Is the Gay Marriage issue more like apartheid than equality?

No court or government can force, or
deny, love.  Is Gay Marriage a political
power play similar to apartheid?  

A minority of white politicians once held government rule over South Africa. Government power, that whites could not earn at the ballot box, was taken through a system in which the voices of the majority were ignored.

Monday, a three-judge panel at the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled that Virginia's majority-supported Gay Marriage ban is unconstitutional. It is one of several federal court rulings that allows government-sanctioned marriage based on sexual preference.

The courts have overruled Defense-of-Marriage (DOMA) laws despite the fact that a majority of the people have voted that marriage has a traditional definition that has nothing to do with privilege for a politics-based special interest groups.

And using judges to nullify a DOMA is not the only way lobbyists for a small number of political activists are controlling the majority.

In some cases, pro-homosexual-privilege groups have intimidated qualified private-sector professionals, and cost them their their jobs (see Mozilla.) Or activists for the gay community, through bullying, have taken opportunities based on political ideas that are not like theirs (see HGTV.)

By using intimidation, and favorable judges, the homosexual lobby continues to override the will of the people. Why is that not a form of apartheid?

Homosexuals have no more right to demand that marriage be redefined, than does any other special-interest group. But the movement is more about subverting the will of the people than rights.

If the gay marriage movement were about equality, there is nothing to stop homosexuals from marrying now. If you are secure in your love for another person, why should you care if the government sanctions you? Find a minister, and a church, and marry your partner. That has happened over and over in our society, and no one has stopped it.

The government should have no say-so about whether your union is legitimate or not. That should be between you, your partner and whatever forces you respect.

If the government suddenly dissolved its recognition of traditional marriage, the heterosexual population would not revolt in civil disobedience. A majority would likely celebrate getting government out of that part of their lives. To paraphrase Henny Youngman: “Take my marriage, please.”

But the move for homosexual marriage is more about defiance of the will of the majority, and political power, than it is about two people who love each other.

A sacred bond is one that cannot be put asunder, or justified, by outside parties. Not even the government.

But a government dictate that is not backed by the people, is a totally different story.

Using the courts and scare tactics to get what you cannot earn, is a form of apartheid. Aren't the open-minded and progressive thinkers against apartheid?