What 'gay marriage' means for America: Robert Knight exposes plans to destroy family life

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, May 19, 2004 | Robert Knight

[JohnHuang2]

Just so Americans understand what we're in for with the creation of legal homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts, here is some perspective.

Marriage, as a civic institution in Massachusetts, has been destroyed, not "expanded."

The very first homosexual couple "married" in the "gay" Mecca of Provincetown told the Boston Herald about their new "commitment":

[Jonathan Yarbrough] says the concept of forever is "overrated" and that he, as a bisexual, and [his partner Cody] Rogahn, who is gay, have chosen to enjoy an open marriage. "I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner, not in the polygamist sense," he said. "In our case, it is, we have, an open marriage."

"Marriage" in Massachusetts not only fails to require the presence of a wife, or a husband, but is not even tied to monogamy anymore.

Elsewhere in Massachusetts, a newborn baby recently was left on the doorstep of a Catholic church in Boston. The priest took in the baby girl, and immediately thought of a childless married couple in the church who were desperate to adopt. But when the priest called the social-services agency, the baby was shipped off to two homosexual men in the western part of the state. By design, this girl will never know a mother's love.

She's not the only victim of social engineering. During the March 11 debate in the Massachusetts Legislature over "gay" marriage, State Sen. Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, boasted, "Forty percent of children adopted have gone to gay and lesbian families." If Sen. Murray is correct, homosexuals, who constitute less than 3 percent of the population, are being given enormous preference over mom-and-dad families.

Homosexual activists say that marriage as the union of one man and one woman is "discriminatory," and that we no longer need a wife in a marriage, or a husband in a marriage. Also, it no longer matters in the least that children need both a mother and a father.

In a free country, deluded people can believe all sorts of things, and act accordingly on their own. But when the law imposes this understanding on everyone, government is creating lies and eventually will use force to promote acceptance of the lies.

In the old Soviet Union, the government routinely lied to the people – so much so that the Russian people became cynical and dejected. They developed a repertoire of black humor to cover their pain. We didn't think it could happen in the United States, but we were wrong.

The government of Massachusetts is telling its citizens that a union without a wife or a husband is a marriage. This bizarre lie will be imposed, through government force, on all institutions – from businesses to public schools – and it will result in immediate legal action in many other states, as activists try to use the Bay State's betrayal of marriage as a lever to destroy it elsewhere.

It's no use offering "civil unions" as a compromise. Appeasement doesn't work. If the state officially sanctions and promotes homosexuality, there are no longer any grounds to make distinctions in family law. Children, like the hapless baby girl in Boston, will be placed routinely in fatherless or motherless households. Who could object?

And once the moral distinction between marriage and homosexuality is lost, there is no stopping point for further redefinitions of the institution. Why not bless three or more who say they feel they are "married"? And why should churches which refuse to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies continue to enjoy tax-exempt status? Why, indeed, should the Boy Scouts not welcome homosexual men to take boys into the woods, if we cannot make any moral distinctions whatever or face charges of bigotry?

During the Supreme Court hearings on the Boy Scout case in 2000, pro-life pastor Rev. Rob Shenk was sitting in the audience next to the White House liaison for "gay" issues. Thinking the pastor was a fellow liberal, the woman whispered, "We're not going to win this case, but that's OK. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots."

In Canada and Sweden, it is now a hate crime to criticize homosexuality in any fashion, including saying that marriage is once and forever the union of a man and a woman. How long will it be for the United States – in the name of "tolerance" – to criminalize the notion that marriage is God's way of blessing us and that homosexuality is immoral and unhealthy?

Homosexual activist Michaelangelo Signorile wrote in 1996 that homosexual "marriage" would be:

... the chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS in the public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.

So, next time you hear one of the newly "married" couples on television saying it's just about "being fair" and helping "loving couples" achieve equality, understand that something far more radical is underway.

One more thing. Activists will be saying in the coming weeks: "'Gay' marriage happened, and the sky didn't fall." No, radical social change does not happen overnight. When Uncle Sam began issuing welfare checks to unwed mothers, it took several years to destroy black families and achieve an out-of-wedlock birthrate of 85 percent in some cities.

"Gay marriage" has an inexorable logic that leads us to the destruction of the most basic moral understandings. And it contains the seed of totalitarianism as this lie is imposed, through government force, on those of us who believe God when He said in Genesis, "A man shall leave his mother and father, and join his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Whenever you're tempted to think this will blow over and won't amount to much, think of that baby girl in western Massachusetts.

It is now up to average Americans to decide whether they will submit to a sexually perverse and oppressive future, or to hold public officials accountable for bringing this down upon us and our children and grandchildren.

