A Guide to Same-Sex Marriage From the Manufacturer’s Instruction Manual.http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3337.html

19 April 2004 - Some of My Best Friends are Gay
By Samuel Silver, Chairman, Toward Tradition <http://www.towardtradition.org/>, a national movement of Jewish and Christian cooperation, fighting anti-religious bigotry and secular
fundamentalism.

The debate about legal recognition of same-sex marriage is ultimately
grounded in our understanding of human nature, values, and the role of
human relationships in creating and defining the type of society we desire.
For the vast majority of Americans, these issues are understood in the
context of the Bible and religious traditions, the “Instruction Manual”
provided by our “manufacturer.”1

This critical debate is not truly between homosexuals and heterosexuals; it
is between two opposing worldviews, one secular and the other
religious.2  Approximately 80% of Americans hold a religious
worldview,3  but the secular left has done an excellent, yet nefarious, job
of dividing those with a religious worldview through false stereotyping.
Their manipulative “divide & conquer” strategy has led many religious
people to erroneously fear other religious people more than they fear the
secular fundamentalists set on destroying religion and Judeo-Christian
values. Thus, many Americans are understandably confused about the same-sex
marriage issue and its ultimate driving force, secular fundamentalism.

Everyone does not fit neatly into the purely religious or purely secular
worldviews, but “sitting this one out” is not a viable alternative. The
stakes for our families and free society are too great. We have to join one
team or the other, so we must each choose which team is closer to our own
personal values, or which team is further from our values. To avoid a
choice is still a choice -- one for the other team.

The Religious Position

Everyone knows the secular and radical “gay rights” side of the argument;
the public schools, universities, and mass media faithfully present it to
us. Fewer understand the religious side of the argument, which is falsely
portrayed as ignorant, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, and homophobic. A
proper understanding of the religious position is necessary if a real
debate is to take place prior to the destruction of a 5,000-year-old
institution by a minority of citizens, against the will of the majority.

To discuss the religious view of human nature is not to ignore science,
which also informs the opinions of Americans. Many people may not be aware
that modern science is belatedly learning that the Biblical view of human
nature is more accurate than the views that have been the foundation for
most of secular liberalism. In his courageous new book, The Blank Slate,
The Modern Denial of Human Nature, MIT professor Steven Pinker, himself a
secular liberal, concludes “…the theory of human nature coming out of the
cognitive revolution has more in common with the Judeo-Christian theory of
human nature …than with behaviorism, social constructionism, and other
versions of the Blank Slate.” Those that think religion is just ancient
superstition should take a second, or in many cases, a first look.

To discuss the religious view in dealing with matters of public policy is
also not to ignore the “Separation of Church and State,” a 19th century
metaphor mistakenly assumed to be in the U.S. Constitution. Unlike humans,
who are born morally “tabula rasa” with a blank slate, the United States
was not created morally “tabula rasa” as a secular nation. The unifying
moral principle of this country’s founding was a religious faith in a
divine Creator and the freedom of each individual to practice his or her
religion (or no religion) without interference from the government.

The Founders believed that religious faith, particularly the
Judeo-Christian tradition, provided the objective ethical basis needed for
a free society to properly function. To this very day, the majority of
Americans share this belief, so to ban religion from the “public square” is
to radically redefine America into a secular nation in opposition to both
the principles upon which it was created and the wishes of the majority of
its citizens.

The government, as defined in the First Amendment and explained by its
author James Madison, must remain neutral between various sects of
religion, but is not required to remain neutral between religion and
irreligion.4  In the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, so frequently and
erroneously presented as an atheist, “The God who gave us life, gave us
liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that
these liberties are a gift from God?”

A review of traditional Judaism’s opposition to homosexuality, and most
importantly its public sanction with the legal recognition of same-sex
marriage, will highlight the fallacies many well-meaning people, Jew and
non-Jew, have apparently accepted.5  (Judaism will guide this discussion,
although the general ideas should be in agreement with traditional
Christianity.)

To have compassion and tolerance for all of God’s children is admirable and
a mitzvah (commandment) under Jewish law, but there is no way Jewish law
and tradition can be perverted to endorse and publicly sanction same-sex
marriage.

The “Instruction Manual” is clear and unequivocal. “You shall not lie with
a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination.”6 The ultimate
punishment for homosexuality along with the other sexual sins listed in
this section, such as bestiality and incest, is kares; God “cutting off”
their souls (spiritually) from the midst of their people. Kares is
generally understood to be exacted after death, and is considered one of
the most severe punishments for a sin. In Judaism, the harshness of the
punishment assigned to a sin, whether or not meant to be carried out by
humans, helps us understand the relative seriousness of the sin.

Obviously, sexual immorality is a very serious matter for Jews, but Judaism
also teaches that sexual immorality, including homosexuality, is
universally prohibited to all humans as one of the seven Noahide Laws,
God’s “natural law” for all mankind.7

The very first commandment in the Bible comes immediately following God’s
creation of human beings, male and female together and equally in His
image. God commands us to “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and
subdue it.”8  The great 19th century sage, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch,
describes this fourfold mission as a guide to the “whole free-willed moral
development of the human race:” Fruitful is marriage, multiply is the
family, fill the earth is society, and subdue it is property, i.e. the
“mastering, appropriating and transforming the earth and its products for
human purposes.”9

Rabbi Hirsch further points out the critical nature of heterosexual
relationships, based on the Commandment for “man to leave his father and
mother and cleave unto his wife, and they will be one flesh.”10  “Man is
not unique among living beings in having a sexual life. But other creatures
require mating only for the purpose of breeding; because male and female
were created simultaneously, they can function independent of one another.
Man is different: woman was created from man to show that only in a
partnership do the two of them form a complete human being.”11

While a small percentage of humans may subconsciously desire a same-sex
relationship because it is less complex and challenging, God warns us to
consciously overcome that desire and understand that He created the female
to be “a helper corresponding” to the male. As the sages explain, “A wife
is neither man’s shadow nor his servant, but his other self, a ‘helper’ in
a dimension beyond the capability of any other creature.”12  Interestingly,
the Hebrew word, kinegdo, here translated as “corresponding to him,” may
also be translated as “against him” or “opposite him;” reflecting the
built-in complexity and difficulty of the complementary relationship
between man and woman.

