The redefinition of marriage

Ryan Bomberger, chief creative officer and co-founder of The Radiance Foundation (Radiance, www.radiance.life), commented on this “redefinition” of marriage, noting that if liberals are intent to define marriage merely by “who you love,” it follows that any kind of union counts as well.

Bomberger commented, “A handful of House and Senate Republicans have handed the Left a dangerous victory — the redefinition of the very institution that every civilization depends upon: marriage. The entirety of the Democratic Party voted to redefine what God designed. The Republicans who voted against their own Party platform, their constituents, the Constitution, and the institution of marriage helped to pass the (zero) Respect for Marriage Act. This bill sues those who won’t comply with a lie.

“The (zero) Respect for Marriage Act and the First Amendment cannot co-exist. They will always be at odds. This is evidenced by widespread Leftist efforts to force religious organizations and people of faith to bow to LGBTQ+ dogma or be fined, fired, de-platformed, sued and/or bankrupted. The ACLU and Lambda Legal have succeeded in shutting down faith-based adoption agencies for who they are (Christians) and who they love (vulnerable children who need a married mom and dad). In government-run schools, such as those where I live in Loudoun County, Virginia, LGBTQ indoctrination trumps reading, writing and arithmetic and students’ safety. Americans of faith, or even no faith, should be deeply concerned when a government starts dictating what we’re able to believe or speak.”

Bomberger continued, “Voters’ moral dissonance is resounding. Hollywood, news and social media have been relentless in swaying the majority (60%) of Americans to support same-sex marriage, yet half (50%) of those polled simultaneously fear the negative impact on religious liberty. Policies have consequences. Bad policies have casualties. What stops the radical Left from legalizing bigamy, polygamy, incestual unions, objectophilia, or marriages between children and adults?

“Love is love, right?”

Bomberger explained, “The legislation’s text starts off declaring: ‘No union is more profound than marriage.’ This is true. Marriage between one man and one woman — and the family (whether biological or adopted) created by that union — is the bedrock of every society. Sadly, that won’t stop a self-identifying ‘Catholic’ President Biden, who blatantly defies Catholic teachings on human sexuality and our fundamental right to life, from disrespecting and dismantling marriage.

“This is just another attempt by the radical Left and ‘Republicans in Name Only’ congressmen to try to control the language by changing the very meaning of words. They also bolster their false ‘equality’ claims by hitching ‘race’ to ‘sexual orientation’ and pretending that marriages like mine (my wife is Greek/Italian, and I’m Nigerian/Ukrainian) are in any way threatened. Marriages of people of different hues of skin are not comparable, at all, to the redefinition of marriage that accommodates two men, two women, and what will eventually have to include polygamous unions or anything else that falls under the #LoveIsLove banner.

“Section 6 of the bill (which acknowledges the First Amendment’s individual religious freedom and conscience protections) actually contradicts the entire purpose of the law which forces persons ‘acting under color of State’ to comply or be sued. Americans who work for the government, like our brave men and women in the military who protect our freedoms, don’t lose their Constitutional rights. There is predictable irony that a ‘progressive’ bill that claims to provide equal protection under the law proudly treats millions of Americans unequally.”

Respect for Marriage Act does not Respect the First Amendment

There is nothing in the respect marriage act that protects marriage. It was already protected in a 2015 SCOTUS decision. What it does do is weaken the first amendment which guarantees religious freedom--makes it easier and legal to attack citizens whose religious beliefs are that marriage is between one man and one woman. It could be Christian, or a religion you've never heard of, since the definition of marriage in all cultures has always been between a man and woman, even if some had polygamy or polyandry.  Don't be whiffed by any mention of church or non-profits; religious freedom means you don't have to be in a church to believe, worship or pray. The last two years have shown us that churches can't protect us. It created what is called a "private right of action" for anyone to sue any government agency, official, contractor, or partner who did not recognize gay marriage. It could, in other words, become a gay marriage lawsuit machine. Republicans have stabbed us in the back again. Sensible amendments were rejected.

Words, words, words.

Words have always been political. No language has more words than English/American. But with today's deconstruction and destabilization of the 19th century Marxist thinkers, you particularly have to be careful about words. Take no words home to meet your parents until you know what they mean to your grandchildren (my proverb I just made up).

"Gender affirming care" is actually legalized child abuse which includes toxic hormones for children, and amputation of body parts. Pay no attention to those "medical" associations that approve it. There are virtually zero/zip clinical or long term studies, only hunches and hopes, what these zombized lab specimens will be when they are 80.

"Respect for marriage act" is exactly the opposite. It intends to enshrine same sex or any sex or any number of genders or any species into formal, cultural recognition of a relationship which will criminalize you if you don't agree. The most primitive of societies in the most far reaching regions and religions always had a way to formalize a marriage between men and women. They weren't confused. They knew concubines, mistresses, male temple prostitutes and adolescent boys who were sex toys of older men were not marriage partners. They were sex objects. Marriage was for the creation of a family, for procreation, even if that culture had no knowledge of Christ, Moses or Mohammed or a named Hindu God or gods. There are some things pre-history people knew that we're trying to legislate away today in order to destabilize society.

"Inflation Reduction Act" is exactly the opposite. Only governments create inflation, and only governments increase inflation by expanding the supply of money. Both the Trump and Biden administrations threw unreasonable amounts of money at the pandemic on the advice of people who claimed to know how to stop a virus. They then burdened the people who make the money and give it to the government in taxes with lockdowns. Even churches took money to stay closed--the very people we trusted with our souls and our first amendment.

"Climate change" is one of those, of course it does, phrases. But the political meaning is very different than the words. It actually means there is a huge cloud of power hungry bureaucrats who have enlisted science, entertainment, information giants and massive corporations to convince you the tax payer to believe puny, insignificant people, can control the universe. These are the same people who can't define a woman or properly fund the police or can use an attack on Paul Pelosi while police were in house to accuse Trump supporters.

So that's my word story for today. Now a few words from a career librarian: to the victor belong the archives. If you have to go to the victor (Biden administration, Bush, Obama, Clinton, JFK, LBJ, FDR, etc.) to get your information (data, knowledge, news reports, archives), you better have your eye on a deeper understanding of TRUTH before you start your journey.

-------------comment

"Gender affirming care" is probably the biggest lie, biggest inversion of language I can imagine. It's as fake as the penis that is inverted to create a vulva and then call the male victim an actual girl. You don't need a class or lecture in medical ethics to know that the doctors, nurses, and "counselors" are creating, not treating, Frankensteins. To call this abuse "bottom surgery" is absurd. If they actually told the truth of what they are doing, eyes would pop. And if you say "follow the money" and it enriches a huge chain of medical and support staff and leads back to the pharmaceutical companies who will then have a patient--or thousands of patients--for life with bad bones, bad kidneys, bad hearts from hormone blockers--the perps will pull out all those obfuscating terms for compassion and kindness and accuse you of being hateful, of being "transphobic." Would a ethical doctor amputate a leg if a patient demanded it? Why are they amputating breasts of young, under age girls?

And btw, why do lesbians and homosexuals want these goons and abusers in their camp? Haven't they spent decades claiming they are not pedophiles, and now they take the T and the Q into their acronym?