Alan Keyes was America’s Party’s presidential candidate in 2008.
The elitists’ push to legalize, and forbid disapproval of, homosexual relations is the most telling evidence of their hostility toward America’s way of life. It is also the key, in principle, to their thus far successful strategy to overthrow America’s historically exceptional government of, by, and for the people; and to restore unchallenged rule by and for the advantage of, the most powerful elitist clique.
The latest case in point is the ruling of U.S. District Judge Terrence C. Kern regarding same-sex marriage, overturning the amendment by which Oklahomans restricted the State’s recognition of marriage to heterosexual couples. Though the decision contained nothing new, both its content and the manner in which it was argued by both sides illustrate the deadly legal chicanery by which the elitist faction means to dissolve the moral, legal and institutional basis for just government, i.e., government aimed at securing the God-endowed unalienable rights of the people.
Nowhere in his judgment does Judge Kern refer to this fundamental purpose of government. This omission is the key to understanding the deadly legalistic deception his decision carries on. So is the fact that he pretends to talk about rights, but ignores the special natural prerogative that gives rise to the institution of marriage.
He pretends to see no rational basis for restricting the legal recognition of marriage to couples that are, in principle, capable of natural procreation. (In principle, means, of course, with respect to their God-endowed nature as human beings, not their incidental circumstances or intentions.) Yet the unalienable right of marriage depends on the special prerogative (natural command or rule of the Creator) of procreation. Members of a same-sex couple cannot humanly procreate with one another in the natural way. So they have no basis on which to claim the right rationally connected with the special prerogative of procreation.
Read the full article here.
Thanks to America’s Party for the link.
Since the Anglican Church is still technically the official state religion of the UK, the case of the gay couple is a bit more understandable than it would be here. Don’t forget that churches here can refuse to marry straight couples too, even of the same race and religion; sometimes it’s because the minister just doesn’t think the couple is ready to get married. More commonly churches refuse weddings to straight couples where one or both of them does not believe in the particular religion. This should be maintained and I believe it will be, although there will be a few lawsuits by gays and others.
Joe said: “Actually, I believe in the UK a gay couple is suing to have a church wedding”.
Yeah, that’s a stretch. Also, it’s the UK,
It’s beyond me that any libertarians are still arguing this. We should be SOOO over gay marriage already. There are truly life-threatening things to worry about, such as our continung wars and our unspeakable surveillance programs. .
So what? Did they win?
Anyone can sue and get laughed out of court.
The only religions being interfered with are the ones who do want to marry LGBT couples – not the ones that don’t.
We should, and yet the same bad arguments from the hater side keep coming up again and again.
Some states have made it illegal for churches to have gay weddings.. never mind that no one is claiming they are legal marriages in those cases.
False. Marriage is things like inheritance law and hospital visitation (among thousands of others) that are all about governance (territorial monopolist or otherwise) and not at all about religion.
No one is going to force churches to perform gay marriages. Churches today can still be racist all they want and refuse to perform so called interracial marriages (like my sister’s) and the government can’t do anything to them a a result. That “issue, ” like whether or not a couple, gay or straight, can have children (many straight couples can’t) or would eve want to, is yet anoher red herring.
One tyranny is no better than another. If the American gay rights movement starts to try to force churches into performing weddings, I’ll be on your side. Until then, I stand with my brothers & sisters. Liberty shall triumph over tyranny.
Actually, I believe in the UK a gay couple is suing to have a church wedding. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html
It’s not a manufactured concern. It is an eventuality when Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Muslims, Jews, Pentecostals, Mormons, practitioners of the Orthodox faith and various others are forced to go against their conscience in the name of so called “equality.”
Thanks for your comment at 4:15 above, Jed. I don’t need to add any comment, because we’ve been over this several times here at IPR. We should be SOOO past this by now.
The call to “force” religions to perform same-sex weddings is completely manufactured by the right. The fight for marriage equality in America has never seriously sought to force any church to perform any wedding, gay or straight. Mr. Wendt conveniently fails to mention that the Episcopal Church, Unitarian Church, and various other religious communities WANT to marry same-sex couples under the same provisions as opposite-sex couples, but the government continuously interferes with their religious liberty.
Mr. Wendt also ignores that marriage is a family & contractual issue, not a religious one, as atheists marry the same as religious persons, only typically not within the confines of a church or temple. Marriage belongs to families of all types, not just religious ones.
Marriage is a religious institution and obligation that the government should not regulate. While I think banning gay marriage is stupid, if it were left to solely to religious institutons, gay marriage would be virtually nonexistant. Any law that will ultimately (whether immediately or gradually) require a religion to sanction an act that it views as contrary to it’s tenets of faith is in itself an act of aggression and an act of oppression against one’s conscience.
Alan Keyes ran for the GOP presidential nomination in ’96, ’00, and ’08. He was invited to only one debate in ’08 and performed very poorly in opinion polls. Herman Cain, if he decides to give it another go, seems to have replaced Keyes as the GOP’s obligatory black candidate.
If the Republicans take him seriously…
sounds good to me.
Good question, Dave.
Jill Pyeatt> “… if the Republicans take him seriosuly as a candidate, it will run-off potential Republicans.”
The question, then, is WHERE will they run?
“… restricting the legal recognition of marriage to couples that are, in principle, capable of natural procreation…”
You mean our former departmental secretary, who was at the time in her late 70s, should not have married? This guy is just the think to establish a link between Republicans and mature Americans, a link filled with incoming (from the Republican perspective) rounds. He probably would not approve, either, of the colonial New England custom of bundling.
I HATE the stupid argument that people should marry because of the natural right of procreation. His disclaimer about personal circumstances means nothing. I agree that if the Republicans take him seriosuly as a candidate, it will run-off potential Republicans.
“This man would be a superb Republican Presidential candidate. He’s just the thing to convince all Americans that Republicans are raving loonies.”
Keyes ran for the GOP nomination twice, I wouldn’t be surprised if he did so again. It was only after neither the GOP nor the Constitution Party would give this nutbar their nomination that he founded America’s Party & ran as their candidate.
There is NO doubt in my mind that Alan Keyes is the most dishonest and demagogic politician since Joe McCarthy. He would not recognize “the Rational Basis for America’s Liberty” if it walked up a bit him on this nose. If the Bill of Rights doesn’t protect the individual’s right to privacy AND the right to exercise his/her personal, consensual interpersonal relationships as he/she chooses; it protects NOTHING!
His comment regarding, “hostility toward America’s way of life” is extremely ironic and telling.
At one time in our history, it was accepted as “AMERICAS WAY OF LIFE” to buy and sell people
who looked very much like him. At the time there were those who quoted scripture to justify this
‘peculiar institution’, just as Keyes and other ‘throwbacks’ do now.
Who I choose to sleep with or marry is no more the business of intrusive busybodies than is the choice of who or what I worship.
This man would be a superb Republican Presidential candidate. He’s just the thing to convince all Americans that Republicans are raving loonies.
I find it very easy. Liberty does not mean you have the right to use the heavy hand of government to subjugate people you don’t like.
I find it hard to disagree with Alan Keyes