SSM Political Correctness reigns: Where’s Johnny Mc?

An amicus brief, or friend-of-the-court, has been filed with the U. S. Supreme Court, deceptively arguing that same-sex marriage (SSM) promotes family values by allowing children raised by such couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual freedom.”

As of Tuesday, 75 Republicans signed on, petitioning the Supreme Court to grant constitutional protections to SSM. Hollingsworth v. Perry is the appeal by proponents of California’s Proposition 8, which upholds the state‘s Defense of Marriage Act.  This is the amicus brief filed in support of the traditional definition of marriage by faith-based organizations.

In 2008, Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 102, the Marriage Protection Amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, by a vote of 56-44 percent. At the time, the crafty word-twisters at the Arizona Republic, defined the issue as the “Gay Marriage Ban.”

Yet, sticking a finger in the eye of Arizonans, in 2010, while their husband and father was a candidate, both Cindy and Meghan McCain signed on as poster women (scroll down for their photos) with the NOH8 campaign (No Hate, get it?) promoting the very issue that had been voted down in their home state.

In making the brief’s argument that SSM bans are discriminatory, the signatories are at odds with the House Republican leadership, which has authorized the defense of  the 1996 marriage law. Federal law defines marriage as a legal union of a man and a woman. As expected, Barack Obama has weighed in, urging the overturning of the law.

Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act,  was passed by California voters in Nov. 2008, overturning a ruling by the California Supreme Court which had authorized same-sex unions.

Oral arguments in ” Hollingsworth v. Perry are scheduled for March 26.

Jon Huntsman, former Utah Governor and unable-to-gain-traction presidential candidate, doing his best imitation of an anything-goes guy, writes of his acceptance of SSM, illogically calling the issue a conservative cause: “The party of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan has now lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The marketplace of ideas will render us irrelevant, and soon, if we are not honest about our time and place in history,”  Huntsman says.

The Roman Empire collapsed in large measure due to the breakdown of economic, cultural and social institutions — in effect decaying from within. Huntsman and the Republicans who have abandoned their reason at the altar of political correctness, need to reacquaint themselves with the Judeo-Christian, biblical-based values that define the greatness of this nation.

19 Responses to SSM Political Correctness reigns: Where’s Johnny Mc?

  1. Maggie says:

    John McCain is owned by his beer heiress wife. Cindy is the one with the map to their 9 homes. I imagine he’s embarrassed by his tattooed, foul mouthed daughter Meghan. But then again, she probably learned her vile habits from daddy. The list of Republicans who signed on to the same sex marriage brief are called ‘prominent” in the New York Times article. I see a list heavy with has-beens and “formers.“ There are only two current US Reps. But if any Republican senator was inclined to sign on, I have no doubt McCain would do whatever Lindsey Graham told him. Then he’s got to hope Lindsey doesn’t drop down on one knee and propose to him.

  2. Sgt. Preston says:

    Enough, Clint! Take that empty chair of yours over to the corner, face it to the wall, and sit on it!

  3. eubykdisop says:

    Let’s be clear. First of all, both Adler and Jung, founders of schools of psychology, classified homosexuality as “disordered”.

    Secondly, no two people of the same sex can produce a child. It is absolutely biologically impossible.

    Liberals want to take those who have a sexual disorder, and who biologically cannot produce children, and entitle them to marriage, which is at the center of a normal family and child rearing. This is distinct and separate from the plethora of powerful religious and moral arguments against homosexual “marriage”.

    Which people would actively promote homosexual “marriage” and why would they do so?

    Homosexual “marriage” is destructive and those who actively promote it are willfully, with malice aforethought, seeking to destroy. What is it which they are seeking to destroy and why?

    Family is at the center of every culture and every nation. As goes the family, so goes the nation. To attack the underpinnings of family is to attack the underpinnings of the nation and the culture. Who would want to attack our nation and culture and why would they want to do so?

    Communists, of course, have always sought to destroy America but even the Communists themselves are being used and exploited. Who is exploiting the Communists and why?

    The “New World Order” people are using the Communist apparatus as a tool to destroy America. Why?

    The “New World Order” cannot come into being as long as The Untied States of America, as we have known it, continues to exist. Why not?

    The Constitution of The United States guarantees individual rights and liberties which are mutually exclusive with the governing principles of the “New World Order”. There can be only one.

    It is not “Republicans” or alleged “conservatives” who are supporting homosexual “marriage”. Despite whatever other labels these people may carry they are, at their core, “New World Order” people and so are dedicated to obliterating America, as we have known it, to clear the way for the rise of the “New World Order”.

    • Sally Forth says:

      A truly fine analysis, euby. You make the case that undermining the family, undermines the nation. This is the goal of the left. As far as the disordered homosexual crowd goes, they began a concerted effort to mainstream themselves and raising children was an important and integral component. I work with a lesbian who has given birth to three children by means of artificial insemination. Along the way, she has had three serial “committed” relationships. One of her former girlfriends lost a suit in which she tried to get joint custody of the one child that was born when they were living together. And guess what? After each of the births, she and her various girlfriends each took 12 weeks of family leave time, thanks to our generosity.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Thank you, Sally, and the factual events you have shared put the grim face of reality on the situation for us!

    • Hagar says:

      When the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from it standard reference, “The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” there was considerable debate, but very little data presented, as would be required for any other change in the manual.. It was a purely political decision and legitimized the gay lifestyle that is now so in your face.