So humans, originally created as male and female, then separated, must
rejoin not just physically, but spiritually to create a civil and
prosperous society. Our Creator did not design us to achieve this necessary
spiritual unity with same-sex relationships.

But humans do not like rules defining and inhibiting our behavior, so we
use our God-given ability to rationalize almost anything and accept
erroneous ideas in order to ignore those rules.

Fallacy #1: Natural Inclination Equals Acceptable Public Behavior

Whether a homosexual inclination is caused by genetics, hormonal changes in
the womb, psychological development, or mere whim is completely irrelevant.
The Creator of human nature would not have prohibited homosexual activity
if He did not design this inclination to be controllable by human free
will. He gave us free will to control the multitude of inclinations that we
all possess to varying degrees. Some are extremely difficult to control,
but we are discussing human behavior, not a passive trait such as skin color.

God also gave us mortal and physical humans commandments to guide us in the
choices we make, in order to elevate ourselves spiritually -- not to live
as instinctual animals, but as rational human beings created in His image.
And our volitional efforts are necessary so the spirituality we attain will
have a distinct human involvement.

As Maimonides (1135-1204), one of Judaism’s greatest philosophers and legal
codifiers, taught:

It is “possible for a person to be born with a tendency to one of the
virtues or one of the shortcomings – i.e., conduct [representative of this
trait] will come easier to him than other types of conduct. He should not
say that these shortcomings are already ingrained in his character and
cannot be removed. For in every situation a person has the choice of
changing from good to bad, and from bad to good. The choice is in his hands.”13

Without free will, there is no basis for morality or for that matter
Judaism or Christianity; so to argue that homosexuality or any prohibited
behavior is OK because it is a “natural” inclination is an
oxymoron.14  After all, some scientists believe that people are born with
inclinations to be violent or criminal or even pedophiles.  Do we then
condone and sanction these anti-social actions because they were born that way?

Those who believe modern science has proven homosexual activity is
impossible to control, resist, or even change; and believe that people who
disagree are ignorant and “homophobic,” should be more open-minded and
check their premises.15  Regardless of propaganda in the mass media, there
is no scientific evidence demonstrating that homosexuality is either innate
or immutable.16

Fallacy #2: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Is Hateful Homophobia

Many view the legalization of same-sex marriage as eliminating
“discrimination” in a desire not to make anyone “feel” uncomfortable, as if
there is a Constitutional right not to “feel” uncomfortable. They even
tie-in discussions of same-sex marriage with “hate crimes” legislation.
Therefore, it is important to distinguish between “hating the sin” and
“hating the sinner.”

The idea that opposition to homosexual activity and its public sanction is
equivalent to or leads to hatred of individual homosexuals is a “big lie”
created to demonize, intimidate, and silence opponents of the “gay rights”
agenda. And the data confirms the “big lie.” Every crime of violence
against another human being is reprehensible, but according to the latest
FBI Hate Crimes statistics, it is estimated that less than 0.0001 of
homosexuals were victims of violent assaults; not exactly an epidemic of
homophobic rage spreading across America. 17

In one of the founding documents of the “gay liberation” movement,
published in the mid-1980’s, the National Gay Task Force laid out their
plan to create this “big lie.” 18

- The first order of business is the desensitization of the American people
concerning gays and gay rights.

- Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to it enough.

- The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes
thoroughly tiresome.

- Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are
plainly the most powerful imagemakers in Western civilization. The average
American household watches over seven hours of television daily. Those
hours open a gate: the private world of straights, through which a Trojan
horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium
is the message of normalcy.

- Portray gays as victims. In any campaign to win over the public we must
be cast as victims in need of protection, so that straights will be
inclined by reflex to assume the role of the protector.

- We can undercut the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying
them as antiquated backwaters badly out of step with the times.

- At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights, it will be time to
get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified…The
public must be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits
and beliefs disgust Middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux
Klan demanding that gays be burnt alive or castrated; bigoted southern
ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both
comical and deranged. These images should be combined by a method
propagandists call the bracket technique.

The propagandists have been extremely successful! We let their Trojan horse
enter our homes unabated, and we let them infect the minds of our children.
But it is still a lie, built on anti-religious bigotry.

Judaism and Christianity both abhor the sin of homosexual behavior, but
only teach love, respect, and toleration for individual fellow humans --
all created in the image of God. Religious people who believe homosexual
behavior is a sin and oppose same-sex marriage can sincerely say, “Some of
my best friends are gay!”

The fact is that a person practicing homosexuality has committed a
religious sin, a very serious one in God’s eyes, but so has a Jew who
doesn’t keep Kosher, observe the Sabbath, or violates any of the
Commandments. They are no less Jewish, and society lives and deals with
these “sinners” in a variety of amicable, tolerant, and neighborly ways
without creating special legal “rights.” This same tolerance applies to
homosexuals. 19

Truly religious people are tolerant of others with whom they disagree and
can live peaceably and neighborly with them in a free society. 20  This is
especially true in America where the political environment has always been
one based on respect for and protection of individual rights. But the “gay
rights” movement does not want tolerance; they want nothing less than
forced acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, healthy, and moral; a
position most religious people must reject for themselves and their
children. And this is where the problems arise.

