Genderless "Marriage" Threatens the Foundation of Civilization

by Lawrence Fox

The fruitful bonding between man and woman is the most fundamental form of original justice.

Justice is the promotion of the proper order of things. In a just society, human beings have a harmonious relationship with one another -- male and female, Creator and creation all work together and flourish.

As a result of this form of justice, society exists. Families are formed, tribal bonds are established, and nations arise.  Civilizations were created from this original justice – the fruitful bonding between man and woman.

Several years ago, I was listening to two lawyers debate the legality of California’s Proposition 8, which amended the state’s Constitution in 2008 to re-affirm marriage as a form (thing in itself) consisting of one man and one woman.

Proposition 8 was a grass root response of the voters of California to reject outlaw courts legalizing same sex “marriage.” Thirty-three other U.S. states passed pro-marriage amendments and legislation. All these states rejected the notion of courts arbitrarily equating the act of sodomy between two men or two women as a form of natural justice.

The American people’s fervent response in favor of traditional marriage was ethnically and religiously diverse and quite prescient. Africans, Caucasians, Hispanics, Protestants, Catholics, and Mormons all fought side by side to preserve the fruitful bonding between one man and one woman as an original justice.

They recognized that courts demanding the recognition of same-sex coupling would completely trample the consciences of individuals formed by natural law (reason) and religion (faith). The rights of children to be conceived naturally and raised by father and mother would be eliminated.

The plethora of lawsuits brought forward by LGBT lawyers against photographers, bakers, fertility specialists, and

Aaron & Melissa Klein, whose bakery was closed
 after they refused to bake a cake for a same sex "wedding"
ceremony, have been fined $135,000 by the state
of Oregon. The fine is a tax on their religious beliefs, and
will have to be paid out of resources intended to support
their five children.

owners of social halls in the last several years has proven the electorate correct. The increase in bizarre forms of surrogacy resulting from homosexuals attempting to legitimize their lifestyles by manufacturing children is already poisoning our society.

Throughout human history whenever the fruitful bond between male and female was broken, other forms of injustices grew -- patricide, matricide, infanticide, fratricide and in some cases the complete disappearance of whole civilizations. Spartans decided that the elements of war were perfect, and everything else subservient. Hence they promoted homosexual unions among themselves to the denigration of the original justice of the male female bond.

No longer seen on planet earth: Spartans
Acceptance of homosexual unions destroyed their
civilization 

Shortly after that, their society was gone. Families no longer bonded. Eugenics invaded their thinking, and their imperfect infants were killed. Everything became the property of the state. And then the state disappeared.

This is what is facing America today. Same sex “marriage” is an attack on original justice. It is an attack on the nature of man himself, and the harmonious relations between male

and female, man and creation, and man and Creator.

It seeks to establish as normative the unfruitful bonding of men and men to the exclusion of women. And it establishes  the unfruitful bonding of women and women to the exclusion of men. Eventually, this attack on original justice will permeate all of our society, changing the way man will view himself. 

Everything will be legally open to reinterpretation and abuse. 

We will exit history the same way that the Spartan did. Spartans loved war. We love technology, which allows us to recreate ourselves. It makes us younger, changes our gender and manufactures our children, and puts to death the unwanted products of our lust.  Our society is rapidly approaching a state of extreme injustice – technologically savvy with no human dignity.

Sadly, it seems the grass root electorate supporting traditional marriage might as well have saved their breath. They are largely ignored now as the U.S. Supreme Court reaches a final decision on the issue of same-sex “marriage” due in June.

This is how it came to be.

The “First Gay President” Barack Obama (a distinction made by Newsweek Magazine) instructed his Attorney General, Mr. Eric Holder, NOT to defend the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Defense of Marriage was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996. It allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex “marriages” granted under the laws of other states.

The Attorney General, who is legally required to uphold laws passed by Congress, would not come to the defense of states whose laws were attacked by LGBT lawyers in unruly courts. Obama, who supposedly majored in constitutional law at Harvard University, identified the complete overthrow of traditional marriage as “justice.”

