A Tough Love Memo for USCCB
cinops be gone Feast of the Visitation Saturday, May 31, 2008
Preface: Pope Benedict XVI has stated that secularism and relativism are two deadly challenges the Church faces. This year we can make some progress.
Yesterday, I read in the National Catholic Register, June 1, 2008 edition a news article titled, “Prayers for Kennedy, Washington - Capitol Hill colleagues praised the fighting spirit of longtime Sen. Edward Kennedy, D- Mass., after learning he was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.
On the Senate floor May 20, Kennedy’s colleagues stopped deliberations to offer words of encouragement for the 76-year old senator, who was hospitalized in Boston May 17 after he suffered a seizure at his Cap Cod home.
Three days later, Kennedy’s physicians announced that tests showed the seizure was caused by a malignant tumor in the upper left portion of his brain. He was released from the hospital May 21. A course of treatment has not been announced. Kennedy, a Catholic, has worked with Catholic bishops (USCCB) and Catholic Charities officials on a variety of issues, such as immigration, the federal minimum wage and health coverage.
He has also been criticized by Catholic leaders for his support for legalized abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.”
Firstly, I hope the above officials can talk to him about his eternal soul and do whatever is necessary for his conversion back to the Catholic faith. Kennedy’s mother was a saintly person. This is an opportune moment for some serious prayer and religious talk with this Senator. Secondly, I think the above officials are aware that Senator Edward Kennedy is anathema to the pro-life, pro-family and pro-marriage movement in the U.S.A.
Senator Edward Kennedy was silent on the matter of getting the marriage amendment unto the ballot in Massachusetts for this November’s presidential election. Why? As stated by Pelosi it would hurt the Democratic candidate running for the presidency. CINOP Kennedy reminds me of the despicable Catholic-in-name-only politicians in Canada who got away with murder by promoting and passing the same-sex marriage laws in Canada. In this matter, the Catholic Church in Canada is a basket case. Ordinary regular practicing Catholics are trying to avoid this basket case scenario for the U.S.A. Church.
This same-sex marriage law in Canada has caused many serious problems.
There is a duty and obligation by the USCCB that this betrayal by so-called Catholic politicians in Canada will not happen in the U.S.A. Also, the message for this presidential and congressional election this November is: THERE IS NO CATHOLIC REASON TO VOTE FOR ANY CATHOLIC-NAME-ONLY POLITICIAN.
(In my letter dated Thursday May 22, 2008 titled Catholic Excuses – 4 – 22,
one of my readers made the following comment, “The Catholic Church is promoting this liberalism and bi-culturalism which are helping to destroy the American economy.”) At this point, I beg to differ.
Without any hedging, let’s all be on the same wave length. THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ON THE CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA AND POSSIBLY ARIZONA BALLOT IS A NATIONAL PRESIDENTIAL ISSUE. The assault on marriage by judicial activists must stop. They crossed the line. Absolutely everything must and will be done to pass these ballot measures in November.
Respectfully yours,
George H. Kubeck, P.O. Box 579, Stanton, Ca. 90680 - 9998
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Weep for Mexico
Weep for Mexico
Your access to the blog is: cinops be gone Thursday, May 29, 2008
I am overwhelmed and deeply saddened when I read what is happening in Mexico. Try to imagine this happening in the United States. Does anybody care?
In today’s news – Culiacan, Mexico – Mexico’s federal police need more-powerful weapons to battle heavily armed drug cartels, a senior police official said Wednesday. General Rodolfo Cruz said several federal officers killed Tuesday in a shootout in Culiacan were outgunned by members of the Sinaloa cartel.
There is a news story of yesterday. Seven federal police officers were killed in a shootout at a suspected drug house in Culiacan, home to Sinaloa drug cartel.
I believe a statue should be erected in that town in memory of these seven brave heroes who died for law and order. What the Mexican people are dealing with is fundamentally a community health and drug problem. There are dogs with rabies roaming the streets of Mexico. The citizens of Mexico deserve better.