[upchuck]

Twisted perverts ping!

[kitkat]

Thanks, John. I'm shipping this one off to our local radio host who spent three hours yesterday telling people he couldn't see how gay marriages would hurt anybody.

[JohnHuang2]

Welcome, my friend.

[jazzlite]

Recently, my husband read that our bank was supporting the full gay agenda with their charitable giving and he immediately said, "We have to move our account." So, we did. This week, I received a call from the manager of that bank wanting desperately to know why we moved the account. So, I told her. She, at first, was very resistant to our view that the bank should not be supporting issues which give an unprecendented advantage to a group of people who are pushing for such a drastic change in the definition of the family. As the conversation went along, I began to realize that she was taking the "discrimination" view..If anyone would object to any homosexual issue, then it had to be discrimination, just as in racial discrimination. I, then, began to vigorously object to that view and to the idea that ANY connection exists between homosexuality and race or gender issues. Changing the whole historical foundation of a society without a vote of that entire society to give an advantage to a group simply based on the way they have sex is a travesty and is insane. This lady and I had a long conversation and in the end she seemed to grasp our view of this situation. She seemed to realize that the radical gays bringing about all these changes may not represent the majority view of the gay community and that most are not discriminated against in this society and probably just want to quietly live their lives. Those of us who worry about the unintended consequences of all this madness can do little other than to know where we are spending our money and to take care that we do not support any institution which promotes what we feel is destructive to the future.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I am outraged that disgraced Indiana basketball coach Bobby Knight would presume to write a column about family values. His vile, intemperate outbursts are contrary to everything that families are supposed to . . .

What? The author is not Bobby Knight, basketball coach? It's WND columnist Robert Knight? Never mind.

[LadyDoc]

One should not wonder why so many children are "adopted" by gay couples.

First, the (usually white) social workers usually rate you on income and sophistication...which is why for the last twenty years black social workers and Native American tribes have insisted their children be placed in same race families. You see, often there were relatives or friends willing to take in the kids, and often who had already close ties with the kids, but "social workers" would decide they were too poor, (didn't have one bedroom per kid, were too "old", house not neat enough, etc) so the kids were taken away from families.

Gay couples, on the other hand, are rich, clean, and would pass this materialistic criteria for parenthood.

Second, there are social biases by sophisticated and often lesbian social workers that go against Christian heterosexual families who they consider too "rigid".

I know of at least two committed Christian families denied adoption. One because she said she wouldn't allow a child to be promiscuous if the kid wanted to have sex as a young teen, another because they were a pastor and wife, and the (lesbian) social worker decided they were too "rigid" and took away their foster child...this social worker admitted to another social worker that it was for religious reasons. (neither family were rigid in a bad psychological way, merely strict but loving).

The high incidence of lesbian social workers cannot be underestimated. It makes me wonder if I was approved for adoption of my sons because I was single at the time...and the social worker assumed I was a lesbian...you know, I was not once asked about my sexual preferences nor about my dating habits...

Third, many gays decide to adopt to make a social statement. They want to be "families". This is similar to whites who saw the TV show "different strokes" deciding to adopt a "poor black kid" to prove they were liberal (again, which was the reason behind Black social workers insisting they restrict cross race adoptions). Now rich heterosexual yuppies often adopt pretty Chinese or Korean kids instead as a "trophy child". Needless to say, adoption for social statement is not exactly the best family environment to raise a kid.

Finally, all this bias against heterosexuals is leading many heterosexual couples to adopt overseas. And most overseas countries won't allow gay adoption. Indeed, in my adoption, I had to pass a second screen by social workers in the second country when I went to adopt my child. And some of the families who went to pick up the kids didn't pass that screen. At least one family there was turned down because they commented the child wasn't "white" enough...I suspect the social workers would also have nixed obvious homosexual single parents. I probably passed because I had my mom there to help, not a "girlfriend"...and these overseas social workers actually grilled me about dating etc...

[King Prout]

datum.

[freekitty]

Well said, jazzlite. Especially about the no vote.

[biblewonk]

Adoption is all about baby selling to the highest bidder. Homo's tend to have a lot of money and they seem to be outbidding straight couples quite often anymore.

[reformedliberal]

I think you are on to something about being approved because of being thought to be a lesbian.

A friend of ours, who is a conservative, is a university professor. She uses her own name and has been married, but is now single. She loves to go camping alone and is just an over-all self-sufficient person. She is convinced she was granted tenure not on her impressive CV and published articles, but on the mistaken impression her collegues have of her sexuality. She keeps her politics to herself in the classroom and the department meetings, while venting to the rest of us. Since she is high profile in her area of expertise, she would be a major target if they knew her politics, to the detriment of research in that specific area.

