The May 15, 2008 California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage in the nation's most populous state almost certainly means same-sex marriage will be an issue in this fall's presidential campaign. We can't say that pleases us, but the California court leaves the political culture little choice. When all is said and done, the decision handed down is outrageous, not just because it redefines marriage and, therefore, ultimately, the definition of what has constituted “family” in this nation since inception, not to mention thousands of years of western culture. It is outrageous because four unelected robes effectively rescinded the ban on gay marriage and, thereby, overturned the will of 61% of the California electorate — 4,618,673 of them to be precise — who voted in 2000 to preserve marriage in state law as the union of one man and one woman. The essence of any democracy rests, ultimately, upon the right of people to decide for themselves the moral rules that govern the nature of the society in which they live. Without that power, they are living under an oligarchy, which this scenario amply demonstrates can be wrought in this country through judicial tyranny. What’s more, anyone who thinks that the watershed issue of same-sex marriage is ultimately about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms or a fundamental constitutional right to marry whomever we fall in love or want to form a family with, regardless of their gender, is being either naive, misinformed, misled...or, simply, disingenuous.
We have no Catholic affiliation, but we urge you to view this special AirMaria report regarding the status of religious liberty in America, relative to the ongoing push by activist homosexual lobby groups for full same-sex marriage rights in America. For indeed, anyone who does not recognize or understand the inherent conflicts between same-sex marriage rights being entrenched into law and our religious liberty — and, yes, even our free speech rights — had best wake up and smell the stench of what's festering right under our noses. Moreover, do not expect to be objectively informed on the issues by a largely liberal media that keep us distracted with trivial pursuits and inane drivel disguised as entertainment. As we argued in our last few blog entries, much of the media are now so closely aligned with the LGBT agenda, or involved in heretic pursuits that there is no longer a discernible difference in their apparent cohesive mission with respect to normalizing and legitimizing homosexual behavior.
The video references a March 26, 2007 debate within the Connecticut Senate regarding raised House Bill 7395: An Act Concerning Marriage Equality. It highlights the testimony of Brian Brown, Executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, who was grilled by the Senate Committee on the question of whether same-sex marriage constitutes a civil right and, unbelievably, even the propriety of his own religious convictions. Mr. Brown, quite rightly, stood his ground and defended both traditional marriage and his religious liberties in a very eloquent and courageous way. But, as the decision by the California Supreme Court to declare as unconstitutional the state ban on same-sex marriage so clearly demonstrates, the kind of orchestrated assault to which Mr. Brown was subjected has not stopped at the Connecticut state line. Indeed, this video presents a good synthesis on what likely happened in the California Supreme Court debate and decision-making process and, indeed, what is happening — and is likely to happen — in state legislatures and judicial branches all over the country.
Moreover, there can no longer be any question that our religious liberties are, indeed, under fire. Just ask Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., whose Hope Christian Church is targeted for an unsolicited visit on May 25 by Soulforce, an activist homosexual lobby group, whose stated mission is to “cut off homophobia at its source — religious bigotry.” In their attempt to encourage the inclusion of gay families in churches, Soulforce has targeted for similar visits Pastor Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church (May 11), T.D. Jakes’ Potter’s House (May 18), Bishop Eddie Long’s New Birth Missionary Baptist Church (June 1), Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek Community Church (June 9), and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Community Church (Father’s Day, June 16). To which we say, categorically, that homosexuals should always be welcomed within our churches. Christians are called to love the sinner — every kind — not the sin. What remains unclear, however, is whether, by their presence, Soulforce expects the gospel message will be tailored — censored, if you will — to exclude any discussions of, or references to, their lifestyle. But more importantly, when did preaching gospel morality for all people become a form of oppression?
