, to redefine marriage, in spite of 37 States amending their own laws to ensure that local Constitutions clarify that their definition of marriage is only between one man and one female.
Please would you mind if I give you my opinion on marriage?:
Our concept of marriage has been around since the time of Moses when he wrote down in the book of Genesis; whether you believe in the Bible or not, it still has a voice which can contribute to this discussion.
Jesus also confirmed the importance of one man and one woman marriage with these words (quoting from Moses’ writings on marriage.): “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.9Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (from the book of Mark 10:6-9, The New International Bible)
And the next people to demand their rights will be the transgender and multiple-gender people who will demand the same rights of marriage that the same-sex couples were given, and the results of all this will be just more stark statistics coming out of the news. Maybe I will be called “a bigot” for standing against the re-definition of marriage. But let’s look up the word “bigot” in our dictionary: it means, according to my dictionary, “a person who is intolerant, especially regarding religion or race.” It means if someone calls another person “a bigot”, they are revealing themselves to be one, by the very act of not tolerating the other person’s attitude? And what about the U.S. Federal Government who have fined their Bakers, Florists and Photographers exorbitant amounts of money for refusing to support same-sex marriage? They were hardly tolerant of a person exercising their First Amendment to be able to express their religion unhindered by Government’s legislation! Let’s read what the First Amendment to the American Constitution says, (taken from, “the Bill of Rights”) which protects all U.S. citizens to express their religion as their conscience guides them:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
But contrary to their brief, those High Court Judges have not upheld the First Amendment.
These Governments and High Court Judges, think that they have the authority to redefine marriage after marriage has been serving us well and keeping the natural order for 5000 years. As the First Amendment clearly states, it’s not the Government’s job to interfere in religion, yet they have taken the most sacred Institution – the marriage (which ensures our biological "status quo" and protects it for posterity) – and thrown it to the dogs! Please understand, I am not calling anyone “dogs”).
Now society’s most sacred Institutions – the family and Marriage – are under attack in the name of “human rights.” The LGBT movement claim that their cause is just a continuance of the Civil rights movement, but, actually nothing could be further from the truth, because emancipating blacks from white rule cannot be compared to giving anyone the freedom to emancipae themselves from nature. One is right, good and the natural course of action, while the other is unnatural, bad for everyone, and the wrong course of action because it causes everyone to suffer. Let's not forget that when transgenders reveal themselves, and when same-sex couples reveal themselves, it always devastates at least one family!
It means the U.S.A. is fast imploding, not exploding but imploding which means certain internal forces have become too top-heavy and is causing the nation to internally collapse; A point in case is the Supreme Court which Thomas Jefferson warned about the danger of it becoming too powerful, resulting in depotism, meaning, absolute power - Jefferson said it should never be allowed to legislate. But now the Supreme Court is an independent court without "checks and balances." For example, this year, nine judges were allowed to decide, to redefine the concept of marriage, an institution which pre-dates the law. And so five judges voted to extend the traditional concept of marriage to same-sex as they interpreted the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson warned about the dangers of despotism within the Executive Branch of the Supreme Court:
Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)
“The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.” (Letter to John Wayles Eppes, 1807)
“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
But what is the answer?
I believe that the answer is not to go back to the “Middle Ages” and allow Governments to sanction castration and other such barbaric “treatments”, but to instead try and encourage people through education and counseling. To teach them that there is, in fact, another way out, besides the way they think: to validate the feelings of those who have transgender feelings, but nevertheless encourage them to think about the alternatives, through showing them unconditional love, to encourage them to try again the natural way and try resisting the unnatural way, that there is a strong possibility they can resist these transgender feelings and that they can receive counseling and healing, and encouragement to go the natural way; and in extreme cases, where necessary, prescribing sex-hormone therapy or other drug may be helpful, under careful doctors supervision, and not just by one doctor, but by a number of doctors.
But why do our foolhardy Governments think that, today, every so called “human rights” movement and minority group have to be given their “human right” of equality because we live in a “politically-correct” generation? Instead the answer should be education, healing and reconciliation; teaching them that, actually pursuing the unnatural, biological way is selfish towards the human race and future generations, because if everyone decided to go the unnatural way, there would eventually be no human race, because nobody would be procreating!