This undemocratic use of government force by a minority of citizens is at
its most despicable when public schools are used to impose these ideas on
children of religious families. 21  And as if this use of public schools
for ideological indoctrination were not enough, they then use judicial
activism to control private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, which
are only remotely connected to the government.

Are there intolerant religious people? Of course, but they represent only a
small minority not fully observing a basic tenet of both Judaism and
Christianity, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” 22  Their religious practice,
however flawed, at least constrains their behavior, and in the long run it
is an effective tool for improving their humanity.

On the other side, without religion as the basis for the public moral
culture, what will constrain behavior and lead to an improvement of
humanity? What will restrain secular intolerance from infecting not a small
minority, but a large majority? History’s grand experiment with a secular
society, Communism, was an evil and dismal failure that killed over 100
million innocent people in the 20th Century. 23  Add to that the Holocaust
perpetrated by the socialist, neo-pagan Nazis. All of the (Judeo-Christian)
religious wars in the history of the world pale by comparison. 24

Could a secular society result in a nation as great as the United States?
Anything is possible in a perfect world, but in our imperfect world, no
such society has yet approached the freedom and the spiritual and material
prosperity of the United States.

Those who wish to ban religion from the “public square” and impose
secularism on the majority of Americans would do well to rethink their
position – the grass is not always greener on the other side. As Benjamin
Franklin wrote to Thomas Paine in an attempt to persuade Paine to abandon
his anti-religion essays: “If men are so wicked with religion, what would
they be if without it.” 25

Fallacy #3: Same-sex Marriage Is A Private Act Between Consenting Adults

The hidden [sins] are for Hashem, our God, but the revealed [sins] are for
us and our children forever, to carry out all the words of this Torah.
-- Deuteronomy 29:28

The sages explain that Moses is teaching, “hidden sins are the province of
God alone, and He holds no one responsible but the sinners themselves. But
everyone is obligated to safeguard…against openly committed sins.”
26  Thus, homosexual activity between consenting adults practiced in
privacy is primarily a sin against God, and He will deal with it. It is not
a matter for government regulation. The same cannot be said about same-sex
marriage.

Most people may be surprised to know that the debate over same-sex marriage
is not new. As the wise King Solomon taught us, “There is nothing new under
the sun.” The Bible teaches that God brought on the Flood in Noah’s time
because, “all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.” 27  A
fascinating Midrash (ancient rabbinic commentary on the Bible) teaches:
“the generation of the Flood was only blotted out from the world because
they wrote marriage contracts for males and for females.”28

Later, the Talmud teaches that Noahides (monotheistic non-Jews) who did not
observe all of the Noahide laws at least did “not write a marriage contract
for males…”29  In explaining this discussion, Rashi, the great 11th century
commentator on the Bible and Talmud, points out the vital distinction
between private actions and public policy:

Even though they are suspected of homosexuality and sequester themselves
with males for intercourse, nevertheless, they are not so irresponsible
about this commandment that they would write a marriage contract for them.

There are serious consequences to a society that officially sanctions
activities the vast majority of its citizens accept as immoral. We ignore,
at our own peril, the infinite difference between acceptable private and
public behavior, especially for families raising children with a focus on
future generations, a challenge very few homosexuals share.

To publicly sanction same-sex marriage is to implicitly sanction the
short-term outlook on life inherent to homosexuality. A perfect example of
the disastrous public policy effects of this sort-sighted viewpoint was the
“father” of FDR’s New Deal, economist John Maynard Keynes. A major flaw in
Keynes’ thinking was his concentration on the short-term. He thought that
focus on the long run was utterly futile and one of the great mistakes in
economics. He abhorred "savings," thought the "abstinence" of people
impedes the growth of wealth, and believed savings are always a potential
threat to economic progress.

One of the leading economists of the 20th Century, Joseph Schumpeter, noted
the connection between Keynes’ flawed ideas and his "childless and
essentially short run philosophy of life" when he said, "for a person
committed to homosexuality, who is without descendants, there is little for
them to focus the future on."30  It is not a coincidence that the Hebrew
word in the Bible for “children” is linguistically the same as “builders.”

As economist and political philosopher Thomas Sowell explains,31

Marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to
unions of two people instead of three of four or five? Why limit it to
adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes,
and species. Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go
beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and woman produce the
future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society
has something to say about that.

If society elects not to say anything about it and abandons the primacy of
the traditional family, with its focus on children and future generations,
we also abandon our connections to past generations, traditions, and
history. All we will be left with is a “present” filled with hedonistic
irresponsibility. And we don’t have to wait too long -- just look around!
This current attempt at a perpetual age of adolescence, if not halted soon,
will lead at an increasingly rapid rate to the uncontrollable destruction
of civil society.

The Emperor Nero reportedly “went so far as to write a marriage contract
for one of his favorite male lovers.”32  Do we really want to follow the
Roman Empire into decline and ruin? It is critical to recognize the
essential difference between a society where homosexuality is practiced
privately and one that actually gives it official sanction and recognition.

Fallacy #4: Economic Benefits For Homosexuals Can Only Be Obtained By
Government Force

Proponents of same-sex marriage claim all they really want are equal
“rights” for homosexuals who live together as couples. This is very
appealing to Americans who historically have been tolerant and fair; but it
is a false argument.

Before new “rights” are created, it is only logical to ask what is their
source. The “revolutionary” achievement of the Founders of the United
States was their recognition that neither they nor any government could
create rights. This was in complete contrast to the historic Divine Rights
of Kings or the modern systems of man-made collective rights, such as in
the former Soviet Union.

The individual rights of man were from God, as the Declaration of
Independence clearly states:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights…” President John F. Kennedy confirmed the divine
source of these rights in his Inaugural Address, “…the same revolutionary
beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe
- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the
state but from the hand of God.”

