Hijacking Marriage For Societal Homosexual Acceptance

When San Francisco trial judge Richard Kramer said in his March 14, 2005 ruling that it is unconstitutional for California to have a law banning gay marriage, he was framing the issue as one of civil rights. Marriage is not a civil right and even if it was, no one person is being denied marriage. Indeed homosexuals are still free to marry… persons of the opposite sex.

One only has to look at what California law has offered to gay couples in place of gay marriage to see that the rights and privileges given to married couples is not their main motivation for their activism. In California, Civil Unions provide rights and protections to gay couples that were previously reserved for those that legally marry. The only real right refused is the right to use the term “marriage” to legally describe the relationship. So why are the liberal judges and gay activists resisting Civil Unions? What Judge Kramer and the gay lobbyists really want from the legalization of gay marriage is the credibility that the term marriage offers to those that are homosexual.

In gathering quotes from both sides of the issue, it becomes clear that both sides agree on one thing. If gay marriage is defeated in California, it will be difficult for the Gay Lobby to move forward elsewhere in the country. By the same token, a win in CA will bolster efforts to undue anti-gay marriage legislation in any state where it exists. Attorney Bill Lockyer (who personally supports homosexual marriage) believes the issue should be decided by the voters, not the courts. "The more appropriate way to enact a change in policy that's this basic is to go to the people," Lockyer said, speaking to reporters in Washington, D.C. "This issue probably will wind up before the people in one way or another eventually." So the question now is will the vote turn out like it did 5 years ago when California passed a definition of marriage in the law.

In a National CBS News/New York Times Poll taken at the end of February, a full 2/3 of respondents said they preferred Civil Unions (34%) or no legal recognition (41%) for gay couples over redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Nearly 23% of those who voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 election said they did so based on a set of moral principles that did not include gay marriage. Indeed, the MSM has pointed out Karl Rove’s masterful plan to get anti-gay marriage initiatives on as many ballots as possible being one reason President Bush won the election with a clear majority.

The Gay Lobby has used the court system to advance their cause for this very reason. Most Americans reject a redefinition of marriage and if given the chance to vote on it, will defeat it every time. "The gay community constantly beats the drum of, 'We will get gay marriage through the Legislature or the courts.' They're not going to the people because they know they will never get it at the ballot box," said Benjamin Lopez, a lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition, a church-based group that is spearheading efforts to get such an amendment voted on in California. "The public is wholeheartedly against this concept." But that is exactly where groups like the TVA want to wage this war and if recent history is any lesson, the activists on the right will prevail in their endeavor to make that happen.

It's time to trot out my sampling of what "gay" spokespeople have to say about what they think about "gay" marriage:

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.

One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to "push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society." ... [snip]

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage,"

Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.