Even if he has a chance to implement it, Barack Obama's radical vision for a completely new society won't be enough for homosexual activists.
You're going to have to LIKE IT.
A couple of years ago, judicial oligarchs in Massachussets torpedoed marriage in that state. Now a different group of judicial activists have done the same in California. And if the American people decide to elect Barack Obama to the presidency in November (which stands a good chance of happening), he has a similar plan for the United States.
This may sound melodramatic, but while the gutting and destruction of marriage and family would be devastating enough to our culture, even our foundational and Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms are likely to go down the same drain as the family.
Nothing less than our freedom of speech and freedom of religion are on the line.
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality points to the disturbing comments made by homosexual activist Sean Kosofsky lately:
Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media outlets who refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed or sued and “publicly slapped,” a Jewish and openly bisexual columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News reported Monday.
The piece also says this about Kosofsky's organization:
“The Triangle Foundation openly admits homosexual activists’ intentions, once they gain sufficient political power, to impose their radical social agenda on America by brute force, trampling cherished American values such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, academic freedom, and even freedom of the press if it stands in their way,” Glenn said.
The Los Angeles Daily News has more on Kosofsky's comments (and others):
What happens if a traditionally religious business owner wants to extend his "marriage discount" only to couples married in his eyes? Sean Kososky of Michigan's largest gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation, says, "If you are a public accommodation and you are open to anyone on Main Street, that means you must be open to everyone on Main Street. If they don't do it, that's contempt and they will go to jail."
Teaching in school that marriage is between a man and a woman? Can't do it!
Sharon Malheiro, a lawyer and LGBT activist from Des Moines affiliated with the state's gay-marriage lobby, ONE-IOWA, told me if a teacher in a marriage-equality state taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, "then it becomes a job performance issue," and the school district should take appropriate action.
If a newspaper doesn't walk the party line and repeat the fantasy that two men or two women can constitute a "marriage," they must be slammed with the law, too.
Michael Taylor-Judd, the president of the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington state, said if a newspaper writes that a given same-sex marriage wasn't really a marriage, "it is certainly in the realm of possibility for someone to bring a (libel) suit, and quite possibly to be successful." Kososky agreed: "I would be sympathetic to some damages. They need to be slapped publicly."
No freedom of the press, either (not that most of the liberal "mainstream" media will mind, anyway).
Incidentally, this piece in the Daily News was written by David Benkof, who is himself a homosexual. Even he has the intellectual integrity to find the California decision and these comments troubling.
Actually, this isn't just some hypothetical future event we're talking about here. Harassment for those who don't march in lockstep with the homosexual agenda is already a reality.
Americans for Truth About Homosexuality has cataloged a few cases around the world (and even here in the States) where people and groups are being harassed by the government for having the audacity to continue believing in morality:
* Swedish Pastor Ake Green in 2004 was sentenced to 30 days in jail for preaching a sermon in which he defined homosexual behavior as sinful and harmful to society. http://www.akegreen.org/
* Baptist Press reported in 2005: “A Catholic bishop in Canada is under investigation by a government agency for condemning ‘gay marriage’… The bishop, Fred Henry of Calgary, is being investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for comments he made about homosexuality in both a letter to parishioners and a Calgary Sun newspaper column. Two homosexuals filed the complaints.” http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=20716
* The Irish Times reported in 2003: “Clergy and bishops who distribute the Vatican’s latest publication describing homosexual activity as ‘evil’ could face prosecution under incitement to hatred legislation. …Those convicted under the Act can face jail terms of up to six months.”
