Ripened Fruit

"...the prime social-engineering technology developed by the Frankfurt School, right on the campus of Columbia University in Marxist-leaning New York City -- CRITICAL THEORY -- is diabolical "genius."

*************************************

"Androgyny" is basically the social-engineering technology of turning men into women, and women into men.

Remember, the goal of the Marxist is to destroy the capitalist society and free-enterprise. The Middle Class is the engine of the capitalist society and the Family Unit is the basic building block of the Middle Class. Thus, if the Family Unit can be destroyed, this will undermine the Middle Class. The capitalist society would thus fall into the Marxist's laps "like ripened fruit," as one of the Frankfurt School leaders, Max Horkheimer, actually put it in writing. So, "androgyny" is the technology of essentially confusing the youth about sexuality and family values.

*************************************

Either you get it or you don't . . .
or you'll confront it or you won't.

CULTURAL MARXISM FOR DUMMIES

Gay Marriage: Communism’s Trojan Horse to Secure Final 'Takedown' of Traditional Marriage

Efforts by the far left to take down traditional family and marriage have been long at work. Extreme-left radicals have made their arguments and tried different tactics, starting with Marx and Engels and 1800s socialist utopians like Robert Owen and Charles Fourier, and on through cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School such as Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse, followed by the likes of Betty Friedan, Kate Millett, and assorted 1960s radicals from Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn to Mark Rudd and Tom Hayden. What were once fringe concepts by dangerous extremists on the far margins of society have become mainstream.

READ MORE

The United States of Feelings

Dennis Prager, TOWNHALL:

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the redefinition of marriage seals the end of America as the Founders envisioned it.

From well before 1776 until the second half of the 20th century, the moral values of the United States were rooted in the Bible and its God.

Unlike Europe, which defined itself as exclusively Christian, America became the first Judeo-Christian society. The American Founders were Christians -- either theologically or culturally -- but they were rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Even Americans who could not affirm traditional Christian or Jewish theology affirmed the centrality of God to ethics. Americans, from the Founders on, understood that without God, there is no moral truth, only moral opinion -- and assumed that those truths were to be gleaned from the Bible more than anywhere else.

Beginning with the Supreme Court's ban on nondenominational school prayer in 1962, the same-sex marriage decision has essentially completed the state's secularization of American society. This is one thing about which both right and left, religious and secular, can agree. One side may rejoice over the fact, and the other may weep, but it is a fact.

And what has replaced Judaism, Christianity, Judeo-Christian values and the Bible?

The answer is: feelings.

READ MORE

The 11 Most Devastating Quotes From John Roberts’ Gay Marriage Dissent

THE FEDERALIST:

3 - On the proper role of the federal judiciary

4 - On the constitutional basis for a right to same-sex marriage

1 - On the natural and historic basis of the institution of marriage

2 - On how the majority opinion basically requires legalization of polygamy/plural marriage

1 - On what our Founders would think about five unaccountable oligarchs in robes deciding what does and doesn’t constitute marriage

READ MORE

Marriage

Mark 10:6-9

Jesus said:

“From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

The Gospel of the Lord.

My Father Was Gay. Why I Oppose Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage.

Dawn Stefanowicz is the author of "Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting."

I am a witness and I don’t want America to lose her hard-won freedoms as my fellow Canadians have. Marriage must remain between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

READ MORE

Sentaor Ted Cruz, The Supreme Court, and Gay Marriage

POSTED ON TO THE POINT NEWS

THE TRAGIC AND INDEFENSIBLE SUPREME COURT

Written by Senator Ted Cruz

Wednesday, 08 October 2014

The Supreme Court's decision on Monday (10/06) to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible. By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing. This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens.  Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures. The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word - an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Because of the Court's decision, 11 States will likely now be forced to legalize same-sex marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. And this action paves the way for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage to be overturned in any state. It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage -- but that is what the Supreme Court is implying. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment. Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts. Marriage is a question for the States.  That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws. Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it. Ted Cruz  [Note by JW:  The Findings section of Senator Cruz's bill S.2024 states: "Despite striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) did not institute a new Federal definition of marriage that includes same sex marriage. Instead,United States v. Windsor specifically required the Federal Government to defer to `state sovereign choices about who may be married' in determining marital status for Federal purposes." In other words, the Supreme Court on Oct. 6, with no overturning decision disobeyed its own ruling in Windsor.]

Marriage

All the arguments over the differences between civil unions and marriage are largely meaningless. Once gay marriage is recognized, then marriage becomes nothing more than a civil union. The real casualty is the destruction of the word "marriage", but the left is adept as destroying language and replacing meaningful words with meaningless words.

