Editorial Page 3: The REAL Proposal For Marriage magazine- Beyond White Lace & Promises

Yes! Yes! and Yes! on California, Arizona and Florida Propositions 8, 102, and 2! (Click to Enter Our Blog Spot)

EDITORIAL: Yes! Yes! and Yes! on California, Arizona and Florida Propositions 8, 102, and 2! Originally published October 22, 2008
If you blinked during the mainstream media's blanket coverage of Wall Street's recent meltdown and the government's subsequent bailout response plan, or their heightened coverage of the 2008 Presidential elections, you may have missed the fact that Connecticut recently became the third state of our union to legalize same-sex marriage by judicial fiat. To be sure, there was none of the frenetic coverage accorded the California Supreme Court decision in May to legalize same-sex marriage in that state, or the subsequent spectacles afforded the nation by the same-sex weddings that took place en masse when the law handed down by the state judiciary took effect on June 16. But make no mistake, next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America. It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.

Arizona and Florida have similar proposals on their ballots - Proposition 102 and Proposition 2, respectively - which seek to amend their state constitutions to define Marriage as the union of one man and one woman. While it is vital that these propositions pass decisively, in some cases like Florida by more than a 60% majority to ratify that state's constitutional amendment, the situation in California is, perhaps, the most critical. Indeed, Proposition 8 represents the only option at this stage to return democratic governance to the people of California who already voted by a 61% majority in 2000, through Proposition 22, to preserve marriage in state law as the union of one man and one woman. Conservative commentator and scholar, Dennis Prager, summarizes the California situation:

"...What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create. And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society..."
Who knew that we would ever see the day when it became necessary to define what marriage is in America... or the world for that matter? That said, no one could follow, for any length of time, our continuing coverage on this very critical sociopolitical issue without realizing that, whether we like it or not, the on-going and increasingly aggressive battle to redefine marriage is the next civil rights frontier in America! Most people do not fully comprehend how we got to this place. Many have a distorted perspective on the issues based on what is being fed to us by the mainstream media, who are largely complicit with the homosexual agenda and follow their playbook and manifesto quite diligently in the effort to convert straight America into accepting homosexuality as anything but deviant behavior. Therefore, we urge you to spend some time going through our coverage on the issue. For, without a doubt, the blinders will fall away and it will become clear that there is a very careful, very deliberate, very well financed and orchestrated marketing strategy being executed by radical homosexual activists to normalize same-sex relationships in this country. And you will likely be outraged that somewhere along the way — while most of us who believe in traditional marriage were enjoying our precious freedoms, taking kids to soccer, ordering pizza and watching our favorite shows — we were being manipulated and vilified as society's new "haters," "bigots," and "homophobes." But, as Prager points out:

"...These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency. Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?..."

Indeed, we are just beginning to get some honest answers from homosexual activists with respect to these questions. Clearly, many of them like Peter Tatchell - a human rights campaigner, and a member of the queer rights group OutRage! and the left wing of the UK Green Party - already know that homosexuality isn't natural and are actually saying out loud now what many researchers, psychologists, and social scientists have been saying all along, which is that we ought to ignore those researchers who claim to have discovered a ‘gay gene' because gay desire is not genetically determined. But consider now what homosexual activists like John Corvino — a philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit who travels the country speaking on homosexuality and ethics — are saying now in the midst of all the deception being spouted regarding what it is exactly that homosexuals are seeking from society at large. For many years, the homosexual agenda's intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of "equality," "benefits," and "fairness." But Corvino provided a breath of fresh air recently by telling us, honestly, that what homosexuals really want goes well beyond tolerance. What they want, he says, is moral approval. However, Austin Nimocks — senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation — breaks down what this translates to for the rest of us and reminds us that, unfortunately, this is a mindset we cannot afford:

"...This groundbreaking concession now provides an opportunity for an honest public discourse on what homosexual advocates are really after. They want your heart and soul. It's not enough to just be tolerant.

Now, I realize that you probably believe that your fair-mindedness is sufficient for any number of circumstances in life, but on this issue, you have been duped. You see, moral approval goes well beyond fairness or tolerance. It requires you to look upon the homosexual behavior of another and say to yourself and others, "That's a good thing." Moral approval means that you plan to teach it to your kids as righteous and true, and not just as something that other people do (and then secretly pray that you never find your kids doing). Moral approval means that you must reject other people, businesses, and persons who do not morally approve of homosexual behavior.

Most of all, moral approval means that you not only permit it in your home, but you embrace it. You applaud TV shows that celebrate it, Web sites that promote it, books that endorse it, and you may even choose to practice it. Moral approval goes to the very essence of our person.

Not convinced that anyone could want something that radical from you? Well, there's no need to accept something just because I say it. Instead, look at the strategy employed by those who promote this agenda-in the courts. That alone tells you something. Courts are not sought by people who simply want you to tolerate an idea. Courts order people to do things. From just this small sample of court cases, you can see that tolerance or simple access to certain "benefits" is no longer enough. What is desired is court-ordered moral approval:..."

So, what's really at stake in this same-sex marriage debate? For one thing, our religious liberty, as we discussed at length after the California Supreme Court ruling. And for another, our First Amendment rights to free speech. However, as R. Albert Mohler Jr., President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., reminds us, when we go out to vote YES on Proposition 8 in California, Proposition 2 in Florida, and Proposition 102 in Arizona, ours is not the odd and out-of-step position that it is typically characterized as by the mainstream media. Same-sex marriage may, for now, be legal in three of fifty states in the United States. And beyond our borders, it is legal in the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, South Africa, Canada and Norway. However, this represents a very small percentage of the world's population. Same-sex marriage is, by any measure, the exception rather than the rule. Even when legalized civil unions and domestic partnerships are thrown into the mix, the countries that consider same-sex unions and heterosexual marriages to be equal before the law represent a small percentage of the world's nations.

Keep that in mind when you observe the media's coverage of the issue. Keep that in mind as you determine to understand why Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and most every major religion as well as every civilized culture have weighed and, ultimately, rejected homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. And keep that in mind as you vote YES to preserve the definition of Marriage. It has always been — and should continue to be — defined as one man, one woman!

Post Your Comment