This is a case of sacrificing the majority for the sake of the minority, just because they have the loudest voice; it is the case of sacrificing the long-term stability for the sake of the short-term gratification! Sacrificing the natural order for the sake of the unnatural order! Sacrificing the will of the majority for the will of the minority, or to protect minority’s rights against the will of a majority rights, and in doing so, the majority life and future is placed in jeopardy!
37 States Votes within the democratic process to keep the traditional definition of marriage, but those High Court Judges Steam-rolled their Constitutional Rights
We need to remember that those five High Court Judges who voted for marriage to be redefined were going against the will of certain States – across 37 States, citizens and their elected officials have worked within the democratic process to keep the original definition of marriage – of one man marrying one woman, representing more than 50 million people, which is 60% of those who voted to protect the original definition of marriage; but Federal judges struck down those votes and democratic processes; therefore, 26 States among 37 were forced against their will to adopt same-sex marriage; for example, in States like California where there was a Statewide referendum asking people if the current definition of marriage on the California Constitution was adequate – that referendum, supporting a marriage protection law called Preposition 8 or Prop. 8 was approved: the “yes” vote was in favor of eliminating same-sex marriage — 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent. All five of California’s most populous counties — Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino and San Diego — voted in favor of Proposition 8. On June 2, the California Marriage Protection Act, commonly referred to as Prop 8 qualified for the 2008 General Election ballot. It was voted into law on Nov 4, 2008 and it amended the California Constitution to provide that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”. Prop 8 was later found to be unconstitutional and marriage equality took effect by federal judges; in spite of thirty states passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. However, after the High Court ruling of June 26, 2015, all amendments banning sex-same marriage have been invalidated by court rulings.
Do you think our future generations will thank us for allowing a same-sex marriage and transgender vision of society? No, the majority will not thank us, indeed, they will call us mere infants, gratifying our “politically-correct whims” but sacrificing the natural order, as a consequence! It is society’s and Government’s first job to protect our most sacred Institutions and protect the sex-chromozone from minority group’s own secret agenda. Society needs to teach our children that such feelings of being attracted to the same sex comes and goes, and to encourage them to try to grow out of it. To let them receive counseling and help to find the natural way, the way that has been safe-guarded for over 5000 years. But both the Governor of California as well as those five High Court Judges (among nine) steam-rolled the democratic majority wishes. And that is a National scandal that needs to be exposed!
“More than 50 million Americans have voted for laws affirming the definition of marriage as one man and one woman (representing more than 60 percent of those voting on the matter). But courts have not respected the constitutional authority of the American people and our elected representatives to make marriage policy.”
“Only 11 states have redefined marriage democratically. In the 37 states that currently recognize same-sex marriage, 26 have been forced to do so by courts.” (The above two quotations taken from Jennifer Marshall’s article, “Don’t Silence the 50 million who voted for one man one woman marriage”, please link to her article from the Daily Signal at:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/27/dont-silence-the-50-million-who-voted-for-one-man-one-woman-marriage/
Today there is a silent scandal going on
– where adoption agencies which have served our communities for over one hundred and fifty years are being forced to close their doors because they are no longer able to express their conscience due to new sexual-orientation laws.
