By Douglas V. Gibbs
Throughout the United States, gay marriage proponents are celebrating, proclaiming that the Supreme Court's rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Proposition 8 has made the legalization of gay marriage the law of the land. They are now aiming at ensuring that gay couples may receive full marriage benefits in each of the 50 States. The problem is, the courts did not rule that gay marriage is constitutional, in the case of the Proposition 8 case. They ruled that the defenders of Proposition 8 had no standing.
As for DOMA, it was unconstitutional in the first place. Marriage is not an issue the federal government has the authority to be involved in. There is no place in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority over marriage, so in line with the Tenth Amendment, that would make it a State issue. My argument, however, has always been, "Why is government involved in marriage in the first place?"
A friend of mine told me that government involvement in marriage began in The South after the civil war to keep white women from marrying non-white men. Federal involvement began in the 1930s, when the necessity to decide what will happen to benefits like Social Security became an issue.
The questions over legal standing, or constitutional authorities, are not the reality of what these rulings are all about, however. As always, when it comes to the liberal left, things are not always what they seem. The claim that this is a civil rights issue, and that all the homosexual community wants is equal rights, is an illusion. Like everything else associated with the progressives of the Democrat Party, the aim is politically motivated. The goal is less about securing rights, and more about the elimination of all opposition. The call for gay marriage is about destroying marriage. The call for gay rights is about silencing the opposition. The call for homosexual marriage to be a constitutional right is all about the destruction of Christianity.
Supreme Court support is only a small step towards the ultimate goals of the homosexual agenda. I fully expect gay couples to begin visiting the more conservative churches, demanding that they marry them, and when these churches refuse to, for these couples to take a legal stance and sue the churches for denying them their constitutional right to be married. The IRS will begin to revoke the non-profit status of churches for daring to preach on homosexuality. The gay community calls marriage a right, so that they may use it as a weapon to deny the religious rights of those that dare to oppose them. They are commanding that the government recognize their sexual perversion as normal, for their "loving relationship" to be recognized by the law, tossing aside God, and setting in their sights anyone that dares to use religion as a tool to oppose them.
The language used by the majority opinion was not about the law, but about a political agenda. The liberal justices, and Justice Kennedy, ruled against traditional marriage not based on law, but on their rage against those that dare oppose gay marriage. With that kind of language, what the High Court did was demonize anyone that dares support traditional marriage. The liberal justices arrived at their decision not based on the rule of law, but because of what they think of opponents of homosexual marriage. Justice Scalia, in his dissenting opinion, recognized that the antics of the left in the Supreme Court makes the court no different from any venue in this country where people argue. Their hatred for conservatives drove their ruling. The ruling had nothing to do with the rule of law, and everything to do with hardball politics.
So what happens now? What is going to become of our society now that the homosexual agenda has obtained this legal victory? Yes, I know that they will now target religious institutions, and sue these institutions for daring to refuse to bend over backwards for the gay mob - but what will be the long term effects on our society?
Polygamy groups, and pedophiles, are already calling for similar treatment. "It's our turn," they are saying. Once a barrier is broken, and the envelope is pushed, it doesn't stop. Degradation always progresses, it gets worse, and once moral standards are removed, great civilizations collapse from within. Wrong becomes right until no standards exist at all, and then the society is unable to move forward - because it stands for nothing.
The gay agenda's culture war will now engage in a battle against those that support traditionalism, claiming their "hatred" is no different than Jim Crow laws. The opposition to homosexuality will be ridiculed into silence, and the courts will be utilized to force all of those "haters" into compliance. First, all churches will be forced to perform gay marriages. Then, they will be forced to hire gay Sunday School teachers to lead the children. Then, the Bible will be considered as being hate speech, and The Liberal Left will do what it can to drive the final nails into what they hope will be a dying church - just as Communist Russia did, just as Communist China did, and just as every other anti-God dictatorial tyranny in history.
According to Brian Camenker, what happens next is easy to predict, because the model has already established itself, in Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage becomes a "hammer" to force acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone.
In California, and Massachusetts, teaching homosexuality in only the best light is now law, and we can expect similar laws to appear in the other States. Our children, despite our objections, will be taught to celebrate homosexuality. They will be exposed to the agenda through lectures, literature, and lesson plans. The children will be reprimanded if they dare think in opposition of the gay agenda. The teaching will dig all the way down to early elementary years, and the lessons will include discussions about gay sex, and intercourse aids such as sex toys.
Parents that dare speak out in disagreement will be treated with hostility.
The goal is to ensure the children let go of the traditional model of the family unit they may have been taught by their parents, thus destroying in our society the biblical definition of family. The children will be told that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, just like their own parents.
As pointed out by Mr. Camenker, in Massachusetts, when a parent of a kindergartner calmly refused to leave a school meeting unless officials agreed to notify him when discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and jailed overnight.
When second graders at the same school were read a book about two men who fall in love and marry each other, ending with a picture of them kissing, parents Robb and Robin Wirthlin complained. They were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt their child out.
In 2007 a federal judge ruled that because of "gay marriage" in Massachusetts, parents have no rights regarding the teaching of homosexual relationships in schools. Once homosexuality clears the legality hurdle, the teaching establishment believes the school has a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children; and schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt out their children. Acceptance of homosexuality will then become a matter of good citizenship, and dissent will become criminal.
The liberal left, behind the shield of the courts and political correctness, are telling you the schools have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe, and resistance is futile.
Brian Camenker wrote that after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, school libraries radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have expanding shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and "lifestyle" in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents' complaints are ignored or met with hostility.
Kids are going to be taught that homosexuality is not a sexual behavior, but a great civil rights victory, and that someday people will look back and wonder how it was that anyone could think otherwise.
"Gay days" in schools are considered necessary to fight "intolerance" against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and middle schools across Massachusetts, according to Mr. Camenker, now hold "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender days." Combating "homophobia" is a top priority, and the schools will not only "celebrate" homosexual marriage, but are already moving to promote other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality.
In Massachusetts, as a result of the indoctrination, parents are losing their kids to The State, and more children in Massachusetts are self-identifying as "gay."
The gay agenda, on the heels of their Supreme Court victory, will also utilize health services and hospitals to forward their agenda. In Massachusetts, nearly every major Boston hospital has become an active supporter of the radical homosexual movement. This includes marching in the "Gay Pride" parades, holding homosexual events, and putting on numerous "gay health"-related seminars.
In his article on the subject, Brian Camenker discussed a story about a major Boston hospital that threatened to fire a physician when he objected to its promotion of homosexual behavior. In 2011 a prominent physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston -- a large Harvard-affiliated hospital -- objected to the hospital being involved with "Gay Pride" activities. He also pointed out to his superiors the medical health risks of homosexuality, and said that he and others at the hospital considered homosexual acts to be unnatural and immoral. The hospital then threatened to fire him, telling him that same-sex marriage is "legal" and that his comments constituted "harassment and discrimination." After a "hearing" he was allowed to keep his job, but was told to apologize and to keep his opinions on these matters to himself.
Dissent in that case was frowned upon. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled as it has, any opinion that is in opposition to homosexuality will become criminal on a national level.
Businesses and insurance companies will also be forced to accept the homosexual agenda. Employees in businesses will be able to be fired for expressing religious objections to same-sex "marriage." In 2009, a deputy manager at a Brookstone store in Boston was fired from his job for mentioning his belief to another manager who had kept bringing up the subject with him that day. Brookstone's letter of termination (quoted on local TV news) said his comment was "inappropriate" because "in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal."
The wedding industry will be forced to comply on all levels. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must accept same-sex marriage events or be held liable for discrimination.
In Massachusetts, businesses are often "tested" for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient "equality" - now that homosexual marriage is "legal." Then they report "tolerance violators" to authorities, and businesses can be fined and punished. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality." This will become the norm nationwide as the gay agenda works to force all businesses into compliance with the acceptance of homosexuality.
The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex marriage "law." In 2007, a Boston man failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer a question about homosexual marriage.
In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage." Issues regarding homosexual "families" are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system.
Camenker goes on to write that in the year after the "gay marriage" ruling, the Massachusetts' adoption and foster care workers went through a massive indoctrination on "LGBT youth awareness." We will now see the same nationally, as well. The emphasis will be, as in Massachusetts, that those working with children must be trained that homosexuality (and transgenderism) are normal. At one session, the trainer announced that the new motto is, "To tolerate is an assault; you have to accept" this behavior.
Homosexual "married" couples in Massachusetts can demand to be allowed to adopt children - through any agency - including religious agencies. The same will happen nationwide.