According to David Axelrod, Obama secretly supported same sex “marriage” prior to his running for President. He was

Obama hid his support for same-sex "marriage"
when running for president
in order to gain the black vote 

advised to hide this fact so that the black electorate in the Bible Belt would show greater enthusiasm for his candidacy. His so called “evolving position on gay marriage” was a manufactured lie.

A court here and a court there demanded same sex coupling. I am always dismayed by the inability of seemingly good federal and state leadership to annunciate the absolute hypocrisy of courts on these matters. The courts argue that they are implementing “a living document.”

Americans believe in a living document, it is called the “Amendment Process.” Such is constitutional, and not lawless. The states amended their constitutions to demonstrate Marriage is an institution, which existed prior to the sodomy-driven courts. It was and is a universally recognized institution between man and woman even in the most remote jungles of the world. The marriage between a man and a woman has been the foundation of surviving civilizations. 

Judges do not have the power to make any document “living.” That is one of the biggest lies forced on Americans in the past 40 years.  Judges don’t make law. They adjudicate existing law.

Lawyers debating the legality of Prop 8 are arguing that the amendment process is not constitutional unless the results are rubber-stamped by lawless black robes. Irrational judges now enslave the electorate under such a system.

One of the lawyers I heard debating Prop 8 said marriage was expressed in diverse forms throughout human history, including arranged marriages, polygamy, incest, common law, and communal sharing of women within primitive tribes. It was argued that few cultures maintained the “ideal” concept of marriage, that is a monogamous lifetime union between one man and one woman.

Since marriage within human history was fraught with inconsistencies, the notion that people in California or any state for that matter would seek to preserve a standard for marriage seemed unconstitutional to these justices; and, in fact, it seemed like an attack on the ever-evolving “Equal Protection under the Law” in the 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

It is my understanding that a man cannot enter into a marriage with multiple wives and that bigamy is a crime in all 50 States. Currently, a man cannot enter into a marriage with his mother, sister, or daughter. Incest is a crime in all 50 States. It is only logical based upon the irrational musings of the lawyer supporting same sex “marriage” that all such prohibitions against sexual vagrancies are unconstitutional.

Every American is free to share domestic interests with other adult persons. Marriage laws are not unjust; instead the moral sensibilities of so many Americans have changed. The honest observer recognizes that the demand for same-sex marriage flows -- not from the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s -- but from the culture of death.

Under the guise of human rights, the government promotes abortion on demand, contraception, no fault divorce, pornography, doctor-assisted suicide, drug legalization, and the wholesale manufacture of children apart from normative conjugal relations between a man and a woman. The consequence of such moral collapse is now summed up by the statement “Let everyone choose for themselves what is marriage.”

When the good polygamous people of Utah in 1852 asked the U.S. Government to grant them admission to the Union, the government said that Utah had to outlaw polygamy, fundamentally establishing the fruitful bond of one man and one woman as a standard expression of social and moral justice.  The Obama Administration, progressive legislators, and the courts -- demonstrating an abysmal hatred for U.S. History -- ignored such a fact.

I was waiting with bated breath for the lawyer in support of Prop 8 to state, “Yes, the institution of marriage has experienced various forms throughout human history. Yet, in spite of pressures, which obscured virtue and diminished justice, it is self-evident that the bonding of man and woman heroically remained the essential form of marriage.”

Further, I hoped he would say, “Arguments in favor of ‘state sanctioned sodomy’ do not preserve equal justice under the law, but instead discriminate in marriage against the male

(lesbian coupling); the female (homosexual coupling), and the child, who no longer has the right to a father and a mother.”

Courts bless newly "married" same sex couple and adopted child
 (AP Photo)

In other words, I hoped the lawyer would say, “The bonding of man and woman as a micro-foundation for the existence of society is still necessary in America and that such an experiment as same-sex “marriage” cannot be implemented by un-elected judges, who won’t be around to live through the consequences.”

When I hear people argue, “Same sex marriage does not impact my marriage,” I lament that another couple has publically admitted that they are fundamentally cohabitating, and they wasted their money on a marriage license.

The advocacy of this new social madness through the lawless courts has precedence.