Another headline dated Sat. May 24th, 2008, the Associated Press in the Orange County Register, “Organized crime deaths up 47 percent, Mexico says.” Attorney General Eduardo Medina told Radio Formula that 1,378 people have been killed so far this year, compared with 940 in the same period last year…. 4,152 people have been killed since President Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 and declared a war on drug cartels that ran entire regions of Mexico. About 450 of those were police, soldiers, prosecutors or investigators. {Now these 450 are heroes. Let their deaths not be in vain.}
Now there is another news item from Tuesday, May 13th. Mexico City – A police officer and four other people with suspected ties to a drug cartel have been arrested in the assassination of Mexico’s federal police chief, authorities said Monday. Edgar Millan Gomez was gunned down inside his Mexico City home last week. Who cares?
On the one hand, we have California’s Catholic-in-name-only Latino politicians who fundamentally are opportunists and stooges for the Culture of Death a term coined by Pope John Paul II. If you can’t trust them in loyalty to their Catholic faith, how can you trust them in anything else? Yesterday, these CINOPS helped to pass AB 2747 - Assisted Suicide Bill in the Assembly. They are all with the party that promotes the five absolutes evils of abortion on demand, assisted-suicide, euthanasia, same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research.
And that is the party that is going to oppose Sarah’s Law and the Constitutional Marriage Amendment that marriage is between a man and a woman on the ballot in November. Sadly, many of their uninformed and duped constituents of the CINOPS will vote against these two measures.
The least these politicians can do is to remove the Catholic label when they are running for office. They have betrayed the faith of their Latino fathers and their family values and beliefs. Have they the guts to change their religious identity?
On the other hand, we have many patriotic Mexican American associations throughout the country that can pass resolutions and proclamations in support of Mexican president Felipe Calderon to bring law and order to the Mexican nation. They may need to set aside monies to train freedom fighters to help straighten out the very serious corruption facing the nation of Mexico. God bless Mexico!
George H. Kubeck, P.O. Box 579, Stanton, Calif. 90680-9998 - Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese. Please e-mail to all Catholic churches in Orange and L.A. County, California and the Nation.
Your access to the blog is: cinops be gone Thursday, May 29, 2008
I am overwhelmed and deeply saddened when I read what is happening in Mexico. Try to imagine this happening in the United States. Does anybody care?
In today’s news – Culiacan, Mexico – Mexico’s federal police need more-powerful weapons to battle heavily armed drug cartels, a senior police official said Wednesday. General Rodolfo Cruz said several federal officers killed Tuesday in a shootout in Culiacan were outgunned by members of the Sinaloa cartel.
There is a news story of yesterday. Seven federal police officers were killed in a shootout at a suspected drug house in Culiacan, home to Sinaloa drug cartel.
I believe a statue should be erected in that town in memory of these seven brave heroes who died for law and order. What the Mexican people are dealing with is fundamentally a community health and drug problem. There are dogs with rabies roaming the streets of Mexico. The citizens of Mexico deserve better.
Another headline dated Sat. May 24th, 2008, the Associated Press in the Orange County Register, “Organized crime deaths up 47 percent, Mexico says.” Attorney General Eduardo Medina told Radio Formula that 1,378 people have been killed so far this year, compared with 940 in the same period last year…. 4,152 people have been killed since President Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 and declared a war on drug cartels that ran entire regions of Mexico. About 450 of those were police, soldiers, prosecutors or investigators. {Now these 450 are heroes. Let their deaths not be in vain.}
Now there is another news item from Tuesday, May 13th. Mexico City – A police officer and four other people with suspected ties to a drug cartel have been arrested in the assassination of Mexico’s federal police chief, authorities said Monday. Edgar Millan Gomez was gunned down inside his Mexico City home last week. Who cares?
On the one hand, we have California’s Catholic-in-name-only Latino politicians who fundamentally are opportunists and stooges for the Culture of Death a term coined by Pope John Paul II. If you can’t trust them in loyalty to their Catholic faith, how can you trust them in anything else? Yesterday, these CINOPS helped to pass AB 2747 - Assisted Suicide Bill in the Assembly. They are all with the party that promotes the five absolutes evils of abortion on demand, assisted-suicide, euthanasia, same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research.
