Bradlee Dean: Homosexual "Marriage" - Ask the Wrong Questions, Never Get The Right Answers


"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to give you the right answers.

 – Bradlee Dean

In light of the Supreme Court hand-picking the issue of homosexual marriage this week – an issue that has been settled by our Creator, the laws of our republic and the righteous compliance of the American people – I thought it was important to ask where the American people are deriving the belief that radical homosexual marriage is accepted by a majority of our citizens.

Fact: At least 33 states have voted down homosexual marriage.

During the state's Proposition 8 battle, 7 million Californians voted against homosexual marriage (the majority were black voters.) Not once but twice was their voice heard. Yet, the corrupt judicial system got involved and stripped it from the hands of the people, placing it in the courts – right where they wanted it. That way they could control the "debate," and the state-run media were right there to help them along.

Another example dates back to May 1, 2004, in Seattle, Wash.

Approximately 25,000 people protested homosexual marriage at the Mayday for Marriage rally. Approximately 1,500 radical homosexual sympathizers showed up to protest the rally, holding up signs stating, "Bigots go home!" The state-run media twisted the truth and told the public that the 1,500 homosexual supporters holding up signs stating, "Bigots go home!" were the majority and made the 25,000 protesters out to be the minority, totally turning the event to be against the "bigots" instead of homosexual marriage.

The media repeated the same twisted reporting in Washington, D.C., this week.

Hegelian Dialectic

The Hegelian Dialectic is the tool that the corrupt in government use in an attempt to manipulate the minds of the people to accept their "change" when they normally would reject it.

The Hegelian Dialectic is the process in which the usurping elitists create a crisis, knowing in advance how the population will react to that created crisis, thus conditioning the people that a change is needed. Once that is achieved, they will then bring the "answer" to the crisis.

They attempt to control both sides of the debate over how and why the "change" is needed, thus diverting anyone from asking the right questions, in order to avoid bringing the right answer.

With the help of the state-run media, this process is repeated over and over again to make it seem as though society is accepting of their "change."

Rather than citing the Bible, the Constitution or the laws of our republic, they continue their manipulative debate until a perceived compromise is reached. The outcome of the "debate" – which purposely addressed the "concerns of the public" with the mandate to do something – is enacted as public policy (never law), and their radical agenda moves forward.

The Supreme Court, the media, and this administration are exemplifying the Hegelian Dialectic today. After placing radical lesbian Elena Kagan on the bench, they have attempted to take issues such as marriage out of the hands of the people so they can push their unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal agenda.

The same can be said with the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The American people accepted the lie that abortion is legal just because the Supreme Court said so.

As William Blackstone stated, "No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God."

After 57 million babies have been aborted, the American people are finally beginning to awaken to the fact that the Hegelian Dialectic has deceived them. If they would have shown their true intent by running on a slogan such as, "Support the murder of innocent children. Vote yes today!" the populace would have been appalled and those who would have the audacity to advocate such a crime would have been thrown in jail.

Simply put, America is dealing with less than 1.7 percent of the population that is being used as a political battering ram to upend your Constitution.

Friends, remember they will always do what you let them get away with.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." – John Adams

Homosexual Manifesto – Satire or Reality?

Canada Warns America About Homosexual Marriage:

Who is Bradlee Dean?

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






  • Michael Ross

    Almost *everyone* in this debate - both proponents and opponents of gay marriage - have got it wrong. They're not just asking the wrong questions, they're starting from completely the wrong premise: what makes ANY marriage - yours or mine, gay or straight - any business of government *at all*??

    Surely the correct answer is to be opposed to gay marriage - and be equally opposed to straight marriage, as it's presently constituted.

    The state and the law has a legitimate but minimal book-keeping interest in who is in a relationship with whom, for such purposes as immigration, taxation, inheritance, and medical decision-making. This minimal interest can be satisfied by having the state and the law perform and recognise civil unions, and ONLY civil unions, for any and all adults who want their relationship recognised in law.

