The risk of sexual deviants: Prop 8 and Defence of Marriage Act

Is there a possibility, that the government of nations may fall into the hands of men, who teach the most disconsolate of all creeds, that men are but fire-flies, and that this all is without a father? Is this the way, to make man, as man, an object of respect? Or is it, to make murder itself, as indifferent as shooting a plover, and the extermination of the Rohilla nation, as innocent, as the swallowing of mites, on a morsel of cheese?" -- John Adams, the Second President of the United States.

The cases launched by sexual deviancy activists against Proposition 8 and the Defence of Marriage Act, both of which have the Obama Administration supporting the activists, have resulted in a Supreme Court hearing starting this week.

What happens in the courts regarding marriage will determine a long way into the future of this very Republic, whether we are to stay a nation under God, or we shall become the nation of France during the Reign of Terror, of which a future President of the United States references, including the dastardly deeds of the time. It was a time of religious persecution, a state-run humanist agenda, where the weeks were ten days each, and there was no Sabbath or religious holidays.

The sexual deviancy movement that is leading the push to redefine marriage have a humanist worldview, and they want to abolish the church from helping the needy (see Catholic Charities) and make the government the source of everything, as we saw liberals push in the Life of Julia series in their successful re-election with the Low Information Voter.

In Minnesota, Grace Evans, 11, asked the following question to those attempting to redefine marriage to appease sexual deviants:

Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don’t think we can change that children need a mom and a dad. I believe God made it that way. I know some disagree, but I want to ask you this question: Which parent do I not need – my mom or my dad?

The legislators were stumped. Nevertheless, the DFL decided to attempt redefinition to appease the activists. Her father Jeff noted something more serious about the debate:

Supporters of [the sexual deviants' agenda) are deceitfully claiming that the (redefinition of marriage to any two] won’t affect our religious freedoms or freedom of speech. I do not believe them. These attacks on Grace are an example of how we have already lost many of these freedoms. In fact, it’s so bad, they aren’t afraid to viciously attack an 11-year-old girl.

Taking away the rights of churches to run foster care, adoption, and at-risk youth ministries (such as Connie Maxwell, Epworth, and others; this is proven in states with such arrogance), along with government closures of soup kitchens run by churches, all in the name of preaching “hate” and pushing a worldview that is not that of the deviancy activists, and converting the church into social clubs where the Gospel cannot be taught, or even closing the church for “hate” speech, all of which are part of the key doctrines of the Obama Administration, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jnr Memorial Hate Crimes Act (passed in the National Defence Authorisation Act of Fiscal Year 2010), and even Public Law 111-321 (the law that redefines the military to becoming a homosexual indoctrination force). The elimination of churches and their ministries listed above, establishing state-run humanism as the official state religion in violation of the First Amendment, and turning houses of worship into other types of buildings (as shown in the Bolshevik Revolution) is the ultimate goal of homosexual "marriage" activists attempting to ram their agenda down our throats.

We've seen the homosexual agenda's push for “sexual orientation protection” turn into the Pennsylvania State University child sex molestation scandal, as the child sex molester used the “sexual orientation” protection status at the school to protect Jerry Sandusky at the expense of children. This dangerous policy is now at schools and corporations in this state even, the fear is if the homosexual agenda pushes even further, children will be sacrificed at the altar of homosexual activists, protected by such policies that the President endorses. Not even schools will be safe from child molesters, protected by the activists.

John Adams was right. Activists want to create a humanist utopia, and a low information generation is working to push it. It's the sexual deviancy activists that are bullies, working the hardest to force a humanist theocracy on us, where the laws of God are thrown out and replaced with the wants of a tiny but vocal minority that pushes sin in violation of Leviticus 19 and Romans 1.

The entire nation is at risk. Are we headed to France of the Robspierre Reign of Terror, where there is an extremist humanist force in our courts and government, that will rule with an iron fist and eliminate the Freedom of Religion our Founding Fathers gave us, all in the name of appeasing the sexual deviancy activists? Are we headed to the Communism that Rep. Albert Herlong (D-FL) envisioned 50 years ago? Are we headed to the Humanist Theocracy run by a tiny, but vocal, minority of sexual deviancy activists that indoctrinate a generation into their worldview, reminiscent of Charpentier's Louise, where the titular character represented the nation, her parents represented the values of the America we and our Founding Fathers know, backed by God's Holy Word, and Julien and the Bohemians represent the sexual deviancy and humanists' lobby in an attempt to turn her to the dark side (the postmodern humanist agenda). We must not bow down to the sexual deviancy activists to ths.eir utopia where the church disappears, and we are living in Robspierre's Reign of Terror, where religious freedom is sacrificed at the altar of appeasing the sexual deviants' agenda, and debate is replaced by forced indoctrination of the humanist agenda that includes the ten-day week without Sabbath or religious holidays, and the utopia of homosexual activists, including protecting child molesters at the expense of the children. ◙