The saying is that “as goes California, so goes the nation.” Therefore, those of us who understand what’s really at stake in the battle for marriage as “the union of one man, one woman” had best arm ourselves with a full understanding of the causal issues, and what the arguments on each side are ultimately about. Our opponents are well organized and seriously vested in their game plan. Typically, they oppose any due process that allows the electorate to decide on the definition of marriage, and claim that the Federal Marriage Amendment Bill or a state marriage amendment is unnecessary. But this argument is not just hypocritical and devious; it is outright absurd, especially in light of what has now taken place in California, not to mention Massachusetts in 2003. The “unnecessary” argument, we now know, is a thinly veiled ploy to leave marriage vulnerable to judicial and legislative attack, exactly as several social scientists and conservative think tanks had warned several years ago. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, judicial tyranny can spread to other states. Unlike the Massachusetts ruling, there is no residency requirement for same-sex marriage within California, which could effectively force gay marriages to be legally recognized with the full benefits of marriage in states like New York that do not yet expressly have a constitutional amendment banning such unions. In fact, New York's highest court handed same-sex marriage advocates a recent victory by refusing to hear an appeal on an appellate court's groundbreaking ruling that recognized a same-sex couple's Canadian marriage. “If a marriage is valid in the state or county in which the marriage took place, New York law generally requires the recognition of that marriage,” said Arthur Eisenberg, the NYCLU's legal director. “This case involved a straightforward application of that principle.” By letting the earlier ruling stand, valid out-of-state same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of New York.
Ultimately, every state without a constitutional amendment faces the exact same threat as California. Including the results of the 2006 midterm elections, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil unions, twenty-five states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs).
As revolutionary — or conservative, depending on your worldview — as one might deem it by today’s standards, The Real Proposal magazine endorses neither same-sex marriage, nor civil unions or domestic partnership agreements for either same-sex or heterosexual couples as a matter of basic "fairness" for the very reasons that the California Supreme Court handed down its ruling. Essentially, the court put no stock in the state's argument that same-sex and opposite-sex couples already have equivalent rights under California law. In fact, the 4-3 majority found that the Legislature's decision to treat gay relationships as worthy of marriage-like benefits actually bolstered the plaintiffs' argument that domestic partnerships are discriminatory. Since the Legislature has treated same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally, said the court, withholding the marriage label from gays is a "mark of second-class citizenship." Ironically, the court suggested that it might have reached a more moderate conclusion — such as requiring the Legislature to institute domestic partnerships, rather than to redefine marriage — if lawmakers had not already given substantial benefits to gay couples.
Once “compromise” and “fairness” become the moral standard on which laws are based, as opposed to what’s right, there will always be a slippery slope that descends into the kind of ideological morass that we now find ourselves embroiled. Those who have been around the block a few times know this only too well. Compromise in integrity and righteousness always leads to more of the same. And, today, many of us who love this country look on in disbelief at the current cultural landscape — rife with divorce, cohabitation, promiscuity, sexually transmitted disease, single moms, ill-mannered children, failing public schools, substance abuse, domestic violence, abortions, pornography and incivility — and don’t seem to be able to connect the dots regarding how America fell this far this fast.
The gold standard for marriage has always been and should always be “the union of one man, one woman, for life.” Period. No good can result from repeatedly lowering the bar. And, any deviation that society places a stamp of approval on will ultimately lead to familial and societal chaos. Indeed, the court found that California's domestic partnership law, which constitutes marriage in all but name, violates the civil rights of gay citizens. "Separate but equal" in the matter of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, they ruled. Never mind that the "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions, or that laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of behavior or actions. Which sane person could deny the importance of discriminating against certain types of actions? No one is making a ruckus that we have laws that “discriminate” against murderers, thieves, child molesters, cheaters, liars, etc. because their behavior is unacceptable for civilized society. And until Lawrence v. Texas, homosexuality in every state was deemed unacceptable behavior for a host of very valid reasons, including public health.
Moreover, the argument that homosexuals have not been allowed to marry is simply not true. The truth is that, up until the Massachusetts ruling in 2003, which was effected in like manner through judicial decree, everyone in America has had the right to marry…just not someone of the same sex! And if they want marriage, homosexuals should be expected to follow the same rules everyone else does, not have special interest privileges — compromises, essentially — entrenched into law. Furthermore, analogies with bans against interracial marriage are, in a word, bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions. The definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not establish a sexual caste system, or relegate one sex to conditions of social and economic inferiority the way it did for blacks in this country. It does, to be sure, deny the recognition as lawful "marriages" to some forms of sexual combining — including polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, and same-sex relationships. But there is nothing invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual wants or proclivities as equal. People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not.