    The state should take NO position when it comes to recognizing, approving, sanctioning, forbidding, or performing ANY 'marriage'; what constitutes a 'marriage' is entirely a matter for each couple, family, and faith. Think about it: state-sponsored marriage. You need *permission* from the *government* to get married? It's called a *marriage license*? Who really wants that? Who wants *politicians* trying to decide for you what your marriage is or isn't?? Why did people ever find that concept acceptable?

    Why do so few people stop to think about what an offensive oxymoron a 'marriage license' is?? You get a license from the state to drive a car, carry a concealed weapon, or operate a business - not to fall in love and get married!

    Marriage, for many - probably most - people in this country is an important matter of faith. As far as I'm concerned it's a pure first amendment matter, and the government shouldn't be performing or defining marriages any more than they should be performing or defining baptisms. I wish the courts would start seeing things the same way.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002616537403 Phillip Lake

    If every normal human being in this country, no matter your ethnicity, would get out and vote this bunch of trash out of office then this could easily be turned around.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002616537403 Phillip Lake

    These animals are going to keep pushing until we explode and start treating them like the animals they are and start going on q-u-e-e-r hunts. LEAVE OUR CHILDREN ALONE AND QUIT TRYING TO TELL US WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT SAY!!! And who the hell do you think you are by telling Christians they cannot teach what is in express and clear print in at least 5 places in the Bible. Do you actually think you are better and smarter than GOD. YOU FOOLS. If you would just live your filthy lives and keep your mouths shut then nothing would be said in return. But you don't want that - you want a war -- well fudge-packer if you come around me or my kids you will get that war.

  • Annabelle Arieto

    This is what I wonder. WHY IS
    MARRIAGE AN ISSUE OF THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Marriage is a sacrament
    instituted by God. "Whom you shall join together ......" The only
    reason the state has become mixed up is due to tax advantages. If we are
    serious of one man and one woman, then take the argument away by putting everyone
    on the same tax code. DONE. Then we will not be discriminating against anyone,
    which is fair.

    Then various institutions can
    make up their own rules about who gets to visit etc.

  • http://www.facebook.com/RobertAlexander.Salvage Robert Alexander

    Mark 7.7and in vain do they worship Me, teaching teachings, commands of men;

  • freedomringsforall

    What absolute hetrophobic scum

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002616537403 Phillip Lake

      The truth hurts. Next time you want to know what scum is- take a look in the mirror.

    • freedomringsforall

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      fell into your own hypocritical trap.

      Oh it is ok to belligerently call people who believe in heterosexual relationships homophobes and all kinds of vial things but oh no nobody better call a homosexual heterophobic!
      HAHAHAHAHAHA
      How hypocritical of you!!!

  • Ethan Ellingson

    Thank you Bradlee Dean. The Supreme Judge has already filed His ruling regarding this issue:

    Lev 20:13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.'

    Rom 1:32 '...and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.'

  • Marilyn

    What a wonderful read Mr. Dean. Thank you for all you due. I have delved DEEP into our Government's ever growing Child Welfare Services network and seen firsthand swarms of homosexuals, mainly females, recruited as foster parents. The bulk of our social security funds are spent on rounding up and keeping foster kids which have long been preyed upon by Governmints for hundreds of years.

    They need these odd "marriages" to lawfully adopt these kids out in order to qualify for federal bonus money. The lesbians I have witnessed playing foster mommies have been purveyors of fraud, jest like the Gov't..

    California Department of Social Services in Sacramento has a toll free number (The Ombudsman for Foster Care) where you can verify that over half of their foster parents are lesbian women. Ask for Chris Forte if the person answering the telephone plays dumb and won't disclose this AND the fact that these numbers are growing.

    The "Cardinal" touting we should "embrace gays" today in the headlines is simply yet another one of their yes men.

    Now you know exactly why our public serpents have promoted this idea. Really. The People need to know there is a tangible readily verifiable reason.

  • junkmailbin

    we have a lot of very dumb people all receiving things from the gubberment gravy train.
    handy note, a judge just based a decision as to what is what. the declaration he made was simple. If you can conceive and carry a baby, your are not a man but a woman.
    homosexuals can only have sex not breed.

