|
|
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!
Previous Comments Posted Here
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
