An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/  about gay marriage. This follows this post about standing up for righteousness as Hobby Lobby did. This follows this post about smuggling across borders.  For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!

A Civil Discussion About Gay Marriage

4 comments

by Heather Disher 

I’m guessing I’m not the only one who has felt overwhelmed and confused by the intense and dramatic language often used by friends dabbling in “Gay Rights” Activism. The controversy about “gay marriage” has stirred up and divided friends, families, and churches lately. I have often felt at a loss for words when trying to have a respectful discussion, as I sorted out the many disjointed and forcefully presented arguments. My hope is to help you to feel competent and calm in your own respectful discussions with your friends, family or coworkers.

Enough With the Emotive Appeals

If an argument is to be valid, it must stand without emotive appeals. Rhetorical questions such as “Why shouldn’t two people be able to spend their lives together if they love each other?” pull our heartstrings, but do not speak at all to the actual issue. Is it valid to suggest that the law, as it exists today, prohibits people from “spending their lives together” as a same sex couple? No. Civil Unions already exist and DO allow people to spend their lives together. A marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. A Civil Union is a contract between two adults and a civil authority. So already, by definition, even the term “gay marriage” is indefensible. Asking the government to let you get married is like asking the Post Office for a library card: You are asking the wrong authority, it’s not even within their power to grant your request.

Social Acceptance

An unspoken argument that is raging under the surface is for acceptance of the GLBT lifestyle as equal to the heterosexual lifestyle in the realms of daily life and by society at large. Activists hope that "legalizing gay marriage” would push it outside of the realm of “alternative” and into normalcy. On a personal level, it would mean acceptance by parents, siblings, friends, neighbors, the PTA and the little league team. However, the government can only create and enforce legislation, it cannot change people’s personal beliefs. Not to mention, the First Amendment protects free speech, even when controversial. The key here is “Your right to extend your arm stops at my nose.” A person can change his own beliefs and his own behavior, but cannot force his expectations on others.
Many will muddy this issue by linking it to violence, discrimination, or other crimes against gay people. This is also not a valid argument. Gay people already have rights. They are already citizens. If those rights are not respected, there are already laws in place to protect them and punish the guilty parties. If these laws are not upheld, that is an issue of enforcement, not legislation.

Religious Acceptance

This is another argument that is often unspoken, but is at the core of the issue. Activists want churches and synagogues—and by extension, God—to proclaim acceptance of the gay lifestyle as a moral imperative. Arguments may present a confusing dissonance of morality, claiming that “love” and “acceptance” are the same. You may have heard something similar to this: “If God is love, He must love everyone, and to love everyone, He must accept them no matter what.” So either God is wrong [because He says He is love but doesn’t love and accept homosexuality], or Christians are wrong [because they say that God doesn’t love and accept homosexuality when He actually does].”This argument catches many off guard, but its fundamental premise is flawed. “Love” and “acceptance” are not synonyms. God’s love for us is a selfless love, and when He defines an action as sin, it is because it is harmful. God can love a person without accepting their actions. There are already many resources on ucg.org that would be helpful in refuting claims that homosexuality is biblically acceptable, or in any way righteous in God’s sight. Again, legislation would not, could not change the teachings of the Bible or the beliefs of Christians.

Property Rights

When you get down to it, all of the flowery speech about love, devotion and equality distracts from the facts. The inflammatory news items of late have generated from issues of property rights. This is where any possibility exists for government legislation. The only practical discussion about “gay marriage” would be this: Should the government recognize Civil Unions as it does marriage: with tax credits, next of kin rights, and other laws governing money and property?
Some would say yes, because our government should represent its people, and protect their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We live in a carnal world, and even if the law stayed as it is, our government and our population is already far from righteous.
On the other hand, history is made up of critical moments that can turn future events on their heads. Is this debate on “gay marriage” such a critical moment? Is it possible that if enough people learned God’s truth and sought Him that America as a whole could turn and repent?
I choose to be optimistic. That is why it is so important for you and I to be informed, to be logical, to be competent in thought and discussion. Because changing hearts and minds is what we are here for. All of us have been rescued from sin, and who knows what the impact of your words could be for someone else?
So if you find yourself in the middle of a heated discussion, remember: Be logical. Be clear. Ask questions to find out what is driving your friend’s argument. And above all, remember Proverbs:11:9An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.. “With their words, the godless destroy their friends, but knowledge will rescue the righteous.”

