Monday, July 03, 2006

Oppose Homosex Marriage? Consequences Coming

Dan Avila lays it out clearly in WND today.

Ted Kennedy was sober for long enough to intone that 'backers of a federal marriage amendment of pushing "bigotry – pure and simple" because the amendment would limit marriage to a man and a woman. Supporters of the amendment included the U.S. Catholic bishops.

In late June, the Religious Coalition for Marriage released an "open letter" charging the Massachusetts Catholic bishops with "promoting prejudice" by campaigning for a similar amendment at the state level.

Well, we all know that "Bigotry" is BAD! Once advocates for same-sex marriage begin branding supporters of traditional marriage as bigots and haters, the more likely it becomes that government persecution will follow.

As we all know, that means "re-education" camps classes, reprimands, ostracization, yada yada.

It's not a co-incidence that homosex-marriage advocates are using the "bigot" term liberally; the legal design was written by Anthony Lewis' wife, Margaret Marshall, Chief Wonzo of the Mass Supremes.

In her majority opinion, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall cited several U.S. Supreme Court decisions dealing with racial discrimination, which talked about using the power of the state to eradicate bias.

By equating what one might call "marriage bias" with racial bias, the Supreme Judicial Court laid the groundwork for persecutions to come. In other words, the marriage doctrine of the Catholic Church, of other religions, of other states and indeed the federal government is to be treated in the Commonwealth as equal to a desire to harm blacks, and thus must be regarded as an intolerable evil. The law must discourage any preference for traditional marriage and penalize those who act by it.

And sure enough, other organs of the State fell into line, quickly:

...public school officials in Boston and Lexington informed teachers and parents about the new way the marriage debate is to be handled in the classroom for students. Teachers must promote same-sex marriage as a civic virtue, and parents must be denied any recourse. Teachers who object will be fired; parents who ask that their child not be indoctrinated will be refused.

Then state officials trained their sights on adoption services. Catholic agencies were told to assist adoptions by same-sex couples or get out of adoptions altogether. Zero-tolerance forced the Boston Catholic Charities to shut down the largest and oldest adoption program in the state.


Well, THAT certainly was "good for the children," eh?

And there are more implications:

We won't be able to send our kids to a Catholic school because the schools will have to close, due to the removal of their tax-exempt status for propagating "hate" and their subsequent inability to survive financially. Our kids will be subject to attacks, ridicule, enforced re-education and disciplinary punishment in the public schools. We won't be able to get a job in the public sector due to our "prejudice" and will be unhireable at most private companies afraid of the impact on business if it becomes known they hire bigots. Our service agencies and other institutions will be sued for refusing to recognize same-sex marriage in their employee and customer policies, and all state funds will be shut off.

Although the editorial was written for residents of Massachusetts (whose legislature STILL has not written a "homosex-marriage" law despite their Court's ruling,) this is a clear warning.

After all, in Wisconsin we have a Supreme Court majority headed by Screechin'Shirley Abrahamson, a self-professed activist jurist, who has already demonstrated a complete disregard for plain English and common sense.

Pay attention, folks!

5 comments:

Peter said...

It's info like this that is pushing me to vote for the homosexual marriage ban in Wisconsin this fall.

BTW: I found that item over at my place for requiring registration and turned it off (I think). Try it and see what happens.

Dad29 said...

There's simply no NEED for "homosex marriage."

All the financial and administrative stuff that's not currently available can be made so by legislation.

But "marriage" is perceived as a "right." That's an error, whether hetero- OR homo-.

What they really seek is "blessing," or (more accurately) the sacrament--which precedes written history. They want the State to bless un-natural activity.

Not within the power of the well-ordered State, I fear...

Billiam said...

They can call me what they want. I believe what I believe, and refuse to change. As to need, it isn't about that. It's just another move for the normalization of deviancy. See Roman history for the inevitable outcome.

Michael J. Cheaney said...

I hate Illinois drivers clogging up our interstates. Does that also make also make me a BIGOT?

Also is just me or is the term bigot getting thrown around almost as much as the term Nazi?

Dad29 said...

Mike--you're right. The "bigot" and "Nazi" terminology is damn near omnipresent; but that's because rational argumentation on the topic simply cannot be advanced by those who favor Homosex "Marriage."

Billiam, you VILL be subjec to re-education, und you VILL like it!!