As in Massachusetts, gay events will also become more prominent in the public square.
As we have seen in other places where gay marriage has been made legal, the real targets become religious institutions, and more specifically, anyone or anything associated with Christianity. Like Brian Camenker states happened in Massachusetts, nationally the trend will become the norm as Churches and religious people are targeted, demonized, harassed and threatened, with no punishment for the perpetrators.
If any of these religious institutions hold events promoting traditional beliefs, they will be targets of militant retribution by homosexual activists, and the gay activists will be treated with immunity from the law, as Cemenker states they are being treated in Massachusetts. Christians, however, have been, and will be, arrested and fined for daring to disagree with the homosexual agenda.
The following examples by Brian Camenker provide a chilling reality of what we will begin to see on a national level in the near future:
In 2012 someone threatened to burn down a Catholic Church in Acushnet which posted the words "Two men are friends, not spouses" on its outdoor sign. The church immediately received a flood of profane phone calls. At least one person threatened to burn down the church. An activist nailed a sign to church's fence saying, "Spread love not hate." Activists staged a protest outside of the Sunday Mass to intimidate parishioners with a sign saying, "It is legal for two men or women to be spouses." Neither the police nor the District Attorney pursued the threats as a hate crime or other offense.
In 2010 a Catholic elementary school balked at letting a lesbian couple enroll their son. As a result, the school was excoriated in the media and even by the local liberal state representative as "discriminatory." The privately-run Catholic Schools Foundation then threatened to withhold funding to the school unless it relented. The Archdiocese eventually backed down and the school reversed its policy.
In 2009 angry homosexual activists terrorized the Park Street Church in Boston while it was holding an ex-gay religious training session inside. They demonstrated next to the doors and windows with signs, screaming homosexual slogans. One of them held a bullhorn against the window outside the meeting, bellowing at the participants inside. Police did nothing to stop them, even though they were standing inside the historic cemetery adjacent to the church.
In 2006 dozens of screaming homosexual activists drowned out the speakers at an outdoor pro-marriage rally in Worcester organized by Catholic Vote, yelling "Bigots" and disgusting chants. Police did not stop them, even though the rally had a permit. When one of the rioters rushed the stage and started shouting, a rally organizer tried to lead her to the side. She subsequently sued that organizer for assault! He went through a four-day trial and was acquitted by a jury. But no charges were filed against any of the rioters.
In 2006 a group of homosexual activists with signs taunted and screamed at people entering and leaving the Tremont Temple Baptist Church in downtown Boston, which was holding a nationally televised pro-marriage event inside.
In 2005 hundreds of homosexual activists terrorized the Tremont Temple Baptist Church with makeshift coffins, screaming obscenities through loudspeakers as the national pro-family group Focus on the Family held a religious conference inside. The crowd was so threatening that attendees could not leave the church for the lunch break. The Boston riot police stood in front of the church doors, but did nothing to disperse the protesters who were also completely blocking the street.
Hardly a sign of freedom in the United States. The homosexual agenda has made it clear that they can disagree with you about what you believe, but if you dare disagree with them you will called names, stigmatized, and ridiculed into silence. With the recent Supreme Court decision, now they will also be able to use the law to force you into silence.
The gay agenda is oppressive, working to force its beliefs upon you whether you like it, or not. They have gained the support of activist judges, the media, the entertainment industry, the public schools system, the collegiate educational system, and liberal politicians. The gay agenda plans to use that support to impose their sexual behavior on the citizens of the United States, whether you like it, or not. The small percentage of Americans that call themselves gay are largely not in this fight in order to claim the right to marry. Homosexuality is not historically a monogamous community. The gay lobby is not in this fight so that they can win their civil rights, or because marriage is actually that important to them. Theirs is a battle to kill any opposition to their behavior, to force justification, and to destroy any and all opposition.
They wish to force upon America their agenda, to force you to accept it - otherwise, you will be silenced, and ultimately destroyed.
They have achieved through the Supreme Court the stigmatization of America, and disagreement is now criminal, and will be silence.
Our response?
Now is the time to really make noise.
This is not about whether or not a group should have rights, but whether or not they should be allowed to deny the rights of anyone who dares to oppose them. I, for one, don't plan to have my right to disagree with their agenda taken away from my under the force of law.
Whatever happened to the liberal claim: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