People in favor of homosexual unions and gay marriage typically argue that if gays are allowed to marry, it will not hurt their own marriage. Therefore, why should they care about gay marriage? They also argue that society should not dictate whom we should love. Both of these, however, are ad hominem arguments that obfuscate the real issue by changing the subject. The issue of gay marriage is ultimately about whether or not we, as a society, will confer the moral equivalence of heterosexual relationships to homosexual unions. And those of us who disagree with such liberal — and, some would argue, even immoral — thought have as much right as anyone else to dissent privately, or in the public square without censorship, fear of harassment, or reprisals. In any event, the faulty, underlying premise of these arguments is that gay marriages and relationships do not intrinsically affect anyone else’s marriage or relationships at a personal level. But we are certain that the spouses that have lost their marriages by the “coming out” of their closeted counterparts previously on the "down low", and those children that are devastated by a change in the sexual orientation of a parent would beg to differ. Moreover, such arguments are logically flawed. If we only cared about laws that affected us directly in a radical individualistic way, as opposed to those that affect families, societies, and nations, then we shouldn’t oppose child molesters, drug abusers, wife beaters, or a host of other gross violations that don’t directly affect us. Furthermore, it is the institution of marriage and, therefore, the fundamental essence of marriage as the union between one man and one woman that is being challenged and overturned. And it is only by being disingenuous and self-serving that anyone could argue in any reasonable debate that there are no psychological and developmental consequences for the offspring produced by, or engineered for such unions. Men and women — regardless of what feminists preach — are not social constructs with different genitalia. Neither are they interchangeable parts in a family equation.
What makes the California ruling so remarkable — and suspect — is the fact that it is the first court since Massachusetts in 2003 to rule that prevailing marriage laws constitute unconstitutional discrimination. Courts in Maryland, New York, and Washington as well as three international courts have since rejected that argument and upheld marriage laws against claims of discrimination. Now, however, every state without a constitutional amendment faces the exact same threat as California of having un-elected judges trample the will of the people. But thanks to the 1.1 million Californians who signed petitions to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November, activist judges will not have the last word in California. California voters will. And that’s a good thing, considering the fact that California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s stance on this judicial ruling is a disgraceful betrayal of public trust. Imagine the hubris, which leads him to believe that the majority of his constituents have no idea what's best for them, or that his allegiance is better served at the altar of the Supreme Court than those who put him in office and made clear their will through Proposition 22. The truth of the matter is that, by this ruling, 61 percent of Californians — his constituents — have been deemed bigots. And, as the AirMaria video so forcefully highlights, there are consequences for such “bigotry” if this ruling stands without a constitutional amendment from either the federal or state legislature.
Without question, the California Supreme Court decision to strike down that state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional is playing with fire. It will radically change society as we have known it in ways that are still unimaginable to most people. And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of the millions who support this decision — let alone the four "compassionate" justices — acknowledge this. Ultimately, the definition of marriage is not a judge's decision. It's not a politician's decision. God help us to do not what is politically expedient but what will preserve what our founding fathers intended as a legacy for our progeny. God help us also to win this battle for our freedoms, and America’s soul.
21 comments:
Your arguments are right on point. Homosexuals do not want "tolerance". They want their lifestyle to become mainstream, and people better wake up before we are all subject to homosexual tyranny. The rabid way they go after dissenting voices, especially high profile ones is admirable, were it not for the fact that their message and lifestyle have toxic consequences. There can no longer be any doubt that homosexual activists are looking to criminalize as "hate speech" any opinions that speak against their lifestyle, religious or otherwise. It's already happening with alarming frequency not just in Canada, but here in the US as evidenced by some of the articles posted on your main web site. I have learned so much about this subject since stumbling upon your site. There is nothing else like it on the web that compiles all the issues.