California Governor Signs Bill Giving Illegal Aliens Access to Driver's Licenses

A very interesting post from www.NumbersUSA.com about California giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. This follows this post about the illegal aliens being allowed to protest on the National Mall while WWII veterans are not allowed to visit their memorial. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what you can do click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.

California Governor Signs Bill Giving Illegal Aliens Access to Driver's Licenses


posted on NumbersUSA

Gov. Jerry Brown

Today, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill (AB 60) that allows illegal aliens to apply for driver’s licenses. The California Department of Motor Vehicles estimates 2 million illegal aliens could apply for licenses under the new law.



Brown had opposed such legislation during his 2010 campaign but changed his mind several months ago when the U.S. House did not rush to endorse the Senate-passed amnesty bill. Speaking at the bill signing, Brown said, “This bill will enable millions of people to get to work safely and legally. Hopefully, it will send a message to Washington that immigration reform is long past due.”



The new licenses, which will not be valid for federal identification purposes, are expected to be issued starting Jan. 1, 2015. But the California DMV must first settle on a design that will not violate the federal REAL ID Act. That Act does not bar states from issuing licenses to illegal aliens but such licenses must be sufficiently differentiated from standard licenses.



AB 60 suggests the following wording for the back of the special license: “This card is not acceptable for official federal purposes. This license is issued only as a license to drive a motor vehicle. It does not establish eligibility for employment, voter registration or public benefits.” The front of the special license, however, would be identical to a standard license except that it would use the abbreviation “DP” (driving privileges) instead of “DL” (driver’s license).



Illegal-alien advocates had lobbied for years to get licenses for illegal aliens. A ban on licenses was initially imposed in 1993. In 2003, Gov. Grey Davis signed a bill that gave illegal aliens access to licenses but Californians voted to recall him later that year. Shortly after his election, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill that re-instated the ban. He went on to veto several bills like AB 60 during his tenure.



Before Oct. 13th, Brown must consider several other pro-illegal alien bills that passed the state legislature including AB 4, which would bar state and local police from holding illegal aliens for deportation under the federal Secure Communities program unless they have been convicted of certain crimes, and AB 1024, which would enable illegal aliens to practice law.

Report From Occupied America: Jared Taylor’s Open Letter to Alexandra Wallace

This is an urgent post from www.Vdare.com about Alexandra Wallace. This follows this post about materials to help make the case about immigration numbers and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso. On a related note, you can read about Miss Kentucky Latina here, an interesting article about Jessica Alba here or another article about Salma Hayek here. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

 

 

Report From Occupied America: Jared Taylor’s Open Letter to Alexandra Wallace

 

http://www.vdare.com/taylor/110322_open_letter.htm
www.Vdare.com
about Alexandra Wallace. This follows this post
about immigration bills in various states and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso. On a related note, you can read about Miss Kentucky Latina here, an interesting article about Jessica Alba here or another article about Salma Hayek here. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE

Report From Occupied America: Jared Taylor's Open Letter to Alexandra Wallace

http://www.vdare.com/taylor/110322_open_letter.htm

[National newspapers have held you up to ridicule, and UCLA's vice chancellor for student affairs Janina Montero [Email her] says she is "appalled and offended." After a week of enduring what you say were "the harassment of my family, the publishing of my personal information, death threats and being ostracized from an entire community," you have decided to drop out of UCLA. [UCLA student who made controversial video says she'll leave school | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Time, March 18, 2011]James Fulford writes: We're reposting this Open Letter, which Jared Taylor posted last night on American Renaissance, with added links because it's important—since we last blogged, Miss Wallace has been forced to drop out of UCLA, where she was a member of white minority group on the UCLA campus. Her experience is instructive as to what the rest of us can expect if we allow ourselves to become a minority. Do not expect affirmative action or reparations.]

By Jared Taylor

Dear Miss Wallace,

Welcome to fame you never wanted.

By my count, since you posted your YouTube video about Asians at UCLA on March 11—10 days ago—some six million people have watched it. You took it down two days later, but it went viral anyway. There are now scores of "replies" and "parodies" on YouTube, most of them vile, many of them obscene.

None of this would have happened if you had been caught stealing books from the library or cheating on an exam. It would not have happened even if you had been arrested for bank robbery or murder. In the times in which we live, what you did was far worse. You were "insensitive."

