Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Justifying Sodomite Marriage … McAtee Analyzing Ginsbur

“[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Here we find this the Luciferian Ginsburg (LG), using a mere five sentences to explain, in oral arguments yesterday, her opinion, as to exactly why marriage was long understood to be incompatible with homosexuality.

We should note here,

1.) If we accept her tacit presuppositions the Luciferian Ginsburg (LG) is right. If one posits an egalitarian (vis-a- vis Patriarchal) foundation for Marriage then sodomite “marriage” makes perfect sense. This reminds us that the contest here must be waged at the presuppositional level. This debate is not primarily about sodomite “marriage.” This debate is about what worldview sodomite “marriage” can exist in in order to be seen as rational.

2.) In order to tease #1 above out it is necessary to observe that LG explicitly begins with the premise that marriage is a man made institution dictated by social and political circumstances. She argues that marriage once operated one way but men changed the way it operated and now, because this man controlled institution changed to become egalitarian, it can now change to become non gender specific.

Of course the problem here is that Christians do not agree that marriage is a man made institution. Marriage, because it is God ordained and defined, cannot be changed in its definition, like a wax nose, in order to satisfy the most current wandering lust of modern Luciferians. Unless we challenge sodomite “marriage” thinking at the presuppositional level of “who gets to define ‘marriage’ sodomite “marriage” will become legal.

3.) #1 and #2 together remind us that this decision is all about religion in the public square. It reminds us that it is not possible to separate Church and State. If SCOTUS requires the legality of sodomite “marriage” in all 50 states it will be due to the religious presupposition that man, playing God, can redefine words and create fiat meaning at the bang of a gavel. Such a decision would provide clear linkage proving that Church and State are never segregated. Conversely, if SCOTUS rules that the meaning of marriage is static and unchangeable that also will be due to some a-priori, (even if left un-articulated in the decision) religious presupposition.

4.) Note how clever LG is when she uses the language of “a millennium ago.”   She is trying to make it sound as if 1000 years ago marriage was one way but now, being so much smarter, marriage is another way for us moderns. However, the fact of the matter is that all this change has happened not over the course of a millennium ago but over the course of just a few decades. Indeed, when LG was married in 1956 the marriage laws then were far closer to a millennium ago then to what she envisions marriage transforming into.

5.) LG uses the term “egalitarian”, but imports her leftist meaning into it. She was talking about old “coverture” laws that provided no property rights to women. She thinks the very nature of man/woman is one of *improper* subordination. We can argue about whether the change ditching coverture law was good/bad/indifferent, but that change occurred in the context of man/woman as fundamental foundation of the relationship. What we are dealing with today is altogether different. It is one thing to tinker around the fringes of marriage amending coverture laws. It is quite another to allow the fringe element of society to redefine marriage.

6.) Note LG rightly defines what marriage once was which she is seeking to change. She is entirely accurate when she describe that marriage used to be defined as a dominant-subordinate relationship between the husband and wife. This is exactly how God’s word describes marriage (Eph. 5). However has the words “dominant” and “subordinate” have been so vilified even Christians cringe when they think of marriage like God defines it.

7.) Allow me to say again that as long as the Left’s presuppositions hold sway their conclusion (“sodomite marriage”) will be impossible to stop. LG’s beginning point (Man as the definer of what marriage is and means) her argumentation used to prove that beginning point, and her ending point arrived at (sodomites should be allowed to “marry,”) is all bound up together. 

Watching The Cultural Gatekeepers Go Mad

The defenders of homosexual marriage continue to equate it with interracial marriage.

Here is a blurb from an exchange between Justice Scalia and Ted Olson:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when—when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?

MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.

JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question. When do you think it became unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? . . .

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.

1.) Inasmuch as Scalia agrees concerning the evolution of interracial marriage from illegality to legality I’m not sure how Scalia can disagree that social evolution continues so as to include sodomite marriage. I mean, if the 14th amendment made a illegality a legality why can it not be determined that the 14th amendment also allows for the next step forward in the evolutionary cycle?

2.) Note that Olson’s invoking of the “evolutionary cycle” as a grounds for ever changing law reminds us that, it is the case now in the West, that law has no stable meaning. Law is no longer a transcendent category that is to be only recognized but never invented. This admission by Olson is a explicit embrace of the idea that we are ruled by men and not by laws.

3.) In the area of Law men like Christopher Columbus Langdell, Roscoe Pound, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Benjamin Cardozo moved the discipline of law away from its Biblical moorings evinced in Puritan Commonwealth documents like “Abstract of the Laws of New England,” towards standards that evinced a humanistic, evolutionary, naturalistic and Statist paradigm. In the late 1800’s Langdell did yeoman’s work moving law training away from a century of Lawyers in America concentrating on what the Constitution said to Darwinian inspired notions of where the law was perceived to be moving (case law training). By Langdell’s work the Constitution came to be seen to be evolving under the guidance of an imperial judiciary.

4.) With the law ever moving in a “evolutionary cycle” this means that yesterday’s criminals are tomorrow’s innovators in the law. In this worldview criminals are only those who are now where the rest of society will one day be.  Criminals are the moral and legal harbingers of the next evolutionary cycle in the law.

