Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
No comments

Diary (Diaries are not moderated)

The Truth Of Genesis: A Brief That the U.S. Supreme Court Should Read

By (about the author)     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

I had this brief delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court before noon on February 28, 2013. It addresses DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH (Petitioner) vs KRISTIN M. PERRY (Respondent), for case 12-144. I found out a week later, that only attorneys could submit amicus curiae briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court. I've reviewed the 82 posted amicus briefs. There are 37 for the Petitioners (in favor of reversal), and 45 in support of gay marriage. Six of the 37 made a mild reference to the act of sodomy, citing Lawence vs Texas, 539 US 558 (2003). One brief (David Boyle) is slightly more forward, but still falls short of identifying the real issue at hand. The only brief I liked was from Westboro Baptist Church, in support of neither party, suggesting reversal. However, the Westboro brief still does not "educate" the court on what marriage, sodomy, fornication, and immorality are, and the REAL reason this is before the Court. I hope the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court will read this.

::::::::

INTRODUCTION

There has been a controversy in our country, on whether or not

human beings evolved from lower life forms, or were uniquely created by

God. The atheists and evolutionists have been successful in establishing the

teaching of Atheism in our public schools for the last 50+ years", which is

the very reason "same-sex marriage" arguments are now being presented

before the United States Supreme Court. It is not the intention of this

amicus curiae to argue against the teaching of evolution, but to point out that

when only one side is being taught to generations of children, they grow up

with biased and distorted views on life, and the raising of these types of

ungodly issues are the result. If the truth of Genesis (and not the falsehoods

of Creationism) had been additionally taught to us and our children in public

schools, this case matter would be a stink in the nostrils of mankind, and not

only in that of God.

Before the rise of Atheism, the attempt to redefine marriage would

have been universally declared to be foul perversion. The Court must

realize who the entities contenting in this case really are. The proponents of

immorality are rebelling against decency, morality, and the commandments

of God.


IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE


Amicus Herman Cummings, is not a member of any group or

organization, but is the world's leading expert on the book of Genesis. "So

called" bible scholars and the world of theology have never understood the

text of the first two chapters of Genesis. Theology has erroneously taught

mankind that Genesis is describing "the Seven Days of Creation (Week)",

however the book of Genesis is actually conveying a previously unknown

concept, given to the ancient nation of Israel in 1598 BC, which modern

science would not discover for another 3,000 years. It was the concept of

geologic time. Therefore, each vision (day) seen by Moses was taken from

seven different weeks, and each week was taken from seven different time

periods in the history of Earth. In layman's terms, the seven days were not

linear, nor revealed in chronological order.


SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT


This amicus wants to prove to the court that the "same-sex" marriage

dilemma is not a civil rights issue. The proponents of same-sex marriage

want to use recent civil rights legislations as a smoke screen to impose

immorality upon the rest of society. Therefore, this is a moral issue, and not

a civil rights issue. This is a case of those that have embraced immorality,

who want to force acceptance of their ungodly life style upon the rest of

society, and unlawfully gain the benefits which the institution of traditional

marriage has in our civilization.


ARGUMENT

I. THE INFLUENCE OF ATHEISM IN OUR SOCIETY

America has been known to be "the land of the free, and the home of

the brave". But because of the influence of evil upon mankind, freedom

must always be protected, else it is lost. History tells us, over and over

again, that there are those that try to destroy freedom, and put the masses

under their rule. Cases in point, the Nazis, the Communists, and Islam.

Each of these has a RED ideology, which will later be defined in this brief.

But as with all freedoms, there can be abuse. There are those that

have abused their freedom to advocate rebellion against God, under the

pretext of "tolerance". But such tolerance has been an effective attack

against the moral structure of our country. Two of the three most dangerous

enemies facing America today, which are being addressed in this case, are

Atheism, and homosexuality.

Over the course of time, the religion of Atheism has crept into our

society, and has unconstitutional control of our education system. How

much influence does the idealism of Atheism have in our school

systems? How much has it had in our courts? How much of Atheism (and

Islam) has infiltrated into legislative and executive branches at all levels of

government? Fifty years of indoctrinating our students with Atheism has

produced people in positions of authority that question and/or deny the

very existence of God. Fifty years ago, who would have thought that an

American judge would try to remove "under God" from the Pledge of

Allegiance? Are we now becoming an atheistic society? In the absence of

light, there is only darkness. In the absence of godliness, there is

ungodliness and perversion. This is why the redefinition of marriage is

before the United States Supreme Court.

Citing Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), "We repeat and again

reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally

force a person [to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.] Neither can

constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as

against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in

the existence of God as against those religions founded on different

beliefs ."

