Over the last 2 days, the Supreme Court have heard the arguments for and against the Defense of Marriage Act, 1996,  which currently defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

The main issues raised in the Supreme Court this week touched on the role of individual State decisions to allow gay marriage, (so far in 9 States), and the 1100 federal laws which affect all States and define marriage in the traditional way.

If federal law redefines “marriage”, what happens in the 41 States who have voted against same sex marriage?

Would they be forced to accept it?  The majority have not yet decided…..

Therefore, the argument to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, seen as the “problem” area in terms of the law, became the central issue.

The question raised by the judges were essentially, “How can we get around this definition, to embrace all “types” of marriage so they are all treated the same under the law”.

Simple:  If this is about money/taxes and benefits – which the court case seemed to be saying – then call “marriage” between a man and a woman “marriage” and any other type of union a “civil partnership” within the DOMA definition.  Add those words to the federal law and it’s done.

But isn’t it instead about the longer term consequences on our society, to change it beyond recognition?
…are we allowed to say “No” or “lets just wait and see” without offending somebody? Do we have a choice?

Consider this;
1.    If marriage is redefined, where will it stop?  If the criteria is sexual orientation based, rather than biological (one man/ one woman), other groups who think differently about marriage could demand  “equal rights”.

For example:  Could marriage then become legal between one man and two or more woman, as in Muslim societies?  Could they bring a challenge under Sharia Law regarding marriage in the US in States which have strong Muslim communities?

2.  Lesbian, gay, transgender relationships,  are very new to society compared to the traditional marriage set up as defined for hundreds of years.  Children are secure in families and parents try to protect them from minority group influence they may disagree with.

Events such as the Folsom Street Fair, which allows all those with “different” ideas of sexual deviance, to display their “affections” in public.  Psychologists are now suggesting pedophilia is becoming likened to homosexuality.  These developments of “freedom of expression” could become common-place in our local communities as “normal” behavior.

Will those who disagree with the same-sex marriage ruling now be penalized if they don’t comply? Will church Pastors who disagree be sued if they don’t marry same-sex couples?  This has already happened in parts of Canada.

Most of the push toward gay marriage began in San Francisco and so it is not surprising that the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act started with Proposition 8, (the ruling of the people banning same-sex marriage) being challenged from California.

After World War II the US military dropped off it’s embarrassing gay recruits in San Francisco around Haight & Ashbury. At the same time the Hindu invasion lead by the Beatles and several Yogis entered our society. It is important to note here, this was all happening right after the fall of Hitler and his friend the Dalai Lama.

This was a spiritual invasion into western society that very few understand, but everything we are seeing is exactly what happened in Germany before “Nazi” Germany… it too was a “spiritual” invasion of these eastern deities.. This level of Occult is exactly WHY China kicked the Dalai Lama out and indeed fights anyone to this day, who promotes him.. but that’s another story.

Today in this same region of San Francisco it is normal to see naked people walking the streets in bondage and live anal sex acts performed for a world audience all streamed live to subscribers, being created and broadcast from the San Francisco Armory. NOTE: the court, government buildings and the federal reserve are all in the same neighborhood, and those who work in them, live work and play with their neighbors. Yes indeed this government sold the San Francisco Armory to the sex bondage company and were/are very aware of what they are doing in these “Upper Room” sexual debauchery events.

It is also important to note that during Arnold Schwarzenegger reign as Governor of California, Maria Shriver, under the tutelage of the Dalai Lama was brought in to influence “Woman’s Groups” and indeed first hand accounts of Maria putting the screws to Arnold, to sign Gay marriage or else… Once he did, and was no longer Governor, Maria let it fly about the child Arnold had 10 years prior and divorced to gain 250 million dollars to further invest in setting up his un-holinessines the Dalai Lama as the new Pope of the world…but this too is another story.

Harvey Milk, played by Sean Penn, was a close friend of the infamous Jim Jones, who used his sexual christian cult and black followers, to indeed, vote and re-vote, by busing them around to different precincts, getting elected those who would block the feds from investigating him. Harvey Milk indeed diverted a federal investigation away from Jim Jones. What bed fellows? forgive the pun, but facts are facts.

One person lead the movement through a relationship from San Francisco into the East Village in Manhattan NY and from their spawned the movement we see today.

Their focus were “Seats of Power”, Government, San Francisco Supreme Court, and Media Manhattan New York.

Important to note that despite the good citizens of California striking down gay marriage, out of San Francisco Supreme Court the Gay judge, involved with his neighbors and friends, as described above, over turned millions of voters in favor of the sexual deviance coming out of his neighborhood, to indeed affect the entire world.

Fox recently asked “Why do the muslims hate us?” Could it be the immorality we push via our media to an unsuspecting world?

Marriage as an institution has already suffered at the hands of historical social “norms”. In western society today we are reaping the legacy of the “progressive” 70’s and 80’s era of drug addiction and sex outside of marriage, with abortion used as the latest form of birth control today.  Where does someone’s moral opinion count?

Who is paying the price?  Our children of course !

The court mentioned that this was very much in the experimental stage –  to see the affects long term requires a 40 year span of time before the affects on children and family could be measured effectively.

So,…..will we see more mentally mixed up and abused children grabbing guns and mass shootings?  Who can tell…

Where is the nurturing mother in a sodomite male on male union who adopt children?  Nature made women nurturers……so how will this work?

Our future generations are at stake, and therefore the Supreme Courts decision will be life changing for us all .

3.   The country is already in crisis from a financial recession and on the verge of breakdown – Has the cost of this decision really been calculated?

In financial terms – who will pay the extra benefits and cover the loss of revenue, if this opens the floodgates for every “type” of “challenge” to federal law, decided by a minority group?

Note: California is on the verge of collapse and it is the largest economy in the USA. Depending on how this case goes, it could take California over the edge…
Has the cost been counted?

Isn’t this case about more than discrimination to a minority group who wish to achieve benefits for themselves?

Isn’t the real issue brought before the Supreme Court fundamentality challenging the solid principles of our society?

Legal discussions take no account of the implications on our society in general, because they decide on the individual outcome on a case by case basis usually. However, with the DOMA question, their vital decision will rule over the desires of ALL individual States, (the majority of whom have not embraced gay marriage), and shows clearly that the Law will not protect our nation from erosion and harm, where moral or spiritual issues are at stake. Let us hope they make a decision for the greater good, rather than just the legal dilemma brought before them.