Communities must return to shaming the immoral and sexually corrupt, and laws must be changed to reflect proper family values.

If a man is disrespecting a woman, rebuke him. If a homosexual is practicing his filthy trade, admonish him on the spot.

As to the law, behold the whirlwind of marriage laws from state to state (lc.org)! Massachusetts rewards perverts with gay marriage, and Alabama denounces the practice and goes so far as to take an interest in marriage between a man and woman:

Alabama: Ala. Code § 30-1-19

Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Alabama Marriage Protection Act.”

Section 2. (a) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.

(b) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(c) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

(d) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.

Section 3. This act shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming a law.

Those country bumpkins in Alabama have got it all wrong! Don’t they know that homosexual parents can be just as good at parenting as a married mother and father?

After all, some married heterosexual couples physically abuse their children, so therefore homosexual parents who adopt and do not physically abuse their children: 1. Justifies their homosexual marriage or domestic partnership; 2. Qualifies them to adopt children; and 3. Makes their homosexual relationship more wholesome and moral than traditional marriage.

This is how illogical and wacky immoral liberals think, and no less. Just ask the California Supreme Court!

Then, for the state of Alabama to have the gall to say what is best for society has to be the greatest affront:

Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children.

That’s discrimination! ACLU and NAMBLA, save us from this nonsense! How dare elected leadership create laws that lead us by way of descriptive wording of what we should and should not do.

Unfortunately, the majority of states, discriminatory as they are against gay marriage, forgot one very important detail in their legal wording. They overlooked the possibility that, despite decent and respectable folk knowing through common sense that lifelong, sexual pairing is only between a man and woman and that homosexuality is wrong, bespectacled legal perverts could add to the law new variations of human union like “domestic partnership” and tack on marriage-like responsibilites and legal benefits.

They did create that loophole, and like counterfeit currency devalues legitimate currency, “domestic partnership” and “civil union” arrangements are trashing real marriage (cwfa.org).

Only by the correct wording of marriage law that is updated concurrently with the circumventing of it, can a man and woman be led to the proper recognition by society of their love and their children. Here is one legal wording which strips the legal benefits from any union other than a man and a woman:

Section 1: Marriage in the United States, whether entered into within or outside of the United States, shall consist only of the legal union of one man and one woman. Every person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, subject to state laws based on age and consanguinity. Neither the United States nor any State, or subdivision thereof, shall confer any benefit, protection, right, or responsibility of marriage on unmarried couples, or groups.

Section 2: This article shall be self-executing, and citizens of the United States shall have standing to seek enforcement of this article in federal and state courts.

Section 3. Upon approval by Congress, this amendment shall be ratified if approved by convention in three-quarters of the states within a period not to exceed four years. —(cwfa.org)

The next step should be to further qualify the legal definition of marriage away from the anarchy that it currently is. This should be done, in part, by restoring fault divorce and placing limits on the number of times a person can marry, such as twice, like the country of Brazil had done.

The average citizen needs to do some work too, by hitting the street and denouncing those who pervert family and community order. If a man is disrespecting a woman, rebuke him. If a homosexual is practicing his filthy trade, admonish him on the spot.