Federal Courts Move to Dictate Morality to States/Veto Democracy

Federal courts have moved to force states to permit homosexual marriage with the Utah case being perhaps the basic test of the power of godless elites in the Government to dictate morality to the states.

http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/4218829

Homosexual marriage is not only sinful it’s fundamentally irrational. In an age of pseudo rationalism because of the influence of scientific thought the left seems to accept an existentialist economic method of limitless debt being o.k. and without future adverse consequences for the poor and middle class and force homosexual marriage upon all of the states-not just those exceptionally atheistic.

Marriage is about security for couples procreating and raising progeny. It was developed for the defense of women and to stop males from fighting over female so much. The state has conferred some financial helps to married couples traditionally because primarily for two reasons; 1) Marriage security is costly and 2) Raising families was encouraged.

There is of course a difference between civil and religious marriages-neither requires the other yet neither is necessarily exclusive, that is each can occur for one couple. Homosexual fans have sought to expropriate marriages for the financial benefits placing a burden on those that are not married to pay for that superfluous and wicked lunacy. Reason would inform one that homosexual couples could ensnare themselves with whatever legal contractual obligations they like and not make a hostile takeover of marriage. Yet it seems a basic in-your-face sort of moral decay is required by Democrat Judges as if the founders would have supported homosexual marriages.

It is wrong for the courts to veto democracy-2/3rds of Utah voters voted for a ban on homosexual marriages- and force the will of the Harvard Law School, Boston, San Francisco and other leftist cities on the people of the United States.

If marriage is really superfluous even for heterosexuals because of social prosperity then the financial benefits of marriage could be cut back ton rational levels. Marriage was a particular thing with a particular reason for existing, instead of bureaucratically expanding the definition to create an irrational and larger state bureaucracy new different structures suitable for what people that want to sanctify homosexual behavior require could develop.  If there were laws made to regulate avian behavior, they ought not to be applied to reptiles. If adults can stay up till government curfew it doesn't follow that children should and if heterosexual couples required some sort of state financial advantage in times of yore it doesn't follow that homosexual behavior in the third millennium ought to be regarded in the same context as man-woman procreators of the past.