Traditional Definition of Marriage Under Attack

Today the supreme court overruled California's laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman exclusively.

It's remarkable that those who have taken a stand on marriage and its definition as between a single man and a single woman have now, according to the supreme court today, become nothing more than "bigots".  It is remarkable for the following reason:  Those who have stood up for the bible are now nothing more than some adage decided by vicious leftists who generally hold views not altogether favorable towards tradition, the U.S., and religion itself.

It amounts to hate speech!

If you, as a christian, stand up for biblical values - you are no longer a human.  You are just a bigot.  A racist.  A fascist.  A conformist.

Hate speech is defined according to the world community as referring to humans as something non-human.  For example, the former President of Iran referring to jews as "cockroaches".  By this definition, defining christians who stand up and defend traditional marriage as "bigots" seems to me to be akin to this type of hate speech, functionally.

I'm no longer a christian with deep and philosophical beliefs regarding morality... no, I'm just a "bigot" and anything else non-members of the club of "cool" are defined to be.  I'm no longer virtuous or honorable or an important contributor to our culture.  I'm now, according to the activist judges in the supreme court merely an inhuman, subhuman, non-human person filled with hate against a minority.

The irony is, we are being accused of hate speech on the right - yet the left, in terms of "soft" hate speech is far more guilty of this new way of marginalizing and defaming people on the basis of language and generalizations. We have been accused, as of today, of being "bigots" by the supreme court.  They, to a point, have dismissed any rational reasoned argument from the right on the basis of our subhuman "bigotry".

"They want to impugn homosexuality"
- the supreme court (paraphrase)

In fact, upon permanently defining marriage in its traditional sense in my state of North Carolina the air waves were rife with conservo's saying pretty much the following: "WE are not against gays.  WE believe that gays are okay.  It is GOD who condemns homosexuality."


...and they said it nicely!


But the fact is, gay rights is a stumbling block for the traditions of America and, yea - the world.


My personal thesis is that the supreme court is reacting, to a degree, against the harshly totalitarian laws in Russia against homosexuality - where it is a crime to even acknowledge that homo's exist.  With the trouble in syria and the conflict with Russia there increasingly becoming a problem, and increasingly being blacked out of the lamestream media, the supreme court must see their attack on traditional marriage today as a way of standing up to totalitarianism.

What they fail to realize in their dark little bubble of D.C. is that this is not a sociological issue, but an anthropological/cultural one.  A culture defines what it approves of and doesn't, and it is not the role of a group of former lawyers isolated in the District of Columbia to decide for ANYONE what it should do regarding such minute and delicate cultural preferences as the definition of marriage.

The fact is, we define marriage as it has been for thousands of years.  According to biblical principles.

But the supreme court has overstepped its bounds.  Let's just hope they don't aim their sights on NC, where we have upheld the traditional definition as between a man and a woman in our constitution.