Friday, August 13, 2010

Andrei The farce continues

The activist Judge in California has ruled that "gay marriage" can start in California at 5pm next Wednesday local time provided no higher court issues a stay.

So we will be treated to images of happy couples "going to the altar" and told the march of progress is unstoppable.

Those of us who understand why this is not progress will be cast as "homophobic bigots" which is what this fine upstanding Judge has ruled the majority of Californian voters to be - if you read his ruling.

What is really in the cross hairs here is marriage, a target of left wing utopians for over 100 years.

If they can separate parents from their offspring by separating reproduction from sexual activity then they will have a free hand in creating the new humanity, so the reasoning goes.

Of course the law of unintended consequences applies and the depredations to marriage already accomplished have already resulted in a massive lowering of the birth rate and a demographic crisis, just becoming evident.

What no activist judge can do, nor any court no matter how well intentioned is to make these sterile unions fertile.

They are and will always remain a testament to human selfishness.

3 comment(s):

I.M Fletcher said...

Well said!
Reminds me of some Joni Mitchell song lyrics (which she wasn't applying to this topic, but I think it is universal)

If you're smart or rich or lucky
Maybe you'll beat the laws of man
But the inner laws of spirit
And the outer laws of nature
No man can


Sure, man can try and pervert nature to something that it was never supposed to be and it may seem to work for a while but there are consequences.

wolnosciowiec said...

I don't think those consequences were "unintended". On the contrary, they were well intended by the true architect of all this - just not publicly stated or even understood by many of his servants and - so called - useful idiots.

scrubone said...

It doesn't seem to have made the wider media, but the judge actually lied in his judgment.

He said that the proponents said "you don’t have to have evidence [of their point regarding marriage]" when what they actually said "you don’t have to have evidence because it's already firmly established in previous cases which we have quoted".

Common enough in blogging, but I would have expected this sort of stunt to be a firing offense for a judge.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.