UnNews:Supreme Court betrays 'We the People' on marriage
| Your A.D.D. news outl — Oooh, look at the pictures! | ✪ | UnNews | ✪ | Thursday, November 21, 2024, 15:58:59 (UTC) |
| Supreme Court betrays 'We the People' on marriage | 
|
10 June 2008
WASHINGTON, DC -- Last month the United States Supreme Court imposed through judicial fiat so-called "interracial marriage" on Americans, thus totally disregarding the sanctity of marriage and the will of the people. Over the last decade, citizens all across this great nation have voted for propositions to protect marriage and maintain its definition as a union between one man and one woman of the same race. Several states have also enacted legislation expressly prohibiting so-called "interracial marriages", especially when they consist of a white person, commonly refered to as a first-class American, marrying a non-white person, or second-class American, as will too often occur with so-called "mixed marriages".
To ensure that marriage is protected and the voice of the people is heard, a constitutional marriage amendment must be placed on the November ballot and national efforts starting from the grassroots of the heartland of America need to be made to generate a federal constitutional marriage amendment. The decision must be removed from the hands of activist judges and returned to the rightful hands of the people, or at least those people who find the idea of mixed-race relationships icky, liberal and unAmerican.
Matt Barber, Policy Director for [White] Cultural Issues in the CWA (Caucasian Whites of America), the nation's largest anti-miscegenation public policy organization, said "The Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It's absurd to suggest that the framers of the Constitution could have ever imagined there'd be a day when so-called 'interracial marriage' would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Americans would have laughed their smocks off."
Smocks were the most popular, as well as the only, clothing available to early Americans. While revisionist historians would use the term "early Americans" as synonymous with redskins or injuns, for the purposes of this fair and balanced news story the originally intended meaning is used; "early Americans" as in "early Americans".
First, they ask for the 'right' to get married. Next, they'll be demanding the 'right' to divorce. When will it end? 
~ Matt Barber
"So-called 'interracial marriage' is counterfeit marriage." continued Mr. Barber. "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, where both the man and the woman are of the same origin, whether that origin is from deepest, darkest Africa or from the civilized nations of Western Europe. Negro with negro, chink with chink, wetback with wetback, WASP with WASP. You get the idea. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father, where the mother and father are both the same color as the child. Think of the confusion that would result if a white child was raised by a white mother and a darkie father! For them to use children as guinea pigs in radical social experimentation is deplorable! Instead we should, nay, must, use them as guinea pigs as part of our emotional and faith-centered argument from tradition!"
Since its formation back in ye olden times of yore, America as a nation, with its Americans within, has stood firm under its banner of "All men are created equal", from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independance. An asterix on that line indicates a footnote, sadly lost to the ravages of time; one that is believed to contain a paragraph on how Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers decided that so-called "interracial marriage" was a bad idea and we should, therefore, avoid mixing with the lesser races, especially the brown ones (but also the yellow, swarthy, and red ones) as that would sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
"The majority of Americans recognize the fact that legitimate marriage, that is to say whites with whites, and family, also whites with whites, are cornerstones of a healthy society," said Matt Barber, illustrating the point by stiffly embracing his wife, Mrs. Barber, caucasian, and their two children, Michael and Betty Sue, also caucasian, "...especially one that only got rid of slavery a century ago and is still having trouble getting used to the idea that coloreds are people and not chattel. Reasonable people have had enough and are refusing to allow radical extremists to redefine marriage and family into oblivion, even if that new definition simply revolves around the idea of two committed, consenting adults loving each other and wanting to show their commitment with state-endorsed marriage. So-called 'interracial marriage' is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into the popular lexicon by uppity nigger activists and their extremist, self-loathing, white allies."
"If people who engage in 'jungle fever' want to dress up and play 'Civilized Man and Negro', that's their prerogative, but we shouldn't destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit."
On a positive note, the Court decision will likely serve as a wake-up call to real Americans, those that love their country the way it is and won't let "emotions", such as "empathy" and "compassion", make them stand behind "humanist" notions like expanding marriage to include people that want to raise a mulatto or zebra or whatever brown plus white equals. This decision will help fuel a federal marriage amendment to protect marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race, and re-ignite debate over freein' them niggers in the first place. Love might be more than skin deep, but real Americans aren't.