Same-sex marriage, by any stretch of the imagination, is in complete
contradiction to God’s “Instruction Manual,” so if the rights of man come
“from the hand of God,” it is inconceivable that God would view same-sex
marriage as a “right.”

If proponents of same-sex marriage truly want just the economic benefits
(not “rights”) that heterosexual sexual couples have, those benefits can
easily be provided in the free market on a voluntary basis, without the use
of government force. Many corporations such as Disney, General Electric,
and Wal-Mart accommodate their employee benefit programs for homosexuals
and many already include insurance coverage for “domestic partners.” Just
as voluntary sexual activity should be a private matter, economic benefits
for private sexual relationships should be voluntary. This may entail
modifications in some State laws concerning contracts and benefits, but it
does not require laws destroying the sanctity of marriage between one man
and one woman that has been the cornerstone of civilization for over 5,000
years.

A Final Fallacy: Same-Sex Marriage Hurts No One

In America, we believe in “Live and Let Live,” so who is hurt if two boys
or two girls want to marry each other?

“Live & Let Live” is a great hallmark of American political life, but it is
only effective in matters between fully developed adults. The introduction
of children and a concern for future generations change the equation.

This is especially true when it comes to public sanctions and forced
indoctrination of children in the public school system. Parents should not
be forced to teach their children that a fundamental religious and moral
prohibition, one that has been a standard of Judeo-Christian morality for
thousands of years, is not only condoned, but is publicly sanctioned by
their government.

Many homosexuals, such as those with a religious worldview and especially
those with children or strong family ties, understand and accept the
position that same-sex marriage will be harmful to society; yet it is
understandable that many other homosexuals might not see the harm in
same-sex marriage.

But, why do so many heterosexuals support same-sex marriage? It seems
apparent that most are misled with the nice sounding but intentionally
false idea that government force is necessary to eliminate hatred,
uncomfortable feelings, and differences in economic benefits. What about
those leading this battle and intentionally misleading the public? Why are
they so vociferously demanding the right to impose this potentially
disastrous policy on the majority of Americans?

The answer lies in the fundamental difference between the secular and the
religious worldviews; therefore, it is not unimportant that the vast
majority of Americans hold a religious outlook on life. The third chapter
of the Talmud, Pirkei Avos, (Chapters of the Fathers), asks three of the
most critical questions humans grapple with.33  As Rabbi Daniel Lapin
explains, each of these transcendental questions can be answered in two
primary ways, defining the difference between the two worldviews.34

1. How did human beings come to be on this planet?
Religious:    God created us in His image and placed us here.
Secular:    By a lengthy, random process of unaided materialistic
evolution, primitive protoplasm became Bach and Beethoven.

2. Where is the human race headed?
Religious:    To an ultimate day of God’s choosing when a grand Messianic
redemption will take place resulting in the whole world recognizing God and
His truth.
Secular:    To an ultimate day of destruction and oblivion that will wipe
us out through overcrowding, poverty, global warming, acid rain, nuclear
explosion, off-course meteorites or any combination of the above.

3: What are we supposed to be doing here?
Religious:    We are supposed to be developing our relationship with God
and becoming closer to Him through studying and following His Torah and
obeying His mitzvoth. In other words, we have a set of objective ethics to
live by.
Secular:    There are no objective ethics, so everything is subjective and
relative. “Anything goes” is good enough as far as our personal lives go!
Our primary focus on the future is to head off the threats to humanity in
the Secular answer to question #2.  If they are too formidable for us to
solve alone, we should urge our government to solve them.  If they are too
much for one government to solve, we should urge governments to cooperate
through the United Nations in order to solve them.

Monotheists, such as Jews and Christians, would be in basic agreement with
the religious answers, albeit with variations in the details.

Secularists eschew objective values and ethics,36  and look at the future
as extremely tenuous and limited to only “this world.” The ultimate day of
destruction and oblivion are rapidly approaching, and there is nothing
after that! Thus both homosexual and heterosexual secularists, based on
their secular worldview, can very easily fall into the trap of supporting
same-sex marriage. To do so, they intentionally ignore the serious problems
they are imposing on parents with a religious worldview -- parents trying
to teach their children Judeo-Christian values.

Secularists truly believe religious people are ignorant, intolerant,
homophobic, racist, and generally dangerous; so they believe it is only
“social justice” to destroy any public acceptance of the religious
worldview, even by undemocratic means. The leaders of the secular movement
are strident atheists who cannot tolerate religious people; a constant
reminder of everything they reject. Instead of being religious
fundamentalists, they became secular fundamentalists. Through propaganda
and ridicule, these fundamentalists have also convinced a minority of
Americans, who believe in God, to fear religion more than secularism, in
complete disregard to the barbaric reality of the 20th century.

After the fall of Nazism and Communism, the secular fundamentalists focused
primarily on post-Christian Europe and American academia, turning both into
hotbeds of anti-religious bigotry and virulent anti-Semitism. These
self-proclaimed “progressives” espouse diversity, but are in fact very
close-minded and hostile to all political, cultural, and especially
religious opinions with which they disagree.

Over a century ago, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch anticipated modern secular
fundamentalism with prophetic precision.37

It is now no longer enough for the apostate to be able to live undisturbed
according to his convictions, as he calls them; to him there is no
well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become the only
ones recognized as right and valid.

He sees in the Law an intellectual slavery from which it is the Godly task
of a second Moses to redeem his unfortunate brothers. In Torah-loyalty, he
sees superstition, backwardness, and at the same time a calamity which is
to blame for all the miseries of the past.

He sees in “liberation” from the yoke of the Law a goal so high and so
humanitarian that every means which seems capable of bringing about
progress toward this great goal must be employed.

He has reached the stage of waging fanatical campaigns of persecution
against those loyal to the Law.

