Radical Homosexual Agenda Comes to Rapid City

marriage_fAs reported by the Rapid City Journal, the radical homosexual agenda has fully arrived in Rapid City:

The road to challenging South Dakota’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage started Monday at the Pennington County Courthouse.

At a first-floor customer service window at the Register of Deeds office, Nancy Robrahn and Jennie Rosenkranz, who have been together for more than 30 years, were denied a marriage license application.

“Jennie and I would like to get married,” Robrahn, 68, said to the county worker.

The county employee then denied their request for an application, citing the state’s ban…

…Once Robrahn and Rosenkranz get married — which they plan to do later this year in another state — they’ll return to South Dakota and file a lawsuit that will challenge the state for not recognizing their marriage certificate and the benefits that come with it.

Notice that this is all part of a strategic plan to attack marriage and the will of the people of South Dakota. No doubt these activists would enjoy the illegitimate benefits of having their fraudulent union recognized as “official,” but there is clear malevolent intent here.

And homosexual activists aren’t done either. The article says homosexual activists will be meeting tonight at an apostate “church” to further strategize ways to attack marriage, family, freedom and normality.

Ted Cruz 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

You may recall that just in the last month or so, three religious freedom bills were presented in the South Dakota Legislature to protect South Dakotans from homosexual tyrants. We were told by Leftists and gutless sellout “Republicans” that “that can’t happen here” because “South Dakota prohibits counterfeit marriage.” So the bills were killed by our “Republican” supermajority legislature.

Uh huh. We knew it was only a matter of time…and no doubt these two tyrants were waiting in the wings to assault marriage and family in South Dakota, with only a tweak in strategy necessary, depending on the outcome of those bills.

Thanks, RINOs, for once again leaving the people you claim to represent vulnerable to the attacks of the Left.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • Nick Nemec

    How does their marriage damage my marriage?

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Put rather simply, the same way a counterfeit $20 damages the value of the real $20 in your wallet. But it goes way beyond that in the damage it does to children and society in devaluing the real institutions of marriage and family.Of course, narcissists don’t care about silly things like that.

      • Dawn D

        If you really believe that type of defense is tangible and useful, why not attempt to use it in court? The reason it won’t work is because it will be shot down faster than a hunting buddy of Dick Cheney’s.

        It’s easy to prove the monetary devaluation principle in a hard asset like currency. But, it is simply NOT an equivalence between cheating someone of goods and services with fake money in comparison to two people committed to each other in a loving relationship that does not involve anyone else (the same way your own relationship with your spouse does not harm mine).

        And, to date, there is still so compelling, relevant or persuasive argument that stands against the very simple argument in favor of equality that has shown as valid legal principle.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          It is probably even easier to prove the damage caused by the devaluing of marriage than it is to prove the damage caused by devaluing currency.

          There are countless studies (in addition to thousands of years of practical experience) which show beyond a shadow of a doubt that a home led by a committed mother and father is the best and really only good environment in which to raise society’s next generation. Homes that lack a mother or a father lead to a much higher instance of children with academic problems, behavioral problems, emotional problems, juvenile delinquency, and on and on. That, in turn, not only does no benefit for society, but actually creates problems for society-problems it shouldn’t have to deal with. And that’s not even getting into the “human cost” i.e the personal pain and loss felt by those children and those who love them because they were intentionally deprived of a mother or a father.

          Two homosexuals by scientific design (and by the deliberate choice of the two people) cannot create children, nor can they by specific intent provide the healthy, balanced environment necessary to raise well-adjusted children. They have deliberately chosen an environment that would send the message to a child that one or the other sex is either unnecessary or undesirable, or both-in addition to deliberately robbing them of a mother or a father, as well as the opportunity to watch both sexes live and work together in a mutually beneficial and complimentary fashion.

          That is the choice they have made in refusing to find a legitimate marriage partner; they should be grownup enough to live with the consequences of their self-centered decision, and not be allowed to subject society and society’s children to the effects of their moral bankruptcy.