All along, gays have been arguing that they only want the same rights as heterosexual people...the right to visit a partner in the hospital... insurance benefits... rights to inheritance, etc. I’ve always contended these arguments are a red herring, if you will, and that the “gay marriage” issue has a deeper agenda since most of their issues can be satisfied by existing types of legal contracts drawn up between consenting parties. Legally drafted wills, living or otherwise, for example, do not discriminate.
Wow. This is amazing. Incredibly well-written and researched. Your arguments are based on a very good understanding of the American political system, and what you are saying makes perfect sense.
Let's pray that the people of California get this amendment passed, and that 8 years has not derailed their stance on the issue.
Anyone who thinks religious liberty is not under attack in this country had better look at what's happening in the political arena right now with the candidates running for the presidency. First it was the public skewering of Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright for his controversial comments on race, which were deemed "hate speech". But look now at the Democratic response in the public burning at the stake of Pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley for their views of the Catholic Church, Jews, and the Muslim faith. Republican John McCain on Thursday rejected endorsements from these two influential but controversial televangelists, saying there is no place for their "incendiary" criticisms of other faiths.
It seems that in America today the fictitious "separation of church and state" only works when it is expedient to trample on the beliefs, true or otherwise, of the church. Regardless of how "incendiary" their remarks, if this is still America, then these pastors have their First Amendment rights to spout whatever they want. People in the pews are not mindless followers and need to judge, by the scriptures, whether what these pastors are saying is TRUE...not whether it is politically expedient or politically correct. If preachers are being accused of "hate speech" then it is only a matter of time before religion is crimilaized, as it has been under Communist regimes....but then again I see from one of your links that the homosexual "game plan" put forward by the Harvard trained marketing professionals was patterned off the brainwashing techniques that were used in China. Thanks for a very informative piece.
People wake up! Pay attention to what's really going on here. If you still think you don't have to get involved because the issues are not affecting you personally right now, it soon will...and you are being as ignorant as the people that believe the fire burning down their neighbor's house won't spread to theirs. But by proxy, whether you want to or not, everybody will be drawn into this arena because, if entrenched in law, the homosexual agenda and their political bullyism will eventually have a trickle down effect on the schools, churches, and every area of our lives that are in any way shape, form or manner presently governed by moral principles. So stay tuned, it's coming to a house near you....soon.
Very well written piece according to standard I am coming to expect from your site. But my question continues to be: WHY, if gays and lesbians are attracted to their same gender, does one part of the "couple" typically gravitate towards looking and acting like a member of the opposite sex?? I don't get that. Still sounds like a gender identity crisis disorder to me.
We find ourselves in this scenario as a society for the same reasons that we find ourselves in a dilemma as parents when we fail to discipline our children for BEHAVIOR that we find unacceptable. If our society and our government weren't so willingly to COMPROMISE our moral values (you hit the nail right on the head with that argument!), and accomodate illicit BEHAVIORS that have negative effects on society through all kinds of benefits and laws that confer legitimacy to illicit BEHAVIORS, we wouldn't find ourselves in this position now having to contemplate legitimizing what is clearly deviant BEHAVIOR through same-sex marriage.
It is out of LOVE for our children that every responsible parent recognizes the virtue of teaching discipline and restraint to them. And you are exactly right. It is because our laws (and our current moral values) have failed to adequately discipline the negative BEHAVIORS that have created "divorce, cohabitation, promiscuity, sexually transmitted disease, single moms, ill-mannered children, failing public schools, substance abuse, domestic violence, abortions, pornography and incivility" that we now find ourselves bending over backwards to accomodate homosexual BEHAVIOR. The government through laws are precisely the arbiter of societal behavior and because we have failed to use the rod, we have spoilt the child!
Well researched piece. Really interesting link on the woman trying to live a normal life with a gay man. The bottom line is a family should include a (male) father and a (female) mother -- how crazy is it that we have to specify the gender in these times? -- and even though there are other permutations, by chance or chioce, these families may survive but they never get to the successful happy state that God intended. Last week, I was reading an article about a divorced mother who was lamenting the fact that although she may try, she can never be a father figure to her children...she is still just their mother with all that goes with that role, but she can never be her children's "father" no matter if she tries to mimic what she thinks are father-like activities. GAY marriages (what a misnomer!) with two people of the same sex trying to divide roles are doomed to fail... and will royally mess up the generations that follow.