The U.S. Supreme Court has identified Atheism to be a religion, at

the same level as any (theistic) belief system. Atheism is a religion that has

its own doctrines, publications, and websites which are used to convert

others to their belief system. If a person wants to accept such a belief

system, that is their choice.

Our county was founded for the very purpose of freedom of religion

(within reason). But when any religion tries to force its life style and views

upon the rest of society, impedes the quest for knowledge, and interferes

with the development of our children, an evil imbalance has been created.


II. THE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY BIBLE

There is no escaping the issue of the authority and influence of the

Holy Bible upon mankind, and our system of law. If the Holy Bible has no

significance, why must a witness first take an oath upon the Holy Bible to

tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? The Holy Bible is

the only "sacred" book that defines sin and immorality.

The United States of America declared its independence on July 4,

1776, beginning with these words:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our current society has grown up like lost children, that have not had

"home training", and has lost the ideals and morals of our fathers that

founded our nation. The United States was once proud to be called a

"Christian nation". But unlike other nations that had adopted a particular

religion, allegiance to any (moral) religion was not required. In fact, people

first came to this land in order to find freedom of religion.

The civil laws we abide by have a rich history in the Bible. The laws

found in the Holy Bible are the basis of our entire modern day civil justice

system. These Biblical laws emphasize justice, morality, the rights of the

poor, and even environmental protection.

Since there is no valid denial of the influence that the Holy Bible has

had upon mankind, it is hypocritical to deny the historical information that it

has given us. The following three paragraphs must be read in order to

understand the incorporeal history of mankind, and how it pertains to

marriage.


Mankind has come and gone on Earth, over the course of 4+ billion

years, several times before the advent of modern man. The origin of modern

man begins with Adam, in Genesis chapter two, in about the year 7200 BC.

God gave Adam the command to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good

and Evil, else Adam would begin to die. About 200 years later, God made

Eve, and Adam conveyed to Eve what God had told him.


The world of Theology does not understand the book of Genesis,

especially the first two chapters. After Creation Week (not found in

Genesis), God appointed the arc-angel Lucifer to be overseer of our

universe, but Lucifer later rebelled, and lost the "civil war" in Heaven, in

245 Million BC, causing what is called "the Great Extinction" on Earth.

Five eras (of mankind) later, the Evil Tree was put in the Garden of Eden by

God, but not as a "test of obedience" for Adam. It was actually a trap for

Lucifer (Satan), so that God could rightfully rescind control of our universe

from Satan, and rid the Earth of Satan's reign. It has been Satan's agenda to

r edefine, exclude, and deny the truth of the commandments of God. I

identify this as the RED agenda.


In order to entice Eve to eat of the evil tree, Satan used denial, and

redefinition of the commandment that God had given to Adam, in order to

obtain ownership of modern mankind's birthright (which Satan was unable

to obtain with previous advents of mankind). Once Satan gained ownership

of mankind's soul, by extorting sovereignty from Adam (the executor of

modern mankind), God could then rightfully rescind Satan's appointment,

and set a plan for mankind's redemption.


Reading back on history, such evil religions (or cults) are

recognizable as being RED. They Redefine that which has be established,

they Exclude evidence or teaching of the contrary, and they Deny the truth.

The arguments for same-sex marriage are the direct result of the adversary

trying to have the institution of marriage redefined, and to establish the

denial of a commandment of God.

III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE COURT

The United States Supreme Court has (rightly) put itself in

a strategic position. Our branches of government must not entangle

themselves in matters of religious doctrine, unless it is somehow necessary.

For example, Congress may not find reason to block an appointment,

whether the appointee is a theist or an atheist. But if that appointee practices

a form of Satanism that requires human sacrifice, Congress rightfully should

deny confirmation, solely on those religious grounds.

Like it or not, the United States Supreme Court has been drawn into

this morality issue. By using common sense and righteousness, this issue

should have been resolved long before ever having to be tried at any state

level. But with the teaching of Atheism in our public schools, over the last

50+ years, morality and righteousness have fallen. The sub-culture of

homosexuality, which was previously limited to hidden rendezvous and in

our prisons, is now boldly trying to assert itself openly within our society,

which promises to bring moral decay and the fall of our nation.


Fortunately, the principle of precedent has already been set by the

United States Supreme Court, on morality in America. Case in point,

Reynolds v. United States , U.S. Supreme Court 98 (8 Otto.) 145, in 1878, in

which the high court correctly upheld that bigamy was unlawful, regardless

if it was a religious practice. It was argued by the defense that under the

First Amendment, the U.S. Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free

exercise of religion.

However, the Court ruled that the law prohibiting bigamy did not

meet that standard, and that the established standard that a person could

only be married to one person at a time had existed since the times of King

James I of England in English law, upon which the laws of society in the

United States are based. If a sub-culture is successful in redefining marriage

in our society, or in their own circles, that would negate the standards of

marriage, and open the doors for the practice of bigamy, which a redefinition

of marriage would lead to.

