The Magic Number is 23. Foreseeing the Tactics of the LGBT to Make SSM Legal in All 50 States by Andre Jenkins

I. The Magic Number for the LGBT lobby is 23. 

What I mean by stating that "The Magic Number is 23," is that 23 is the target number of states the LGBT lobby needs in order to get same-sex “marriage”(SSM) forced upon all 50 states by the Supreme Court. The LGBT doesn’t need all states or even 60% of states to legalize SSM in order to get the Supreme Court to make a sweeping ruling enforcing SSM on all states; it just needs to hit its target of 23 states. Even if cases that have been sent to state courts that have a ban on SSM get rejected by that court, the gay lobby will then push the case to a higher court and eventually SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States.) 

In the event that 23 states have legalized SSM and one case that was formerly denied gets sent to SCOTUS, it is likely that Justice Kennedy will look at the momentum gained recently with the legalization of SSM, and all the lower court rulings, and decide that momentum will continue. Thus Justice Kennedy and the other pro SSM justices will make a sweeping ruling over all the states legalizing SSM. (The number may be actually higher than 23 states, but my argument is based on the lowest possible number, the highest possible number of states I'd guess would be 26 states)

The main vehicle the LGBT lobby is using in order to get SSM legalized is the courts. Out of the 18 current states that have legalized SSM, the people of the state got to vote only 3 out of those 18 times (Washington. Dec. 9, 2012. Maine. Dec. 29, 2012. Maryland. Jan. 1, 2013). In 2013, 10 states legalized gay marriage (HI, ILL, NM, NJ, RI, MD, CA, DE, MN, UT). During 2012, 2 states legalized (ME, WA) SSM. In 2011, one state (NY). In 2010, 1 state (NH). For 2009, 2 states (Iowa, VT).  In 2008, one state (CT), and in 2004, one state (MA). 

II. LGBT Salami Tactics

Up until now the LGBT has used what is called Salami Tactics to slowly gain momentum and power for its SSM cause. 

"Salami tactics, also known as the salami-slice strategy, is a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition. With it, an aggressor can influence and eventually dominate a landscape, typically political, piece by piece. In this fashion, the opposition is eliminated "slice by slice" until one realizes (too late) that it is gone in its entirety. In some cases it includes the creation of several factions within the opposing political party and then dismantling that party from the inside, without causing the "sliced" sides to protest. Salami tactics are most likely to succeed when the perpetrators keep their true long-term motives hidden and maintain a posture of cooperativeness and helpfulness while engaged in the intended gradual subversion."

Evidence of the LGBT's use of Salami tactics can be seen in the many examples I have documented throughout the entirety of this paper. For example: In CA, Proposition 8, Section 3 of DOMA, and the vote of the people of California, was overturned by the Supreme Court even though the voters of California affirmed Proposition 8 twice. In Utah, Federal Judge Richard Shelby single handedly overruled the gay marriage ban. In NM, the NM Supreme Court voted unanimously to legalize SSM. In Illinois, it was the state senators and the state house legalized SSM. For NJ, it was State Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson who initially overruled NJ’s gay marriage ban and then the NJ Supreme Court unanimously legalized SSM. In HI, the state House and Senate legalized SSM. 

Another tactic the LGBT is using is utilizing rogue county clerks, rogue attorney generals, rogue city mayors, and rogue governors to break their states constitution. For example in Texas, Houston’s Lesbian Mayor Anise Parker tried to overrule the Texas Constitution by stating: “[I] am hereby directing that same-sex spouses of employees who have been legally married in another jurisdiction be afforded the same benefits as spouses of a heterosexual marriage.” Parker was later overruled by a state district court judge, however the state district judge was then overruled by a federal judge.

In N.C. a clerk defied N.C. law by handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  In N.M. rogue clerks also handed out marriage licenses to same-sex couples even before N.M. legalized SSM later on in 2013. The same kind of event happened in PA as well. In Hawaii, a “special session” was given by Governor Abercrombie to examine a gay marriage bill by the legislators. In PA, the Attorney general refused to defend the gay marriage ban and the Attorney General of N.M. also refused to defend the gay marriage ban.