But the biggest heart-ache I feel in all this is, what kind of message are our children receiving? When children nowadays are being forced to be adopted into same-sex marriages just because these same-sex couples cannot procreate. And so, nowadays, Federal Court judges are telling adoption agencies how many percentage of their children should they be placing into same-sex “families.” And so some children adoption agencies, who have their own religious objection to this same-sex “family,” are being forced by the federal courts to either agree to these rulings or face closure. These days, children without parents are being allowed to be adopted by same-sex couples. These days, same-sex couples are demanding from the U.S Government, children; same-sex couples are craving children to be adopted and they are willing to sue the U.S Government to get their own way. This is a marked shift in public and judicial policy as traditionally the State law has given preference to the children’s rights when courts face cases where the judge is granting custody of children to adopted parents; but now judges are forcing adoption agencies and now giving preference to gay couples in order “to tow the line” of today”s political agenda! In spite of the basic human right of every child is to have the right to have both a Mother and a Father, a normal, natural upbringing, at least where they are deprived of that, the State should give them that right in all its power; yet, the scandal of today is the State and judges are giving preference to the same-sex rights to have children even though a same-sex couple can never procreate children, and also the other truth is that whenever a woman or a man decides to have such a relationship with a person of the same sex, in spite of same-sex movement telling us there are no detrimental effects, there are always detrimental effects when people go against nature! And according to studies, one same-sex family always devastates at least one heterosexual family. In today’s libertine society “human rights”, “liberty” and “freedom of expression” are the new god of this age. Yet, just because these things are permissible, it doesn’t mean they’re beneficial! And it is very telling of how skewered this nation and our society has become when in one case, when a child-right’s activist tries to defend a child’s right for redress in law when it clashes with an adults rights, he is shunned and even falsely accused as “homophobic” or “a bigot.”
These days, religious adoption providers seeking to place children with a mother and a father find themselves at odds with new policies requiring them to place children with same-sex couples. In a number of states, sexual orientation laws, coupled with the redefinition of marriage or the creation of same-sex civil unions, are attacking the freedom of private foster care and adoption providers who believe children deserve a married mother and father. These providers should not be forced to forfeit the very beliefs that motivate them to care for families and vulnerable children. These days, discrimination laws protectinging people from being discriminated because of their colour, their creed, their religion, their sex or their sexual orientation pose a very real threat to children’s protection and adoption agencies. One Mr. Atwood is quoted as saying, “Not only do these laws violate religious liberty, they harm children because they force high-quality, compassionate social service agencies to shut down. If all faith-based agencies closed due to such laws, the adoption and child welfare field would be decimated, depriving thousands of children growing up in families.” Below are three examples of such cases:
1. Boston Catholic Charities, Massachusetts. For more than 100 years, Catholic Charities in Boston, Massachusetts, had a successful record of connecting children to permanent families, placing more children in adoptive homes than any other state-licensed agency. Then, in 2003, the state began to recognize same-sex unions as marriages following a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. That decision, coupled with an earlier state policy on sexual orientation, forced all state-licensed adoption providers to be willing to place children with same-sex couples. Rather than abandon Catholic teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman and the conviction that children deserve to be raised by a married mother and father, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to end their foster care and adoption programs. In the two decades before it ended those services, the organization had helped approximately 720 children to find permanent adoptive parents.
2. D.C. Catholic Charities, District of Columbia. In 2010, the District of Columbia passed a law redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. The redefinition of marriage, coupled with the District’s sexual orientation policy, would have required Catholic Charities’ foster care and adoption services to place children with same-sex couples. Despite requests by the Archdiocese of Washington that it provide robust protection of private organizations’ moral and religious beliefs about marriage and family, the D.C. government refused to grant an exemption. Because it would not violate its deeply held beliefs that had guided more than 80 years of service in the District, Catholic Charities was forced to transfer its foster care and adoption program to other providers.
3. Evangelical Child and Family Agency, Illinois. For decades, the Evangelical Child and Family Agency (ECFA) had contracted with Illinois to provide foster care services. In 2011, however, a new state civil union law, coupled with an existing sexual orientation policy, effectively forced private agencies to license unmarried, cohabitating couples—including same-sex couples—as foster care parents in order to keep state contracts. Because ECFA was convinced that children deserve to experience the unique benefits provided by a married mother and a father, the state would not renew its foster care contract. As a result, ECFA was forced to transfer the cases of the foster children it served to different agencies and end the foster care program that had connected children with permanent families. Pushing out faith-based foster and adoption providers comes at a real cost; these organizations provide real—and unique—services. “One of our main things we were looking for in an agency was one that shared our religious and faith beliefs,” explains John Shultz, who with his wife Tammy adopted four foster care children through ECFA. Without the support of ECFA, “I don’t think I could’ve weathered the storm of the foster care system,” remarked Tommy. When combined with other private providers in Illinois, including numerous Catholic Charities affiliates, ECFA and other faith-based organizations in the state were forced to stop serving over 2,000 children, transferring their cases to other providers. Faith-based providers have faced similar decisions even outside of states where marriage has been redefined or same-sex civil unions recognized.
