Listen
One of the points I have consistently tried to make to folks is that what we are seeing attempted by the radical homosexual lobby in this country is not an effort to “redefine” the institution of marriage or family. It’s the attempt to “un-define” it – to render it meaningless, subject only to whatever relationships you wish to consider it. And there’s a pretty simple way of explaining why that is, besides all the comments by homosexualist leaders that have called for a “radical transformation” of American society. Simply think it through.
If they believe it is “bigoted” or “discriminatory” to define marriage or family in a way that excludes someone’s personal sexual expression (eg, homosexuality), how could they possibly define it in a way that excludes other’s personal sexual expressions (eg, polygamy, polyamory, bisexuality, etc.) without committing the same offense they condemn in others? They couldn’t. That’s why you don’t hear any of these people actively promoting a new or alternative definition of marriage. They simply want the old one torn away, and the moral guideposts uprooted.
The President of the United States, either because he is complicit or ignorant of the consequences, seems to be totally on board. But that opens up a great question that someone should ask the President. It was articulated by CNS News’ commentator Terence P. Jeffrey.
At a June 15 White House event, the President explained, “Now, each June since I took office, we have gathered to pay tribute the generations of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans who devoted their lives to our most basic ideals – equality, not just for some, but for all.”
He went on to brag about his decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, and reiterated his support of same-sex marriage. Jeffrey’s question was pretty simple, but poignant:
So, what does Obama's "marriage equality" mean for bisexuals?
...
In Obama's world, does a bisexual man have a "right" to enter into a bigamous union with one other man and one woman? Or can the state force him to limit his marriage to the union of just two people?
And if that is the case, how would Obama, within his philosophy of government, justify prohibiting a bisexual from forming a tripartite marriage?
These aren’t slippery slope arguments. They are legitimate questions based upon the President’s own statements and logic. In fact, they are legitimate questions based upon the logic and positions of the entire LGBT “rights” movement. If what they are talking about is truly “civil rights,” then they would have to apply equally to other people with different sexual predilections.
LIKE US ON FACEBOOK
What’s amazing is how far we’ve come since the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas that enshrined sodomy as a constitutional right. Check this out:
In 2003, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Lawrence v. Texas. The lawyer for the homosexual plaintiffs in this case argued that they had a "right to engage in consensual sexual intimacy in the privacy of their home" — including homosexual activity. The laws against this activity, the plaintiffs and their allies argued, were wrong because they were based on morality.
Assessing this argument that homosexual behavior was a "right," Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "Why is this different from bigamy?"
The plaintiff's lawyer responded, essentially, that homosexuals were not asking for the right to marry, they were merely asking for the right to sodomy.
"Now, bigamy involves protection of an institution that the State creates for its own purposes, and there are all sorts of potential justifications about the need to protect the institution of marriage that are different in kind from the justifications that could be offered here involving merely a criminal statute that says we're going to regulate these people's behaviors," the lawyer told Scalia.
Scalia didn’t buy it at the time, and accurately predicted what would come from the Court’s action to legitimize sodomy as a “right”:
"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices," said Scalia. "Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding."
Sadly, Obama’s June event at the White House seems to vindicate Scalia’s prediction. How can you pull up the moral guideposts for one act of immoral sexuality and then expect to be able to throw them back down in the ground to prevent another kind, without violating your own arguments of fairness and equity? Mr. Obama, can you answer that question?
Jeffrey hits the nail on the head when he deduces Mr. Obama’s fatal flaw in worldview:
By turning our law upside down, Obama would turn our society inside out. Racial discrimination is wrong for the same reason homosexual behavior — or, for that matter, bisexual behavior — is wrong. Racial discrimination violates the natural God-given law that is the only source of any legitimate law of the state.
When the Founders created this country, they rightfully pointed for justification to the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God." They said that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
No rational person could argue that there is a God-given right to same-sex marriage or bisexual behavior. To justify such things, as Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote only a quarter-century ago, one must "cast aside millennia of moral teaching."
As he seeks to remove God as the ultimate source of our law, with whom will Obama replace Him?
It’s funny that so many people struggle to know the religion of Mr. Obama. It’s abundantly clear the man is a humanist, through and through.