What exactly did you do? You said "hordes" of Asians attend UCLA. In fact, there are more Asian than white undergraduates—37 percent vs. 32 percent—so whites are a minority. They don't call it "UCL Asian" for nothing. You said the number of Asians was "fine" with you but that if they were going to come to UCLA they should learn American manners. Specifically you said they should not use cell phones in the library, and you imitated how they talk. You also said that the families of Asian students come to cook and clean for them, so that Asian students never learn to "fend for themselves." Tasteless, perhaps, but hardly shocking.

I'm sure you feel you are being punished terribly for a trivial mistake—for something that might not even be a mistake at all. I'm sure you are bewildered and frightened, and I suspect no one in your circle can explain what is happening.

Let me try. Perhaps it is beginning to dawn on you that your sin was not what you said but who you are.

If you were black or Hispanic and made a mocking video about Asians no one would care. The Asians and others who have made video "replies" address you as "bitch" and say awful things about your appearance and imagined sex habits, but no one has criticized them. Many of them seem to be students. Is the administration "appalled and offended"? Have they received death threats? No.

In 2005, Kamau Kambon, a black man who taught Africana studies at North Carolina State University said on C-SPAN that all whites should be exterminated. It caused hardly a ripple. Just last year, Professor Kent Wong of your very own UCLA urged non-whites to "become lawyers, and teachers, and doctors and members of the U.S. Senate [and] replace those old white men." Was Vice Chancellor Montero "appalled." No. But she is appalled at you. Why?

Maybe Pearl Cleage [Email her] can help you understand. She is a black poet and playwright, just the sort of person you might have had to read in high-school English. This is what she says about race:

"In discussions of race between black people and white people the conscious black person is always right; is always the ultimate authority on questions having to do with race and racism; must always be regarded as the 'injured party,' or the oppressed. . . . [Whites] cannot possibly be expected to be objective about questions of race." [Pearl Cleage, Deals With the Devil and Other Reasons to Riot (New York, Ballantine Books, 1993), p. 322.]

That, italics and all, sums it up, and what Miss Cleage says about blacks applies to all non-whites. They are your moral superiors, and you must defer to them on the subject of race. In fact, it's safer to defer to them on other things, too. You never know when disagreeing with a Hispanic could be "racism." Non-whites, on the other hand, don't have to be "sensitive." They can mock you, insult you, imitate your accent, insist that you learn their manners, but you, Miss Wallace, are different. You must never do these things.

And you must never, never, never notice that whites are outnumbered at UCLA. Next you might notice that whites are being outnumbered in the whole country—outnumbered by people whom your very own Professor Wong [Email him] is urging to "replace those old white men." You are not an old white man; you are a young white woman. Judging from the obscene "replies" on YouTube, the people who are replacing the old white men have different plans for you.

None of this is fair, Miss Wallace. Just three minutes of what you thought was harmless video have changed your life. And what have you learned? The lesson Vice Chancellor Montero wants you to learn is the same one Pearl Cleage wants you to learn: that you are always wrong, always the oppressor. She wants you to apologize, hang your head, and be guilty all your life.

I hope you learn different lessons. They are difficult lessons that will destroy your illusions, but the sooner you learn them the stronger you will be. You have already learned that when populations change, culture and behavior changes. I hope you will learn that as a white woman, as someone descended from the stock who built this country and established its institutions, you have the right to notice and care. If newcomers are changing this country in ways you don't like, you have the right to say so. You have the right to want your country to remain part of the West rather than become a chaotic mix of conflicting peoples and cultures.

I hope you learn that double standards about "sensitivity" are not just about tormenting one white woman and ignoring the vicious behavior of her non-white attackers. Those double standards mean that no white person may ever stand up for his own values and culture. They mean that non-whites may work for explicitly racial goals but whites may not. Ultimately, Miss Wallace, double standards that deny to whites what they permit to non-whites ensure that your people and your culture will be elbowed aside.

These are difficult and painful truths. It often takes years to grasp them. But you will understand what has happened to you only if you can see through the lies and deceptions that distort everything you have ever been told about race.

In the eyes of the people who are driving you off campus, your greatest sin, Miss Wallace, is that you are white.

Jared Taylor (email him) is editor of American Renaissance and the author of Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. (For Peter Brimelow's review, click here.) The long-awaited sequel, White Identity: Racial Consciousness In The 21^st Century, will be published this year.