READ MORE

The Real Story on Prop 8 in California

Supreme Court of the United States

---

DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KRISTIN M. PERRY ET AL.

---

No. 12-144

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Argued March 26, 2013, Decided June 26, 2013 OCTOBER TERM, 2012

Thanks to Diane Lenning for posting this:

Here just part of it! There is more so please read the article. 

CLICK HERE

"Confused about what is really going on with Proposition 8? You’re not alone.

When the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, we fully expected it would do one of two things: either (1) uphold the voters’ right to protect traditional marriage, or (2) declare a new constitutional “right” to homosexual marriage. 

Either way, it would have given us a clear-cut, definitive answer.

But the Court did not reach either result. Instead, it left us in legal limbo, allowing hostile government officials to capitalize on the resulting confusion, and then lawlessly cease to enforce Proposition 8 throughout California.

Let me try to explain. It is a difficult task, because frankly it doesn’t make much sense.


First of all, the Supreme Court did not rule against Proposition 8.


This has been widely misreported in the media. In reality, a bare majority of the Supreme Court Justices (5 to 4) decided that the Court would not even reach the merits of our case. Rather than determine whether or not Prop 8 is constitutional, the majority avoided the key issue by dismissing the case for “lack of jurisdiction.”

Even though our State Supreme Court of California had unanimously designated us—as the Official Proponents of Proposition 8—to defend the vote of the people (in lieu of government officials who refused to do so), the majority of the nation’s highest court refused to recognize our role as the measure’s official defenders.

Unbelievably, the majority opinion said that only government officials such as the Governor and Attorney General can appear in court to defend the law. In other words, the court concluded that government officials can effectively “veto” a vote of the people by rendering an initiative measure defenseless against a federal lawsuit!

Of course the 4 justices of the minority, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, lodged a vigorous dissenting opinion, explaining that the court majority’s refusal to recognize our legal standing could now allow government officials to do indirectly what the law prevents them from doing directly. 


Second, by finding there was no jurisdiction, the Supreme Court also vacated (erased) the Ninth Circuit’s decision declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional..."

"...This is crucially important, but widely misunderstood. Even now, I talk to media reporters who still do not understand that, as a consequence of finding no jurisdiction, the Supreme Court expressly and completely nullified the Ninth Circuit’s ruling against Prop 8, which until then was the only other legal precedent on the books contrary to Prop 8’s validity. 

As a result, the only court decision questioning Prop 8’s validity that remains standing today is the sole judgment of one trial court judge in San Francisco from 2010.

This is where it starts to get confusing…

You see, only appellate courts—not trial courts—can establish binding legal precedent that renders a voter-passed initiative unconstitutional. So, while former Judge Walker of San Francisco could order only two County Clerks to give marriage licenses to the two same-sex couples who filed the lawsuit against Prop 8, he had no authority to nullify Prop 8 statewide.


Third, the Governor’s attempt to force all 58 of California’s County Clerks to disobey the State Constitution is a lawless act.


The plaintiffs who challenged Prop 8 took a big gamble when they picked which defendants to sue. They sued the Governor and Attorney General (who have no legal authority over the issuance of marriage licenses in California) and only two County Clerks (who also agreed not to defend Prop 8 at all).

As a result, the injunction they obtained, requiring marriage licenses for the two plaintiff same-sex couples, is extremely narrow. As they admitted repeatedly during that case, former Judge Walker’s order does not directly bind any of California’s 56 other County Clerks—the only public officials with authority to issue marriage licenses.

Of course, they were hoping for an appellate court, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, to nullify Prop 8 statewide. But as I explained at the beginning, there is no such legal precedent left on the books today as a result of the Supreme Court's decision “not” to get involved.

That is why the Governor acted well outside of his legal authority when his administration issued an executive order telling all 58 County Clerks to stop enforcing Prop 8, a state constitutional provision. At least 56 of those County Clerks had nothing to do with the lawsuit against Prop 8, and—more importantly—the court judgment against the Governor makes no difference because he is not the “boss” of County Clerks. County Clerks are independent local officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the State of California—including Proposition 8!


Finally, our new appeal to the California Supreme Court could be our last chance to restore the rule of law.


Nine years ago, our State Supreme Court intervened to stop the lawless issuance of same-sex “marriage” licenses in San Francisco, ruling that other public officials, such as then-Mayor Gavin Newsom, have no authority to tell County Clerks to disobey state law.

Today, we face the same situation, except this time it is the Governor telling County Clerks to disobey the State Constitution.