The Attorney General of N.C. said that he supports gay marriage but nevertheless he will defend the ban against it. Virginia's Attorney General Mark Herring stated that he would not defend Virginia's SSM ban. In Ohio “a federal judge intervened to order state officials to ignore the state's marriage law and treat a same-sex couple as married when completing vital records. Ohio voters amended their Constitution in 2004 to protect marriage by an overwhelming majority, but this judge has chosen to be a law unto himself and trample on the will of the people.” Also in Ohio, there was a “federal court ruling that purports to force the state to list same-sex couples as 'married' on state death certificates in violation of the state constitution that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, a provision overwhelmingly adopted by voters in 2004.” 

In California, Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to defend the gay marriage ban. In summary of what has been noted so far, the LGBT lobbyist will use the courts and rogue clerks, rogue governors, attorney generals, federal judges, and state judges to get SSM legalized.

Recently, in Oklahoma Senior U.S. District Judge Terrence C. Kern,  struck down Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional stating that the ban discriminated against same-sex couples for no rational reason. Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder "intervened in the legal battle over gay marriage in Utah on  announced that same-sex marriages that took place in Utah are considered legal under federal law even though state officials will not recognize those unions.

There is no doubt that in order to keep their momentum rolling the LGBT lobby will try to outdo itself by getting an additional 12-15 states to legalize SSM in 2014 which would equal a total of 33 states to legalize SSM. A Times magazine article noted that the next states that will legalize SSM will be Oregon, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah by 2016. It seems that such a prediction is in error, especially since Utah was just forced to legalize SSM and the fast rate at which states are legalizing SSM. David Badash, writer of the New Civil Rights Movement gives an interesting forecast of the next states that will legalize SSM here.

There is no reason to believe these articles are accurate with all of the surprise curveballs that have been thrown by rogue justices, clerks, federal judges, Supreme Court Justices, attorney generals, and the dirty fighting that the LGBT lobbyist are conducting. I will say that ALL states are under emergency watch and should be on guard in 2014 for the unexpected to happen. For as seen in Utah and Ohio, all it takes is one Federal Judge to overrule a state’s gay marriage ban in order for SSM to be legalized in that state.

A NY Times article confirms my conviction by noting: 

"In June, when the Supreme Court stopped short of deciding whether the Constitution guaranteed a right to same-sex marriage, many thought the court had bought itself several years before it had to confront the question again. 

But the issue will soon return to the court, with officials in Utah saying that within the next few days they will ask the justices to block a trial judge’s decision last week that allows same-sex couples to marry there. 

“If the court thought it was going to get a few years,” said Michael C. Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, “I think they were naïve.”

The Supreme Court’s two decisions in June were finely balanced, with legal experts saying they had achieved the twin goals of advancing the cause of gay rights and avoiding a backlash in parts of the country not ready to embrace same-sex marriage.

One decision struck down the part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples in states that allowed such unions. The other declined to say whether the Constitution required states to allow such marriages in the first place.

Since then, the pace of change has been very rapid. When the justices heard arguments in the cases in March, same-sex marriage was permitted in nine states and the District of Columbia. If the Utah decision stands, the number of states allowing such marriages will have doubled, to 18.

The most important part of that article is the emphasis that the number of states that legalized SSM from June till the end of December doubled from 9 states to 18 states. That's roughly 9 states in about 6 months to legalize SSM after the SCOTUS ruling. At that pace 27-30 states will have legalized SSM by either May or June of 2014 if something huge doesn't stop the LGBT juggernaut. 

In conclusion to what I have shown above, the LGBT will try to get SSM legalized in all 50 States without the say of the people.
 

