Tuesday, February 24, 2009

What Is Beyond Gay Marriage?

The Sunday evening broadcast of the Academy Awards was the third least watched Academy Awards show in history. Most of America apparently didn't bother to watch actors testify as to how their life was changed by Harvey Milk.
__________________

What is Beyond Gay Marriage?

As the gay rights movement continues to push hard for so-called equality, there are those asking what will be next for the gay activists.

It's a fair question, given the history. Only a few years ago the homosexuals were assuring the citizens that they just wanted benefits---like everyone else. Last year elected officials gave them "benefits" and the day the "benefits" became law, the homosexual activists proclaimed that was not the goal. "We will not be happy until we have 'marriage' ," they told the media.

Many of your elected leaders are once again leading the parade---with a straight face.

As the gay rights activists have become more emboldened, they are now looking beyond gay marriage.

Stanley Kurtz , writing for the Weekly Standard back in 2003, said he was concerned about the real goals of the gay activists. He said it was likely that gay marriage would take us down the slippery slope to legalized polygamy and polyamory (group marriage).

Again in 2006, Ryan Anderson, also writing for the Weekly Standard, expressed even greater concern and validated his concerns with a statement that gay activist leaders had released to the public.

Anderson explains that scholars Hadley Arkes and Robert P. George were already warning Congress and pointing out that, "By rejecting the grounding foundation of marriage---the unique psychosomatic unity possible only between one man and one woman in conjugal sex--- the state would lose its principled basis for refusing to recognize polygamous (one man to multiple women) or even polyamorous (multiple men to multiple women) i.e., group marriages.

For this they were slandered, called bigots and scaremongers. Much like the fate of those today who oppose so-called gay "marriage".

However, their predictions were prophetic. And they were confirmed when gay activist leaders released to the public, their statement," Beyond Same-Sex Marriage".

In the release, published in the New York Times and elsewhere, they listed several variations of marriage that they supported, including so-called marriages of, "Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple in two households."

What about the child? Do they care?

There is much more in the "Statement" regarding how they see marriage in the future.

The stated goal of the gay activists is to no longer merely live as they want. It is to force you and your family and the state to recognize, legalize and affirm their myriad of group choices.

Anderson warns his readers to not take this lightly, because many of the leaders who signed this document are main stream voices in our culture.

I strongly recommend you read Anderson's article and I have linked the "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage" statement for your convenience.

Since this article was written, we have moved even closer to the edge.

Washington State is moving toward so-called "benefits" so the homosexuals can litigate for "marriage" so the homosexual activists can move beyond gay marriage and the polygamists can have their day in court. And many of your elected leaders are leading the parade. With a straight face.

God help us.

______________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

3 comments:

  1. Washington State is moving toward so-called "benefits" so the homosexuals can litigate for "marriage" so the homosexual activists can move beyond gay marriage and the polygamists can have their day in court.

    Lots of free floating anxiety. The state Supreme Court has ruled: The legislature CAN limit a contract to a select group of people for WHATEVER reason, reasonable one or not. So as long as the legislature doesn't choose to open up the marriage contract to those married to same gender spouses it won't happen. No litigation will overturn that ruling, the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue.

    But what the court also said was that even though the legislature can limit access to the contract to just some citizens, it can NOT limit access to the rights that contract confers. The parallel domestic partnership legislation is the answer to that.

    That's what you don't understand: let domestic partnerships reach their full right set and the marriage contract is 'safe'; the court has ruled that 'separate but equal' in this situation is constitutional. But deliberately prevent some citizens from having access to these rights and THEN you have given them a chance to go back to the court that COULD rule that if the legislature won't give all citizens the rights, then all citizens will have a right to the existing contract. Follow Gary's lead and you will be shooting 'the traditional marriage' defense in the foot.

    As to the 'beyondmarriage.org' site - go actually read it - read their examples and scroll down to the 'The Principles at the Heart of Our Vision' section. What they are talking about is there should be ways for 'other than marriages' to legally bond together for mutual support. Seniors living in a group home taking care of seniors, adding new younger members to take care of the ones growing older with an easy and legal way for them to merge their assets for this purpose. Yes the authors are a bit provocative in their words but the goals are pretty much pedestrian. They aren't talking about replacing marriage, just giving legal recourse to other living arrangements that would be beneficial to the individuals AND society.

    Remember one of the primary benefits of marriage to society is it makes the unit more economically stable. Take my situation - my spouse died recently and if we had not been registered domestic partners any debt he owed beyond his assets would have just had to been written off. As it stands I am responsible for clearing that debt.

    Its all quite silly actually - your dogma has put you into the ridiculous position of saying society is better off if some of its citizens have no reasonable opportunity to marry, to merge their assets (and their liabilities) to be better able to care for each other and their families. Really? Its better that gay people never legally marry their spouses? That's beneficial to them and to society?

    Yeah right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not only is this group trying to totally redefine what the definition of marriage is, now they are asking that citizenship no longer be defining criteria of "benefits" eligibility. There's not much definition behind this in their release, but I can only imagine what the end goal is there...

    Jim - Bothell, WA

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.