I have been vague so as not to *out* her inadvertantly.

We have noticed, over the past decade, that when lesbians enter an institution, like the public schools or the County Board, they make a concerted effort to bring in other lesbians over time, until they have a majority.

[Caleb1411]

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - very clear reasoning about exactly why "gay" marriage has nothing to do with "fairness" or "justice" and everything to do with destruction and power.

I would advise reading this article carefully - note this part:

During the Supreme Court hearings on the Boy Scout case in 2000, pro-life pastor Rev. Rob Shenk was sitting in the audience next to the White House liaison for "gay" issues. Thinking the pastor was a fellow liberal, the woman whispered, "We're not going to win this case, but that's OK. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots."

Please note the comments on the thread - some very good ones that add to the discussion.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

[Zack Nguyen]

The priest took in the baby girl, and immediately thought of a childless married couple in the church who were desperate to adopt. But when the priest called the social-services agency, the baby was shipped off to two homosexual men in the western part of the state.

This is nothing less than shaking a fist in the face of God. Sorry to resort to such fire-and-brimstone language, but its true.

[Zack Nguyen]

Thinking the pastor was a fellow liberal, the woman whispered, "We're not going to win this case, but that's OK. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots."

Prepare yourself, fellow Christians. The radical left doesn't want tolerance. They want absolute unquestioned obedience to their viewpoint - and they're willing to use government force to get it.

[Zack Nguyen]

Good work in talking through your beliefs. There's a black ministerial group that is having a protest this weekend against gay marriage. As a fellow believer I may go.

[MeekOneGOP]

[Jonathan Yarbrough] says the concept of forever is "overrated" and that he, as a bisexual, and [his partner Cody] Rogahn, who is gay, have chosen to enjoy an open marriage. "I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner, not in the polygamist sense," he said. "In our case, it is, we have, an open marriage."

_____________________________

My TWO rants:

Next up ??

• Why can't I have three wives/husbands ??

• I want to marry my pet crocodile. We're in love !

• _______________________________________________
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX(fill in the blank)

_______________________________________________

If I had to choose between those folks that are opposed to gay marriage and:

• the Vigilante mayor of San Francisco illegally giving out marriage licenses to same-sex couples

• the mayor of New Palze, N.Y. (ditto above)

• the folks in that New Mexico county (ditto above)

• the folks in that Oregon county (ditto above)

• the city of Asbury Park, N.J. (ditto above)

• the folks filing the lawsuit in Florida suing for same-sex marriages

• (whoever I've left out doing the same)

• The Faggachusetts Court telling the legislature they MUST write a law APPROVING gay marriage.

... I'll take those opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to same-sex marriage myself.

I fault the MAYORS taking blatantly ILLEGAL actions (Vigilante actions) and LIBERAL judges not making decisions based on the law, etc. These people should be dealt with HARSHLY. Judges should be impeached and thrown out of office. Legal action should be taken against mayors NOT upholding the laws/going AGAINST the law.

I don't FAVOR an amendment on such a thing, but given the situation of out-of-control judges and mayors, what other remedy is there ? I don't see another way.

So until I see an EFFECTIVE alternative remedy, I would support the amendment.

barf alert!

MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR

Michael Stark, left, and Michael Lashner pop champagne
and kiss after their wedding ceremony yesterday.
Leshner called the ruling, "Day One for millions of gays
and lesbians around the world."

Gay couple married after ruling
(Toronto, Canada)

B.C. court OK's gay marriage -
first gay couple legally married in British Columbia

Gays Flock to Divorce Court

07-06-2003
Same-sex unions in 'News' -
Dallas Morning News to publish FREE
same sex unions announcements

The Media's Gay Mafia "Queers" the News

Useful Idiot Caption-A-Rama: Special Gay Pride Edition!

Gay frat seeks approval from UT-San Antonio
(See #39 for some humor)

Black gays launch ‘marriage equality’ campaign

[MeekOneGOP]

Bump !

[oyez]

Gay rights are an item to be railroaded through. Get in the and you will be knocked flat. No dissension will be tolerated.

I saw the coming of civil rights in the '50's. A lot of good came from it. Other things were mishandled resulting in the destruction of our excellent urban schools. Family structure has been coming unraveled with the sexual revolution of the '60's, the divorce boom of the '70's. Homosexual marriage is a condition created by man which like all creations of man will collapse, but only after who knows how much misery will pass.