Another Case of Majority Mob Rule Mentality

The Christianist agenda has consistently been to deprive others of constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of religion - including the right to have NO religion - and to instead have government based on majority mob rule since at this point in time Christianity is the majority religion in the USA. The fact that all Christians are not hate-filled, mean spirited wretches has not filter through to the wingnuts. This view that minority groups have no rights other than whatever crumbs the majority throws to them isn't limited to evangelical Christians since their allies within the Catholic Church and many Mormons are equally willing to trample the rights of minority groups. One recent example of the Mormon version of this mindset - and which shows these folks are perhaps just as crazy as some of the Islamic extremists - is an op-ed in the Mormon Times where the writer, Orson Scott Card (pictured at left) endorses the overthrow of the civil government. Once again, in my view, these folks are a clear and present danger to secular civil government. The question is when will the main stream media start doing its job and exposing these lunatics? Here are some highlights:

*

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

*

Do not suppose for a moment that the "gay marriage" diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.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?

*

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. 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.

*

That many individuals suffer from sex-role dysfunctions does not change the fact that only heterosexual mating can result in families where a father and a mother collaborate in rearing children that share a genetic contribution from both parents.

*

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.

*

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? Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?

*

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.

*

If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.