III. Onward Into Battle: The Argument From International Collectivity Against SSM

The recent rulings by the Supreme Court, State Supreme Courts, Federal Judges, appeals courts, and State House and State Senates, are not buying the following arguments commonly espoused by hetero-marriage advocates: the procreation argument, the accidental procreation argument, the children’s rights argument, the tradition argument, the religious argument against SSM, the heterosexual parents are best for children arguments, social science studies that reveal that children do worse with LGBT parents, reverse discrimination argument, slippery slope arguments (polygamy), the redefinition argument, or the state’s rights arguments.

From the above list, it seems that there is no possible argument that can convince the justices and legislators in power to deny SSM. Hence, an argument must be formulated to gather and rally those who are for hetero-marriage and those sitting on the fence about the issue so that stringent pressure will be put on the justices and legislators. (I constructed 3 arguments that are rarely if ever argued against SSM in my first paper of this series entitled Why Same-Sex Marriage is Like Opening Pandora's Box). The kind of rally I am alluding to can be seen from the 200,000 Taiwanese who marched for hetero-marriage, the 1.4 million French that marched for hetero marriage, the over 800,000 to 1 million Patriots that participated in the 2 Million Bikers Ride on 9/11 against the Million Muslim March, and the almost 2 million people that have stood up in support of Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty. The previous examples are just a minor blue-print of what HAS TO BE DONE. I’d estimate at least 5 million people will be needed to protest in the U.S.A alone. 

What would be even more effective is for all HETERO-marriage advocates Internationally, in all countries, to march against SSM on a set date. The institution that will have to lead the charge is the institution with the largest number of people, the Christian Church. There aren’t enough secular people against SSM to provide a sufficient number of people to stand against the LGBT and Liberal juggernaut by themselves.

Thus the International Collectivity Argument Against SSM is as follows: Since the courts are not buying ANY arguments against SSM, one of the very few ways to pressure the courts and strongly impact them to ban SSM is for an international collective effort by all heterosexual marriage advocates of all perspectives (Religious and Secular) on a grand scale, by marching, petitioning, and speaking out against SSM. This argument was not constructed to convince SSM advocates; rather I constructed this argument to rally hetero marriage advocates and those sitting on the fence to pressure the courts by voicing their protestation.

The LGBT juggernaut have made it clear through their actions that this isn’t just about gay rights and gay marriage, but a totalitarian silencing of opposition who are against their views. The LGBT has coerced themselves upon their opposition not just in the U.S. but internationally through what looks like a Cultural Marxism, Totalitarianism, Extreme Egalitarianism, and Flat-Landism.

The following are many examples how both the LGBT and Liberal juggernaut is coercing their opposition (especially religious individuals) into silence and acceptance of them by harassment, bullying, and media ridicule. All of the following are from countries that have legalized SSM:

*In the UK: A gay couple is suing the Church of England so they can get married in the church. Also in the UK, Chymorvah Private Hotel was successfully sued by a gay couple that they denied a room to.   

Another Bed and Breakfast was successfully sued (Swiss B&B in Cookham, Berkshire) when they refused to room a gay couple. 

*Even Sikh temples in the UK stopped all weddings because Sikh leaders feared that they could be subject to legal trouble for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, which are forbidden under their teachings. 

*In Denmark, the churches in the Evangelical Lutheran Church were forced to have gay weddings within the church after a gay couple filed a complaint.

*Canada: “In British Columbia, a lesbian couple rented a hall from the Catholic group Knights of Columbus to hold their wedding reception. When the Knights realized it was for a lesbian couple, they canceled the booking and refunded the money. The couple took the Knights to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, and won a small judgment.”   

*Canadian sports commentator Damian Goddard was fired for supporting a hockey agent’s stance opposing gay marriage when he wrote: “I completely and wholeheartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage.” 

*France, peaceful traditional marriage demonstrators were put in jail by French police and gay activist vandalized the premises of the Jerome Lejeuene Foundation 

*In Italy: “The government has just issued a new set of guidelines for journalists for how to treat “LGBT” people. The guidelines, funded by the Council of Europe, dictate what terms and images must be used by the media and which must cannot be used when treating LGBT subjects. Journalists who do not comply are threatened with legal and professional penalties. Journalists are instructed not use negative sexual images from gay pride events and to refrain from emplying terms like “natural family”, “traditional family” and “gay marriage”. The guidelines explain that those terms are discriminatory and that marriage and family alone will do.”