Extremists on either side can be dangerous if initiation of force is not
limited by a strong Constitutional defense of individual rights and
religious freedom.38  The secular side, however, offers the greatest risk
to society. It contains no internalized mechanism for an objective moral
code of human cooperation and must rely solely on the collectivized,
legalistic force of government for citizens to defend themselves. It also
contains no effective, common moral foundation for raising children,
especially in a vacuum without an existent moral culture passed down from
previous generations of religious tradition

The Ultimate Victims

Who are the ultimate victims? On a micro level, our children are the
victims, but on a macro level, our free society will be the victim. As
President John Adams said in 1798,

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human
passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for
a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of
any other.39

George Washington expressed this same idea in his 1796 Farewell Address to
the Nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man
claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great
pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and
citizens.40

In other words, our secular form of government was designed only for a
non-secular people.

150 years later, President Harry Truman confirmed that a “moral and
religious people” were still necessary for maintenance of our free society.41

The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the
Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings
we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.

If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end
up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for
anybody except the State.

Adams, Washington, the other Founders, and Presidents through George W.
Bush have understood that a limited Constitutional government “of the
people, by the people, and for the people” could work only if the society
is primarily self-policed, based on a common moral code that served as an
invisible net of social stability. In America this has always been the
Judeo-Christian values derived from the Bible, most recently expressed in
the phrase “one nation under God.”

Some argue that to officially state the United States is “one nation under
God” or to publicly recognize Judeo-Christian thought as the source of our
legal and political systems violates the rights of atheists and
non-monotheists. The very concept of “rights” in the United States
presupposes belief in the God of the Bible, not by every citizen, but at
least by the majority. Like homosexuals, atheists want to invent a right to
force their neighbors to lock their religious beliefs in the closet, so no
one ever feels uncomfortable.

To accept the assertion that public sanction of religion violates the
rights of atheists and non-monotheists, one must completely ignore the
Declaration of Independence, the history and writings of the Founders, and
our nation’s history until the last 50 years. If ignored, then this
discussion is not about the United States, but a completely new country.
How can the greatest nation in the history of the world allow judges and
special interest groups to completely redefine the nature and character of
this great country without ascertaining the will of the majority through a
democratic process?42

Do we really believe that the Founders, who created this revolutionary
concept of rights and created the greatest Constitutional system as yet
devised by mankind, did not understand what they were doing? Contrary to a
historical myth perpetrated by the secularists, America at the time of the
founding included atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc.,43  and the
Founders knew that it was only this unique form of government, based on
individual rights from God, that would protect people of all beliefs.

As historian David Barton explains, the Founders were all religious
Christians, but they did not oppose pluralism, “as long as the beliefs of
other religions did not threaten the stability of civil society.44   In
fact, the Founders believed that pluralism survived only within the concept
of religious liberty espoused by American Christianity,”45  uniquely
different from European Christianity and based on what we now term the
Judeo-Christian Ethic.46

The opposite is not necessarily true. As Rabbi Hirsch taught us about the
secular fundamentalist, there will be “no well-being and no peace as long
as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and
valid.” He cannot tolerate a religious worldview outside the confines of
the church or synagogue. Sadly, the history of 20th century Europe and the
secular liberalism of 21st century American academia confirm both his
prediction and the understanding of the Founders that pluralism of belief
will not survive in a secular society.

People yearn for predictability in their lives and communities, and this
invisible net provides that predictability in their everyday lives. If
predictability is lost to chaos, they often turn to dictators or other
forms of totalitarian government to restore predictability.

Without a moral public culture shared by the majority of citizens to
provide the invisible net of social stability, government could not be
limited and would have to encroach into every citizen’s life and freedom.
Instead of a free society of cooperation between individuals, more and more
human interaction would have to be decided by the legal system and
bureaucrats. Morality would be replaced by legality, which helps explain
why the judicial system is taking control of our government and our lives.
Without a commonly accepted morality, there is no basis for human
cooperation, other than force. Freedom would rapidly morph into tyranny.

As Rabbi Lapin has explained:47

One unintended side effect of the secular fundamentalism sweeping America
is how it erodes the rules that hold together the invisible net of social
stability. By encouraging unfettered personal license, secular
fundamentalism helps collapse civilized norms. Then, when people dress with
deliberately provocative vulgarity and they express themselves loudly and
obscenely in public, hardworking, family-minded citizens are left with a
growing feeling of unease. When young people no longer see their maturation
leading naturally toward marriage and when marriage itself becomes
threatened by cultural ridicule and purported alternatives, parents feel
unmoored. When public institutions depict religion as only for the
emotionally needy and the intelligence impaired many Americans feel
resentment and alienation.

This is obviously not to suggest that the hobby of shattering traditional
rules that seems to delight so many journalists, academics, and
intellectuals is going to endow America with a future dictatorial tyrant.
It can eventually, however, infect ordinary Americans with docility about
further Federal control beyond that necessary to protect us from our
enemies. In a desperate attempt to recover some sense of normality and
predictability in our lives, we might be tempted to embrace expanded
government influence over how we live, earn, and worship. We would yearn
for the predictability and normality that used to be supplied by those
traditional rules that many Jewish and Christian Americans of faith
remember increasingly nostalgically. Biblically-based faith helps to
maintain freedom by holding together the invisible framework of social
stability.

The Founders understood this lesson well, but we have strayed from that
lesson.

Our free society, as the Founders dreamed it and we once knew it, will be
lost forever unless Americans make a political stand to preserve this
endangered “invisible framework of social stability.” That stand must begin
with protecting children from the Trojan horse of secular fundamentalism
expressed in such formerly unthinkable legalisms as same-sex marriage.