The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Warren Burger in  “Roe Versus Wade” legalized abortion in 1973 based on the fact – in part -- that the Roman Empire sanctioned abortion prior to its collapse. It never occurred to the Burger Court that the Roman Empire also sanctioned human trafficking, human sacrifice, and the murder of philosophers and Christians – also prior to its collapse. In other words, the court interpreted the U.S. Constitution as embracing the barbaric practices of ancient cultures.

It turns out that Supreme Court Justice William Blackmun -- who wrote the Roe v Wade majority opinion in support of abortion -- was in favor of abortion on demand due to his daughter’s college experiences: “My daughter found herself pregnant while in college and due to the scarcity of legal abortion, her education was interrupted,” he said. My response would have been “Judge, what does your daughter’s pregnancy have to do with interpreting federal or state constitutions?” The answer is nothing.

Federal judges are overthrowing state constitutions on the issue of abortion and same sex “marriage” because judicial interpretation in our time has nothing to do with reality.

The foundations of post-modern American constitutional law are rooted purely in sophistry and solipsism, which maintains that truth exists only in the will of the subject and not in the concrete reality of the existence of the object.

Look at this statement made by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1992 in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey:  "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

A spoiled child lives within Kennedy’s definition of liberty. Tragically, as the Supreme Court listens to arguments in favor of same sex “marriage,” it is Justice Kennedy, who will become the swing vote on the court. 

This is the same court, which said in 1973 that each person can determine for himself who has the right to live and who doesn't.  Now they are trying to define marriage the same way – allowing each person to define marriage to utmost limits of his own imagination.

Same Sex couple Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28 when
hearings were held that will determine the outcome of Traditional Marriage in the United States. Rowse and DeBoer are one of the couples challenging Michigan's ban on same sex "marriage." 

The sequel to this piece is Original Justice: Marriage Between One Man and One Woman

Did you enjoy this piece? There's more on the issue of same sex "marriage" and traditional marriage. Don't miss: 

SAME SEX "MARRIAGE:" Another Chapter in Grimm's Fairy Tales

Same Sex "Marriage," Natural Law and The New Apocalypse


A Child's Right to Mom and Dad: Why Kids of Gays Oppose Gay Adoption

Christian Bakery, closed by Oregon (In)Equality Law, Resists the Mark of the Beast 

SEX and the Mystery of Gravy 

The New Evangelists: Bringing Christ, A Light to All People Who Experience Same Sex Attraction

The Mystery of Marriage: Crucible for the Saints

Same Sex "Marriage," Natural Law and The New Apocalypse

Will Same Sex Couples Listen to Their "Children?"

by Susan Fox  

“He shall turn the hearts of fathers towards their children and the hearts of children towards their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a curse.” (Prophecy of Malachi verse 24)

On Oct 6, 2013, the people of the state of Colorado woke up, rubbed their eyes and found out same sex “marriage” was now a reality.

The US Supreme Court Gavel Will Come Down in June
Same Sex "Marriage" will be decided 

Truly their surprise was justified, for the legal arrangement came in through the Kitchen --  Kitchen v Herbert, that is. The Tenth Circuit Court approved a lower court’s determination that Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court nodded and winked: None of my business. And so Colorado and five other states in the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit Court suddenly had legal same sex “marriage.”

When the same thing happened in Washington State, my elderly cousin Bob grumbled to me. “Susan, I can now (legally) marry a man, smoke dope and kill myself.” Thirty-seven states have legal same sex marriage, most through similar judicial shenanigans. Only three states in the Union have approved same-sex “marriage” by popular vote.

“We have won the argument over marriage. We have won 34 statewide elections (in favor of) traditional marriage ... even in liberal states like California.. Yet our votes are overturned by a combination of black-robed elites, craven corporations who have turned on their customers, the mainstream media, and cowardly GOP politicians,” wrote Austin Ruse, President of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, in Crisis Magazine.

As in most states, the people of Colorado did not vote for same sex “marriage.” Colorado forcefully banned it from our state constitution in 2006 by a double-digit margin in favor of Colorado Amendment 43. 

Eighteen black robes forming a meathead court imposed the institution on us while deciding a case for nearby Utah.

Through deliberate neglect, the U.S. Supreme Court blithely overturned our state constitution without even hearing from us.

I live in Colorado. My rights have been trampled upon.

