Replies

If society validates it, then at least 'they say' it is ok. They will still know in their hearts it is wrong, but they will have the covering of the State to make them legitimate.

Exactly. Gays posting to Salon have said as much, usually emphatically.

There is a further consequence of their having achieved this, though, and that is that they will proceed to attempt to pressure "nonreconciling", i.e. doctrinally persistent churches (mostly the Baptists and the Roman Catholics, both of whom the homosexual activists have in their eye) to abjure their Levitical teachings, or suffer at the hands of friendly judges the way Paul Cameron did when he went up against uber-gay psychiatrist and former president of the APA Judd Marmor in a shopped court before a recent Carter appointee in 1981. That and a stunt gay activists ran on Cameron a few years earlier cost Cameron his membership in the American Psychological Association. The gays are very vindictive, and they would use Lawrence and the further decision that they want on marriage to go after the churchmen in court. They couldn't get criminal charges instated anywhere, but they could take them to civil court and strip them of resources, the way Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) did with a Klan organization. They want to drive faithful believers underground, to turn the tables 180 degrees on Levitical teaching and all its adherents.

Faithful religious people will, of course, welcome such persecution as a further sign of the approaching Eschaton.

Here's some noted homosexual spokespeople stating their reasons for pushing "gay" marriage:

(Hint: they aren't interested in holy matrimony, they're interested in destroying the concept of marriage, family, and morality, and they want access to children for indoctrination.)

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." [The list of demands also include the elimination of all age of consent laws.]