Citing Davis v. Beason , U.S. Supreme Court 133 U.S. 333 , reaffirmed

Reynolds v. United States (1878). Justice Stephen Field, writing for the

Court, stated that "Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of

society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment.". He wrote

by way of comparison that if a religious sect advocated fornication or human

sacrifice, "swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its

doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious

beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the

constitution of the United States."

The United States Supreme Court has historically been in position to

maintain a righteous standard of morality, and must continue to do so. The

United States Supreme Court was established to have no one to answer to,

except to God, to whom everyone will have to give an account at the end of

this era of modern mankind.



IV. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORNICATION AND SODOMY

The social definition of fornication has changed, as the morality

standards of any society have descended. The standards of mankind are

constantly being eroded by the influence of Atheism. However, the

standards of God do not change.

Biblically, physical (as opposed to spiritual) fornication is defined as

sexual intercourse (or intimacy) between a human male and a human female

outside of marriage. This includes sex before marriage, adultery, an

unmarried person having intercourse with a married person, more than two

participants, and the act of incest. Fornication is not being addressed in this

case.


Be advised that oral sex within marriage is biblically allowed, if both

parties consent to it. We interpret that from the following verse:

Hebrews 13:4

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Sodomy is defined as sexual intercourse (or intimacy) between a

human and an animal, anal sex outside of marriage, oral sex outside of

marriage, and any same-sex intimacy. The term comes from the Hebrew,

s'dom, meaning "city of sin," which was the biblical city of Sodom, which

was destroyed by two angels in the year 2219 BC.


The complete story can be found in Genesis chapter 19. The city of

Sodom, along with four other cities of the plain, was widely known for its

abundance of sin and immorality. God sent two angels, which looked like

ordinary men, to Sodom to confirm its evil report. A God fearing man

named Abraham asked God to spare the city, if ten righteous people could

be found in the city. Abraham had a special interest in the city, because his

nephew, named Lot, lived there.


The angels were visiting Lot when a large group of male homosexuals

came to the house that evening. They wanted "to know" (have intercourse)

with the new visitors in town. Lot refused to hand them over to the deviates,

which actually was the norm in that city. Lot offered instead to give his two

virgin daughters to the group, in order to protect the two men which he had

recognized as being angels. But the group did not want the virgins", they

wanted to force themselves upon the two men. With Lot's refusal to hand

them over, the group threatened to do worse upon Lot.


Lot lived in the city, but did not participate in their evil. He first

came to the region to live and feed his herds outside of the city. But when

there was an attack upon the city by another king (Genesis ch. 14), Lot and

his family, plus many of the city dwellers, were captured and were being

taken away.


Abraham heard that Lot was taken captive, went, fought, and

recaptured Lot and restored the people of Sodom. Lot was invited to live in

the city, as an honored hero, because of their appreciation to Abraham. But

when Lot refused to let the homosexuals "have their way", Lot became "fair

game".

The angels caused the group to be blind, and told Lot to get his family

out of Sodom. Remember the ten people that Abraham asked the Lord

about? There were only eight people that were righteous in the whole city.

Lot had four daughters. Two were married, and two were at home and yet

unmarried. The eight righteous people were Lot, his wife, his two married

daughters and their husbands, and his two unmarried daughters. Only Lot,

his wife, and his two daughters who lived with him escaped the city.

The reason that the city was destroyed was because homosexuality

had taken over the city. The following are notable biblical references to the

city of Sodom:

2 Peter 2:6

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

Jude 1:7

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

V. THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE

The institution of marriage was established long before the advent of

modern mankind. In the Bible, in the book of Mark, chapter 10, verses six

and seven, it says "But from the beginning of the creation God made them

male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and

cleave to his wife;". That passage can only be interpreted as saying that

even before modern mankind was made on the Earth, that marriage was

established by God to be between a male and female.

VI. THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE

Marriage is the state of being united, emotionally and intimately, to

a person of the opposite sex, as husband and wife, in a consensual and

contractual relationship recognized by law. It is t he social institution under

which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife

by legal commitments, and/or religious ceremonies. It's a social union or

legal contract between two people (called spouses ), that establishes rights

and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children,

and between the spouses and their in-laws.

VII. THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE

Marriage is the God ordained agency that was established to convey

lasting love between a man and a woman, and to produce offspring from that

union. Our society has long recognized the need to have couples to raise

families, and has fashioned laws and benefits to encourage the production of

families. Nations, and mankind himself, cannot survive without provisions

for the growth of families.