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2003/0802/1059775167952.html
* The London Daily Telegraph reported in 2006: “New Government proposals on equality could require clergy to bless homosexual ‘weddings’ or face prosecution, the Church of England said yesterday. It said the proposed regulations could undermine official teaching and require Christians to act against their religious convictions.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1520849/Church-%27could-be-forced-to-bless-gay-weddings%27.html
* Catholic Charities in Boston was forced by a state “sexual orientation” law to either process the adoption of children to homosexual couples, a direct violation of Vatican policy, or abandon their century-old adoption referral services altogether. They chose the latter. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions
* The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix newspaper was ordered by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal to pay three homosexual men $1,500 each after the newspaper agreed to run an ad that featured Bible verses critical of homosexual behavior. “As the Star-Phoenix lawyer said in his closing statement (before the Tribunal), ‘A Human Rights ruling against the Star-Phoenix and Mr. Owens could limit freedom of speech in the media, in churches and in classrooms.’” http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/1999_Sept_Oct/article_7.html
* A British couple were questioned by police on possible “hate crime” charges after they wrote a letter-to-the-editor of their local newspaper criticizing city officials for distributing brochures at city hall promoting homosexual behavior. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/4555406.stm
* The London Daily Telegraph reported last month: “A Christian couple who have taken in 28 children have been forced to give up being foster parents after they refused to promote homosexuality. Vincent Matherick, 65, and his 61-year-old wife Pauline were told by social services that they had to comply with legislation requiring them to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567160/Christian-foster-parents-condemn-’gay-laws’.html
* A British Anglican bishop in February was fined for refusing to hire an openly homosexual man as a church youth minister. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021104.html
* The London Daily Telegraph reported in 2003: “A bishop who angered homosexuals by suggesting they seek a psychiatric cure is to be investigated by police to see if his outspoken views amount to a criminal offence, it emerged yesterday.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1446318/Bishop%27s-anti-gay-comments-spark-legal-investigation.html
* Eleven Christians in Philadelphia — including two grandmothers in their 70’s, one white and one African-American — were arrested and charged with “ethnic intimidation” under Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” law when they tried to read Bible verses out loud during a homosexual street festival. They faced a cumulative 47 years in prison had they been convicted. http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=6542&department=CFI&categoryid=nation
* A New Mexico Christian photographer was fined $6,600 for refusing on religious grounds to photograph a homosexual marriage-like “commitment” ceremony.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080416a.html
* Catholic bishops in Belgium and Spain were sued in 2004 by homosexual activist groups for making public statements in opposition to homosexual behavior and homosexual “marriage.”
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=43235
* Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray so-called homosexual “marriage” in a positive light. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=27201
If you think that what happened in Mass. and Calif. can't be forced on us in South Dakota or one of the other states that have marriage defined in their constitutions, think again.
A South Dakota pro-homosexual advocacy group, Equality South Dakota, is already making campaign contributions to several pro-homosexual Democrats in the state primary. Contributions to pro-homosexual Republicans may soon follow in the general election if not the primary.
And a liberal South Dakota blog is already calling for the repeal of Amendment C, passed by the South Dakota legislature and at the ballot box in 2006 to define marriage in our state constitution as between a man and a woman.
Even if marriage doesn't get overturned (or should I say, turned upside down) by efforts within our state, the federal courts could suddenly "find" a new right in the U.S. Constitution that trumps our measly state constitutions.
Our country is embroiled in a civil war right now over the values our nation holds dear. Though the weapons are different, the stakes are no less critical. And with no defined lines of geography, it's being fought in every state, in every community.
I am reminded of a line from the Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot" about the American Revolution:
But mark my words, this war will not be fought on the frontier, or on some distant battlefield, but amongst us. Among our homes. Our children will learn of it with their own eyes. And the innocent will die with the rest of us.
There may not be gunshot wounds, but there will be casualties. Casualties of innocence, casualties of freedom, casualties of good homes, casualties of well-adjusted children, casualties of disease, and casualties of the soul.
The time is now folks (if it isn't already too late).
If you value the institution of marriage, now is the time to take action.
If you value family, now is the time to take action.
If you value freedom of the press, now is the time to take action.
If you value your freedom of speech, now is the time to take action.
If you value freedom of religion, now is the time to take action.
If you won't, then who will be to blame for the demise of all these rights and institutions?
8 comments:
I did not finish reading the whole article yet, but to characterize David Benkof as a homosexual is misleading. He would be more correctly characterized as an "Ex-gay" in that he refrains from gay sex (but not necessarily straight sex) because of his Orthodox Jewish faith. I can only assume he thinks gay sex to be sinful.
Furthermore, as I've commented on David's original publishing of the hypotheticals suggested in the beginning of this article, if a teacher teaches something that is inconsistent with the legal reality in a particular state, it IS a job performance issue.
Same goes for the newspaper libel. The paper can make clear that, in its religious or moral opinion, two men or two women aren't married, and escape libel liability. However, a blanket statement that they are not married when the state's law clearly says they are might be libel.
Religious groups would be outraged if gay business owners only gave a "commitment" discount to gay couples but not straight couples, or if they gave discounts to people married in the Unitarian church but not in the Presbyterian church. The point is, PUBLIC accomodations are PUBLIC, and there can be no discrimination. Churches are private and do not have to recognize any weddings they don't want to.