In 2011, the state of Virginia considered amending its child welfare regulations to add sexual orientation to the state’s family services non-discrimination policy. Refusing to abide by this regulation would cause an agency to lose its state-issued license to place children for adoption in Virginia. If this regulation had passed, the dilemma would have been staggering: A religiously affiliated agency that believes marriage is between one man and one woman would have been forced to violate its moral beliefs or shut its doors.
Although these proposed changes were ultimately rejected, the episode highlights the need to protect the religious liberty of adoption providers from government coercion. Public policy should promote the best interests of children, not drive out providers over debates about adult sexuality.
Religious Liberty Takes Nothing Away
Protecting the rights of conscience and religious liberty takes nothing away from anyone. Allowing private adoption providers to operate according to their own values—including declining to place children in unmarried or same-sex households—does not prevent public agencies or other private providers from choosing to do so.
Regardless of how states decide to craft policy allowing unmarried individuals or same-sex couples to adopt children, private providers should not be forced to violate their beliefs. Public agencies and some private providers, when allowed by state law, can choose to license unmarried and same-sex couples for adoption. Nothing is taken away if other private providers decline to do so. The legal right of an unmarried or same-sex couple to adopt, where it exists, should not require every adoption provider to perform such adoptions; requiring that they do so places the interests of adults over those of children, the exact opposite of what good policy on adoption should do. Yet some argue that policy should support only agencies that facilitate adoptions for all couples. For example, the euphemistically titled Every Child Deserves a Family Act, H.R. 2028 and S. 1069, would effectively strip both funding and legitimization from private adoption agencies that believe that children deserve a married mother and father. Such a policy would severely undermine the freedom of foster care and adoption agencies across the country, potentially reducing the number of foster care and adoption agencies working on behalf of America’s vulnerable children.
The Every Child Deserves a Family Act does not place the needs of children first; rather, it places the desires of adults first. Everyone agrees that every child deserves a family, and policy should encourage as many providers as possible to be working to match children with families. Defunding and delegitimizing agencies does nothing to further this goal.
Then, what should be done?
Foster care and adoption policy should always place the welfare of children first. In order to meet this goal, Congress should protect the right of private and faith-based adoption and foster care providers to continue providing valuable services to families and children.
One specific way to do so involves Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Through this law, the federal government provides payments to states for each eligible child cared for in the state’s foster care program. Generally, to be considered eligible for federal government reimbursement, a child in the state’s care must be placed in a foster care home or in congregate care that meets government licensing standards. Policymakers should ensure that states receiving Title IV-E funding allow private child welfare providers to continue serving in accordance with their religious or moral beliefs about marriage and family structure.
America’s foster care programs are in dire need of systemic reform to ensure that more of the 400,000 children and teens who filter through the system every year find permanent, loving homes. Foster care and adoption policy should put the best interests of children first and seek to increase the number of families willing to foster and potentially adopt children, not risk reducing the number of agencies or families working for children.
Achieving this goal requires collaboration between the government and private organizations where a host of agencies have the freedom to help recruit families and unite them with children. Provided these agencies meet basic requirements protecting the welfare of children, they should be free to operate according to their values, especially their religiously informed beliefs about marriage. Policy should respect the freedom of foster care and adoption agencies that believe children do best when raised in a married mother–father home.
Therefore, the biggest scandal of all this is Christian adoption agencies who have been serving our communities and children for over one hundred years have been forced to close their doors, just because this new generation thinks they know best – but ask yourself, where will it all end? It will end with the end of the world, unless we do something to challenge the status quo, and unless people like you have the courage to stand up for the children’s rights, even if it means being called a “bigot”! But some things are more important than your fear of being brandished “a gay-basher” or “a bigot.” But surely, the children’s rights are the priority.