home > archive > 2006 > this article

Search this site Search WWW

Heather has two mommies…and three daddies

By Alisa Craddock
web posted May 29, 2006

A vote on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in the United States as a union between one man and one woman is expected on June 6. I cannot think of a more urgent piece of legislative business right now than this, having as it does such tremendous implications for the health of our republic and the society in which we live. If anyone needs proof that a marriage amendment must become law in this country, we need only look at our always progressive friends across the sea—the Dutch—to see the future that is waiting for us, and to anticipate a hundred years hence the future that isn't. Last year the Netherlands, which has legalized same sex marriage, had their first polyamory union. A man married two women, bisexuals, both of them, making this not a polygamous but a polyamorous arrangement. It is technically true that what they signed was what is called in Holland a "cohabitation contract" and not a marriage license at all, but who's picking knits. "I love both Bianca and Mirjam" said Victor de Bruijn, the "groom", "so I am marrying them both." As far as he's concerned, he's married. How long do you think it will be before Holland is compelled to recognize their "marriage" as well? On what legal grounds, given that government's legalization of same-sex marriage, could the Dutch government deny the trio legal status and recognition if they decide to petition for it?

There is no more crucial issue in this country right now, save that of protecting the children in the womb from murder, and protecting children who make it out of the womb from child predators (and left-wing ideologues—oh, but I already said child predators, didn't I?) than protecting the institution of marriage, for the sake of those children, both born and unborn, the preservation of family life, and the stability of our country. The Lawrence v. Texas decision in this country that struck down anti-sodomy laws and other pro-homosexual decisions by renegade courts has assigned to homosexuality a legitimacy it does not merit, and paved the way for gay unions to be recognized in law, which would elevate it to the level of a civil right. It would soon be followed by a hate crimes law to ensure (coerce) public acceptance of the new status. If homosexual unions were permitted, the crumbling vestiges of our culture would not be able to withstand it. What grounds would the U.S. government have to bar other kinds of unions as well? To anyone who has not been completely brainwashed by gay propaganda, the notion of homosexuality as a variation of normal, much less a civil right, could not be more absurd. If you legitimize one perversion, you must legitimize all. If you extend special rights to one, others have a "legitimate" claim on the same protections. There are polyamorist groups waiting in the wings for the legalization of gay marriage so that they can begin campaigning for group marriages. The implied interchangeability of partners foreshadows an end to monogamy. In Holland the life expectancy of a gay marriage is 1.5 years, with an average of 8 "extramarital" encounters in that time period. Sounds like a real wholesome environment for children, doesn't it? There are always exceptions, of course, but they are not the norm.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country support the definition of marriage as a union of one man to one woman. This became crystal clear during the last election when 11 states (out of 11 with the measure on the ballot) voted overwhelmingly for state laws protecting marriage. This is not a selfish or bigoted stance, but a necessary protection for an institution that has rightly been called "the seedbed of society", from which future generations are nutured. Once the institution of marriage is open to other non-traditional living arrangements, it will lead to complete disintegration of authentic, marriage between one man and one woman who marry for the good purpose (in terms of society) of child rearing. There is simply no substitute for parents, both father and mother, in the rearing of children. Rabbi Daniel Lapin pointed out in his book America's Real War that in Hebrew, there is no word for "parent". There is only a word for "parents". There are supposed to be two, a biological mother and father, and they are supposed to be permanent. (Ah, Jewish wisdom. Well, consider the Source.) The bonding between children and both parents is now known to be necessary for the emotional wellbeing and social adjustment of children. No amount of psychological counseling and behavioral conditioning can substitute for parental love in the moral, social and psychological health of children. [One should probably note, though, that since we are moving toward a socialist nanny state, parenthood (in the eyes of Nanny) is a hindrance to the state's socialist conditioning of your children, and so the marriage represents competition with the state for control of their minds. Destruction of marriage is most assuredly considered by the more extreme ideologues of the left to be a desirable thing, making it even more imperative to protect marriage in law.]