  • aurora9

    The marxist theory is that if you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it. Well, maybe the uninformed will but I have far too much confidence in our citizens overall who are more astute and do not buy into that charade. The figures show the percentages and the consensus is that the majority oppose this so-called 'normalization' of homosexuality and the repercussions thereof. The majority of Americans believe in mom and dad and the family life and will not be swayed otherwise!

  • pguild01

    Politicians are a major disappointment! The Rainbow Congress.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    Bradlee Dean: “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to give you the right answers.": "After placing radical lesbian Elena Kagan on the bench, they have attempted to take issues such as marriage out of the hands of the people so they can push their unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal agenda."

    1) The question regarding marriage has never been in the hands of people but in the hands of Yahweh, the God of the Bible.

    2) It's because the framers placed it in the hands of the hands of the people in rebellion (or, at least, neglect) of Yahweh and His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11)that it has now found its way into the Supreme Court.

    3) Whether most States now would allow for same-sex marriage is not the issue, particularly because that day is inevitably coming. Because the framers nowhere expressly established the Constitution upon Yahweh's righteousness as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments, and because the people therefore have no immutable standard by which to decide anything, all 50 States will eventually endorse same-sex marriage.

    4) Same-sex marriage is an unlawful, not an illegal agenda. Because, according to Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12, Yahweh is the sole lawgiver (or legislator), all other "law" is merely man's attempt to legalize what Yahweh has declared unlawful and to make illegal what Yahweh has made lawful. Whereas same-sex "marriage" is unlawful according to Yahweh's law, it will one day be made legal by man's edict.Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible.

    Take our Constitution Survey and receive a free copy of the 85-page "Primer" of the 565-page "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Click on my name, then our website. The survey will be found in the right-hand sidebar.

    • Davy Crockett

      1. False. God has already ruled on the matter. It is now in the hands of the people to decide each day whether they will do right or wrong, whether they will pass on this morality to their children or let others teach them their morality, whether they elect Christian leaders or not. The form of government does not determine the answers to these things, the hearts and minds of the people do.

      2. False. No, we are here because of the apathy of Christian men, most importantly of this generation,.

      3. “Because the framers nowhere expressly established the Constitution upon Yahweh's righteousness”. Notice the use of the phrase “nowhere expressly” used in the above statement. Why does he say it this way? Because if we keep the Constitution in proper historical context with all the state constitutions, laws of that time, and the lives of the signers and their peers, it is quite obvious with all the religious tests and oaths, anti-blasphemy laws, Sabbath laws, state funding of churches, etc that his assertion is utterly false.

      4. False. It is both unlawful and illegal. Those who have pushed this agenda have violated both God’s law and our country’s law to get us to where are now.

      “according to Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12, Yahweh is the sole lawgiver (or legislator), all other "law" is merely man's attempt to legalize what Yahweh has declared unlawful and to make illegal what Yahweh has made lawful.”

      This statement, while true at times, is not universally so, otherwise the Bible would contradict itself. By Ted’s statement Moses would have been sinning when he took Jethro’s advice to instituted the judges over Israel because it is law that came not directly from God, but from a godly man (Ex. 18).

      See how well the Constitution does match up with the Bible at this link below:

      http://www.increasinglearning.com/one-nation-under-god.html

    • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

      1. Good luck in finding Christian men to elect, particularly since Article 6 bans
      Christian tests and thereby Biblical qualifications for federal officials.

      2. Today's apathy does not eliminate the framers' sedition. The Bible teaches
      repentance for both our own and forefather's sins/idolatry. Like Gideon of old,
      after dealing with the idols in our own hearts, we need to tear down our fathers' idols.

      3. Not only did the framers nowhere state they intended to construct a government upon Yahweh's morality as contained in His commandments, statutes, and judgments, there is hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality. See "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian
      Perspective." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books
      page, and click on the top entry.

      4. Exodus 18:23 "If thou shalt do this thing, AND GOD COMMAND THEE SO,
      then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their
      place in peace."