*In the U.S. Airforce there are many cases of gays bullying Christians over their beliefs regarding gay marriage. The first case involved 19 year Air Force Veteran Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk, who was relieved of his position because he objected to  his Lesbian commander's "plans to severely punish an instructor who had expressed religious objections to homosexuality. During the conversation, his commander ordered him to share his personal views on homosexuality. “I was relieved of my position because I don’t agree with my commander’s position on gay marriage,” he told me. “We’ve been told that if you publicly say that homosexuality is wrong, you are in violation of Air Force policy.” There have been many more complaints about Christians in the Airforce being harassed due to their beliefs on gay marriage as shown here, and an odd event where drag queens headlined a Diversity Day in the Airforce.

*Oregon, a Christian bakery was forced to shut down after a lesbian couple sued the owners for not baking them a wedding cake. In CO, a Christian baker was sued and ordered by a court to make gay couples wedding cakes or face jail time.

 

*N.M. a lesbian couple successfully sued a photographer who refused to take pictures of their lesbian wedding. 

*WA: A 72 year old florists was sued twice, for not selling a gay couple flowers for their gay wedding.

*In Hawaii, a lesbian couple successfully  sued a hotel (which was the owner’s house) for not letting them stay there because the owner felt uncomfortable with lesbians in her house. 

*In VT: A lesbian couple successfully sued the Catholic owners of an Inn because the owners wouldn't let them have a wedding reception at the Inn. This article has mountains of examples of international liberal and LGBT fascism:  and this page thoroughly documents the International Liberal, Feminist, and LGBT Fascism. 

Lesbian Hawaiian Representative Georgette "Jo" Jordan actually voted against SSM in Hawaii because she saw that religious people, companies, and institutions would not be protected if SSM was legalized in Hawaii. Jordan stated: 

"I was blasted by the GLBT community on Saturday, outside the door. That took me aback. At the time, I hadn’t stated my position, and I was still undecided. These were testifiers the day before, saying, “How can you be undecided? You should be a 'yes.' Do you know what this means?” And I politely engaged with them: "I have some problems with SB1." I explained the issues and they slammed me again. “It’s good. Just vote yes.” They started getting boisterous. My natural instinct is, I’m going to fly some words at you. But you can’t, so I’m like, "Thank you."  When you look at a measure, you have to consider, how do we make this the golden standard, as bulletproof as possible? My major concerns on SB1 was, first, the parental maternal rights, 57-2c, that wasn’t healthy. That definitely needed to be fixed. The religious exemption was not adequate enough. And the divorce portion in there is not fair. We’re talking about creating equity. They have made a provision here where you don’t have to domicile here. And I totally get what they’re saying, but I have some serious problems with that. We should at least make some sort of domicile in our state, so they can file for divorce here.

I really am not happy with the exemptions. Too narrow. I’m not here to protect the big churches or the little churches, I’m saying we can’t erode what’s currently out there. We don’t want to scratch at the religious protections at all, because if we don’t create a measure that’s bulletproof, or as close to bulletproof as possible, then the measure will go to the courts. And they will interpret it however that may be. A judge will make assumptions and make a ruling, and that will become the law of the land. So you really want us to create the legislation.

I haven’t figured out why I felt so compelled to fight for the religious exemptions, to not erode Constitutional rights. I don’t belong to any particular denomination. I don’t wear one of those hats. I take religion out of everything. My religion is the mountain, the aina and spiritual. Everybody finds their own religion somewhere. I have the same values as they do, but it’s just a little different. When I walked into this session, that rose to the surface. Why me? Why am I trying to protect your religious rights?"
 