In another exchange we hear Justice Roberts,

“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

To which we would answer,

Your Honor, it is only sexual discrimination if you think the definition of Marriage as between one man and one woman is itself discriminatory.  But, I would add, your Honor, that should we conclude that Marriage is discriminatory because it allows only for one man and one woman, we have needs likewise conclude that the fact that only a man can impregnate a woman is discriminatory against women and the fact that only women can conceive children is discriminatory against men.

 

Hillary’s Call To Change

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,”

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will, and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.  As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

Hillary Clinton
Speech — Women in the World Summit

1.) Politically speaking this quotes represents Hillary playing to the extreme left base. Hillary almost has to say things like this because there are those who could jump into the Democratic Presidential primary contest (i.e. — Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren) who could sap Hillary’s support from the lunatic fringe Left (lfl). This isn’t to say that Hillary doesn’t really believe this. It is to say that if she did not feel pressure from the lfl she might not say this kind of radical thing in public.

2.) Note here that we have a full admission of a candidate for President of these united States which explicitly tells us that those who are worldview Biblical Christians much surrender their belief system if they are to be Americans. This is the smoking gun admission that a Biblical Christian will not be allowed their convictions in the public square should they remain in this country.

3.) One can’t help but wonder that if these “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,” how is that to be accomplished? Will we have re-education camps? Will we label Christians who have, what they consider to be desiderata beliefs, psychological unstable so that they have to be treated? Will we disallow them to function in the public square until those dangerous Christians get on board?

4.) Of course this requirement for “full participation  of women and girls in every aspect of their societies” does not include those girls who are tortured and murdered in their Mothers wombs. Those girls must not be allowed any participation.

5.) Notice the totalistic aspect of Hillary’s Worldview Feminism. Her worldveiw must cover the globe.

6.) If Hillary is elected we will have for Feminism the next 8 years what we’ve had for “Civil Rights” the previous six under Obama. Instead of minority rights it will be “women’s rights.” The consequence of both is the advancement of the Cultural Marxist Revolution — a Revolution that seeks to unravel what little is left of Christendom in the West.

7.) One wonders how R2K ministers handle this? Hillary is calling for these changes in beliefs as those beliefs affect the public square. I suppose R2K ministers could challenger Hillary by telling her that their Christian beliefs don’t have anything to do with what Hillary is concerned about and that she can go ahead an change away.

Hillary’s Logo And It’s Connection To Historical Symbols

Note Hillary’s logo.


Developed by a company called “Pentagram.” The two Vertical lines to the “H” look to be twin Pillars. If you remember Barack Obama made his acceptance speech for the Democratic Nomination in 2008 between fake twin Greek Pillars. Historically, in the Occult, the twin pillars are archetypal symbols representing an important gateway or passage towards the unknown. In Freemasonry, the pillars are named Jachin and Boaz and represent one of the Brotherhood’s most recognizable symbol, prominently featured in Masonic art, documents and buildings. It is interesting that a company named “Pentagram,” designed for Hillary a Logo with the Occult Twin Pillar Motif.

The horizontal “forward Arrow” in Hillary’s Logo is interesting also because the theme of “Forward” has been a Marxist theme since Lenin and company and was used as recently as a theme in the 2012 Obama campaign. Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates.  The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

Pilgrims Regress Redux & the Sodomite Marriage Debate

In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis wrote about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”

Today, with Sodomite coupling (“marriage”) we have reversed engineered Lewis account. The account should now tell the story about a man who ordered Cow Urine and Chicken fesus from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the Cow Urine he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied “Cow Urine is only cow’s milk.” After eating the Chicken poop he commented on the tastiness of the poop. Again the waiter responded that Chicken poop is really the same as chicken eggs.

A person at the next table observed all this in incredulity and shouted to both waiter and customer, “You two are insane. You don’t know the difference between what God has meant for garbage and what He meant for nourishment.” At this the waiter and customer along with much of the rest of the customer clientele, who was also dining on Chicken shit and Cow piss, arose to denounce the man who pointed out the insanity of the waiter and customer. They denounced the intruder as being a urine-ist and from suffering from fecalphobia. They insisted that he was a “hater” and demanded to know where his compassion was. They quoted scripture to him about the evil of judging. They insisted that all restaurants, in the name of fairness and equality, be forced to sell Chicken shit and Cow piss to all who wanted to buy it from them as a breakfast entree.

With the normalizing of sodomite “marriage” we are insisting that grotesque garbage is in fact the very same thing as Marriage. We are insisting that we call that which is destructive to human flourishing to be the same as that which is nourishing and refreshing to human thriving. We are in even worst shape then the waiter and customer in Lewis’ original parable. In the orignal parable the customer was at least eating and drinking the proper production of Cow and chicken, even if Lewis’ waiter was trying to draw an equivalency between nourishment and refuse. What we are doing instead is consuming the refuse while insisting that offal garbage is the same as nourishment.

And the really odd thing … the thing that is breathtakingly bizarre is that many in the Church are telling us that we ought to join in the celebration of a grotesque impossibility thus giving our whole hearted approval to the equivalency of someone dining on chicken shit and cow piss all the while insisting that it is really eggs and milk. It is ministers in the Church who want us to call and support a grotesque impossibility as the same thing as “Holy Matrimony.”

Actually, neither C. S. Lewis, nor Lewis Carroll could have ever conceived of this scale of utter madness.