      2 Samuel 7:4, 11 "And it came to pass that night, that the word of YHWH
      came unto Nathan, saying, ... And as since the time that I COMMANDED judges to be over my people Israel...."

      Lastly, by all means, people should go and read Mr. Fortenberry's "Hidden
      Facts of the Founding Era," in which he provides 48 points allegedly proving
      the framers were inspired by the Bible. However, before coming to any immediate conclusions and so as not to be guilty of Proverbs 18:13, they should also read "Straining at Gnats...," a series of blog articles in which I'm
      presently responding to those 48 points (NONE of which PROVE what MR.
      Fortenberry claims).

      I begin addressing Mr. Fortenberry's points in Part 2 and in five follow-up
      articles yet to be posted. However, I recommend you begin with Part 1. Click on my name, then our website. Go to our blog and and scroll down to "Straining at Gnats..."

    • Davy Crockett

      1. “Good luck in finding Christian men to elect”

      This statement is a good example of that apathy folks. Is there another choice? Not one that will save us. We must fight for our people and reach out to them with the Gospel that they will make the right, godly choice.

      2. “framers' sedition” here is a good Socialist/Humanist idol to tear down and another false doctrine would be Preterism (see link below). A sin of your theological forefathers, the Jesuits who came up with it.

      3.Since you didn’t actually say anything new here it is again:

      Because the framers nowhere expressly established the Constitution upon Yahweh's righteousness”. Notice the use of the phrase “nowhere expressly” used in the above statement. Why does he say it this way? Because if we keep the Constitution in proper historical context with all the state constitutions, laws of that time, and the lives of the signers and their peers, it is quite obvious with all the religious tests and oaths, anti-blasphemy laws, Sabbath laws, state funding of churches, etc that his assertion is utterly false.

      And to see how well the Constitution does line up with the Bible click here:

      http://www.increasinglearning.com/one-nation-under-god.html

      4. Exodus 18:23 "If thou shalt do this thing, AND GOD COMMAND THEE SO,

      This is the question I keep asking and you are have been unable to answer. So lets try again:

      Where in Scripture does it mandated we set up a theocracy in this New Covenant age? Why a theocratic form of government over the other types of government God ordained in the Bible? One of your main premises is that it will work better than the government set up by the Christian Founding Fathers. How is this true when this theocracy, when enacted by ancient Israel fell, was invaded, enslaved, and or conquered over and over, not staying free for more than 40 years at a time, while the government founded and intended by our Christian Founding Fathers has remained free for over 200 years. How will you do better than such great men as Joshua, Caleb, Ehud, etc.?

      It is truly ironic and shows how much you are willing to twist scriptures that you quote this passage. When we look at the context of 2nd Sam. 7:4, 11 and look at the part you left out, vs. 5-10 we find Nathan is speaking to King, not judge, but King David, over a monarchy, not a theocracy. Here in these verses God’s promises an everlasting royal line for David. Odd verse to endorse your theocratic idea.

      4. Exodus 18:23 "If thou shalt do this thing, AND GOD COMMAND THEE SO,

      This is the question I keep asking and you are have been unable to answer. So lets try again:

      Where in Scripture does it mandated we set up a theocracy in this New Covenant age? Why a theocratic form of government over the other types of government God ordained in the Bible? One of your main premises is that it will work better than the government set up by the Christian Founding Fathers. How is this true when this theocracy, when enacted by ancient Israel fell, was invaded, enslaved, and or conquered over and over, not staying free for more than 40 years at a time, while the government founded and intended by our Christian Founding Fathers has remained free for over 200 years. How will you do better than such great men as Joshua, Caleb, Ehud, etc.?

      It is truly ironic and shows how much you are willing to twist scriptures that you quote this passage. When we look at the context of 2nd Sam. 7:4, 11 and look at the part you left out, vs. 5-10 we find Nathan is speaking to King, not judge, but King David, over a monarchy, not a theocracy. Here in these verses God’s promises an everlasting royal line for David. Odd verse to endorse your theocratic idea.

      http://www.historicist.com/preterism/the-development-of-preterism

      http://www.historicist.com/preterism/the-papal-origins-of-preterism

    • http://www.facebook.com/RobertAlexander.Salvage Robert Alexander

      ON TARGET Ted Weiland as almost every post ever made, please continue spelling out the truth and opposing deceptive thinking.

