Author Steven Clark Bradley

Is Nimrod Rising...? by Author Steven Clark Bradley

Today, the cultural battle now rocking America concerning marriage and the right of homosexual males and females to have recognition of same-sex marriages is considered by many to be a virtual attack on civilization as we know it. Today, thirty-seven states and the federal government have laws that refuse to recognize gay marriages. In almost all polls taken on this subject, Americans oppose legalizing gay marriage by a 2-1 ratio. Nevertheless, gay marriage is closer than ever to becoming a reality.

At stake is whether the legal benefits of marriage should be extended to same-sex couples on such issues as child custody, extended adoption rights, tax benefits and medical care. Yet, the issues at stake here are culturally and religiously greater than any of the financial arguments that could be presented. Same-sex marriage threatens not just our way of life, but our very civilization. At the very least, same-sex marriage threatens the future of all marriage between people who hold to traditional values throughout the world. We know this because marriage is a timeless institution, and though there have always been relationships between gay individuals, the institution of marriage has always been recognized by the ruling authorities and by society at large as a union between a man and a woman. As marriage is the very foundation of society, tinkering with something so fundamental is surely dangerous and suicidal.


Advocates for gay marriage would argue that the truth is that same-sex marriage has a long and distinguished history. Judaic scripture, for instance, indicates that same-sex marriages were recognized in ancient Egypt. Of course, it's no secret that the ancient decadent Greeks and Romans eventually recognized homosexual marriage, not to mention imperial China and some Native American tribes and a host of other peoples living around the world. These voices fail to state that it is well noted by virtue of these cultures' disappearance from existence can be traced as being preceded by this culturally defaming practice. The movement's advocates state that there is no evidence that recognizing same sex marriage will destroy our country. They indicate, without historical evidence to back them up, that in fact, thousands of years of Egyptian, Roman, and Chinese civilization point to the opposite. In addition, these same adherents of the practice of gay marriage also claim that there is even evidence that the Catholic Church recognized same-sex marriage in the early Middle Ages. In fact, Scholars dispute widely whether any such proposed unions could actually be called marriages, and there is no evidence that the Church conducted formal ceremonies to recognize the bond between same-sex partners. The official Catholic encyclopedia defines marriage as, "The legitimate union between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union." The words "husband and wife" can only be interpreted as describing a male and a female. Even in the recent illicit and illegal same-sex ceremonies held in San Francisco the two participants are described as "Applicant One and Applicant Two". This is in great contrast to the Church's opposition to homosexuality itself let alone a supposed Church endorsement of same-sex unions being accepted by the church's leadership.

Therefore, the acceptance of this heretofore-unacceptable practice threatens to shake social norms right down to their foundations. To gay rights advocates, the movement toward gay marriages is the beginning of an inevitable civil rights battle that will lead to gay couples being treated the same as heterosexual couples. To opponents of gay marriage, it shows how judges twist rulings to fit their own beliefs, regardless of the law or public opinion. I would like to demonstrate what has brought America to the point of accepting such an historical and social taboo that could result in tossing civilization into the same ash-heap of history as all nations who have ventured down this path of no return.

The legal implications will most certainly present obstacles to other states taking the same action as this culture-breaking ruling by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court. The issue could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. It is clear that the supporters of gay marriage have chosen to use the activist courts to accomplish their goals. They have realized that society opposes, by a large majority, the practice of same-sex marriage and that they could never accomplish their goals by taking the route of state legislatures or by congress. This is evidenced by the complete lack of any laws from any state legislature to allow marriage between people of the same sex. Society's strong opposition to gay marriage was declared without doubt in a CBS poll taken right after the Massachusetts Court ruling. In that poll, it was determined that despite Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that the state could not deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, Americans continued to oppose laws allowing homosexual couples to marry or to form civil unions and the number opposing gay marriage is higher now than it was in July before the Massachusetts action. The CBS poll revealed that 61 percent of respondents said they were against gay marriage. That is an increase from 55 percent in July, and only 34 percent said they favor gay marriage, which was down from 40 percent five months earlier. Also, the public reversed itself on the overall question of same-sex relations. Half now think homosexual relations between consenting adults should not be legal. This is a reversal of opinion from the summer, when a majority of Americans thought gay relationships should be legal. More than half now favor an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. Therefore, the various liberal courts, and in particular in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in complete disregard for the rights and the wishes of our Republic at large, have opened the door to this Pandora's box that once opened, will never be closed again short of a constitutional amendment to ban this socially rejected form of relationship. Don Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association, a group in Tupelo, Mississippi that opposes gay marriage stated, "In today's judicial climate, no law is safe,"