Homosexuals (and others, such as feminists, polygamy and polyamory advocates, the gender identity disordered, and even pedophiles) will stop at nothing to derail a return to traditional morality and traditional marriage and family. The goals are not so noble as a quest for equality or love or justice, nor about the stabilizing and economic benefits of marriage. It may be for some, but for most, the agenda is to legitimize all forms of sexual expression at any age. They have already turned the standard of normalcy upside down. Take for example, the furor last year over Jada Pinkett Smith's ‘insensitive' remark that women could "have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career…" The Harvard campus BGLTSA (that's Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance) went apoplectic that Pinkett Smith would refer to marriage in such exclusive terms. Her remarks were deemed too "heteronormative" and some students were "offended", prompting the BGLTSA and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations to begin working together to "increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard". We mustn't speak of the marital union only as a heterosexual institution, people! We offend our gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and dolphin-loving sisters and brothers.

Should homosexuality receive the legitimacy and sanction of law, gay "adoption rights" will follow, and educators will be forced to begin teaching children at the earliest possible age about "diverse" family arrangements. "What is a family?" Anything you want it to be? I remember when I was a little girl about five I innocently told my mother that when I grew up I was going to marry her. She laughed and said I couldn't marry her—girls don't marry girls and besides she was already married to my father. That's the age they'll have to get to them: Five (before the laws of nature and of nature's God have imprinted themselves on their innocent little minds), so that they can teach them that Heather has two mommies, and "that's okay, that's normal." And just so is it happening already in Massachusetts where homosexuality is deeply entrenched in the culture, and where gay marriage has been thrust upon the people through judicial fiat (as usual). But it isn't merely marriage that is undermined, you see. It's family. The notion of "parents" as "family" and "family" as the best environment for the rearing and wellbeing of children is seriously under attack.

Once gay marriage has been permitted, authentic liberty will vanish as every effort of Christians and others to live according to the laws of God and their own moral beliefs is met with litigation. They will be sought out for ruination by gay activists, just as is happening in Canada now. (I'm referring to the cases of Costco employee David Hauser, who was allegedly set up by his gay colleagues, and Scott Brockie, the printer who ended up with a $40,000 debt for trying to defend his freedom of religion. Both men were cited for discrimination for refusal to offer services or facilities to gays for, in Hauser's case, the use of the Knights of Columbus Hall for a gay marriage, and in Brockie's case, his refusal to print literature for a gay organization with alleged pedophilia ties. The hate crimes law we (in the U.S.) have thus far been successful in preventing from becoming law will be enacted and then as one lesbian put it, "we'll really go after the bigots." Already the infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has paved the way for schools to force homosexual education on children in California, and California's legislature has just voted for new laws mandating the teaching of "tolerance" for homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism in California public schools, with the threat of withholding of critical funding if schools don't comply. Textbooks will have to be rewritten to reflect the contributions of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people, and presumably those perceived by gays to be gay, (such as Abraham Lincoln because he once roomed with a man and they shared a bed). Such revision of history will likely lead to others, besides Honest Abe, being erroneously identified as homosexual based on some flimsy footnote in their history. For most historical figures, the issue of their sexual orientation isn't relevant, but for those promoting this agenda, it is just a way of disguising the truth about homosexuality and the myriad psychological and health problems associated with it, not to mention its deleterious affects on the culture.

Once again, what we are talking about here is special rights and protected classes. We are asked not merely to tolerate, but to treat as equal and desirable behaviors which are quite unnatural and, in point of fact, if you scratch beneath the surface, behaviors most folks would find raunchy. But it's discrimination, they say. Well, no, it isn't discrimination unless you are not being given access to the same privileges under the same laws as everyone else. Rabbi Aryeh Spero intelligently pointed out the difference in his article "Opposition to Gay Marriage is Not Discrimination." Discrimination, he shows, means "that because of prejudice we do not allow a person of a particular race, religion or sexual orientation to participate in our existing institutions or enjoy the same activities others do." There is no comparison between not allowing gay marriage and not allowing blacks to vote, for example, because marriage is validly defined in law as a union between a man and a woman, and no one is preventing them from participating in such a union, whereas our voting laws require that all adult citizens in good standing be permitted to vote in elections, so preventing blacks from voting because they are black would constitute discrimination. But as the Rabbi points out, if blacks started demanding that their children under 18 should also be allowed to vote, well, that is prohibited by law to all, so no discrimination occurs if underage blacks are not given the vote.