People keep arguing against a "ban on gay marriage" but for centuries, marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman. Therefore there is no "gay marriage".... much less "gay marriage" that should be banned....but tell that to the judicial tyrants in California I guess. An oxymorom maybe, but intelligent people can still be so ignorant.
Very Interesting reading.... and I agree with the poster "Tough Love" completely.
Another argument that some people have in this whole debate is, even if marriage is defined as one man and one woman, then why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? But do these same people realize who is left picking up the tab for people's "indiscretions", their failed relationships and crazy choices??? You and me...the tax payers of this country! I was reading an article the other day that was talking about the high cost of immorality, and it seems that family breakdown through divorce alone is now costing taxpayers some $112 billion ANNUALLY. Now who in their right mind could argue that this is not money that could be better spent by the government on things like health care or social security benefits??? Imagine what those costs will be when we added the social cost of divorce for same sex couples who also seem to be divorcing at the same high rate as heteros and will add even more dysfunctional children into the mix...
There ARE public consequences to what people call "private" sexual behavior.....and in any society an individual’s rights should never trump the greater good of society. Our right to privacy can and should never be extended to any and every consensual behavior. And, contrary to what is "cool" to spout in our current pop culture, it's not just my business what people do in the privacy of their homes but also yours!
Well said...and kudos for your fearless voice to speak up boldly in these times. The economics and education of homosexuals makes them prime players in a capitalistic society. Money means power, and education means the knowledge to use that power to gain more. Homosexuals have demonstrated very clearly that they have access to the leadership in media, government, education, business and other centers of influence (like the judiciary) as well as access to capital to fund their rabid strategies to demonize all who speak against their lifestyle. These are hardly traits of an oppressed minority.
"Vanessa" raised the issue of "why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place?"
Marriage is the law's business because at the end of the day marriage is not about "love" but the binding contractual agreements that are established between the consenting man and woman and the obligations they have to whatever children that result from such union. We do a disservice to those children by removing marriage's focus from that most basic priority.
If society desires a medium to express mutual love between two adults, we should try poetry.
Anyone who thinks legalizing "gay marriage" won't affect them personally is living in a fantasyland. Once "gay marriage" is legalized, public schools (as is already happening in Boston) will be required to teach that "gay marriage" is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage. Gay couples will have the legal right to adopt, thus competing with heterosexual couples who want to adopt a limited number of available babies. Innocent children will be adopted and raised by "two mommies" or "two daddies"... and will be telling YOUR children about it. Business owners will be required to provide financial benefits to people engaging in behavior they find abhorent. Without some kind of exclusion clause, churches would be required to make their holy sanctuaries available for same-sex marriage ceremonies, which their doctrine typically finds "an abomination". The list goes on and on.
As you have pointed out, we cannot sanction and entrench into law every kind of sexual combining.
I have news for gays. Society could confer upon them all the rights and benefits of heterosexual couples, including marriage, but they will NEVER find the lasting peace they are looking for within their spirits. That element is not conferred by society or their laws, and their internal battles will continue to rage as long as there is a God that created us MALE and FEMALE....last time I heard He was eternal, from everlasting to everlasting.
I pray that at these "unsolicited meetings" the Soulforce homosexual lobbyists targeting the churches led by Pastors Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, Bishop Eddie Long, Bill Hybels, and Harry R. Jackson, Jr. will be shown a clear and proper demonstration of "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Without a question the Church needs to respond and reach out to homosexuals with love and a message of grace, but they cannot be intimidated by the gay rights movement. God is still in control. So I see these meetings as a great opportunity to plant seeds of repentance in the hearts of these people some of whom may never have accurately heard the message of God's love for them, especially when we still have crazies out there like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Homosexuality is not the most heinous sin or the only sin denounced in the scripture, and we need to let homosexuals know that the Church in an equal opportunity house of prayer and repentance.
