Yes, it is possible! The trend towards legalized sodo-“marriage” is not irreversible; social development is not a one-way road into decadence and moral corruption.
The tiny Caribbean nation of Bermuda is the first country in the world were legalized sodo-“marriage”, which had been imposed on the unwilling nation by the arrogant and preposterous judicial fiat of its Supreme Court in May 2017, is repealed. Continue reading “Bermuda is the world’s first country to abolish sodo-“marriage””
It takes little to draw the ire of the LGBT-lobby. The European-Commission-financed pro-sodomy pressure group ILGA Europe has announced on its website that it is “deeply concerned” by “reported homo- and transphobic publications and statements” of the newly elected Spanish ECtHR judge, María Elósegui Itxaso. And one of the lobby’s most active minions in the European Parliament, Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, a Spanish Member of the European Parliament’s S&D Group, is making himself busy with collecting signatures of his fellow MEPs to protest against Mrs. Elósegui’s appointment. Continue reading “The LGBT lobby’s nasty campaign against a newly appointed ECtHR judge”
According to a recent report on LifeSiteNews, there are increasing indicators that the strategy of the international LGBT lobby, which consists in promoting fake news, fake science, and consistent misuse of judicial or administrative powers, is backfiring. Citizens are beginning to realize that it is not homosexuals who are being bullied, but normal people like themselves.
Perhaps the most remarkable sign of reversal is the first round of the presidential elections in Costa Rica, where, in the wake of a grotesquely unfounded decision by the Inter-American Human Rights Court according which all Member States are obliged to legislate for sodo-“marriage”, one candidate who has clearly stated his opposition to this perverse agenda (and, hence, his intention to free Costa Rica from the dictates of this sham tribunal) has taken the lead, defeating the candidates of the country’s biggest political parties. It appears that ordinary citizens are no longer indifferent to the manipulations and power abuses of once prestigious “human rights bodies”…
Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich, generally considered to be one of Pope Francis’s top advisers, has provoked a great media stir by saying that he would not oppose the idea of giving formal blessings to same-sex couples, prompting comments that he appears to promote a new religion that is no longer Christian.
However, taking a closer look at what the Cardinal has in fact said, one finds that his statement is elusive, leaving a wide margin of interpretation.
Thus, assuming (as one always should, unless there is proof to the contrary) that the Cardinal wanted to make a statement that is in keeping with his Church’s teaching, what he probably meant was that a solemn blessing could be given to homosexual couples (or individuals, as the case may be) who make a solemn vow to henceforth abstain from sodomy.
That would actually be a good idea. Sinners who make a serious effort to turn away from their vices are certainly deserving of every blessing the Church can give. Condemning the vice, but giving support to those who want to turn away from it, is precisely the discernment (i.e., the distinction between sinner and sin, which has always underpinned the Church’s teaching) and accompaniment that is needed in such situations.
If only his Eminence could develop his good ideas in a somewhat clearer manner…
A new survey has yielded results that the organization that commissions it, the pro-sodomy group GLAAD, considers a “stunning setback”. Within only one year, the number of people in the US who say they were “very” or “somewhat” comfortable around LGBT people in certain scenarios has dropped from 53% to 49%.
Studies commissioned by the LGBT lobby often have a propagandistic purpose and are based on manipulative methodologies. It could therefore bee that GLAAD is once more out intending to invest in its “victim status”. On the other hand, if the methodology and ythe (perhaps manipulative) questions have not changed between last year and this, the reason might be that there is – thanks to increased visibility of people identifying LGBT – an increasing awareness of what their “lifestyle” really comprises. The more people know about “LGBT”, the less they find it acceptable.
Another reason might be that the way in which militant LGBT activists try to hunt down bakers, florists, photographers, or anyone else who does not want to sign up to their agenda leads to them being viewed not any more as “victims of oppression”, but as the nation’s nastiest bullies.
It appears that the so-called “closet” is still the best place for LGBT.
In the last years we have already seen a number of extreme and deliberate mis-interpretations of constitutional or international human rights law in order to promote abortion, euthanasia, child-trafficking, and sodomy. This is how cultural wars are fought: the aggressor (in this case the sodomy-cum-baby-slaughtering lobby) occupies the hills and then starts to fire missiles from above…
This strategy, which takes entire legal systems as its hostage was most notoriously successful at the US Supreme Court (with decisions such as Roe v. Wade on abortion and Obergefell on sodo-“marriage”), where one judge famously said that “you don’t imagine what five people can do when they happen to be Supreme Court Justices”, referring to the seemingly unlimited power the judiciary enjoys in the US. Mor recent examples include the Austrian Constitutional Court, which sought to impose the legalization of sodo-“marriage” precisely at the moment when it became clear that there was no parliamentary majority for it, or the CJEU, which seems to be preparing a similar attempt. But no case of counter-legal, illegal, or even criminal judicial activism has so far been as extreme as this week’s decision by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, through which the attempt is made to oblige all Latin American countries to legalize sodomy, sodo-“marriage”, and polygamy – all in one decision. Continue reading “Inter-American Court of Human Rights sodomizes international law”
It is strange to see how the powerful institutions of the EU just don’t seem to get the message. At a time where attitudes towards the EU are increasingly critical, if not hostile, in growing swathes of the population, the political and judicial elites act as if that were nothing to concern them. Subsidiarity is over, cultural imperialism holds sway.
A case in point is the issue of sodo-“marriage”, i.e. the mockery of marriage by sexual perverts, which has become legal in some Member States while it is clearly rejected by others. One might assume that in such a situation, if it does not want to simply defend the position that used to be the common ground among all civilised nations before some decadent countries like the Netherlands or Belgium started to call it into question as late as in the early Two-Thousands, the European Union should at least remain neutral, leaving Member States free to accept or reject this aberrant political fashion. But instead the EU takes side – of course for perversion and against decency. It does so without a proper political mandate, and in fact against its own foundational texts. Is anyone really believing that this will not provide further fuel to EU-scepticism?
In the Coman case currently pending before the Court of Justice of the EU, Advocate General Melchior Wathelet has issued a Legal Opinion which, if followed, would de facto oblige all EU Member States – including those who have constitutional provisions that rule out the arbitrary re-definition of marriage – to give a (perhaps limited) legal effect to “marriages” between same-sex sodomites. Continue reading “Will European Court impose the legal recognition of sodo-“marriage” all over Europe?”