“Utah's prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law. The State's current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional,” so droned the imbecile court.

In fact, the court said prohibition of same-sex marriage failed a “rational basis review.” Rational? If it was rational, why didn’t our founding fathers mention it? Ironically, the Tenth Circuit Court failed my mother’s “rational basis review.” If she were still alive today she would say, “Susan, those people don’t have the sense that God gave a goose!” 

Virginia Marriage Supporters outside the U.S. 4th Circuit Court
wait in vain. Traditional Marriage was overturned July 28, 2014

Mankind has lost his bodily and spiritual identity. God made us a community of persons – male and female. “In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.” (Gen 5:1-2) But we are busy -- busy throwing out the other half of our human identity. We wish to live in isolation, not as a man, but as a segregated half of humanity -- either male or female. And the ultimate goal of the genderless identity movement is nothing short of the end of the human race.

“I grew up in an atmosphere where adult sexuality was a measure of people’s worthiness,” said Rivka Edelman in a Supreme Court filing on same sex marriage. Referring to her mother and her three same sex partners, she said, “Their sex and identity meant everything. To them heterosexuals meant nothing – breeding, low-level amoebas splitting in their conservative bedroom communities. Our house was overrun with newly minted lesbians planning their divorces and alimony strategies.”

Now on April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court will hold hearings to decide same sex marriage for four other states, Kentucky Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. This very likely will be the case where same sex marriage is nationalized.  

The two women asking for legal marriage in this case have become the poster-child for gay “parenting.” 

Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer 

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are raising four special needs kids between the two of them and would like the same legal rights as any parent. God bless them.

Now come six adults raised by people who self identify as homosexual to say that same sex “marriage” is an injustice to the children of such a phony union. They are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, long associated with the demise of empires that became corrupt.

They are injecting real rationality into the discussion. Same sex ”marriage” is supposed to rectify an alleged injustice against homosexuals, but in fact creates a new injustice. Marriage comes with the right to have children. People of the same sex cannot of themselves create children. They are not structurally designed to do so. They must raise your children or use surrogates to make them. Both acts are unjust. In fact, the six argue that same sex marriage legalizes trafficking in women and children.

Pope Francis 

Pope Francis is not silent on this matter. He has condemned genderless marriage at least three times, most recently in March, and at his regular Wednesday audience April 8, 2015, he defended the children caught in these unions and in divorce: “Children also pay the price for immature unions and irresponsible separations: they are the first victims; they suffer the outcome of a culture of exaggerated individual rights, and then the children become prematurely precocious. They often absorb the violence they are not able to “ward off” and before the very eyes of adults are forced to grow accustomed to degradation.”

The pope refers to the upbringing of self-identified “strange man” Robert Oscar Lopez and Rivka Edelman, raised by a “Jewish lesbian mother and her partners,” who are leading the charge to defend children before the US Supreme Court on April 28. Lopez calls himself a “strange man” because his

God's Advocate for Traditional Marriage,
Robert Oscar Lopez, who self identifies as bi-sexual
because of his confused upbringing
by same sex female couple 

 mother and her same sex partner raised him. Married now to a woman, he once only knew how to act like a woman and prostituted himself to men. He healed himself as an adult by pursuing a relationship with his long estranged father. Lopez and Edelman call themselves COGs, Children of Gays. I call them children raised by unchaste adults.

The two have just produced Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family Equality. It’s an aptly named book. Few probably remember Jephthah, whose story appears in the book of Judges. Eager to overcome the stigma of the bastard son, he rashly vowed to God he would sacrifice whoever greeted him at the front door of his home if only he could win victory over the Ammonites. He won, but when he returned home, the one who loved him best -- his only child, a daughter – greeted him before any others. And with great sorrow, Jephthah killed her.

“Until now courts presumed that whatever gay couples wanted automatically would benefit the children placed in gay couples’ homes. No serious discussion has occurred in the courts with the focus on points where children and their gay guardians have divergent or even conflicting interests,” Lopez argues in his brief before the Supreme Court.

He argues that until now the courts have only heard from children who were still under the thumb of their same sex parents. And unfortunately children growing up in those segregated same-sex environments fear accusations of “homophobic.”