Citing situations that happened in other countries does not work because other countries do not have the First Amendment. Canada, Sweden, England, and Ireland have different free speech jurisprudence than we do. The Philadelphia 11 were arrested for refusing to be orderly and obey police orders. It was NOT for reading the Bible, but for being disorderly about it. And, they were not convicted, which means the system worked. The cost of trial and arrest is the chance that ANY protester takes when they push the limits. Plenty of gay protesters are arrested for trespassing after being denied marriage licenses. It comes with the territory.
Benkof may be ex-homosexual for all I know. However, he says in his article "As an LGBT person, I'm embarrassed..." which to me indicates present tense.
Marriage isn't simply a legal institution. It is a religious one. It is also a basic societal institution. Though some may believe they can make an illusion real by calling it something, we cannot simply change something by changing how we define it. You can call an orange an apple all day, but it'll still be an orange when the sun goes down. You can call a man a woman all day long, but he'll still have a penis at the end of the day (unless he cuts it off). You can say two men having sex or two women having sex is "marriage," but that doesn't make it so.
Marriage is the sacred committed union of a man and woman for life, a union which constitutes a new family.
Two men having sex, or two women having sex, or one man and one woman having sex without the sanctified commitment is just...sex. That's all it is. There may be love involved, but it isn't marriage; it's just sex. That's all it'll ever be. Calling it "marriage" won't make it so any more than calling a pig a bird is going to make him fly.
So the teacher who teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman is right, no matter what kind of fantasy homosexuals (or the state, for that matter) are living under. Same thing with the newspaper.
If you'll reexamine those cases cited above, you'll find that a Catholic organization here in the U.S. has already been assaulted by this political correctness, in that the government no longer allows them to perform adoptions because they won't toe the homosexual line.
It's only a matter of time before, if the law embraces the fantasy of homosexual "marriage" until they force churches to perform these illegitimate ceremonies.
Businesses, which are PRIVATE entities, are also already under assault, too. Read the example above of the Christian photographer.
It's also a sad state of affairs when the Bible can't be read in public, and is considered "disorderly conduct."
I suppose we can count you among those who give hearty approval to the destruction of our natural rights and institutions.
The point is, PUBLIC accomodations are PUBLIC, and there can be no discrimination. Churches are private and do not have to recognize any weddings they don't want to.
bi,gay,lesbian community http://FindBilover.com
terisa.masu, no one, whether they work for a public institution or private, should be forced to facilitate something immoral and unnatural.
However, this Orwellian behavior is occurring not just on public employees and entities, but private as well. Re-read this post and you'll find private businesses (the photographer) and a Catholic charity having this forced on them.
Lastly, there is no discrimination. Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals do.
This is a distortion of the situation, and completely inverts the truth about who is persecuted and who is victimized. Marriage was not "torpedoed" in Massachusetts or anywhere else. Allowing gay people to have basic civil rights is a refusal to single them out for discrimination, when there is no good reason to cause them harm. You are confusing not promoting marriage with attacking it. This is a fallacy. No one in a free country has to be compelled to love or promote any value that is not their own. Imagine if you were forced to campaign on behalf of Jewish rights, for example. That would be ludicrous. But not promoting something (Jewish Rights) does not make you an anti-Semite. You can tolerate others promoting Jewish rights while spending your own time promoting football fandom or Christian pornography or whatever it is you like, without being accused of "torpedoing Judaism" just because you don't choose to promote Jewish causes. Anyway, I suspect the author of this article already knows all this, but simply wants to mislead readers and distort the truth.
Marriage is something that can only happen between a man and a woman; when judges in Mass. claimed two men or two women can do what only a man and a woman can do, they torpedoed the meaning of marriage.
Homosexuals already have the same civil rights as heterosexuals; they have every single civil right that heterosexuals enjoy. They can marry someone of the opposite sex, but insist on having the right to do what is contrary to nature and good sense.
And as the quotes in this post points out, some people believe those who won't play along with this lunacy should be jailed.
Senator Ed Murray of Washington rebutted ex-gay Benkof (Bianco) in Sunday's Seattle Post Intelligencer. You can read that here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/364362_ltrs26.html
Unfortunately for Benkof, he's been caught again misquoting, misrepresenting, and misappropriating someone's comments. . .this time, one of the States most well respected senators, who called him on the carpet for it.
I have no idea whether Benkof did or didn't misquote in the instance mentioned by Senator Murray.
The fact remains that homosexual activists are hell-bent on demanding complete legitimization of an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle, and they aren't going to allow petty things like freedom of religion and freedom of speech to get in their way.
In addition to undermining marriage and family, which is dangerous enough, our very freedoms of expression are at stake.
Post a Comment