No one is preventing gays from living their lives as they choose. The institution of marriage, as defined in law, is open to them as to heterosexuals, and indeed for whatever reasons they have, some homosexuals do marry opposite sex partners and raise families with them. They are not prevented from doing so. But they may not redefine the institution of marriage.

We have the freedom in this country to do many things that are not "rights". Free sexual activity is not a "right". Nothing that is destructive to the general welfare of the society is a right. However, if homosexuality is artificially elevated to the status of a right, it will immediately begin conflicting with authentic rights, expecially freedom of speech and religion, as Mr. Brockie and Mr. Hauser discovered. When you place a group into a "protected class" you tip the scales of justice in the favor of the ones being protected, and by consequence deny justice to those who are not. Moral, social, and legal chaos will ensue as the process of indoctrination and legal arm twisting begins to force the population to submit to its mandated perversion of right reason. No conscience clause for Christians, you can be sure. Such indoctrination is well under way here and abroad. The European Parliament last year passed a non-binding resolution condemning member states that do not provide for homosexual marriage in their law as" homophobic." The underlying threat, as with abortion and all other "progressive" aims of the EU is to use political and economic blackmail to compel members states to fall in line with these goals. "Economic self protection" (greed) trumps the "conscience of the people". Pope John Paul II famously coined the term "Culture of Death" to describe the change in the moral climate that was descending on the world, and a large part of his pontificate was devoted to combating it. Pope Benedict has named its counterpart, the "Dictatorship of Relativism". He clearly sees and names the evil being foisted on the citizens of the EU member states. Will we see it too, and protect ourselves from it?

In my column "Sexual Liberty vs. American Liberty" I discussed the findings of J. D. Unwin's research on ancient civilizations and how sexual regulations affected the cultural condition of 86 ancient civilizations. You will recall that he said "In human records there is no instance of a civilization retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence" and he found that once that had occurred, the civilization would collapse within three generations. If gay marriage were legalized, it would artificially impose that condition and accelerate the cultural collapse he described. There is one aspect of cultural condition Unwin reported that I did not relate before that I think bears mentioning here. In those cases where sexual regulations were strictly enforced, oppression of women frequently also occurred. This is the primary argument of feminists for promoting the destruction of the institution of marriage. This, as Unwin pointed out, does not necessarily have to be the case. Women can take responsibility for their own future and turn us back toward a more sane course before it's too late. It is, however, inevitable that if we permit our culture to become completely degraded, eventually, like a rubber band that's stretched to the limit, it will snap back with a vengeance. It is logical to assume the same would happen where homosexuality is concerned. There's nothing happening here that hasn't happened many times before. It is in the best interest of homosexuals and women both, to take their chips and leave the table rather than continue playing, because no matter how many chips are won, eventually all will be lost. It is irrational to an absurd degree to try and completely dismantle wise and long-held human institutions and traditions, to deconstruct humanity itself. Society can not tolerate moral and social chaos. It will not abide debauchery forever. It will not long permit its children to be pawns in adult schemes, nor objects of adult exploitation. The "feminine" cannot reign forever. If I may quote G. K. Chesterton once more, "It is at the end of the path called progress that men return to the king." In other words, when things get bad enough, people will bow to a dictator to restore order. Our freedom is on the line June 6.

Alisa Craddock is a political columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. In addition to Enter Stage Right, her columns have been published on Alain's Newsletter and Out2 News. She may be contacted at acrock43_j@yahoo.com.

Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story



Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story

Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!



1996-2021, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.