Guest Columns
Homosexual marriage: how we really feel
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to give you the right answers. – Bradlee Dean
In light of the Supreme Court hand-picking the issue of homosexual marriage this week – an issue that has been settled by our Creator, the laws of our republic and the righteous compliance of the American people – I thought it was important to ask where the American people are deriving the belief that radical homosexual marriage is accepted by a majority of our citizens.
Fact: At least 33 states have voted down homosexual marriage.
During the state’s Proposition 8 battle, 7 million Californians voted against homosexual marriage. (The majority were black voters.) Not once but twice was their voice heard. Yet, the corrupt judicial system got involved and stripped it from the hands of the people, placing it in the courts – right where they wanted it. That way they could control the “debate,” and the state-run media were right there to help them along.
Another example dates back to May 1, 2004, in Seattle, Washington. Approximately 25,000 people protested homosexual marriage at the Mayday for Marriage rally. Approximately 1,500 radical homosexual sympathizers showed up to protest the rally, holding up signs stating, “Bigots go home!” The state-run media twisted the truth and told the public that the 1,500 homosexual supporters holding up signs stating, “Bigots go home!” were the majority and made the 25,000 protesters out to be the minority, totally turning the event to be against the “bigots” instead of homosexual marriage.
The media repeated the same twisted reporting in Washington, D.C., this week.
Hegelian Dialectic
Love and Marriage. Photo: Jim Hammer, CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic License
The Hegelian Dialectic is the tool that the corrupt in government use in an attempt to manipulate the minds of the people to accept their “change” when they normally would reject it.
The Hegelian Dialectic is the process in which the usurping elitists create a crisis, knowing in advance how the population will react to that created crisis, thus conditioning the people that a change is needed. Once that is achieved, they will then bring the “answer” to the crisis.
They attempt to control both sides of the debate over how and why the “change” is needed, thus diverting anyone from asking the right questions, in order to avoid bringing the right answer.
With the help of the state-run media, this process is repeated over and over again to make it seem as though society is accepting of their “change.”
Rather than citing the Bible, the Constitution or the laws of our republic, they continue their manipulative debate until a perceived compromise is reached. The outcome of the “debate” – which purposely addressed the “concerns of the public” with the mandate to do something – is enacted as public policy (never law), and their radical agenda moves forward.
The Supreme Court, the media, and this administration are exemplifying the Hegelian Dialectic today. After placing radical lesbian Elena Kagan on the bench, they have attempted to take issues such as marriage out of the hands of the people so they can push their unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal agenda.
The same can be said with the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The American people accepted the lie that abortion is legal just because the Supreme Court said so.
As William Blackstone stated, “No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.”
After 57 million babies have been aborted, the American people are finally beginning to awaken to the fact that the Hegelian Dialectic has deceived them. If they would have shown their true intent by running on a slogan such as, “Support the murder of innocent children. Vote yes today!” the populace would have been appalled and those who would have the audacity to advocate such a crime would have been thrown in jail.
Simply put, America is dealing with less than 1.7 percent of the population that is being used as a political battering ram to upend your Constitution.
Friends, remember they will always do what you let them get away with.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams
Homosexual Manifesto – Satire or Reality?
ARVE Error: need id and provider(Editor’s note: Read that manifesto for yourselves. Includes a boldface opening sentence that might, or might not, be a disclaimer.)
Canada Warns America About Homosexual Marriage:
ARVE Error: need id and providerThen there was Elena Kagan!
ARVE Error: need id and providerWho is Bradlee Dean?
ARVE Error: need id and provider[subscribe2]
Bradlee Dean is an ordained Christian preacher, Radio show host for the #1 show on Genesis Communication Network from 2-3 p.m. central standard (The Sons of Liberty), a National Tea Party favorite. He also speaks on high school and college campuses nationwide. Bradlee is also an author, a husband to one, daddy to four boys. You have probably seen Bradlee through such outlets as The New York Times, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, The Weekly Standard etc.
Vernon Zimmermann liked this on Facebook.
Bill Luck liked this on Facebook.
“No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.”
That’s really what it boils down to for the extremists on the religious right, isn’t it? You want your interpretation of Biblical texts to trump the law. You want theocracy.
Oh, and by the way, considering your fetish for the Ten Commandments, check out that one about “false witness against thy neighbor” and compare that with your remark about Justice Kagan. (I googled “Elena Kagan lesbian” and got statements that she wasn’t. All that backed it up was nutcase right wing sites.)
Do I detect a hint of disappointment in her on your part, that she did not avow the orientation that she suggests, with that famous at-bat pose in a women’s softball game?
I don’t give a hoot if she’s a lesbian or not.
And if your best evidence for her being a lesbian is “she plays softball”, I’ll introduce you to my sister, who played softball for her college team, and now has a husband and two daughters.
Well, it matters quite a lot, don’t you think, if she would profit materially from a ruling changing the definition of marriage? Should she not, in that event, recuse herself from this case?
Why – is she married to a woman and applying for federal benefits for her wife?
Did Clarence Thomas recuse himself when the Supreme Court heard affirmative action cases?
Terry, you talk a lot about journalistic integrity, then turn around and post completely unsubstantiated, several year-old rumors as an attempt to win political points. There is absolutely no evidence showing Elena Kagan is a lesbian, let alone a a “radical lesbian” (whatever that is).
On the plus side, this just shows how desperate the anti-gay cause is getting that these are the lengths they’re willing to stretch.
Again, Terry, evidence she’s a lesbian. Evidence. Something more than “look! she plays softball!” (Like I asked elsewhere, are you TRYING to get on The Daily Show?)
Really, this is the type of rumor that used to be used against powerful women who never married — “she HAS to be a lesbian!” Of course, it’s a lot more difficult to make that scandalous now, so you have to combine it with some implication of ethical impropriety.