VIII. THE ATTEMPT TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE

Due to the attack of Atheism and homosexuality upon our society, an

attempt is made to redefine marriage, that which is ungodly, and having the

elements of sodomy. Same-sex unions cannot produce a family (by natural

means). So why would two male homosexuals, or two female homosexuals

(lesbians) want to defile the institution of marriage? It is for at least two

reasons; 1) to gain the economic/social benefits of a traditional married

couple, and 2) attempt to redefine their ungodly practice as being socially

acceptable.

What is perversion? First, what is a pervert? The dictionary says:

One who performs an act of perverting. A person that is in state of

being perverted. A perverted form of something. To cause to turn

away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.

Now, what is perversion?

To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort. Any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.

In Pathology, it is:

A change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.

The attempt to redefine marriage is an act of perversion, which again,

is an attempt to redefine that which is establish, and to deny the truth of

God's law.


IX. THE EFFECT OF SUCH PERVERSION IN OUR SOCIETY


Before conveying what the effect of such perversion would have on

our society, we must first define the word "reprobate". So what is a

reprobate? The dictionary says:

A depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person: a drunken reprobate. A person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation, such as "being given over to a reprobate mind".

Because of the perversion of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other three

Cities of the Plain, they were destroyed. In modern times, instead of

rebuking such behavior, reprobate mentality has harbored this class of the

population, calling it "equal rights".


It is the agenda of said class of people to redefine such a life style, and

to have it accepted as normal. What does a clergyman or marriage official

say at a same-sex ceremony? " We are gathered here today, in the sight of

God, to unite these two in unholy matrimony"?


God invented sex, and His "never ending patent" declares that the

practice of intimacy is between husband and wife, male and female. But

over the years, the entity of evil has first "changed the norm" that sex be

not confined within marriage. Remember the "free love" and "shacking up"

movements? Then, after years of destroying the family unit, comes the

attack against (with the redefinition of) marriage. This is all in rebellion

against God. Any such human union that cannot be consummated using one

male organ and one female organ is unnatural, perverted, ungodly, and

insane.


When you elect the ungodly to public office, you get ungodly results.

It is the ungodly that are striving to legalize same sex marriage. Those law

makers do not have wisdom, and are short sighted. What would happen to

the "straight" community? Would the godly among us be subjected to

seeing two men or two women walking in public holding hands, kissing, and

showing affection? Children are impressionable. Is this what we want our

children to see? What sane, and righteous person, wants their child to grow

up to be a homosexual?


As in the states that have legalized same-sex marriage, is the sight of

reprobate behavior going to be forced upon the rest of the population, and

their children? This is how it started in Sodom. This is worse than tobacco

smoke being forced upon non-smokers. Why would any parent take their

family to a public place to eat, or enjoy entertainment, if there will be public

displays of perverted relationships? They would stay at home, if places of

business allowed such behavior. What was before kept in the dark closet is

now trying to boldly walk in the light of day.

CONCLUSION

If there is "same sex marriage", then those unions would want to raise

children, giving rise to an unwanted sub-culture of homosexuals, such as

now is in most prisons. Who, with any sanity, would allow a child to be

raised in that environment? What happens when such perversion becomes

the norm, as was in the city of Sodom? Suppose a male student goes to

school, and demands a romantic relationship from another male student? If

the second male refuses, suppose the first male finds a way to force himself

upon the other. That is what would come next. So why would we pave the

way for the advent of a "sickening society"?

The Court must make every effort not to be fooled by the agenda of

those that would erode the very moral fabric of our nation. In Romer v.

Evans , 517 U.S. 620 (1996), Justice Antonin Scalia asks this question:

It remains to be explained how -501 of the Idaho Revised Statutes was not an "impermissible targeting" of polygamists, but (the much more mild) Amendment 2 is an "impermissible targeting" of homosexuals. Has the Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a "legitimate concern of government," and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?"

Where is the wisdom of our courts? If we are wise enough to

understand the social harm of polygamy, how much more should we

recognize the social harm of homosexuality? Imagine the harm to society if

all criminals were let loose from prison, to practice their ungodliness upon

the rest of our citizens? If any person wants to practice the perversion of

homosexuality let them do so out of the sight of society, and our courts

must not give any hint of legality to such practice. Discrimination must be

upheld against such, throughout our nation, to keep them from having access

to children, the eventual victims of such behavior. For this very reason, the

moral majority voted to protect their children from such immorality.

However, no other discrimination should be levied, because all people

have rights as human beings", but not "gay rights". The "don't ask, and

don't tell" was a good policy for our military. What has become of it now?

For the above stated reasons, this amicus respectfully entreats the U.S.

Supreme Court to uphold the standard of morality, and grant the petition for

a writ of certiorari (reversal).

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________

Herman Cummings

 

Author of the book, "Moses Didn't Write About Creation!", and promoter of teaching "the Observations of Moses".
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this diary has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments