What Gay Marriage Really Means for America
Commentary by Robert Knight
There
is no stopping point for further redefinitions of the institution of marriage
now that Massachusetts has destroyed it. Just so Americans understand what
we're in for with the creation of legal homosexual marriage in Massachusetts, here is some perspective.
Marriage, as a civic institution in Massachusetts, has been destroyed,
not "expanded." The very first homosexual couple married in the gay Mecca
of
|
Elsewhere in Massachusetts, a newborn baby was left last year
in the pew of a Catholic church. A married couple stepped forward to
take care of her. But when the couple applied to adopt her, social services
instead gave the girl to two lesbians. By design, this girl will never
know a father's love.
She's not the only victim of social engineering. During the March
11 debate in the Massachusetts Legislature over gay marriage, State
Senator Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, boasted, "Forty percent of
children adopted have gone to gay and lesbian families." If Senator
Murray is correct, homosexuals, who constitute less than three percent
of the population, are being given enormous preference over mom-and-dad
families.
Homosexual activists say that marriage as the union of one man
and one woman is "discriminatory," and that we no longer need
a wife in a marriage, or a husband in a marriage. Also, it no longer
matters in the least that children need both a mother and a father.
|
![]() Robert Knight |
The government of Massachusetts is telling its citizens that a union
without a wife or a husband is a marriage. This bizarre lie will be imposed,
through government force, on all institutions – from businesses to public
schools – and it will result in immediate legal action in many other states,
as activists try to use the Bay State's betrayal of marriage as a lever to
destroy it elsewhere.
It's
no use offering "civil unions" as a compromise. Appeasement doesn't
work. If the state officially sanctions and promotes homosexuality, there are
no longer any grounds to make distinctions in family law. Children, like the
hapless baby girl in Massachusetts, will be placed routinely in fatherless or
motherless households. Who could object?
And once the moral distinction between marriage and homosexuality is lost, there is no stopping point for further redefinitions of the institution. Why not bless three or more who say they feel they are married? And why should churches that refuse to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies continue to enjoy tax-exempt status? Why, indeed, should the Boy Scouts not welcome homosexual men to take boys into the woods.
During
the Supreme Court hearings on the Boy Scout case in 2000, pro-life pastor Rev.
Rob Shenk was sitting in the audience next to the White
House liaison for gay issues.
Thinking the pastor was a fellow liberal, the woman whispered, "We're not
going to win this case, but that's OK. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the
books, we're going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots."
In
Canada and Sweden, it is now a hate crime to criticize homosexuality in any
fashion, including saying that marriage is once and forever the union of a man
and a woman. How long will it be for the United States – in the name of
"tolerance" – to criminalize the notion that marriage is God's way of
blessing us and that homosexuality is immoral and unhealthy?
Homosexual
activist Michaelangelo Signorile
wrote in 1996 that homosexual "marriage" would be: ”...
the chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It
is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education
about homosexuality and AIDS in the public schools, and, in short, usher in a
sea change in how society views and treats us."
So,
next time you hear one of the newly married
couples on television saying it's just about "being fair" and helping
"loving couples achieve equality,” understand that something far more
radical is underway.
One more thing. Activists will be saying in the coming
weeks: "Gay marriage happened, and the sky didn't fall." No, radical social change does not happen
overnight. When Uncle Sam began issuing welfare checks to unwed mothers, it
took several years to destroy black families and achieve an out-of-wedlock
birthrate of 85 percent in some cities.
Gay marriage has an inexorable logic
that leads us to the destruction of the most basic moral understandings. And it
contains the seed of totalitarianism as this lie is imposed, through government
force, on those of us who believe God when He said in Genesis, "A man shall leave his mother and father, and join
his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
Whenever
you're tempted to think this will blow over and won't amount to much, think of
that baby girl in Massachusetts.
It is now up to average Americans to decide whether they will submit to a sexually perverse and oppressive future, or to hold public officials accountable for bringing this down upon us and our children and grandchildren.
![]()
Robert Knight is director of the Culture
& Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America (CWFA). To
learn more about CWFA visit their web site at www.cwfa.org. This commentary
first appeared on WorldNetDaily.com which is an excellent, conservative web
news site that the MetroVoice highly recommends.