          They have the equal opportunity to form a marriage that everyone else has; they need only meet the same requirements everyone else is subject to (that’s equality: everyone subject to the same requirements): find a marriage partner who consents, is of legal age, is not a close relative, is not already married to someone else, and is of the opposite sex.

          This last element is at least as critical as the rest, and arguably THE most critical. You can’t build anything useful with all bolts or all nuts, nor can you build a useful deck with all screws or all screwdrivers, or a useful bathroom with all male or all female plumbing parts…nor can you create a relationship that is useful or beneficial to society without both a man and a woman. Society has no legitimate obligation whatsoever to recognize a relationship which provides no benefit whatsoever to that society-one which, in this case, is actually devaluing and detrimental to its children and to the moral fiber of society in general.

          Marriage is not a “friendship registry,” nor is a recognition that two people care about each other. It has a unique definition, a unique purpose, and a unique meaning. When something can mean anything, it means nothing.

          As attorney Tom Barnett said recently as he attacked efforts to protect religious freedom in South Dakota, “words mean something.” And that was about the only thing he was right on, but he was right on target with that. Words mean things, very important things.

          When we call something by a particular name and that thing isn’t comprised of the elements necessary to meet its definition, at a minimum we create confusion. We also devalue the meaning of the word used to describe that something, and worse, we devalue the unique nature of that thing itself. And when it involves something as important as children and their healthy development, only an insane person or culture would entertain games being played with its meaning.

          Marriage can only be formed between a man and a woman. This has been instinctively recognized and understood for thousands of years by every culture on earth; it’s no wonder, since it’s part of the Natural Law the founders of our country talked about in the Declaration of Independence. The word “marriage” describes this truth.

          We do no one a favor when we humor a small number of narcissists and allow the meaning of something as important as marriage to be devalued and perverted. Mature, responsible people must hold the line against self-centeredness and anarchy for the benefit of our children-and society itself.

          • DCM7

            Once again, you have to repeat the same basic, obvious truths that there can be no refutation of… and they will continue to be ignored by those who don’t wish to cooperate with reality.
            As you’ve said, you can’t reason someone out of a position that reason didn’t get them into.

      • franklinb23

        How many people (heterosexual or otherwise) marry out of a sense of duty or obligation to religious or even nationalistic ideals? Not many, I’d think. People marry because they have found someone they wish to share their life with and (often, but not always) with whom they’d like to raise children with. But again, not always. Some couples have no intention of having children. Some cannot. Marriage has a variety of meanings to people.

        In terms of “devaluing” marriage, even the easy accessibility of divorce has not made it desirable to most people. Most still seek permanence. Despite the legality of allowing multiple partners to shack up, this is still primarily the domain of fundamentalist Mormons. Most folks still seek exclusivity.

        So, given all this, I still don’t see how granting a civil marriage license to two men or two women will somehow impact marriage in the ways you imagine.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          No, I would agree that few people marry out of obligation to religious or nationalistic ideals. But that does not change the fact that the institution of marriage has religious and societal ramifications.

          You are also right that the advent of “no fault” divorce has not ended the expectation of permanence to marriage. That indicates the fact that despite the undermining of marriage by divorce, people still instinctively understand something about its true nature.

          Yet the rise of the divorce rate since “no fault” divorce came on the scene, the drop in the marriage rate, and the increase in shack-up arrangements-all these illustrate that the undermining of marriage by “no fault” divorce has hurt the institution…and correspondingly, has hurt America’s children and families.

          Further undermining marriage by allowing it to be counterfeited (which further reduces its value and unique nature) will only add to the damage.

          We already have enough hurting people-and our society is in bad enough shape-as it is without adding to that.

    • thisoldspouse

      That’s a straw man that is used repeatedly by the homosexual lobby. Marriage is devalued, even while current individual marriages may not be affect - yet.