The secular fundamentalists leading this assault on Judeo-Christian values
understand very well that the children are their point of attack. If you
doubt that children are the intended victims, read the words of an openly
homosexual woman who was formerly an insider in the leadership of the
feminist and radical “gay rights” movements, until she realized these
movements were no longer based on the ideal of civil-rights, but on
“socialism, the foundational model of the Far Left.”48  These are a few of
her comments about their efforts “to end anti-gay bias in K-12 schools.”49

For people whose entire identity and reason to live is based in their
sexuality, what do they need to do in order to fit comfortably into our
society? They must work to sexualize every part of society – and, as every
good marketer knows, that effort must begin with children.

The efforts of gay establishment organizations, if the future is really
their concern, should be focused on persuading the horde of bacchanalian
boys to change their lifestyle. Instead, they are demanding that we accept
their degeneracy, and the destruction of our future in the process. We dare
not judge them. We dare not question their actions. And we are to hand the
nation’s children over to them.

This is why a free society such as the United States, where the vast
majority of the people believe in Judeo-Christian values, can tolerate
unrestricted private sexual activity between consenting adults, but cannot
allow public sanction and endorsement of homosexuality as a cultural norm.

Will God Continue to Bless America?

Until the past few years, almost all Americans, and especially Presidents
and candidates for President, firmly believed that America had earned God’s
blessings. Now, secularists and even some Presidential candidates question
this bedrock belief of religious Americans. The naysayers may unwittingly
prove to be correct if they are successful in imposing their secular agenda
on the majority of Americans.

From the religious point of view, same-sex marriage and its public
sanction of homosexuality will desecrate God’s name. On a much larger scale
it will also risk the loss of His blessings on the United States, so
eloquently requested by President George Washington in his first Inaugural
address (1789):

… it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my
fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe,
who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can
supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the
liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government
instituted by themselves for these essential purposes.

---

Samuel Silver is Chairman of Toward Tradition
<http://www.towardtradition.org/>, a national movement of Jewish and
Christian cooperation, fighting anti-religious bigotry and secular
fundamentalism.

Email Samuel Silver: ss@towardtradition.org

---

Endnotes

1. As Rabbi Daniel Lapin explains, just as automobile manufacturers provide
an “Instruction Manual” with every car produced, God gave human beings an
“Instruction Manual” upon our creation. Rabbi Lapin calls this “Instruction
Manual,” “God’s biblical blueprint”, and it is revealed in the Torah – the
Jewish bible that serves as the foundation for both Judaism and
Christianity. It is further revealed in the oral law given by God to Moses
and further explained by the sages over thousands of years.

2.  For a larger understanding of the secular war against religion and
Judeo-Christian values in the U.S., see Daniel Lapin, America’s Real War,
Multomah, 1999. Another excellent resource is Rabbi Lapin’s audio
presentation, “Is America Airborne? Or have we run out of fuel?” available
from Toward Tradition at http://www.towardtradition.org/.

3.  In the United States, 75% of citizens identify themselves as having a
“religious outlook,” compared to 10% with a “secular outlook,” 6% with a
“somewhat secular outlook,” and 9% who either do not know or refused this
question. It is assumed that some of these 9% also hold a religious
outlook, thus the approximation of 80% of Americans holding a religious
worldview. Only 1% of Americans identify themselves at atheist or agnostic.
Source: “2001 American Religious Identification Survey,” The Graduate
Center, City University of New York. Available online at:
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm

4.  For a detailed analysis of the Founders’ intent in writing the 1st
Amendment, see the dissent that Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the 1985
Supreme Court case (Wallace v, Jaffree). Available online at:
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wallace/Rehnquist.html.

5.  It is bewildering that organizations describing themselves as Jewish
could applaud and advocate the Judicial tyranny leading to a “right” for
homosexuals to marry. These groups include ADL, AJC, Hadassah, and the
Religious Action Center of the Reform movement.

6.  Leviticus 18:22

7.  The Seven Noahide Laws, derived from the Five Books of Moses and
delineated in the Talmud, are considered by Jewish scholars to be Natural
Law for non-Jews. The first six are prohibitions against murder, theft,
sexual immorality, idol worship, blaspheming God, and eating a limb torn
from a living animal (animal cruelty). The 7th law is a positive
requirement to institute a system of law and courts to implement the first
six. Online information available at:
http://www.rb.org.il/noahide/noahinstitute.htm.

8.  Genesis 1:28

9.  Samson Raphael Hirsch, Commentary on the Torah (Unabridged Edition),
Genesis 1:28.

10.  Ibid. Commentary on Genesis 2:24.

11.  Genesis Volume 1(a), Artscroll Tanach Series (Mesorah Publications).
Summary of Hirsch commentary on Genesis 2:24

12.  Ibid. Commentary on Genesis 2:18.

13.  Maimonides’ Introduction to the Tractate of Avot (Shemoneh Perakim),
Chapter Eight, “The Composition of Human Nature.”

14.   For those that erroneously believe science has ruled out the
existence of free will, refer to Jeffrey Satinover, The Quantum Brain – The
Search for Freedom and the Next Generation of Man, John Wiley & Sons, 2001.

15.  For example, refer to Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by
Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. Baker Books, 1996. The most current research in
this field is available online at http://www.narth.com/. There is also a
“Jewish” organization, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to
Homosexuality) which offers information on their website,
http://www.jonahweb.org/.

16.  See “The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science,”
available online at http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html.

17.  See “Hate Crime Statistics, 2002” at
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecrime2002.pdf. An assumption was made that 3% of
the U.S. population above age 14 was homosexual or approximately 6.6
million. The total violent “hate crimes” due to “sexual orientation” was
633. If it is assumed that homosexuals represent a higher proportion of
Americans, such as the estimated upper limit of 5%, the ratio of “hate
crimes” is even far less significant.

18.  Marshall Kirk & Erastes Pill (aka Hunter Madsen),“Waging Peace,” as
quoted in The American Enterprise magazine, June 2001.

