SubscribeWAGE WEB WARFARE AGAINST THE LIBERAL ESTABLISHMENT: Sign Up For The GrassTopsUSA Action Alert And Get The Latest News And  Hard-Hitting Commentaries Delivered Straight To Your Inbox.



SCOTUS Gives "Loving Couples" The Gold Mine - Families And Society Get The Shaft
July 1, 2013
By Don Feder

       Oh give me a home where the loving couples roam and constitutionally-protected sexual choices hold sway.

       Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which essentially said that if a state was stupid enough to establish ersatz marriage, federal taxpayers weren't required to subsidize the travesty.

       Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy – Ronald Reagan's most tragic mistake, surpassing even Bush '41 – said the wicked and iniquitous DOMA "places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in second-tier marriages. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects…."

       Of course, the Constitution does no such thing. It no more protects "sexual choices" (under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) than it creates a sphere of privacy (under the First Amendment) which permits abortion-on-demand. A society incapable of differentiating between a family and a perversion is doomed to extinction.

       Concurring with DOMA's 5-4 majority, the nation's Love Doctor, Barack Hussein Obama, exalted: "I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving couples as a separate and lesser class of people….We are a people who declared that we are all created equal…. And the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." (Emphasis added.) All the love we "commit" – including polygamous love, incestuous love, "intergenerational" love (pedophilia), cross-species love, and masochistic love (taxpayers voting for Democrats)?

       No one gives better platitudinous drivel than the 44th president of the United States – who himself was an advocate of discrimination enshrined in law and of creating a separate and lesser class of people, up until about 14 months ago. Prior to that, Obama said he believed "Marriage is between a man and a woman" and "I don't think marriage is a civil right."

       To fully understand the damage done by United States. v. Windsor (the DOMA decision) – which sets us firmly on the path to the judicial imposition of homosexual marriage nationwide – the ruling must be seen it the light of what the left has already done to marriage and the family in America over the past five decades.

       In 2009, 41% of all births in this country were out of wedlock (which doesn't count the 1.2 million abortions that year). Of all marriages, 40% now end in divorce. The number of cohabiting couples (sociological jargon for members of the hook-up generation sharing two rooms and a bed) increased from 500,000 in 1970 to 7.5 million in 2010.

       Barely half of all adult Americans are married today, compared to 72% in 1960. Among 18-to-29-year-olds – those in their prime childbearing years – only 20% are married now, versus 59% in 1960.

       In consequence, in 2011, the United States had the lowest fertility rate since we started keeping these statistics in 1920 – 1.93 children per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1 and less than half the 1965-1970 rate of 4.85. For college-educated women, it's around 1.5 – the same as aprθs-us-le-deluge Western Europe.

       Having seen what its policies wrought, the left said: "Lo, it is good. It is very good. But we can do better."

       We don't need procreation. (Immigrant workers will be thrilled to provide pensions for a burgeoning population of elderly white Americans, won't they?) We don't need marriage – which tames male sexuality and creates a sanctuary for women and children. We don't need the best anti-poverty, anti-crime program ever devised.

       To paraphrase the Beatles: All you really need is loving couples.

       According to the court's mutant majority, another thing we don't need is representative government.

       In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia charged the DOMA decision: "envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide on all constitutional questions, always and everywhere 'primary' in its role. This image of the court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter."

       As Scalia goes on to explain, five justices didn't just overturn DOMA – passed by a super-majority of Congress in 1996 (85 to 14 in the Senate, 342 to 67 in the House) and signed into law by a Democrat president – it also moved us much closer to the day when homosexual "marriage" is imposed nationwide.

       A few facts the mainstream media forgot to mention, in its haste to abet DOMA's demise:

       Between 1998 and 2012, 50 million voters in 32 states passed marriage-protection amendments by majorities ranging from 52% to 86% – most by two-to-one margins. They include red states like Texas, Kentucky and Mississippi – deep-blue states like Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin and California – and swing states like Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

       By ruling that plaintiffs (the state's voters) lacked standing – after California's governor and attorney general abrogated their duty to defend the amendment – SCOTUS also let stand a lower court decision invalidating Proposition 8 in part of California.