      • eubykdisop says:

        You’re absolutely right, Hagar, and there have been psychologists and psychiatrists who have stated that and objected to it. That is why I made reference to Jung and Adler whose classification of homosexuality as “disordered” has never been refuted, despite the changes to the DSM.

  4. Kent says:

    As you point out, a two parent home is never a sure thing…whether homo or heterosexual. This is just more posturing. Too bad so many otherwise reasonable people are falling for it.

  5. says:

    The point should be repeated endlessly, that marriage is a STATE managed institution, and each state has the legal authority to define it. States issue marriage licenses, NOT the Feds! If a state says people are not married, they are not!

  6. Kent says:

    John McCain will find a way to be on both sides of any issue, unless it’s illegals flooding our state and country…then he’s on THEIR side, not ours. Look how he’s finessed the abortion issue. Both sides think he’s with them.

  7. Freedom First says:

    If children do well in two parent households and it does not matter if the parents of the same sex or not, then why not 3 parents or 4? Better yet why not 1 parent married to their favorite animal and then children can be raised in a loving family at one with mother earth and the animals that reside with us?

  8. eubykdisop says:

    This article, from the National Organization for Marriage, is a bit lengthy but well worth posting here.

    National Organization Stands With Marilyn Musgrave After New York Times Makes False Claim About Her Signing On To Anti Prop-8 Brief

    February 28, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    Washington, D.C. — After the New York Times was forced to retract its false claim that former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave had signed on to an Anti-Proposition 8 brief to the Supreme Court, Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage responded:

    “Congresswoman Musgrave is a hero for marriage and was the lead sponsor of the original Federal Marriage Amendment in 2003. The fact that the New York Times would falsely claim above-the-fold that she now supports repealing a law to protect marriage without even checking with her shows the desperation of some in the media to push this absurd notion that Republicans support the repeal of laws passed by Americans to protect marriage.”

    Brown continued: “Just last week a Human Rights Campaign-led campaign was forced to remove a picture and quote of former First Lady Laura Bush after they used her reputation without permission to push the untrue idea that she supports the repeal of laws protecting marriage. This is the latest example of gay marriage advocates and the media desperately attempting to create the illusion that Republicans support gay marriage.”

    Brown went on to say, “Of the much-touted so-called ‘Republicans’ named in the New York Times article, only two are currently holding seats in Congress. These two lawmakers, Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York, may claim to be Republicans but they are certainly not conservatives — and NOM will be sure to let their constituents know that these two office holders have abandoned the Republican platform which is strongly pro-marriage.”

    Brown concluded: “If Republicans actually supported gay marriage — an absurd claim — the Human Rights Campaign would not have to spend millions of dollars claiming they do and the New York Times would not have to falsely claim the support of stalwart pro-marriage Republican figures such as Marilyn Musgrave.”

  9. eubykdisop says:

    And, of course, we can count on B. Hussein Obama to do his part in promoting the destruction of the American family, American values, morality and “In God We Trust”.

    “Obama urges court to overturn gay marriage ban”

    “Published March 01, 2013
    Associated Press”

    “In a historic argument for gay rights, President Barack Obama on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to overturn California’s same-sex marriage ban and turn a skeptical eye on similar prohibitions across the country.”

    “The Obama administration’s friend-of-the-court brief marked the first time a U.S. president has urged the high court to expand the right of gays and lesbians to wed. The filing unequivocally calls on the justices to strike down California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure, although it stops short of the soaring rhetoric on marriage equality Obama expressed in his inaugural address in January.”

  10. Hagar says:

    Perhaps BHO pines for the marriage lifestyle his father led.

    • eubykdisop says:

      Your point is well taken, Hagar, in that, if we think about Obama’s situation in his family of orientation, he never experienced or got the benefit of a normal American family. As an adult, he has no idea, from a child’s perspective, of what a whole and healthy family is. Why, then, would he value the traditional American family at all?

  11. patriotmom says:

    Opening the door to gay marriage means opening the door to “genderless” marriage. In effect, moms and dads become simply “parents” and the relationship between moms and dads and their kids becomes something defined by the state- in this case, the Feds. Once that door is opened, there is absolutely nothing to stop the next onslaught which will be polygamy. This is already being mainstreamed through shows like “Sister Wives”. Next will come multiple people marrying ( 2 women and 3 men, for example ) and then the pervs from NAMBLA will push for recognition of adult-child relationships. Incest is also being discussed openly as is bestiality. Where? In our universities, of course.

    Gays are quick to discount all this as they continue their quest to normalize abnormal relationships and push their lifestyles onto the general populace. The security of our children is being sacrificed on the altar of inoffensiveness and political correctness. They will not thank us for it nor will our “society” survive it.

    • Night Owl says:

      Why not normalize the abnormal? The more mommies or daddies kids have the better it will be, right? And if one of their “parents” is the family pooch, so much the better. Having mommy married to Fido is just more diversity. How can we possibly go wrong?

      I share your concerns, patriotmom. When we can no longer discern between good and evil, and worship at the altar of trends and moral relativism, our society is on a downhill slide.

    • eubykdisop says:

      You got to the bottom of the whole thing, patriotmom, when you wrote, “The security of our children is being sacrificed…”

      Communists have always gone after the children and destroying their morals and values would assure that the future morals and values of our nation would be destroyed as well.