That is why, a few days ago, we filed a legal petition in the State Supreme Court, asking the seven justices to—once again—restore the rule of law and put an end to the Governor’s illegal attempt to impose same-sex “marriage” throughout California without any legal precedent. We named all 58 County Clerks in our lawsuit, as well as the Governor and Attorney General.

After giving our legal petition an initial look, the State Supreme Court issued an order directing the 58 County Clerks, the Governor and the Attorney General to file legal briefs in response to our petition by late July. The Court also directed us to prepare and file our rebuttal briefs by early August.

Additionally, we asked the Court to create a temporary “stay” to prevent the continued defiance of Proposition 8 by public officials while the case is pending and until a final decision is made. The Court denied that request on Monday, but the merits of our case continue to be teed-up for consideration by the Court in August.

So, once again, our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team is hard at work, led by a crew of outstanding attorneys from our good friend and ally, Alliance Defending Freedom.

And once again we need your help.

Will you join us one more time in this important fight to restore the rule of law and protect Proposition 8 against the lawless acts of politicians hell-bent on killing traditional marriage?

As I said, the federal courts have decided to stay out of this issue, leaving it to California to decide. Yet, with public officials determined to subvert the vote of the people at every turn, even if it means gutting the initiative process and ignoring the rule of law, it is up to us to represent the voters and fight with all our strength to protect the vote of the People.

So please help us win this fight in the California Supreme Court to restore the rule of law with a tax-deductible and confidential contribution of any size today.

I hope this has helped to clear up some of the confusion surrounding the unbelievable circumstances we find ourselves in. If it seems to defy reason, you’re right. 

But when our government becomes one of “men” rather than of “law,” the fight becomes all the more difficult… and all the more important.

Thank you for your continued support."
Very truly yours,

Andy Pugno
Prop 8 General Counsel

P.S. The rule of law has broken down in California. The people’s power of initiative hangs in the balance. Please help us win this fight to restore order and uphold Prop 8 today. Thank you!

The only question worth asking about gay marriage is...

...whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn't come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.

The Deconstruction of Marriage

We should demand that government get out of the marriage business altogether!

HotAir.com Politico’s odd question on same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court

Chick-fil-A LA (San Fernando Valley) and around the USA! - UPDATES

This is "my" Chick-fil-A where I spent several hours in terrible (but dry) heat today--wouldn't have survived it without the company providing ice-cold water in plastic cups from big jugs set up on a table outside. Don't be deceived: the line went for a LONG way behind what you see in this picture (Northridge, California) provided by a friend, Ari David and his wife:

Gwilym and Ari David sent this from Los Angeles to
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day – as it is being called was the idea of former Arkansas governor and Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee. But as protests against Chick-fil-A swelled across the country, dozens of groups and prominent individuals joined in support of the company.

From
GatewayPundit

MASSIVE LINES at Chick-fil-A on “National Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” (Updated)

Wendy’s Restaurants in North Carolina Stand With Chick-fil-A

From
PowerLine

Chick-fil-A, live from Peabody (and Minneapolis)

Will post more links as I find them!

A great day in America!!!

From
KHOU-TV Channel 11
HOUSTON, TEXAS

Big crowds gather at local restaurants for ‘Chick-fil-A appreciation day’

From
Republicans for Black Empowerment
HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day 036

From
DAILY MAIL ONLINE
UNITED KINGDOM

Chick-fil-A fans fight back: Thousands swarm drive-through lanes to support fast food chain at center of gay marriage firestorm

LOTS OF PHOTOS!

Here’s a map of the Chick-fil-A visits Legal Insurrectionists have sent photos or videos from thus far:

Legal Insurrection readers’ Chick-fil-A photos

POSTSCRIPT:

Cruz-ing to a Bruising, Catered by Chick-fil-A

Chick-fil-A 'Set a World Record'

Chick-fil-A confirms 'record-setting day' on 'Appreciation Day'

Gray Marriage

A Scene at City Hall in San Francisco

"Next."

"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

-- "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." ~ Abraham Lincoln

Corn-holer-in-chief

THE NEVILLE AWARDS
Obama Accesses his Inner Fabulous - Newsweek Outs the Preezy of the United Steezy

Obama on Gay Rights: “It was something I experimented with in college”

...but he didn't swallow.

Or did he?

California's Proposition 8 defining marriage as between one man and one woman goes on trial Monday

In a case with implications for the entire country, California's Proposition 8 defining marriage as between one man and one woman goes on trial Monday with only private citizens speaking up for the voter-passed constitutional amendment – because state officials have refused to defend it.