19.  For a detailed discussion on how the word “tolerance” has become
corrupted by secular fundamentalists to really become “intolerance,” see
the Toward Tradition pamphlet, “Terrorized by Tolerance,” available online
at http://www.towardtradition.org/pamphlet.htm.

20.  For this discussion, religion refers to the twin civilizations of the
Bible, Judaism and Christianity, as practiced within the United States.
Traditional Islam might also fall into this category, but a full discussion
of Islam and other religious traditions is beyond he scope of this paper.

21.  It is ironic that if the secular fundamentalists are successful in
legalizing same-sex marriage and achieving their other goals such as
removing any public mention or display of God, it will be the kiss of death
for the public school system that they have used to indoctrinate America’s
children. Parents will eventually revolt and take back control of their
children’s education through a voucher system.

22.  Leviticus 19:18

23.  Courtois, et al, The Black Book of Communism, Harvard University
Press, 1999.

24.  Many in the Jewish community hold Christianity responsible for the
Nazi Holocaust. There is no doubt that European Christian anti-Semitism
historically created a terrible and horrendous mindset against Jews in
Europe, and played an indirect role in the Holocaust. However, the ultimate
expression of this anti-Semitism was carried out, not by Christians, but by
the National Socialists (Nazis) who were neo-pagans and also hated
Christians. See “The Church’s Responsibility,” in The Rav, The World of
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, volume II, KTAV Publishing, 1999.

25.  A letter to Thomas Paine (Dissuading him from publishing a Work of an
irreligious Tendency.) The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks,
Editor. As quoted in David Barton, Original Intent, Wallbuilder Press, 2002.

26.  Commentary on Deuteronomy 29:28 based on Rashi and Ramban, as quoted
in The Chumash, Stone Edition. Mesorah Publications.

27.  Genesis 6:12

28.  Midrash Rabbah, Vayikra 23.9

29.  Tractate of Chullin (92 a & b)

30.  See Samuel Silver, “In the long run, we are all dead - NOT!” Jewish
World Review, Dec. 21, 2000, available online at:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/sam/silver122100.asp.

31.  Thomas Sowell, “Gay Marriage Confusion,” Jewish World Review
(3/9/2004), available online at:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell030904.asp

32.  David Novak, The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism. An Historical and
Constructive Study of the Noahide Laws. The Edwin Mellen Press, 1983.

33.  The three questions are literally: “Know whence you came, whither you
go, and before Whom you will give justification and reckoning.”

34.  For a more complete discussion of these three essential questions, see
Daniel Lapin, America’s Real War, Multomah, 1999. Also see Rabbi Lapin’s
article, “Ethnicity versus Belief in Jewish Marriage” available online at:
http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Ethnicity_vs_belief.htm

35.  The logical conclusion of the secular answer to this first question of
“How did human beings come to be on this planet?” is socialism and/or its
collectivist first cousin fascism, but that discussion is beyond the scope
of this paper.

36.  There are rare exceptions such as the Objectivism of Ayn Rand.

37.  Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, “The Seven Stages of Apostasy” in
Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Volume I. Feldheim
Publishers, 1997 Edition.

38.  As Nobel laureate, Milton Friedman has pointed out on numerous
occasions, only a “classical liberal” approach to limited government and
free-markets (libertarian, with a small L, in 20th Century terms) will
effectively protect individuals and especially minorities, whether racial
or religious. For example, see Capitalism and Freedom, U. of Chicago Press,
1963, and “Capitalism and the Jews,” Presidential Address to the Mont
Pelerin Society (1972), available online at
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=1967.

Another Nobel laureate, economist and philosopher, F.A. Hayek, himself a
religious agnostic, believed that societies and even religions could come
into being by his concept of “spontaneous order,” but that only certain
monotheistic ones have proven successful in transmitting the necessary
“beneficial traditions.” As he stated, “Among the founders of religions
over the last two thousand years, many opposed property and the
family.  But the only religions that have survived are those which support
property and the family.” F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, U. of Chicago
Press, 1988, Volume 1, Chapter 9. Hayek and Friedman would both agree that
socialism and all forms of collectivism are dangerous for
Jews, Christians, and all other human beings.

39. John Adams. 1798 Address to the Military. Quoted in William J. Federer,
America’s God and Country - Encyclopedia of Quotations. Amerisearch, 2000.

40.  George Washington, Farewell Address, Philadelphia, September 17, 1796.
Available online at: http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/P/gw1/speeches/gwfar.htm

41.  President Harry Truman, Address to the Attorney General’s Conference,
1950. Quoted in William J. Federer, America’s God and Country -
Encyclopedia of Quotations. Amerisearch, 2000.

42.  George Washington warned of an undemocratic usurpation of power by one
branch of government in his 1796 Farewell address: “It is important,
likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire
caution in those intrusted with its administration to confirm themselves
within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding the exercise of
the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of
encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one,
and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A
just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which
predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of
this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of
political power, by dividing and distributing it into different
depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against
invasions by others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern,
some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must
be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the
distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any
particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the
Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for
though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the
customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent
must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient
benefit which the use can at any time yield.” George Washington, Farewell
Address, Philadelphia, September 17, 1796. Available online at:
http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/P/gw1/speeches/gwfar.htm

43.  For a discussion of religious pluralism at the time of the Founders,
see David Barton, Original Intent, Wallbuilder Press, 2002. P. 31. Although
atheists existed in colonial times, they were not numerous or at least not
publicly visible. Even today, only approximately 1% of Americans claim to
be atheists or agnostics. See “2001 American Religious Identification
Survey,” The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Available online
at: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm. Another 13% specify
“no religion,” but that is not the same as atheism.
In a pamphlet written for Europeans considering relocation to America,
Benjamin Franklin offered this outlook on atheism in America. “Atheism is
unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a
great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting
with either an Atheist or an Infidel.” Information to Those Who Would
Remove to America, quoted in William J. Federer, America’s God and Country
- Encyclopedia of Quotations. Amerisearch, 2000. P. 247.