What is clear from Jephthah’s Daughters, which covers over 70 cases of same sex parenting, is that children’s feelings in these situations are repressed because of their adult care giver’s sensitivity to any mention of the opposite sex parent. “One COG, a boy conceived in the 1990s by a surrogate contract with a gay father, was taken to a lesbian psychiatrist who told him that his aching sadness on Mother’s Day was the result of homophobia. He was told to apologize to his gay father for having confided in the lesbian psychiatrist about his anger over not having a mother,” Lopez said.

“Gay marriage will allow adults to acquire custody of other people’s children and deny those children connections to their original father and mother,” Lopez added. He is particularly sensitive to people’s ethnic origins because he is the “son of a Puerto Rican lesbian and a Filipino man.” And Rivka Edelman is Jewish. “Gay marriage targets children of gay parents for discrimination,” Lopez concluded.

“Children learn to role play the part of living dolls,” said Rivka Edelman, who used her real name, B.N. Klein, in the court filing, “Our parents used us as little display objects. We existed only to make our parents look good, to feed the insatiable egos that were our parents. Does that sound like a happy childhood?”

“A child is neither a constitutional right nor the natural consequence of same-sex sexual relations, and a marriage license does not change biological reality.  The impact of forcing children to attribute their filial affections to non-parents is damaging to all involved, but women as a class bear the hardest burden,” Edelman continued.

“When gay men want children on demand, such a system requires women to either hyper-ovulate and sell their own genetic material or to carry children and then dissolve the natural bond between them and their offspring,” she told the court.

“Surrogate mothers’ other children must witness their mother being used as an incubator and their sibling being sent away and sold. When lesbians want children on demand, there is a loss imposed on the child and the excluded father.”

“Gay marriage imposes unequal burdens on women and denies women equal protection under the law,” Edelman said, adding that superovulation drugs used to get a woman’s egg have been linked to death and cancer. “Industrialized procreation is harmful to women. This is a multi-million dollar industry gearing up to create a sub-caste of breeder women.”

Though she claims to have zero interest in any religion, Edelman came to the same conclusion as the Catholic Church: “Children are not a right.” And I would add: “They are a gift to marriage.”

What is interesting about this whole mess is that while trying to protect so-called rights of same-sex couples, the courts go on creating injustices. Not just the surrogate mothers whose wombs are rented to homosexual couples, not just the

On the issue of Same Sex "Marriage"
the scales are tipped unjustly 

children raised by same sex strangers, but also the institution of marriage itself and religious freedom are threatened, Jephthah Daughters reveals.

Statisticians and sociologists studying the effect of legalized same sex marriage in Spain concluded it cheapened marriage. There was a real decline in marriages after it was instituted. And in one year there was  a 75 percent increase in divorces due to the law. But the group most affected were people who were married less than a year – their divorce rate went up 330 percent! The researchers attributed it to creating options – same sex marriage and easier divorce -- which “trivialized marriage.”

In Canada, the religious persecution from instituting same sex marriage was felt immediately. Civil marriage commissioners who refused to preside over such arrangements lost their jobs, and the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post same-sex “wedding” celebrations.

Speech is no longer free in Canada. “Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and proceedings before human right tribunals,” said Professor Bradley W. Miller in his paper, “Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years on: Lessons from Canada.” He added that those who are poor or poorly educated and without institutional affiliation have suffered the most. They have been forced to pay fines, make apologies and undertake never to speak on such matters again. Miller’s paper was quoted in Jephthah’s Daughers.

In the United States, persecution has already begun. And the little people have been the hardest hit.  Wedding florists, photographers and Christian bakeries have been fined and forced out of business.  This is an amazing amount of injustice coming out of an institution that is supposed to rectify an injustice!

But there’s a reason for that. My husband, Lawrence Fox, knows the answer: “Any time you do not use something for its natural purpose, you create injustice.”

So according to Natural Law, each thing has its own natural purpose. Go get yourself a delicious dessert – how about a brownie? Hold the brownie to your eye. Can you taste it with your eye?

Ouch! The brownie hurts in my eye. That’s an injustice!  Eyes can’t taste things. The purpose of the eye is to see. Look at the brownie. Can you see it? Yes, I can.