  • Spenserr

    Gaslighting is the systematic attempt by one person to erode another's reality

    Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented to the victim with the intent of making them doubt their own memory and perception. It may simply be the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, or it could be the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

    Psychologists state that psychopaths frequently use gaslighting tactics. Psychopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but are also typically charming and convincing liars who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their perceptions.

    Gaslighting is used on POW's to break them down and force them to admit to doing things they didn't do. The liberal msm uses it on the American people to try to get them to believe their lies and 1/2 truths

    • PierceArrowV12

      Gaslighting is a good term to describe the way closet liberal Democrat trolls such as Victor Magilke and NOTtheChristianSolution pretend to be conservatives; and then lace their postings with racist comments, lies, and false history; in a vile effort to discredit real conservatives. Those trolls might be sodomites.

    • T. Edward Price

      You could be one as well. I am in no way defending the comments or views of the two posters you mentioned, but making drive-by ad hominem attacks, such as your last sentence, discredits your cause. You might be completely right about the two, but if that is the case, you would still be right without the smear at the end. This applies to all of us, me included. If we want to be taken seriously, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. Just a suggestion for all of us to consider.

    • PierceArrowV12

      T., I have considered your suggestion and deleted the last sentence in my post.

    • T. Edward Price

      Thank you for letting me know. We don't know each other, and probably agree on some things, but perhaps not all. Forgive me if my comment was blunt. It is easy to let our emotions cloud our judgment. I'm certainly guilty of this. I just think civil discourse is better served if we take the higher road than our opposition. If you would like, I will be happy to edit or remove my previous comment.
      Blessings

    • PierceArrowV12

      T., I forgive you, and you may edit or delete your comment if you wish. I will be more careful from now on. I am thankful for the "edit" command.

    • T. Edward Price

      I tried to completely rectify the situation. I failed miserably. Only goes to show that, unfortunately, my wife is correct , AGAIN. It appears I really am far from perfect.

    • Odie

      I think you should speak up. Yes I agree we should not slander someone, but exposing them for false rhetoric...then by all means.

    • T. Edward Price

      Thank you. By the way, COOL name.

    • Odie

      As a Christian, I think we tend to proof text, i.e. “turn the other cheek” at our demise. Yes, I know how the “story” ends…victorious, but that does not mean we should not confront evil. I’m going to honor Jesus, step up to the plate and speak the truth …”if you follow Me they will hate you”.

    • T. Edward Price

      I couldn't have said it better. "Turn the other cheek" is indeed an instruction from our Savior, but like everything, context is key. This regards OUR enemies. Being carnal minded, every man will have someone to oppose him. However, we are to confront God's enemies (evil), whenever it attacks us. "Cheek turning" in such an instance is no different that tacit agreement, sodomite destruction of marriage included.

    • 1LonesomeDove1

      I don't know what PA wrote in that last sentence, or if he should have removed it, but he's definitely right about those he mentioned.

      They've posted some of the worst filth of any posters on the Internet, and have been banned form both Human Events and the Daily Caller after attacking and offending over 20 different posters, three of whom are decent women.

  • TheTexasCooke

    United States Constitution
    Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
    Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trial

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    What is specifically missing from that list of authorities is the power to hear cases between a citizen of a State and the State where he resides. Scalia's question about the authority to hear a marriage case falls short because that is not the real issue here. Issues within a State are NONE of the Federal Government's business and that includes the SCOTUS! The citizen's relief is through addressing it with State Legislation or moving to another State....not running to a Fed!

    • Spenserr

      That case should have never went higher than the state supreme court

    • pearl87

      The state SC has no authority to review the right of the people to amend their own state constitution. The court simply had no jurisdiction, as the people had spoken. Anyone who says otherwise does not believe in representative government, but instead supports dictatorship by a handful of judges, who are thus empowered to create law in despite of the will of the governed.