moonbattery.gif


« Why University of Colorado Needs to Fire Ward Churchill | Main | Justice Served »


February 10, 2005

Marriage Under Siege

Marriage is the most fundamental institution holding together human society, so it should hardly come as a surprise that moonbats are opposed to it. Radical feminists have mounted a direct assault for decades. The latest mode of attack is slightly more subtle. The idea is to destroy marriage by subjecting it to such grotesque indignities that no one will be able to take it seriously.

The drafters of New York's state constitution would be surprised — if not thoroughly appalled — to learn that it grants marriage rights to homosexuals. This little known fact was recently brought to light by New York Supreme Court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan, as reported by CBS News (which misspelled her name as Ling-Cohen — perhaps the Dan's fact-checkers have been put in charge of copyediting). In her ruling, she cited the ways in which she believes "the plaintiffs and their children suffer serious burdens by being excluded from civil marriage" under New York's Domestic Relations Law.

You read that correctly. A judge is imposing the legalization of homosexual "marriage" in opposition to the state legislature for the sake of the children of these "marriages". Like many liberal judges, she augments her moral depravity with clinical insanity, raving about the "millions of lesbian mothers residing with their children in the United States."

When the Supreme Court plunged into the US Constitution and emerged with the previously undiscovered right to abortion, the result was an encroaching decay in the respect for children's lives, which has now reached such an extreme that women are celebrated by the Left for systematically drowning their children or slitting their throats.

The Devil knows where this new constitutional right will lead. Pederasts marrying Boy Scouts? "Bioethicist" Peter Singer marrying a dog? Necrophiliacs marrying corpses? George Clooney marrying his smirking reflection in the mirror?

Marriage does have its defenders. Virginia's Senate has approved a state constitutional amendment that defines traditional marriage as the union of a man and a woman, which needless to say would not have been thought necessary when the document was originally drafted.

Dissenting Democrats characterized resistance to granting the homosexual lobby the "right" to desecrate marriage as taking away rights that had previously existed. Indulging in comically strident hyperbole, they suggested that the amendment would lead to another Holocaust.

As with racism, when you hear moonbats screeching incongruously about the Holocaust, you know the tip of your stake is pressed against their rotting hearts. That's the time to hammer it home.

Posted by Van Helsing at February 10, 2005 11:01 AM

Comments

Virginia also made low-riding jeans and exposed underwear illegal.

Posted by: Pomalom at February 10, 2005 6:49 PM

Considering the rolls of flesh I see spilling over the low-riding jeans, that strikes me as a blow for good taste in fashion attire.

As for the subject at hand. Its all word games by the extreme to sucker the middle into finding the objectionable merely outre.

Posted by: Anna at February 11, 2005 9:45 AM