44.  Thomas Jefferson, a committed Unitarian Christian, also understood
well the importance of religious pluralism as long as the religions did not
“threaten the stability of civil society.” In 1822 he wrote to a fellow
Unitarian, “I write with freedom because, while I claim a right to believe
in one God, if so my reason tells me, I yield as freely to others that of
believing in three. Both religions I find make honest men, and that is the
only point society has any authority to look to.” Quoted in Eugene
Sheridan, Jefferson and Religion, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation,
1998, P. 68.

45.  David Barton, Original Intent, Wallbuilder Press, 2002. P. 33.

46.  To understand the unique combination of Christian and Jewish thought
that was the hallmark of the Founders, see “Jewish Metaphysics at the
Founding” in Michael Novak’s On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at
the American Founding, Encounter Books, 2002. Some of Novak’s discussion is
available online at: http://www.politicsandvirtue.com/novak1.htm.

47.  Daniel Lapin, “And it came to pass in the days of Saddam.” Available
online at: http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Saddam.htm

48.  Tammy Bruce, The New Thought Police, Inside the Left’s Assault on Free
Speech and Free Minds, Random House, 2001, P.4. Ms. Bruce was formerly
President of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women
(NOW).

49.  Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault
on Our Culture and Values, Prima Publishing/Random House, 2003, pp 103-104.
This discussion is about GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education
Network.

'Bride' and 'groom' being restored to California marriage forms
By Ken McLaughlin Mercury News  10/06/2008

"Do you, Party A, take this Party B to be your lawfully wedded spouse ...''

Nah. Never did sound right. So the state of California is now changing the way people can identify themselves on its new gender-neutral marriage licenses...

Since June 17, when gay marriage became legal in California as the result of a state Supreme Court ruling, two people getting hitched had only one option when filling out their marriage license form. One had to be identified as Party A. The other had to be known as Party B.

"Following the Supreme Court decision in May, we moved quickly to make that change to be consistent with the ruling,'' said Suanne Buggy, spokeswoman for the California Department of Public Health, which oversees marriage licenses.

Perhaps too quickly.

Many Californians, even those who support the right of gays to marry, thought "Party A, Party B'' sounded too cold, too bureaucratic.

Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder Regina Alcomendras said Monday that she's heard few complaints from people obtaining marriage licenses since the gender-neutral form took effect. But Alcomendras said county clerks in rural counties have received a lot more flak.

One Roseville couple refused to sign their marriage license because the form didn't say "bride'' and "groom.'' And last week the couple filed a lawsuit against the Placer County clerk in Superior Court...

County clerks will begin using the newest marriage-license form on Nov. 17. That's 13 days after Californians decide whether to keep gay marriage legal when they vote on Proposition 8, which seeks to overturn the Supreme Court's decision.

time. Ohso we believe is an attorney who lives/used to live in Dublin and spent most of his time railing against women until the past few years. If that is him, he filed a suit against a woman's organization and acted as his own attorney until the case was thrown out of the courts. Now he is obsessed with attacking gays/lesbians at every opportunity. Frankly I hope lots of people read his garbage because they will plainly see in his writings all of the hatred and bigotry that really exists in the hearts of the sponsors of the Hate Proposition 8.

You might want to check out some of the forums under current news on this topic as well. You will find some propagandists there who masquerade under names like 8 but not hate and similar. The reality is these people are most likely members of one of the cults that sponsored this hate proposition and they are telling all of the lies regarding it over and over again. Disgusting how little regard some people have for their immortal souls.

Here is a brief article about the attorney : McDermott, who challenged the trademark as an individual acting on his own behalf, said today he considers the Dykes on Bikes name to be "hostile to men."

Without comment, the justices denied review of an appeal by Michael McDermott of Dublin, who challenged a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to grant the San Francisco Women's Motorcycle Contingent exclusive rights over the commercial use of Dykes on Bikes.

The motorcycle club applied for a trademark in 2003 after using Dykes on Bikes for three decades as the moniker of the motorized unit that leads San Francisco's annual Gay Pride Parade. The club's attorney, Gregory Gilchrist, said the group had no business plans for the phrase but decided to seek legal protection after an offshoot group, now independent, discussed putting the name on T-shirts for sale.

Homosexuals Having a Field Day with CA Schools (www.FRC.org)

"It really is what we call a teachable moment," argued Liz Jaroflow, the interim director of a local California charter school. This is how she and other administrators rationalize the decision to take a class of impressionable first graders on a field trip to their teachers' lesbian "wedding." At the suggestion of a parent, Jaroflow herded the five- and six-year-olds onto a bus during school hours last Friday and surprised Erin Carder and Kerri McCoy at City Hall.

Now the unorthodox excursion is putting San Francisco's school district at the center of a national debate on counterfeit marriage. When asked what educational value the trip had, Jaroflow pointed to the "historical significance of same-sex marriage" and "civil rights." "...[I]t's not controversial..." she told reporters. "It's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for." Whether or not the district will ask her to do so is unclear. According to the Chronicle, Jaroflow did ask for parents' permission, and two families opted out. Across California, however, voters are in disbelief. The trip, a disgraceful abuse of school time, is just a preview of the indoctrination to come if Proposition 8 fails.

Ironically, this happened just days after "No on 8" launched ads last week claiming same-sex "marriage" would not be taught in schools, no matter what the outcome on November 4. Not only will it be taught, it's obvious that the lessons are already underway!

On the Chronicle's site, editors posted a video of these first-graders celebrating their teachers' big day. View the video for a snapshot of what homosexual "marriage" will mean for children across America.

Additional Resources
SF Chronicle: Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day
SF Chronicle Video