In a landmark opinion, a divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that same-sex couples can marry nationwide, establishing a new civil right and handing gay rights advocates a historic victory.
In the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent.
The entire reason the GAY agenda was forced upon the American people was so that the ELITE who want a one world government could bring down the Christian Churches. A One World Government where the people have no rights, no socio-ethnic identity, no religious beliefs, no morality this is what the ELITE are working towards.
In order for the ELITES who are re-engineering the cultural identities of all mankind have begun by erasing the Folkways which are often referred to as "customs." They are standards of behavior that are socially approved but not morally significant. They are norms for everyday behavior that people follow for the sake of tradition or convenience. Breaking a folkway does not usually have serious consequences. A Folkway is One Man adn One Woman constitute a marriage, a family unit.
Mores are strict norms that control moral and ethical behavior. Mores are norms based on definitions of right and wrong. Unlike folkways, mores are morally significant. People feel strongly about them and violating them typically results in disapproval. Religious Faith is an example of mores.
A taboo is a norm that society holds so strongly that violating it results in extreme disgust. Often times the violator of the taboo is considered unfit to live in that society. Homosexuality has been for thousands of years and still is taboo among normal healthy Heterosexuals.
A law is a norm that is written down and enforced by an official law enforcement agency. Since, the ELITES could not persuade most healthy heterosexual people that homosexuality is normal they have resorted to FORCING by the threat of LEGAL punishment normal heterosexual people to accept homosexuality.
All of societies Folkways, Mores, Taboos, and Laws have been manipulated and re-written, and forced upon an unsuspecting public. None of this is new, this has all happened before. When the Bolsheviks seized control of a Christian Russia they knew that in order to control the populace they would have to destroy the Russian people and then rebuild them in their image. Stalin took a many tiered approach, the main 2 being the destruction of the Church followed by the annihilation of the family unit. A stable society is so because of the strong family unit and a morally upright populace which is normally the influence of religious faith. In order for Stalin to destroy the family unit he went about setting mother against daughter, father against his own son. The caveat was that through the public schools the Communist ideology was forced upon the Russian children.
Then, Stalin went about dismantling the Russian Christian faith. He did this by closing Churches, making Churches the enemy of the people. Then, Stalin brought the weight of the Communist government against the Churches. The Christian faith was outlawed in Communist Russia. All the Churches assets and property was seized by the State. If a Russian man or woman wanted to work they had to disavow their Christian Faith. If the children wanted to attend higher learning they had to belong to families which did not attend Church.
Once Stalin had robbed children of their parents influence and removed their Christian faith the new generation of Soviet youth would only worship one master the Soviet State.
The ELITES here in America now have the means legally to begin to shut down the Churches. The gay agenda was always aimed at the destruction of the American Churches. Just as Stalin seized all the Churches lands and assets in Soviet Union, the Solicitor General of the United States candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of ANY religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.
He cited a comment made months ago by the U.S. government’s top lawyer on the same-sex marriage case.
“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage — when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples,” Roberts wrote.
“Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38.
There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the protection of the Constitution of the United States of America.