      But I’ll answer your question anyway. How did it hurt the marriage of Rev. Gene Robinson? He was legally married to a woman, and produced several children with her through the normal avenue of sex. But it can be strongly argued that with the growing acceptance of homosexual behavior through cultural propaganda, the height of which would be counterfeit “marriage” of homosexuals, he felt more justified in leaving his wife and family to pursue what society now deemed more legitimate.

      This single example can be repeated most likely thousands of times, when husbands, fathers, wives and mothers are inundated with the cultural message that they must “be true to themselves” - damn their sacred vows to their spouses in front of witnesses and, in many cases, God - and destroy their existing marriages for what the new homosexualized culture applauds and condones.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        Good points and well said, ‘Spouse! Thanks much!

        The peer thinking created by an environment of “no one else cares, so why should I” when it comes to standing firm for what is right is insidious.

      • Dawn D

        Straw man? A bit of hyperbole without basis in that deflationary attempt.

        It would rather sound to me that ‘divorce’ is the real enemy your looking to fight, rather than same-sex attraction and marriage. But then, you’re not suggesting that same-sex attraction is THE issue at the heart of divorce, are you? In any case the issue of same-sex attraction and marriage compared an otherwise failing marriage is two completely different analogies and dichotomies.

        There certainly is nothing wrong with being true to who you are. Addressing the damage caused by it? Well, that is a matter of character and willingness to work through the issues as a family, if it is possible. But, then you get right back to the issue of divorce and whether that is an acceptable result in most cases.

        In the hypothetical, if that person ‘being true to their self’ were to approach the question earlier in life BEFORE they made an failing attempt at being “normal” in the eyes of society, all this misery wrought from a later divorce and familial demise could easier have been avoided. But then, for the better part of human history, theological supremacy has disallowed people to safely understand and accept their “differences”, of any type.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          So because marriage and family have an enemy in divorce, we need two enemies now? Illogical and silly. Rather, both need to be resisted.

          Nothing wrong with “being true to who you are?” What if you’re an animal sex lover? What if you’re a pedophile? What if “who you are” is someone who wants to marry your adult daughter? What if you’re a royal jerk who berates your loved ones for pleasure?

          Once again, illogical and silly. “Being true to who you are” as a moral standard is as meaningful as simply doing whatever you want as a moral standard. In other words, it ISN’T a standard.

          Rather, we should be true to who our Creator created us to be. Sexually speaking, he made that obvious when he gave men penises and women vaginas; their design and function compliment one another and make it obvious that men and women were designed to function heterosexually, and the limits on that behavior were established by our Creator to be within marriage.

          That objective moral standard is the one upon which the greatest nation in history was founded (it’s in the Declaration of Independence, the first of our organic laws found in the United States Code). It is that moral standard we must follow if we want to continue to be the greatest, most prosperous and most free people in history.

          As John Adams, a signer of that document said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

          • Dawn D

            People are ‘true to themselves’ all the time. Those that commit crimes against another are generally put in jail for it. It’s not a crime to be LGBT. Well, okay, it is if you live in Russia or Uganda. But, we’re here, not there. Equating being true to yourself - as my depiction was CLEARLY about in being LGBT - has nothing whatsoever to do with those true ‘straw men’ you suggested.

      • franklinb23

        TOP: Perhaps if Gene had been honest about his sexual orientation from the get-to, he would not have entered a sham marriage to begin with to a woman who was simply serving as a cover. Have you considered that?

        Yes, people should honor their vows. I don’t think I would tell a married man to leave his wife if he was already married. Rather, if he was unmarried, I’d simply tell him not to marry a woman simply because he felt he had to.

        Yes, marriage is more than sexual attraction. But it’s also not a business arrangement with someone you have no real desire for. I think you know intuitively what I mean.