And that is the party that is going to oppose Sarah’s Law and the Constitutional Marriage Amendment that marriage is between a man and a woman on the ballot in November. Sadly, many of their uninformed and duped constituents of the CINOPS will vote against these two measures.
The least these politicians can do is to remove the Catholic label when they are running for office. They have betrayed the faith of their Latino fathers and their family values and beliefs. Have they the guts to change their religious identity?
On the other hand, we have many patriotic Mexican American associations throughout the country that can pass resolutions and proclamations in support of Mexican president Felipe Calderon to bring law and order to the Mexican nation. They may need to set aside monies to train freedom fighters to help straighten out the very serious corruption facing the nation of Mexico. God bless Mexico!
George H. Kubeck, P.O. Box 579, Stanton, Calif. 90680-9998 - Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese. Please e-mail to all Catholic churches in Orange and L.A. County, California and the Nation.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Pat Buchanan on Calif. Same-Sex Marriage # 2 of 2
Pat Buchanan on Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Laws – 2 of 2
cinops be gone Wednesday, May 28, 2008
“With a third of all children born out of wedlock – 50 percent of all Hispanic kids, 70 percent of black kids – and half of all marriages ending in divorce, the social indicators have recorded explosions – in crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, dropout rates, gang membership, and jail and prison population.
The correlation between prison inmates and broken homes, or homes never created, is absolute. What armies of social scientists with six-figure salaries today tell us, 12-year-olds knew 50 years ago?
Setting aside the risibility of the court’s conduct, consider what it says about us as democratic republic.
We are supposed to be a self-governing people. “Here, sir, the people rule.” Elected representatives write our laws.
Yet, no Congress or state legislature ever voted to declare homosexual unions a marriage. The idea has everything been rejected. Wherever it has been on the ballot, same-sex marriage has been voted down. In the 13 states where it was on the ballot in 2004, it was defeated by 58 to 85 percent – the last figure rolled up in Mississippi, where black Christian pastors told their flocks to go out and vote down the abomination.
Californians have consistently expressed their opposition and voted against recognizing the idea of homosexual marriages and granting the benefits of married couples to same-sex unions. What is bigotry at the Times is common sense to most Americans.
Homosexual marriage is not in the California Constitution; else someone would have discovered it in 160 years. Where, then, did the State Supreme Court find this was a right?
Four of seven justices unearthed this right by consulting what Orwell called their “smelly little orthodoxies.” They then decided to overturn the expressed will of the voters, declare their opinion and order the state of California to begin to begin recognizing homosexual unions as marriages. And they did it because they know the Times types will hail them as the newest Earl Warrens.
Not long ago, a governor of California would have laughed at the court and told the justices to go surfing, and ordered state officials not to issue the marriage licenses. The voters would have put the names of the four justices on the ballot in November and thrown them off the court, as they did Chief Justice Rose Bird, a generation ago.
We used to have executives and legislators like that.
Thomas Jefferson came into office and declared the Alien and Sedition Acts null and void, released all editors from jail, and refused to prosecute any more or to enforce the law. Andrew Jackson said of the great chief justice: “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”
In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom handed out marriage licenses to thousands of homosexuals. Today, conservative mayors in California, if there are any, might engage in similar disobedience against this latest judicial usurpation of the legislative power that belongs to elected representatives and the people. What’s sauce for the goose, etc?”
In closing, have your city council pass a resolution for the marriage amendment!
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.
cinops be gone Wednesday, May 28, 2008
“With a third of all children born out of wedlock – 50 percent of all Hispanic kids, 70 percent of black kids – and half of all marriages ending in divorce, the social indicators have recorded explosions – in crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, dropout rates, gang membership, and jail and prison population.
The correlation between prison inmates and broken homes, or homes never created, is absolute. What armies of social scientists with six-figure salaries today tell us, 12-year-olds knew 50 years ago?