IV. LGBT Juggernaut's Identity Theft of Equating the Black Civil Rights Struggle as the Same as Theirs

I will state at the start that LGBT individuals have suffered some inequalities and indignities in the U.S. However, to associate and equate LGBT struggles with Black Civil Rights struggles is misguided. For example the silly slogan that "Gay is the New Black." That's funny, to me as a black man, none of my ancestors were put on slave ships because of their sexual orientation, but rather their black skin that they can't hide in a closet. Black Civil Rights is just a continuation of the Black struggle from slavery. Gay rights is not a continuation of Black Rights, the LGBT have their own struggle. Blacks didn't go around equating their struggles with the Jews or Native Americans. How about the over-representation of black males in the prison system, not because of their sexual orientation but because of situations related to the color of their skin. 

                       

Most black men that are in prison are there due to selling drugs. What is know from history about drugs in the black community? The government flooded the black ghettos, not gay ghettos with drugs. Moreover, black men are arrested more than whites.

In addition, for the most part, blacks have not been able to afford quality lawyers like there white counterparts. The violent conditions in Detroit and Chicago have nothing to do with gay drug dealing or gay gangs, but rather with historical social situations that led to blacks being impoverished, forming gangs, selling drugs, and being over-represented in the prison system.

None of those situations I just listed have anything to do with being gay. Gay pride buses aren't bombed like the black freedom buses were bombed, gays aren't being hosed down and chased by German Shepards like blacks were. Even if some blacks were gay, they weren't being hosed down for being gay, but rather because of that black skin that they can't hide in the closet like they can do with their sexual orientation.

A common counter I hear is that blacks weren't disowned and kicked out of their parent's house for their sexual orientation like LGBT individuals have been. Again, such an argument is misguided in that blacks were taken from their homeland on slaveships, African Americans don't know the language of their African ancestors, don't have the last names of their African ancestors, and don't share the customs or culture of their ancestors either. African Americans have a broken link in their heritage that stems back from many centuries.

 

Gays complain that they are being discriminated against because religious companies and institutions won't let them work there or that religious bakeries won't make them a "wedding" cake. That's silly because for the most part, blacks couldn't even sit down to have a glass of water at a restaurant or even a sandwich, while gays can walk into the very same bakeries that won't make them a wedding cake and be served a birthday cake, a New Year's Cake, eat cake as a snack, or take home for dessert.

Nobody is pouring ketchup on gays, spitting on them, putting them in jail like what happened to blacks, over them asking for a wedding cake. Actually gays are suing bakeries that don't make them a wedding cake and are winning. 

The consequences for not making a gay wedding cake is a fine or jail time. Moreover, why would a person work for a religious institution they know doesn't agree with their lifestyle? It's just a setup to force religious institutions to approve of their lifestyles. 

 

No one is bombing gay churches like black churches were bombed. There are no institutional enactments of hetero only pools, hetero only fountains, hetero only restaurants, hetero only telephone booths, hetero only waiting rooms, hetero only theaters, hetero only hotels, heteros get to sit at the front of the bus, hetero only schools. 

 

In his article entitled The People's District 5 Reasons Gay is Not the New Black, AD Thomason states: 

1. You have never seen–and won’t see–“heterosexual only” and “gay only” water fountains, diners, buses, schools, in light of 75 years of oppressive Jim Crow laws.

Homosexual men/women will never see a society that makes it a point–IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE–to remind them that they’re lesser in creation and not deserving of life’s joys. The homosexual man/woman has never seen this day and never will.

2. You have not–and won’t–see homosexuals snatched away from their families at birth for the purpose of division and dehumanization.

Some may think this is unfair because it deals with something that happened pre-civil rights, but historians agree that this was the root of all that was combatted during the Civil Rights era. Society has never been set up to divide and conquer the homosexual from birth.

3. Homosexual men/women have never endured a slave trade for generations and witnessed their ancestors dying by the numbers during a “Middle Passage” and being sold for raw goods.