You've got that right that we won't hear objective commentary from a largely liberal press on the issues surrounding same-sex marriage or gay rights. Check out this May 24, 2008 piece in Time magazine, in which it is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between what they are reporting as "news" as opposed to "opinion".
Entitled "Roadblocks Ahead for Gay Marriage" http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1809290,00.html
Author Michael Lindenberger, obviously a gay rights supporter, writes about the California decision, "such split decisions are a classic recipe for intervention by the Supreme Court. The justices' conservative bent might spell trouble for gay plaintiffs, but the court's most recent decisions on gay rights have been mixed, and the presidential election could have an impact who will be beneath the robes by the times the cases are heard. But come what may in Washington, last week's decision in California made history by putting the history of gay Americans' struggle for civil rights in the same sphere as earlier American struggles by women, African-Americans, Jews and others who have faced discrimination. That remains the case — and the law in California — no matter what Golden State voters decide in the fall."
Thanks to your artice, however, I now understand that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between the struggles of homosexuals vis-a-vis women, African-Americans, Jews etc. Those are physical, characteristics that are unchangeable...these are PEOPLE.... and this is what the "equal protections" clause relates to. Homosexuality, regardless of whether gays are born that way, requires an ACTION. That's a very significant shift in understanding and I can see how it serves the interests of gay activists to have people believe otherwise.
No puff piece here. Your arguments are on point, and John McCain probably should have been apprised of them before his Ellen DeGeneres interview. It's become the norm for same-sex marriage advocates like her, for their own self-serving interests, to redirect any public discussion towards personalized terms, and when they do so it is imperative that "traditionalists" re-cast the discussion back to the broader terms, which is why the Ellen DeGeneres interview with John McCain so irked me. I cannot believe that someone running for public office much more the Presindency of the United States is still so ill-equipped to make the proper arguments for what he claims to believe about this issue. What, didn't his handlers and PR people who were knowingly sending him as a guest Ellen's territory expect this issue to be brought up???
Same-sex marriage, as Ellen brought the debate between herself and McCain down to, is not about "my relationship" versus "your relationship." Public policy is not about specific individuals. Likewise, public policy regarding marriage is not about any couple in particular. Marriage is about future generations, and about the ideal setting in which future generations are raised. Sure, some same-sex couples can do a half-decent job at raising kids, while some heterosexual couples screw-up their kids royally. But again, public policy is broader than any specific couples, and should be based on noble ideals that transcend all of us-- you, me...even Ellen and John McCain.
What if some day researchers discovered genetic links to proclivities like anger, violence, alcoholism, and pedophilia would that justify such behavior? Obviously the answer is no. Therefore, why would we condone homosexual behavior (much more make laws to legitimize behaviors that result from any such inherited predisposition) if we don't condone spousal abuse or murder for those genetically inclined toward anger, violence, etc?? Despite the desperate search for a "gay gene" by gay rights advocates, which they believe would seal their cry for legitimacy, there is no demonstrated genetic link to same-sex orientation that stands up to proper scientific scrutiny, regardless of the propaganda spread in the liberal media. In fact, study after study confirms what several ex-gays are saying, which is that same-sex preferences come from backgrounds of sexual abuse or from families with an abusive, absent, or emotionally distant father and an overly controlling mother. Even if we accept that sexual preferences are genetically determined, sexual behaviors are not unless, of course, we take the low view of man as a genetic robot or brute animal fatally controlled by instinct.
The trillions of dollars spent on the wars on poverty, drugs and crime have failed because these are only the symptoms of the disease. Our social problems in this country are not because of a lack of spending but the decline in moral values. Legitimizing same-sex marriage anchors yet another nail in the coffin taking this once-great country into decline, and while some may consider this ruling "groundbreaking" the only ground you hear breaking is America’s moral foundation!
With a ruling like this coming yet again out of our courts as the law of the land, can we wonder any more why many countries think of America as the "great whore of Babylon"???
Post a Comment