Setting aside the risibility of the court’s conduct, consider what it says about us as democratic republic.
We are supposed to be a self-governing people. “Here, sir, the people rule.” Elected representatives write our laws.
Yet, no Congress or state legislature ever voted to declare homosexual unions a marriage. The idea has everything been rejected. Wherever it has been on the ballot, same-sex marriage has been voted down. In the 13 states where it was on the ballot in 2004, it was defeated by 58 to 85 percent – the last figure rolled up in Mississippi, where black Christian pastors told their flocks to go out and vote down the abomination.
Californians have consistently expressed their opposition and voted against recognizing the idea of homosexual marriages and granting the benefits of married couples to same-sex unions. What is bigotry at the Times is common sense to most Americans.
Homosexual marriage is not in the California Constitution; else someone would have discovered it in 160 years. Where, then, did the State Supreme Court find this was a right?
Four of seven justices unearthed this right by consulting what Orwell called their “smelly little orthodoxies.” They then decided to overturn the expressed will of the voters, declare their opinion and order the state of California to begin to begin recognizing homosexual unions as marriages. And they did it because they know the Times types will hail them as the newest Earl Warrens.
Not long ago, a governor of California would have laughed at the court and told the justices to go surfing, and ordered state officials not to issue the marriage licenses. The voters would have put the names of the four justices on the ballot in November and thrown them off the court, as they did Chief Justice Rose Bird, a generation ago.
We used to have executives and legislators like that.
Thomas Jefferson came into office and declared the Alien and Sedition Acts null and void, released all editors from jail, and refused to prosecute any more or to enforce the law. Andrew Jackson said of the great chief justice: “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”
In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom handed out marriage licenses to thousands of homosexuals. Today, conservative mayors in California, if there are any, might engage in similar disobedience against this latest judicial usurpation of the legislative power that belongs to elected representatives and the people. What’s sauce for the goose, etc?”
In closing, have your city council pass a resolution for the marriage amendment!
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Pat Buchanan on Calif. Same-Sex Law - 1 of 2
Pat Buchanan on Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Law- 1 of 2
cinops be gone Tuesday, May 27, 2008
“A Victory for Equality and Justice,” blared the headline above the editorial. “Momentous,” “historic,” “a major victory for civil rights,” “a scrupulously fair ruling based on law, precedents and common sense.”
This was the ecstatic reaction of the New York Times to the California Supreme Court’s declaration that homosexuals have a right to marry and have their unions recognized as marriages.
Now there may be hugging around the newsroom at the Times, where one senior writer said, a few years back, three-fourth of the folks who make up the front page are gay. But this is just another streetlight on America’s darkening path to perdition as a society and republic.
To declare that homosexuals can marry is patently absurd. The very definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, first and foremost, for the procreation of children.
To say two men who live together and engage in sex can be married renders the idea and ideal of marriage meaningless. The court may declare it, but it cannot redefine an institution that nature and nature’s God have already defined. As they say in Texas, you can put lipstick and earrings on a pig, and call her Peggy Sue, but it’s still a pig.
“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” Christ taught. Through the Old Testament and into the epistles of St. Paul, homosexual sodomy is an abomination leading to personal destruction and damnation, one of the five sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. How, then, can four judges declare to be integral to the sacrament of marriage.
Well, we don’t believe all that rot, comes the reply.
Fine, but Christianity is the cornerstone of Western Civilization. Since the fall of Rome to our time, nations have believed and acted on the belief that marriage and traditional families are the cinderblocks on which a society must be built. When these cinderblocks crumble, the society’s collapses. The truth has been born out in our own time.”(To be continued tomorrow)
Thanks to Bro Dave – Please take action:
Governor Schwarzenegger will listen to your opinion on the “hot issue” of the California Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.
Call his office today (916-445-2841) and listen to the automated voice prompts.
You will be asked if you want to voice your opinion on a “current hot issue,” press 5.
Then it asks if you want to voice your opinion on the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, press 1.
Then it asks you if you support the ruling, press l.