The Middle Passage is part of the African American legacy as it brought Africans to America–as property. Many died during the Middle Passage; and those that made it, with strong communal ties, were sold for raw material. They were seen not as a person but as valuable property at best–their value being determined by the trader, auctioneer, and families with the highest bid. Homosexual men/women in their struggle of “inequality” will never know of a day, month, year or decades that define them or their culture in this way.

4. Homosexuals have never been–or will be considered–non-citizens by laws of the United States that rob them of inalienable rights.

Dread Scott sued the federal courts for his freedom but lost 7-2 due to the fact that he, nor any other person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States. Homosexuals will never know a day where they are not considered citizens of the United States.

5. Homosexuals will never face a societal norm that allows–and even promotes–them to be beaten because they are seen as property and treated like cattle with scripture as a basis for justification."

 

The LGBT struggle is different from the Jim Crow struggle of blacks as depicted here. LGBT individuals do face struggles as a result of who they are, but they shouldn't hijack the Black Civil Rights Movement by equating it to their own struggle, and that goes for black LGBT individuals as well.

Another erroneous comparison is the LGBT struggle with interracial marriage. Marriage in all cultures, throughout all times has been situated around opposite sexes, and very, very rarely, and never successfully, has it been situated around same-sex marriage. The institution of marriage was designed around opposite sexes for obvious reasons that I don't need to emphasize. Differences in hair color, skin color, height, weight, etc doesn't change the abilities in principle of a male/female union.

V. Faking Anti-Gay Hate Crimes 

What is even more interesting is that there are many examples of LGBT individuals lying about being victims of hate crimes (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, a big list is documented here, a huge list of different fake hate crimes is documented here). Dirty tactics like faking anti-gay hate crimes (crying wolf) to get attention and sympathy, will only end up backfiring on LGBT individuals when and if someone really does attack them out of hatred for who they are.

Another dirty tactic the LGBT uses is it’s “pawns” on facebook. Such as the pages “The Virgin Marry Should Have Aborted, The Virgin Marry Should Have STILL Aborted, here is a huge list of similar pages probably run by the same person and her network of friends. Other pages are included: here, here, here, here, here, this person, here, and here

VI. Metasize Demise and The Wild Fire Effect

LGBT unions have a meta-sized effect on the institution of marriage and society. I use the term metasize to mean that LGBT unions have a largely over-represented impact on society and the marriage institution relative to their small size (6%-12% of the population). The reason LGBT unions have such a meta-sized effect is due to how radically different they and their subculture are than heterosexual unions and traditional society. LGBT is a counter-culture that consists of largely gender-non conforming individuals in anti-traditional forms. 

Steven R. Strahler writes about the metasize impact of acknowledging LGBT unions on the institution of marriage by writing the following: 

“An older marriageable population with more assets to protect means that demand for prenuptial agreements is soaring. At Chicago law firm Berger Schatz, managing partner Leon Finkel predicts it will jump by some 50 percent. He expects LBGT clients to have a disproportionate impact on family law relative to their share of the population." 

Dr. Thomas Sowell further emphasizes the impact of including LGBT into the Hetero institution of marriage will have on the institution as a whole in the following statement: 

"Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.

Even at the individual level, men and women have different circumstances, if only from the fact that women have babies and men do not. These and other asymmetries in the positions of women and men justify long-term legal arrangements to enable society to keep this asymmetrical relationship viable -- for society's sake. Neither of these considerations applies to unions where the people are of the same sex. Centuries of experience in trying to cope with the asymmetries of marriage have built up a large body of laws and practices geared to that particular legal relationship. To then transfer all of that to another relationship that was not contemplated when these laws were passed is to make rhetoric more important than reality."

Dr. Douglas Allen takes Dr. Sowell's argument further by demonstrating that inclusion and presence of LGBT unions into the hetero institution of marriage, changes the laws to fit LGBT unions and families, which in turn makes those laws a bad fit for Hetero unions and families: 

 “It is often argued that a small number of same-sex marriages cannot possibly have any impact on the general population. However, it is the feedback loop from same-sex marriages to heterosexual ones that causes the problem. Because legal regulations on marriage revolve around children, and because same-sex families are fundamentally different from heterosexual ones in this respect, this area poses the greatest risk of legal misfit. 