        • DCM7

          The issue was not that he wasn’t “honest about his sexual orientation” before getting married. The issue is that he didn’t face and deal with his abnormal attraction before pursuing a normal one.
          He didn’t enter a sham marriage and then leave it to be true to himself. He entered a legitimate one and then left it to pursue a sham whose dominance over his life he wasn’t ready or willing to address.

    • WXRGina

      Nick, if you truly want an answer to that question (a question we’re quite sick of hearing), please read this column that gives you not just one but MANY answers to how counterfeit same-sex “marriage” and the mainstreaming of homosexuality affects us ALL: http://barbwire.com/2014/03/08/unfinished-heres-sex-marriage-affect-us/

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        Thanks, Gina. that’s a very informative list. How very tragic that this reality falls on so many deaf ears.

  • Dawn D

    Bob, I’ll reply here to an address you made about it “being easy” to make the argument against same-sex marriage because your reply - for whatever reason only momentarily shows up and then disappears.

    If it was so “easy”, why isn’t the tactic working in court? It’s really that simple. The subjective thinking that reflects such tactics don’t hold water when tested. It’s really one thing to express such, but, altogether quite another when the results of cumulative efforts present the facts and resultant leanings in an entirely different direction.

    As for all those “studies” Even the University that Regnerus works from has refuted his results as representative of any factual standing. And, to date there haven’t been produced any other data from respected professionals who’ve either made such claims as he, nor offered any type of suggestion that even trends in that direction.

    When it comes down to it, the only singular stance you can rely on is from the theological prevalence. Even that is a matter of debate when there are so many religious factions accepting that this really is a non issue, more and more.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      I said it was easy to make the argument. I didn’t say it was easy to convince homosexual activists and activist judges of its veracity. As experience has taught me, when certain people are dead-set on having their own way and insist that everyone else can go to Hell, there is no amount of fact or evidence which will convince them.

      Nevertheless, the truth remains unchanged regardless of a person’s hostility toward it.

      The only reason the amazing BS being offered by homosexual activists is given any credence at all is because, unfortunately, good people who know better have been silent for too long, and lies are becoming accepted as truth. Conservatives who know better have bought the lie that they should shut up and let liberals do whatever they want, that morality has no place in public policy, and that for them to remind us of the values upon which our nation was founded is somehow to “interfere in people’s lives” (to force society to abandon those values is never “interfering with people’s lives,” however-gotta love that liberal double-standard). Nature abhors a vacuum, and where there is an absence of truth, error will come in to fill it, and that is what we have in pop culture today.

      I’m not familiar with the particular study you mentioned, but there are countless others that remain true (as I’m pretty sure this one does as well-refutation by bigoted liberals who disagree with conclusions does not constitute a valid refutation). Marriage undeniably provides the best and only good environment for raising healthy, well-balanced children, and marriage should not be undermined to make two immoral people feel better about their immoral choices.

      Finally, the overwhelming bulk of what I have stated here today doesn’t even have a theological basis, but rather a practical, societal and scientific one. That is not to invalidate the extremely important theological one (which also remains unchanged, regardless of how many apostates may choose to disagree with what God has clearly said). But in most cases, I tend to stick with practical, societal and scientific arguments in this setting because while not everyone ascribes to the moral foundation upon which our country was founded, to disagree with the clear evidence of history and science truly reveals one for the bigoted and closed-minded ass they really are.

      • Dawn D

        “…….reveals one for the bigoted and closed-minded a$$ they really are.” Hhmmmm………….? I have much respect for your point of view. But, my respect for you just diminished. Good bye.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          I just tell it like it is. If someone can’t deal with reality after it’s been laid out on a silver platter in crystal clear detail, there’s nothing to be gained by dancing around the truth any longer.

          Someone like that is simply a closed-minded, bigoted ass-in the truest definition of each word. Sometimes we need to hear the truth in its raw terms if we’re ever going to have a hope of accepting it. Lord knows I had to when I was making an ass of myself at one time in my life.