Does this mean that homosexuals should not be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals? The laws that prohibit discrimination, contrary to the vast interpretation and understanding of Americans, apply to all people in the country. It is true that these laws have been, to the large extent, applied to minorities based on race who have been historically denied their constitutional rights. Nevertheless, affirmative action laws can be and have been applied to all groups and have been used as a remedy to those who have been singled out resulting in the loss of a job, the denial of the purchase of a dwelling or any other discriminatory action against them. Therefore, there are already laws on the books that protect gays from discrimination and they cannot claim the status of being an unprotected minority. This leads to the need of a clear definition of what constitutes a minority group. A person who is a genuine member of a minority group is someone who is such by virtue of their birth. African-Americans are such because they were born into a group of Americans that have a historical heritage of being denied their inalienable rights as Americans. Americans such as this have no remedy except the law to correct centuries of inhumane and unlawful actions. Homosexuals, on the other hand, have recourse to their status. They can choose not to be gay or to remain single. In effect, they can choose not to practice their lifestyle whereas an African-American who is discriminated against cannot cease to be black in a racist society. Also, there is no determinative or conclusive scientific research to show that homosexuality is a result of birth. In fact, all research in this area has shown that all babies are born either male or female and that there is no "Third sex" resulting in homosexuality. Though studies have been carried out in hormonal differences between males and females at birth, no evidence has been found that homosexuality is predetermined in the womb. WorldNet Daily columnist Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education told WorldNet Daily, "There appears to be a political agenda behind a UCLA study, and three earlier ones promoted as scientific breakthroughs "proving" homosexuals are born as gay and that the lifestyle is not chosen.

Reisman called the genetic research, "an outrageous farce" and said the researchers had repudiated each after the studies became well known news pieces. Ms. Reisman also stated one of the studies' researchers were even discovered to have written promotional articles in support of pedophile publications. "These discoveries lend credence to the idea that being transgender - feeling that one has been born into the body of the wrong sex - is a state of mind," she said. Therefore this lifestyle is one that is chosen and not genetically imposed upon an individual. Therefore, homosexuals already benefit from existing laws and cannot claim that they are a minority group and have the same rights as blacks and other recognized groups who have no other recourse except legislation.

Click To Watch All Nimrod Rising Trailers

The implications of the acceptance of gay marriage are profound. Another argument used by proponents of gay marriage is to have the right of inheritance and of being natural beneficiaries in a relationship. Most of the concerns stated by gays in long-term relationships are of no concern at all since such protections already exist and are simply statements to play to the hearts of heterosexuals within America. For example, inheritance is no issue at all because anyone can leave anything to anybody or to any group or to anything that is dully recorded and notarized in an official document. This is a non-issue in that the same rights are afforded to gay couples as to non-gay couples. Gay couples can make their partners beneficiaries of life insurance policies and can leave their entire fortunes to them if they so wish without marriage rights having been afforded to them. It is the determination of individual employers to grant or forbid homosexual partners of their employees as co-beneficiaries of such employment benefits such as health insurance. Many companies such as Disney and the Chicago civil servants already do so. If employers are forced to grant spousal benefits to gay couples, what will follow next? Will couples who live together outside of marriage be afforded the same rights and if not, why? There seems to be no end to the deluge of culturally altering implications. Concerning adoption issues, gays have already adopted children, which is regarded by many studies to be a very unhealthy practice for the children concerned and which runs contrary to most sociological research in this area. Nevertheless, this is a practice that has been in existence for some time.

Finally, if gay marriage becomes legal and imposed upon an opposing society, will the next step be polygamy and what about bestiality? There are today several court cases concerning polygamy pending in courts across the country. There could be nothing more degrading to women and nothing that could cause women to digress in the rights they have fought for more than polygamy, which is the natural next step to the legalization of gay marriage. If there are no accepted or unaccepted standards for our country, where will we be able to draw a line when no line exists? Marriage is a sacred institution. Though heterosexuals have done a poor job of maintaining this historic relationship between a man and a woman, the failure of heterosexuals to live out the sanctity of it is not an argument for repudiating it. This is the most divisive issue facing America today. It will draw battle lines as no other issue has ever done. It is up to those who love society and love this land to hold the institutions that have formed civilization as far back as Buddha, Abraham, Mohammed and Christ. This issue transcends all religions and all faiths should stand ready to fight it. It forces one to pose the question of whether the Constitution of the United States truly espouses such obtuse ideas that go against every civilized society in the history of mankind. If the constitution actually does imply support for such an issue and others like this one then perhaps those of us who care about family and traditional values must ask ourselves if we are willing to pledge undying devotion and allegiance to such a document. It is the view of those of us who stand in opposition to gay marriage that the Constitution of the United States, in no manner, prescribes such rights for our nation. Yet, if the Constitution is determined to do so, are we who love our children and the continuation of our civilization prepared to defend a country that forces us to accept such a deviant society till death do us part?

Steven Clark Bradley lived abroad for over 17 years and has been to 34 countries, including Pakistan, Iraq and Turkey. He has a master's degree in liberal studies from Indiana University. He speaks French and Turkish. He has been an assistant to a prosecutor, a university instructor and a freelance journalist in Ramallah, Palistine, Israel, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan. Steven is the author of three novels, Nimrod Rising, Probable Cause and Stillborn!

So, What's your view? Exercise your freedom and say it!

Nimrod Rising - As Real As It Gets!