Ironically, evidence for these changes appeared immediately after the introduction of same-sex marriage. For example, in Canada, the second half of Bill C-38, the Canadian federal Civil Marriage Act changing the definition of marriage, contains changes to other pieces of federal legislation removing the definition of natural parent and replacing it with “legal” parent. A legal parent, like one of the partners within a same-sex marriage, is not biologically linked to the child. Of course, there is no natural limit to the number of legal parents a child may have, and in a same-sex marriage with one child there are at least three adults involved in some role as parent, whether legal or not. The impact of creating “legal” parents will be felt in our culture for many years, and to the extent it is important for the biological connection between a child and parent to be recognized under the law, such a change can only harm heterosexual marriages."

Sociologist Dr Patricia Morgan affirms Dr. Allen's points above by concluding: 

"In the move to same-sex marriage, opposite-sex relationships have to conform to gay norms rather than vice-versa, since matters pertaining to complementary sexes cannot apply to those of the same sex. For example: Spanish birth certificates record ‘progenitor A’ and ‘progenitor B’ rather than ‘mother’ and ‘father’. In Canada, the concept of natural parent has been erased from law - for every child and every couple - with court rulings that children could have three parents. Sweden has also moved to eliminate the words ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ in return for one neutral word." 

Supreme Court Justice Roberts also noted in the Prop 8 and DOMA hearings that the Hetero Institution of Marriage and its laws were developed over time due to the differences between males and females:

"I'm not sure that it's right to view this as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn't get around and say let's have this institution, but let's keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn't include homosexual couples.  It is -- yes, you can say that it serves some of the other interests where it makes sense to include them, but not all the interests. And it seems  to me, your friend argues on the other side, if you have an institution that pursues additional interests, you don't have to include everybody just because some other aspects of it can be applied to them."

Manuel A. Lopez, who is a gay man, even understands that the Hetero Institution of Marriage and it's laws, are fitted around Hetero unions and families: 

"Marriage has developed over many centuries to meet the needs of heterosexuals. Gay marriage would inevitably be a kind of imitation. Like most imitations, it couldn't wholly succeed, and would therefore result in more or less self-conscious parody. Widening marriage to include people of the same sex means stripping it of much of its meaning and diminishing it for everybody. This would have a relatively small effect on the lives of people who are already married, and whose notion of marriage is already largely settled, but it would have a profound and harmful effect on future generations of Americans."

I provide additional elaboration of the points made in this section in the first paper of this series: Part III C of Why Same-Sex is Like Opening Pandora's Box


VII. Conclusions

In the year of 2014, the LGBT and Liberal juggernaut will try to legalize SSM in all 50 states, and will do so by any means. As I have thoroughly documented above, the LGBT juggernaut will bypass the vote of "we the people" by the choice of Federal judges, Supreme Court Justices, attorney generals. etc. They will continue their fake anti-gay hate crimes, continue to hijack the Black Civil Rights Movements as equivalent to their own struggle, continue to bully small religious businesses, continue to try to silence anyone who disagrees with them and demonize them.

As I noted above with the International Collectivity Argument Against SSM, this is a war not just against the natural family, but also a war against religion, a war against freedom of speech and freedom of belief that goes against the Liberal status quo. 

In 2014 we can expect to see Gay Pride demonstrations at the Sochi Olympics in Russia and at the World Cup in Brazil, more LGBT individuals (celebrities, law makers, and high status individuals) will come out of the closet, there will be more loophole surprises through the court system in relation to SSM, and more states will legalize SSM.

Too much happened in 2013 to turn back now; 18 states legalized SSM, and 9 states legalized SSM within 6 months. All of the pro heterosexual marriage forces nationally and internationally must join and rise up at once or SSM will be legalized not just in the U.S. but Internationally.