        • DCM7

          Nice way of getting around the fact that you can’t really dispute what he says.

    • thisoldspouse

      The courts are now a national, liberal echo chamber, parroting each other’s baseless, banal edicts, ignoring established precedent, and writing law instead of following it.

  • franklinb23

    “Notice that this is all part of a strategic plan to attack marriage and the will of the people of South Dakota.”

    You’re more intelligent and reasoned than this. You make it sound like these women are villains from a James Bond film. They want to legal protections for their relationship. How is this “evil”? Evil is rape, murder, pedophilia … telling elderly women that Jesus will heal them if they send in their “love offering” for a witch doctor’s prayer rug. No heterosexual marriage has ended because of a gay union. Not one.

    Just out of curiosity, how do you deal with heterosexual divorcees that you know? (Everyone does). Do you assume the same sort of malevolent intentions that gay couples have?

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      God graced me with enough intelligence and reason to understand very clearly that this is part of a planned attack on marriage, family and the will of the people in South Dakota. Not that it takes a genius to figure it out, since homosexual activists like Kirk and Madsen spelled it out in great detail more than 20 years ago in “After the Ball”: a deliberate campaign of deception, misinformation, desensitization, jamming and conversion.

      There is no right to protection of an illegitimate, perverted, unhealthy and immoral relationship; one might as well demand protection for the “right” to bestiality, incest, adultery, or some other illegitimate sexual relationship.

      Evil is anything that is contrary to the character and will of God, and the Creator made it clear in his written word (as well as through observable science) that men and women were designed to behave heterosexually, and within the union of marriage.

      Evil is also doing anything that undermines the moral fabric of society, which counterfeiting marriage does, as well as condoning immoral and unhealthy sexual behaviors.

      Evil is also doing anything that undermines the stability of the institutions of marriage and family, upon which children-tne next generation of society-depend for healthy development.

      Divorce is itself an evil and a pox on society. Divorce, however, is very different than homosexual behavior. While there are a few legitimate reasons for divorce (unfaithfulness on the part of one party being a primary one), there are NO circumstances under which homosexual behavior is moral or legitimate. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the Creator’s design in every instance, condemned by the Creator in every instance, is contrary to the obvious design and function of the male and female sex organs, and as the data on health risks shows, very dangerous.

      And while illegitimate divorces (i.e. divorces of convenience) undermine the institutions of marriage and family by tearing individual marriages apart, the counterfeiting of marriage demeans and devalues the institution of marriage, and renders it meaningless when tolerated.

      What’s more, while many people tolerate divorce more than they should, I don’t know of ANYONE who celebrates it, or says it’s a wonderful thing, or is a legitimate thing that should be embraced. Everyone acknowledges that it is a terrible thing-even those who seek one and/or have gone through one.

      Besides, as I pointed out before, two wrongs don’t make a right. Because marriage is under assault in one area is not a legitimate reason to invite assault from another area. Both must be resisted and prevented.

    • thisoldspouse

      These women DO NOT want legal protections for their relationship - that’s a deceitful pretext used ad nauseam by homo-activists to dupe people with a false sob story. They want to destroy marriage by obliterating the definition. Every legal protection that they could want is available to them through private legal contracts in the form of wills, trusts, and practical estate planning.

      Consider that ultra-liberal California afforded EVERY benefit available to legally married couples to homosexual unions, and it still wasn’t enough for the activists. They HAD to have the designation of “married,” because otherwise their feelings would be hurt.

      • franklinb23

        “Every legal protection that they could want is available to them through
        private legal contracts in the form of wills, trusts, and practical
        estate planning.”

        So why don’t heterosexual couples just use these? Are they “marrying” simply to distinguish themselves from gay couples?

        • DCM7

          “So why don’t heterosexual couples just use these?”
          Because the legal protections are generally not the main thing on people’s minds when they get married. I doubt they’re generally much of an issue with “gay” couples either except as something that can be dragged out to try to make a point.