Much is riding on the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, for the lawsuit is petitioning a federal court to overturn not just a law, but a constitutional amendment passed by the people and affirmed by the state's Supreme Court. A victory for same-sex marriage advocates in the case could set a precedent for federal courts to overturn every law and amendment in the country currently protecting the traditional definition of marriage.

Read more

There's a pattern that has developed in America and this pattern has its roots in totalitarianism. The will of the voters is being pushed aside, ignored, and overturned by thugs who will do anything to take away our freedoms and our self-determination and the rule of law. Witness how unpopular Obamacare is in the polls and yet Democrats are shoving it down our throats...even to the point of, yet again, determining to ignore the Massachusetts election - Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform.

As for California, I've personally seen it degenerate from, in the 1950's, an incredibly affordable and beautiful place to live to where it is today...and George Will is absolutely right on when he says: Liberalism is What is Killing California".

And it's killing America too.

The real truth about gay marriage

Marriage Facts

CHANGE?

Received an email today...here it is:

Not long ago I read a joke. It said all the politicians running for president are promising change to the American people:

We send them billions and billions of tax dollars and they send us the change.

Funny?

Not really. There's too much truth in it to be very funny.

That got me to thinking: Hey all promise change...how about if they run on a promise of restoration rather than change! A restoration that would take us back in time to a place where things ran better, smoother and life was more enjoyable.

Change? That, in truth, is what they have been giving us all along.

• We used to have a strong dollar--politicians changed that.
  
  
• Marriage used to be sacred--politicians are changing that.
  
  
• We used to be respected around the world--politicians changed that.
  
  
• We used to have a strong manufacturing economy--politicians changed that.
  
  
• We used to have lower tax structures--politicians changed that.
  
  
• We used to enjoy more freedoms--politicians changed that.
  
  
• We used to be a large exporter of American made goods--politicians changed that.
  
  
• We used to teach patriotism in schools--politicians changed that.
  
  
• We used to educate children in schools--politicians changed that.
  
  
• We used to enforce LEGAL citizenship--politicians changed that.
  
  
• We used to have affordable food & gas prices--politicians changed that, too

One could go on and on with this list.

What hasn't been changed, politicians are promising to change that as well, if you will elect them. When, oh when, is America going to sit back with open eyes and look at what we once were and where we have come and say, enough is enough?

The trouble is, America 's youthful voters today don't know of the great America that existed forty and fifty years ago. They see the world as if it has always existed, as it is now.

When will we wake up?

Tomorrow may be too late. When will America realize--politicians are what is wrong with America?

What is needed is for the constitution to be amended to limit all Senators and Representatives to TWO terms in office like the president.

Oh, by the way, no big pension either, social security just like the rest of us. Being a politician shouldn't be a persons life work but rather a call to service then back to being an honest hard working citizen.

PASS THIS ONE AROUND ---FOR A CHANGE

There are no gays in Iran. There aren't! There aren't!!!

Gay marriage: not legal in California...or anywhere!

"Gay Marriage" Is Not Legal in California or Anywhere Else in the United States!

by Gregg Jackson

Johnathan Rauch begins his article, "Why Gay Marriage is Good For America," (Opinion Page June 21, 2008) declaring: "By order of its state Supreme Court, California began legally marrying same-sex couples this week."

He is 100% incorrect. The fact of the matter is that "gay marriage" is not legal in California because the initiative marriage statute ratified by we, the sovereign people of California in 2000 (Prop 22), enshrined into statutory law that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California," has not been changed. It remains the "law of the land."

The California Supreme Court merely issued a declaratory opinion that limiting marriage to one man and one woman was "discriminatory" and "unconstitutional." The court however, issued no valid or enforceable court order, as Mr. Rauch incorrectly asserts. Under the California Constitution, only the people can revoke or amend an initiative statute. None of the other three branches can revoke or amend one in any way unless the initiative measure itself so provides. Prop 22 contains no such provision as Judge Baxter clearly affirmed in his dissent.

The marriage certificates which have been illegally altered and issued in California with Governor Schwarzenegger's authorization remain as null and void as those illegally altered and issued by former Governor Romney in Massachusetts when he, like Governor Schwarzenegger, speciously claimed that the "court legalized same sex marriage" and that he was merely "enforcing the law."

Whether or not "gay marriage" is "good" for America is worthy of further debate.

As to whether it is "legal" in California, Massachusetts, or anywhere else in America is not.


Gregg Jackson

Los Angeles, CA

Gregg Jackson is the author of "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue by Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z" and talk radio show host on WRKO in Boston.