Thursday, April 16, 2015

It Was Never About Equality

Proponents for same sex marriage always cry out "equality."  But it was never about equality.  Like everything else, marriage comes with certain restrictions.  These are some of the restrictions: 
  1. A person cannot marry a child.
  2. A person cannot marry a sibling or members of the immediate family including step brothers and sisters. 
  3. A person cannot marry more than one person.
  4. A person cannot marry a person of the same sex.
  5. A person cannot marry a non-human (dog, cat, etc.) 
Everyone must abide by these restrictions regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. There are reasons why these restrictions exist.  Homosexuals already have the right to marry like everyone else.  They just cannot marry a person of the same sex like everyone else.   

Since the 1970s, gay activists have attacked and threatened the APA (American Psychiatric Association) into removing homosexuality from the DMS II, which diagnosed it as a disorder.  According to Newsweek dated August 23, 1971: 

“But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’”

By removing homosexuality from the DMS II, it only paved the way for gay activists to gain child adoption and same sex marriage.  The goal of the gay activists was never about equality.  Their goal is to redefine marriage and family and force everyone into accepting the ACT of homosexuality.    

Jerry Newcombe wrote the following article:

Four Reasons Why the Supreme Court Should Not Redefine Marriage

The Supreme Court is slated to rule on the subject of same-sex “marriage” this term. Here are four questions I want to ask same-sex marriage supporters:
1) If the Supreme Court says that it is OK for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman, then how can they stop there?
Once they open Pandora’s Box, how can they say that polygamy is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court already ruled on that. Utah, a state founded by Mormons, could not be accepted in the Union until there was the promise that they would not practice polygamy, Reynolds v. United States, 1878.
If the Supreme Court rules to “redefine” marriage beyond one man-one woman, then how can they say a man can’t marry his sister, or a mother her son, or a man and his dog, or two men and one woman? How can they legally draw a line? Proponents of same-sex marriage howl at such questions, but three men just “married” in Thailand the other day.
2) How do you prevent legalizing same-sex marriage from erasing religious liberty?
America began for the most part as various Christian groups fled persecution in their home country. And now in a nation created for religious liberty that has provided religious liberty for all, regardless of creed, shall Christians be persecuted again?
Already where same-sex marriage is being accepted, it is becoming illegal as a florist, a baker, a photographer, etc. to decline providing one’s artistic services (if you perform them for heterosexual weddings) to same-sex weddings. Conscience be damned. What’s next? Ministers, priests, and rabbis to have to perform such “weddings,” or risk losing everything?
To borrow an argument from my colleague John Rabe: Could you imagine the uproar if the government tried to force an African-American printer to use his artistic skills and shop to produce fliers for a KKK rally, despite his objections because of his conscience?
Legalizing same-sex marriage effectively makes those who hold to traditional values second class citizens, especially when the forces of “tolerance” insist on hauling anyone who disagrees into court.
If the Supreme Court says yes to same-sex marriage, they will be defying the First Amendment to the Constitution, which spells out in writing that we have the right of the “free exercise” of religion, in order to grant rights nowhere found, but manufactured, so that they cater to currently prevailing sexual mores and the bullies who propagate them.
At that point, why even pretend that their decisions are based on the Constitution?
3) How do you deal with the fact that homosexuality is not immutable?
For the record, there are thousands of Americans alive today who are former homosexuals and former lesbians---freed from their sin by Jesus. There are groups all around the country still active in helping people deal with all this, And there are many ex-gays who have changed through psychological means, unrelated to religion.
Being homosexual is not an immutable trait. Indeed, even those who argue for the alphabet soup of genders we are now expected to recognize often tell us that sexuality is “fluid.” When you involve marriage, you are involving the law---marriage codifies a relationship into law. But what if somebody is gay one day and not the next? Sexual anarchy leads to legal anarchy.
4) Why are the voters of this country so marginalized?
In a recent interview I did with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, he notes that even though same-sex marriage is now legal in some 37 states, only in three of those states was it voted in by the people. In two of them, it was voted by the legislatures, the people’s representatives. With all the rest of the states, it only became legal by judicial fiat.
Even now, 61 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.
Generally, when the people have had the chance to vote on this issue, they have voted---even in liberal states---overwhelmingly in favor of marriage being defined as between one-man and one-woman. Should we change the Constitution from “We the people” to “We the judges”?
If you say that only bigots reject same-sex marriage---which is the means by which some are losing their jobs today---then was President Obama a bigot through mid-2012, when he said that he thought marriage was between one man and one woman?
Commentator Bob Knight said years ago that if homosexual couples wanted to express their love in public ceremonies, that’s their prerogative. But if you call it “marriage,” then that impacts all of us since marriage involves the law.
In short, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because I am in favor of freedom---freedom guaranteed in the Constitution.


  1. Our advocacy work continues to build support for the full human rights and dignity of all persons, irrespective of gender, race, national origin, creed, sexual orientation, physical and mental ability or inability. To do less is effectively to repudiate our membership in the human community. No one of God’s children is worth less or more than another; none is to be discriminated against because of the way in which she or he has been created. Our common task is to build a society of justice for all, without which there will never be peace on earth

    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:18 am,

      As I said in my entry post, this never had anything to do with equality. Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are already equal in that they are allowed to marry and follow the exact same restrictions. There is no discrimination in that. It does not matter to me what two adults decide to do behind the bedroom doors. But when you take your agenda outside the bedroom doors in order to FORCE people to accept and recognize the ACT of homosexuality as normal goes against our right to free religion.

      Furthermore, what makes you think that God created homosexuals? God created male and female for each other.

    2. full human rights???

      who gives you the right to tell my children that mothers and fathers are insignificant; that a women can take the place of a man and the man can take the place of a women.

      You have the right to tell your children...raised your children anyway you want, but please don't think that what you can dictate your standards on anybody else.

  2. In Guam, they are not yet allowed to marry. LOL

    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:04 pm,

      And if the Supreme Court rules in favor of same sex marriage, then the polygamists can come out and demand the same rights.

    2. @AnonymousApril 16, 2015 at 12:04 PM
      Oh, yes they are allowed to marry, just like everyone else. Marriage is a right of everyone who has the freedom and will to do so. The question remains what marriage IS... something gay activists always shy away from defining.

  3. Throughout history access to legal marriage has been closely related to the right to give consent, a right directly related to one’s ability to act and choose autonomously. Only those with the right to act autonomously could exercise the right to choose marriage. Often this has meant that those who were oppressed and subordinated in a patriarchal and colonial context could not decide their own lives. Access to marriage became a means of controlling the powerless in a society.

    Question: Are there situations in contemporary society where access to marriage is still being controlled by the powerful and privileged to the detriment of those with less power?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:46 am,

      Throughout history marriage has been between a man and a woman. Since the beginning of human history, the marriage of a husband and a wife was always recognized despite that there were people who were attracted to the same sex, to young children, or even to animals.

    2. When in the history of man have we exercised fact... one's ability to choose autonomously and not felt oppressed or subordinate?


  4. Answer 845am question.

  5. Look at what Timmy said in the jungle junkwe do not need a "Catholic leadership" to start a counter-revolution of living out a full, sacramental, fruitful marriage.

    1. Christ started the revolution......I don't believe he needs rohrs help. The job is taken already