       Even though every mainstream media outfit, most statewide officeholders, and the Hollywood crowd hysterically and lavishly opposed it – Prop. 8 was approved by more than 7 million voters (52%) in an election with a 79% turnout.

       We the People, in whose name the Constitution was ordained and established, have decreed – frequently and volubly, in the only polls that count – that we reject marriage mutilation.

       No matter. Windsor makes clear what will be the inevitable outcome of the current charade. Again, from Scalia's dissent: "It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here – when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congresses' hateful moral judgment against it."

       Besides democracy, loving couples also trump public health.

       According to the Centers for Disease Control (when last I checked, not an arm of the Family Research Council), "men who have sex with men" or MSMs (AKA, male homosexuals), made up 61% of all new HIV cases in 2010, while constituting between 2% and 4% of the male population.

       Conservatively, that means male homosexuals are 50 times more likely to become HIV-positive than male heterosexuals. By contrast, a male smoker is only 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer than his non-smoking counterpart.

       Loving couples are a breeding ground for all sexually transmitted diseases. Again, according to CDC, a male homosexual is 46 times more likely to contract primary or secondary syphilis than other men. Apparently, all of the love they commit does nothing to ensure anything remotely approaching fidelity and restraint.

       One type of family produces children, social order and the future – the other disease and chaos. Which is to be preferred? SCOTUS says differentiation between them is unconstitutionally demeaning.

       But government-mandated homosexual marriage is only part of what awaits us. With the gay lobby, there's always the next big thing. They will demand that you endorse their death-style – publicly and on bended-knee. Ultimately, it's about the mailed fist of the state smashing religious liberty and conscience.

       In Washington State, the attorney general is suing a florist for refusing to provide a floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding ceremony. Colorado's AG is suing a bakery for refusing to concoct a wedding cake topped by two men.

       How long before the agitation begins to take away the tax-exempt status of churches and synagogues that refuse to "sanctify" loving relationships, which the Bible calls another thing entirely? Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, observes that some of those driving the gay agenda have a "malicious intent, and that is to punish people of faith." Which ones don't?

       Chai Feldblum, a lesbian Obama appointed as a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said than when religious freedom goes head-to-head with "sexual liberty," she would have "a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

       Next up, transgender rights. In 14 states, it's already illegal to discriminate against men/boys who "feel like" women/girls, and vice versa. In March, a California lawmaker filed a bill to give the gender-confused a right "to participate in sex-segregated programs, activities and facilities," regardless of the sex to which nature assigned them.

       That means a 14-year-old schoolboy who feels like a girl has a right to shower with and use the public-school bathroom of your 14-year-old daughter. If she objects, she's a hateful bigot who must be cured of her transgender-phobia with counseling and other corrective measures.

       During oral arguments, in questioning a lawyer for gay marriage – who claimed that, of course, there would be limits to deconstructing a millennia-old institution – Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (part of the DOMA majority) asked: "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what's the restriction with respect to the number of people that could get married, the incest laws – mother and child? What's left?"

       The obvious answer is nothing – which is why polygamy advocates welcomed the DOMA decision and members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association celebrated by forming a chorus line in trench coats, waving candy bars.

       Another Supreme Court – of another era, governed by another morality, in an age of reason – observed: "For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free and self-governing commonwealth" than one established on the principle that "the idea of family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; (is) the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement…" (Murphy v. Ramsey, 1885)

       But what is family, morality, social stability and civilization compared to whatever it is loving couples commit?

       Since its socialist government inflicted homosexual marriage on the nation in April, a million Frenchmen have taken to the streets of Paris in protest, under the banners of La Manif Pour Tous (The March for All).

       What will we do to counter the piecemeal imposition of loving-couple marriage by our leftist judiciary, to the approbation of our socialist president?

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website,

8230 Catbird Circle 302
Lorton VA 22079
888-239-9306 FAX