It is difficult to put into words, without blowing it out of complete proportion, to those who think contrary (although I seriously doubt that possible as sensitive an issue as this is on both sides), what I feel suggests the *moral rape of rape of morals from this country, by none other than the President of the United States and in a formal document, no less, to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The Obama Administration filed a last minute friends-of-the-court brief recommending that Prop 8 be struck down as unconstitutional, in favor of that which is strongly oppositional to many who hold faith-based values  -- morality the decided obstruction.

Granted, I get that we live in a pluralistic society of which that force currently, a democracy, wants little, if anything, to do with morality governing the rule of law. But there's something incredibly disconcerting when it comes up and smacks one in the face with such razor sharp precision, rendering it impossible to ignore the blatant realization of just how badly so many of those in the mainstream are wont to carnality -- even considering it fashionable.

Moments after the brief was made available I was determine to read its content. I was rather surprised at the simplicity in which it was written. It was much easier to read than some of the others, which made it obvious, I felt, that it was prepared quickly -- its arguments surely not long in the making and apparent in direct response to its opponent's. In general, it felt generic, almost boring...  up until the end when it finally revealed itself for what it's basically getting at throughout. And as harsh as it is in conclusion, I'm relieved that the brief comes right out and states it.

Perhaps in being so bold, some who may not have wanted to see it before, will have their eyes opened. And then again, others may just think it no big deal. I expect the latter will dominate most thought -- as usual.

Now, pay close attention here and listen up, because what the Obama Administration puts forth in their court brief, in this particular section in regard to "Protecting children from being taught about same-sex marriage",  is the exact same philosophy upon which the entire foundation for gay marriage is built -- beginning with the basis of why many ignore the possibility or reason to distinguish between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage, thus continue to insist and convince so many that this false equality, gay marriage, is an entitlement.

"Any such "educational" interest cannot sustain Proposition 8. Insofar as the asserted interest in insulating children from any lesson that same-sex marriage is "okay" is founded on a moral judgement, that interest is inadequate under this Court's precedents."
 ("[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.")

The brief went on to basically try and bully the Court, and suggest that it doesn't matter what the majority of voters in California have traditionally thought about marriage. (Or for that matter what society has traditionally, morally, accepted about marriage) The implication seems to imply that the Court is not allowed to rule on such things. In fact, in my opinion, the way it's worded one might feel that the administration is referring to the entire voting body that enacted Prop 8, as being one religious sect, having the same faith-based traditional view of marriage that should not then be considered valid to the Court because of the "fact" (as it is referred to as) it is based on a moral judgement. 

And if so, how could that ever possibly be determined by the Court to be such? This just seems a bit too presumptuous, to me, that millions of California voters are to be lumped into one composite idea in order to be used by the liberal agenda and completely disregarded as to the individual's right of freedom of conscience.

So, according to the Obama brief, if the Court has no "precedents", they, like society, must rule void of moral judgement. As if life were so clinical as this and we are to disregard whatever feelings we have that make us human and guide our thought as to what is right and wrong. We are to ignore such impressions that could possibly come from a higher power than self, which perhaps might indicate a Being or Creator that we are accountable to, Who makes laws and determines right and wrong -- which is why man does indeed have a conscience that tells him/her when to feel guilty about one's action.

Which proves my earlier point that: the conclusion in the Obama brief to remove morals from the argument is precisely what forms the basis of what is necessary in order to ignore a distinction between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage; and also works as the foundation for the overall false morality model in society used over and over again in one argument after another, whenever it is opposed by those having faith based opinions.

This also sets the stage for doing away with, in direct contrast, religious freedom and freedom of conscience --  which proponents of Prop 8 base their case firmly upon these principles.

In my momentary disappointment in finding out that Obama had caved and filed his court brief I had to quickly remind myself how foolish I had been to ever think that he would not. I mean really, how naive could I have been?  Seriously, to expect that President Obama would actually have stood behind his, what I had thought was, his principled position to determine the definition of marriage as a state's right (that being his most recent position which he actually stated and ran on during his 2012 presidential campaign) was apparently nothing more than a childish dream -- as a few friends so kindly tried to wake me from the morning of. Oh well.

I base this stunning realization upon my understanding of what I like to refer to as the "law of opposition". And since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently joined with a number of other faith-based religious organizations (of which I have to say I am so very proud of all of them for doing so) in standing up to reaffirm its position on Prop 8 and encouraged the Supreme Court to uphold it by filing their own brief only weeks ago, I should have naturally expected an equal force in direct opposition, according to that law. But as they say, "hindsight is 20/20".

Clearly the filing by Obama is exactly that: opposition -- otherwise known as the equal and opposing force to the only true and righteous definition of marriage -- being defended as only between a man and a woman. (ordained of God)

How unfortunate indeed, and yet in the scheme of things a perfectly fair move on the part of the Adversary, according to the rules of mortality as laid out in the great Plan of Salvation; featuring...  drum roll please....  the agency of man! Ta da!

I've already started working on a follow-up post, where I'll look at how society replaces no morals with a false morality -- because frankly, people need to believe they are still moral or this would never work.

Please note that the views expressed in this post are completely my own, and not in anyway intended to represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders. 

You are invited to leave comments, but they will be strongly moderated. Respectful disagreement is welcome, however this will not be an opportunity to be overly critical of individuals. Thank you.

Kathryn Skaggs


Prop 8: Many Surprised to See LDS Church Stand and Re-Affirm Position


*It was suggested, and I agree, that "moral rape" was not appropriately used in the context I intended and that "rape of morals" would be a better description.
Continue reading at the original source →