Senator Dianne Feinstein, from the ruined state of California, heads the Democrat’s push to eradicate from the land the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) and not only to eradicate it but to replace it with their embittered alternative called “Respect For Marriage Act” (“RFMA”).
To no one’s surprise, Barack Obama — who campaigned upon insisting he defined marriage as being between one-man-and-one-woman (at one time) — claims his position has since “evolved” and he is said to support Feinstein’s alternative reality. Forget what he said while asking for votes, he was either insincere then or he was an amphibian or some plant species floundering on an ‘unevolved’ lily pad or on an ‘unevolved’ window pot.
Per this Feinstein Fantasy, “Respect for marriage” to the Democrats means deconstructing what marriage is (and that means, per the voters, per DOMA, “one man and one woman” at one time) and discarding that, to replace it with something they’re calling “respect for marriage” which involves a variety of options.
Not to be too astute about this, Senator Dianne Feinstein goes on to assert that this deconstruction-with-fluctuating-terms-replacement “thing” is “gaining popularity” and this is because “more and more people have gay friends…know more gay people…”
This appears to be yet another one of the Democratic Party’s Propaganda headlines: “now” the nation “is transformed” — and by that implication, then, in DNC-shuffle-speak, that means they can now freely promote and implant just about anything (“because you’re now transformed and no longer what you used to be”).
So, in Feinstein’s reasoning, if it can be called that, if one “knows more gay people” then one must attack and destroy marriage, and that attacking and destroying marriage equals “respect” for marriage.
She also claims that what the population “wants” now matters in this regard, what with her strident opposition to what the population “wants” in state-wide votes previously in which “the people” declared that they defined marriage by “one man and one woman” with a rejection of the “gay” contingency or flying-nuts of Feinstein’s newfound embrace for the popular opinion.
Continue on to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Feinstein is a member: “much suffering (because of DOMA so repeal the Act…it’s also expensive” among the various tales told). It’s reported that there was much gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair-shirts with sobs and outcries of suffering if DOMA was not uprooted and RFMA was not planted there instead.
Also to no one’s surprise, there is not much to any news as to testimony to — nor concerns about from — that Committee, however, as to individuals in marriages between one-man-and-one-woman (at one time) as to what damages, affronts, harms or emotional shock-value suffering they and/or our nation’s population might experience if their relationship was altered to redefine what it was they were doing and with whom by the use of the word, legally and socially, of “marriage”. There’s no news nor considerations voiced (so far) from the Senate Judiciary Committee about the vast condemnations and liabilities that would be dealt to religious persons, organizations, even national oaths, documents and processes among other things, should marriage be removed and replaced by various “alternatives” being attempted.
So I note that the Senate Judiciary Committee is again filling it’s schedule with “selective suffering” tales to accommodate the pre-purposed perspective of a Leftwing Senator, Dianne Feinstein, aimed at fulfilling a Leftwing President’s underhanded, sneaky workaround to his campaign promises that now runs contrary to the votes he needs to try to salvage a re-election.
As to state’s rights: if left to each state to determine, the nation overall without DOMA would be fraught with confusing contradictions of laws and relationships and the inevitable massive lawsuits demanding from other states what some people are accustomed to in other states when/as they move around thenation (or even when they don’t but their involvements and associations do). And those who demand discarding marriage unless or until it’s not redefined to address “alternative typing” combinations, those states will inevitably be targeted for destruction by those who demand the deconstruction, recreation of the definition of marriage.
It appears on first blush to be a states-rights issue — each state to determine it’s own definitions per each state’s constitutions and voting population’s opinions on such — but without a federal guideline (or “Act”), then, the attempts to create “alternative” relationships by Left-populated states or even states with Left-populated major cities such as is California’s problem with San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, mostly, overriding the general CA population that tends to vote far more moderately than do the populations in those urban areas, the “alternative” relationships established by some states will set against the traditional relationships defined by other states, and from that, a degeneration of social order nationwide eventually. Because the Left won’t stop with it’s demands for “alternative” conditions to accommodate a minority at the expsense of undoing traditional situations and conditions as required by the general population.
This is one area, marriage, where the “civil rights” complaints by the vocal minority as they demand “alternative” relationships, are nonsensical despite the Senate and Leftwing Senators such as Feinstein claiming that these are civil rights concerns. Civil Rights do not eradicate existing rights for individuals in order to accommodate what the majority deems to be unacceptable of a serious nature, such as destroying marriage as it is defined and has been for centuries to then create some sort of “other way”: “change against the will of the people” — that isn’t what our nation is about and no one who requires such is a credible member of any legislative body who has sworn to uphold, protect and defend, our Constitution. Except, apparently, to Democrats and that includes Feinstein and Obama (“change”).
Persons who engage in homosexual behaviors have available to them all the range of legal options for relationships with others engaged in homosexual behaviors that the rest of the population does, including when compared with those persons who are in marriages between one man and one woman. But the suppressed reality by Feinstein, Obama and their Leftwing peers who seek to destroy and replace marriage is as to the base-motive involved in doing so: it’s not about needing or gaining “rights” by Feinstein, et al., it’s about destroying the rights of others for an underhanded undertow that remains unrevealed.
TO RECAP : popular vote bad and to be denounced when it supports what Feinstein doesn’t (California’s population has voted twice that marriage is defined as “one man and one woman” and that no variations of genders in whatever combinations or numbers of individuals was an aspect of what the voting population wanted or supported or would or has voted for).
RECAP, Continuing : but now that Feinstein “feels” that “the people” “know more gay people” they want marriage redefined because they “know more gay people” — so off with the federal act called The Defense of Marriage Act to be replaced with Feinstein’s wants of an alternative called Respect For Marriage Act.
Apparently, to Feinstein’s wants, defining marriage in the sense that it’s been defined throughout human civilization, means one does NOT “respect marriage” while Feinstein’s proposed legislation will do that by destroying marriage and replacing it with something else. Because you “know more gay people” or something like that.
Note the following:
From “Communist Goals,” (1963), Congressional Record — Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963 25.
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. 26.
Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” 27.
Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.” 28.
Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.” 29.
Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.