So now pop the brownie in your mouth. Yum. Guess the purpose of the mouth. No injustice there.

Now let’s look at marriage. What is the purpose of marriage? I know some young Muslim guys on Twitter told me its purpose was pleasure. It’s true that’s part of sexual relations. But if that’s the only purpose of sex, then injustices crop up like prostitution and rape. Those are injustices created when the sexual act is not used according to its proper natural purpose. 

In marriage, however, two people are able to form a very strong personal bond to last a lifetime. Children are a natural consequence of this kind of pairing. And a strong bond between two structurally complementary adults allows the children to grow up in a secure and loving environment in which they know their own identity. They know who is their mother, and who is their father.

No injustices result from this pairing unless the parents get a divorce. This “irresponsible separation,” as Pope Francis told us, causes children to “suffer the outcome of a culture of exaggerated individual rights.” As in the case of same sex “marriage,” the children’s needs are put aside to satisfy the selfish desires of adults.  (I understand some divorces are necessary to protect the wife or child from abuse.)

It’s true that homosexual unions do form bonds on a natural level because of the bonding hormone Oxytocin, which is released in the sexual act. But two people of the same sex who care about one another are friends. Introducing sexual activity into the friendship creates an injustice – just like sticking a brownie in your eye. “Those who share a vested interest in vice falsely claim the fair name of friendship, because one who fails to love is not a friend,” according to Aelred of Rievaulx, who wrote “Spiritual Friendship” in the 12^th century.

“But when so much sweetness is experienced in such empty friendship, which lust pollutes, avarice corrupts, or wantonness defiles, just imagine the sweetness to be experienced in this other friendship: the more righteous, chaste, and open it is, the more it is carefree, enjoyable and happy,” he wrote, taking aim at same sex liaisons. I can’t tell you how many modern accounts I’ve read of young men who left the homosexual lifestyle and reunited with one of their lovers as a chaste friend. They said they were much happier in the relationship when sex was not involved.

Little girl at Toronto Pride Parade heartbreakingly shocked by
undressed men in the parade. Children of Same-Sex unions
report being taken to nude gay beaches, cleaning feces off their
fathers' sheets, having their mothers inordinately interested in their
own sexuality at a very young age. I removed the
portion of the picture with the nude male by request. You can
see the whole picture here. 

And that’s why we call “sin” missing the mark. A same sex couple aims to love each other, but they miss the mark by introducing sexual activity into the relationship. And the children caught in these homosexual households suffer enormously. Mainly, a same sex union creates a highly sexualized environment, and children's innocence is violated. Now the "children" have grown up and made their voices heard. I wonder if the people who advocate for same sex “marriage” will listen?

“My home life was not traditional nor conventional. I suffered because of it, in ways that are difficult for sociologists to index. Both nervous and yet blunt, I would later seem strange even in the eyes of gay and bisexual adults who had little patience for someone like me. I was just as odd to them as I was to straight people,” Lopez opined in a recent article in Life Site News.

Robert Lopez 

“Life is hard when you are strange. Even now, I have very few friends and often feel as though I do not understand people because of the unspoken gender cues that everyone around me, even gays raised in traditional homes, takes for granted. Though I am hard working and a quick learner, I have trouble in professional settings because co-workers find me bizarre.” Lopez and the other children raised by same sex partners say that the damage done to them, as children, will haunt them to the end of their lives.

I highly recommend reading Jephthah’s Daughters. You will never again just shrug your shoulders and say, “Well what they do in their same sex relationship is none of my business.”

Don't Miss the Sequel to this piece: "Gay Parenting:" Children Raised by Unchaste Adults Lead Difficult Lives 

Since this was written, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized Same Sex "Marriage" for the whole country on June 26, 2015 (Black Friday) Read SAME SEX "MARRIAGE:" Another Chapter in Grimm's Fairy Tales 

Did you enjoy this article? Perhaps you would also enjoy  A Child's Right to Mom and Dad: Why Kids of Gays Oppose Gay Adoption. 

SEX and The Mystery of Gravy 

The New Evangelists: Bringing Christ, A Light to All People Who Experience Same Sex Attraction