If you oppose the ruling press 2. (Please press 2).
I called early this morning and got through. However, at noon the line was busy.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.
cinops be gone Tuesday, May 27, 2008
“A Victory for Equality and Justice,” blared the headline above the editorial. “Momentous,” “historic,” “a major victory for civil rights,” “a scrupulously fair ruling based on law, precedents and common sense.”
This was the ecstatic reaction of the New York Times to the California Supreme Court’s declaration that homosexuals have a right to marry and have their unions recognized as marriages.
Now there may be hugging around the newsroom at the Times, where one senior writer said, a few years back, three-fourth of the folks who make up the front page are gay. But this is just another streetlight on America’s darkening path to perdition as a society and republic.
To declare that homosexuals can marry is patently absurd. The very definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, first and foremost, for the procreation of children.
To say two men who live together and engage in sex can be married renders the idea and ideal of marriage meaningless. The court may declare it, but it cannot redefine an institution that nature and nature’s God have already defined. As they say in Texas, you can put lipstick and earrings on a pig, and call her Peggy Sue, but it’s still a pig.
“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” Christ taught. Through the Old Testament and into the epistles of St. Paul, homosexual sodomy is an abomination leading to personal destruction and damnation, one of the five sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. How, then, can four judges declare to be integral to the sacrament of marriage.
Well, we don’t believe all that rot, comes the reply.
Fine, but Christianity is the cornerstone of Western Civilization. Since the fall of Rome to our time, nations have believed and acted on the belief that marriage and traditional families are the cinderblocks on which a society must be built. When these cinderblocks crumble, the society’s collapses. The truth has been born out in our own time.”(To be continued tomorrow)
Thanks to Bro Dave – Please take action:
Governor Schwarzenegger will listen to your opinion on the “hot issue” of the California Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.
Call his office today (916-445-2841) and listen to the automated voice prompts.
You will be asked if you want to voice your opinion on a “current hot issue,” press 5.
Then it asks if you want to voice your opinion on the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, press 1.
Then it asks you if you support the ruling, press l.
If you oppose the ruling press 2. (Please press 2).
I called early this morning and got through. However, at noon the line was busy.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage - 3 of 3
Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage Laws- 3 of 3 cinops be gone Memorial Day- Monday, May 26, 2008
(Continued) “Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger – if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians – i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture – will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it – a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed- and this the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists – the terms “male” and “female,” “man” and “woman” will gradually lose their significance.
They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, “male” and “female” are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father – the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.
And what will happen after divorce – which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.
We have entered something beyond Huxley’s “Brave New World.” All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.
Anticipating reactions to this column – as to all defenses of man-woman marriage – that it or its author are “homophobic,” i.e., bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic, that a gay man or woman is created in God’s image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life’s unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person – and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.
That is why Californians must amend their state Constitution.”
Prager is a practicing Jewish American orthodox believer. Tomorrow, we will have Pat Buchanan’s article posted 5/23/08 on http://ww.humanevents.com
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish or Vietnamese.
(Continued) “Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger – if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians – i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture – will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it – a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed- and this the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists – the terms “male” and “female,” “man” and “woman” will gradually lose their significance.
They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, “male” and “female” are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father – the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.
And what will happen after divorce – which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.
We have entered something beyond Huxley’s “Brave New World.” All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.
Anticipating reactions to this column – as to all defenses of man-woman marriage – that it or its author are “homophobic,” i.e., bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic, that a gay man or woman is created in God’s image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life’s unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person – and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.
That is why Californians must amend their state Constitution.”
Prager is a practicing Jewish American orthodox believer. Tomorrow, we will have Pat Buchanan’s article posted 5/23/08 on http://ww.humanevents.com
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish or Vietnamese.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage Laws- 2 of 3
Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage Laws – 2 of 3
Cinops be Gone Sunday, May 25th, 2009
We continue with Praeger’s classic column on California’s same-sex marriage law.
“Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion – or to any past wisdom – for one’s values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America’s values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn’t they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.
Which leads to third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals – the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society’s values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, “the Bible says” ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, “compassion says” ends discussion.
If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Outside the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying prince charming – to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. School boys will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways only. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity – especially females – can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction – until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is “heterosexism,” a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.” (To be continued tomorrow)
With regard to exclusive homosexuality, I believe that scientific evidence and natural law persuade that homosexuality is a choice with some exceptions.
What is most disturbing is a message from Family Research Council, 5-23-08; Restore Man-Woman Marriage in California. reply@frc.org
“Even though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) had vetoed two legislative attempts to create same-sex “marriage,” he has now capitulated and said he will not support a measure likely to be on the November ballot that will make preserve man-woman marriage. Earlier this week, Schwarzenegger even joked that this abusive ruling will bring a tourist boom to California. He told reporters, “You know, I’m wishing everyone good luck with their marriages and I hope that California’s economy is booming because everyone is going to come here and get married.” Arnold has become a most destructive Catholic-in-name-only politician.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.
Cinops be Gone Sunday, May 25th, 2009
We continue with Praeger’s classic column on California’s same-sex marriage law.
“Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion – or to any past wisdom – for one’s values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America’s values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn’t they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.
Which leads to third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals – the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society’s values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, “the Bible says” ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, “compassion says” ends discussion.
If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Outside the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying prince charming – to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. School boys will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways only. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity – especially females – can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction – until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is “heterosexism,” a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.” (To be continued tomorrow)
With regard to exclusive homosexuality, I believe that scientific evidence and natural law persuade that homosexuality is a choice with some exceptions.
What is most disturbing is a message from Family Research Council, 5-23-08; Restore Man-Woman Marriage in California. reply@frc.org
“Even though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) had vetoed two legislative attempts to create same-sex “marriage,” he has now capitulated and said he will not support a measure likely to be on the November ballot that will make preserve man-woman marriage. Earlier this week, Schwarzenegger even joked that this abusive ruling will bring a tourist boom to California. He told reporters, “You know, I’m wishing everyone good luck with their marriages and I hope that California’s economy is booming because everyone is going to come here and get married.” Arnold has become a most destructive Catholic-in-name-only politician.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage - 1 of 3
Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage Law – 1 of 3
cinops begone Saturday, May 24, 2008
Americans seem mesmerized by the word “change.” And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.
Nothing imaginable – leftward or rightward – would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history. Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.
Unless California amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.
And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision – let alone the four compassionate justices- acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it’s no big deal. Hey, it doesn’t affect any heterosexuals’ marriage, so what’s the problem.
This lack of acknowledgment – or even awareness – of how-society changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones – and their millions of compassionate supporters – allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a “right” that had been unfairly denied to gays.
That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion – not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism – ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriage with members of other religions.
But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other hubris and their notion of compassion on their side. (Continued this Sunday and Monday) www.townhall.com/DennisPrager
The question is, “How can we get the content of what Dennis Prager has written into the minds and hearts of voters in Orange County?” Dennis Prager is on KLAC 870 Talk Radio @ 9 A.M. to 12 Noon from Monday to Friday.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish or Vietnamese.
cinops begone Saturday, May 24, 2008
Americans seem mesmerized by the word “change.” And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.
Nothing imaginable – leftward or rightward – would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history. Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.
Unless California amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.
And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision – let alone the four compassionate justices- acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it’s no big deal. Hey, it doesn’t affect any heterosexuals’ marriage, so what’s the problem.
This lack of acknowledgment – or even awareness – of how-society changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones – and their millions of compassionate supporters – allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a “right” that had been unfairly denied to gays.
That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion – not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism – ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriage with members of other religions.
But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other hubris and their notion of compassion on their side. (Continued this Sunday and Monday) www.townhall.com/DennisPrager
The question is, “How can we get the content of what Dennis Prager has written into the minds and hearts of voters in Orange County?” Dennis Prager is on KLAC 870 Talk Radio @ 9 A.M. to 12 Noon from Monday to Friday.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish or Vietnamese.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)