A catholic blogger writes about her evolution against gay marriage:
Like Obama, I have also evolved on the marriage debate. I suspect a lot of people journeyed a similar path, and even more so, I suspect a lot more people are evolving now. Here’s how I went from not really caring to wide-eyed activism.
“Let’s Be Diverse” Stage
“Ambivalent” Stage
“Leave Me Alone” Stage
“Imposing?” Stage
“I Must Stand” Stage: It is worth noting that even then, I still knew same-sex couples whom I considered friendly acquaintances. They respected my faith and my family, and they knew where I stood; there was trust. However, the hostility and tyrannical behavior of the “gay rights” activists was remarkably disturbing. Not only do they want to silence anyone who doesn’t approve, they want to harm them too. I grew resentful until I realized that anger wasn’t helpful, so I grew attentive and dedicated. I saw the slow creep of social change they pushed for – to make marriage meaningless – and I saw that it was not healthy for society, not good for the future of our children because it isn’t about the children. I saw the lies that a Godless society tells young people in greater clarity than ever before, and I saw how that message is destructive. Then I posted my frustration, and hell broke loose. I realized that I owe it to my children to defend the truth without compromise in my country and my world. Even more, I owe it to God who gave me those children.
Read all about her evolution here.
22 Comments
My personal metamorphosis occurred the day after the new Civil Union law passed in California and I got to witness the very same people who put the expanded Civil Union amendment on the ballot turn around and challenge their fresh new achievement in court because it established a separate but equal system of governance.
Fool me once...
I, and others, have said it time and time again: the more people experience--or even observe--hostility from the ssm movement, the more defectors said movement will have. Even young people will begin to defect.
Perhaps more so than ssm supporters, the "I don't really care" crowd will begin to shift to the pro-marriage side as they start to see that the ssm movement is not one of "tolerance," "love," and "live and let live."
This writer's evolution is quite similar to my own. Children change everything.
Lovely post. Children do make all the difference.
Ah yes, this is the lovely blogger who doesn't want gay couples to be able to go to the park.
Moms, dads, children; so basic, so obvious, so proven.
I was 16 when prop 8 was voted on. Now to say I was against same-sex marriage then would be a lie. I nevere even heard about this issue till prop 8 showed up and there might have been a chance I would have supported it...until I saw the ads including that one that showed Gavin Newsome being the liberal elitist that he is. After that I started doing some research on the issue and couldn't make sense of Same-sex marriage. It still doesn't make sense to me.
Tam, with all due respect, I don't presume to speak for the author of this outstanding post. But I, for one, and the MAJORITY of people in this country do NOT want homosexual couples making overt displays of affection anywhwere where my children can see them.
Homosexuality is an offense against God, man, nature and society. It is absolutely none of my business what couples do in private, I have no desire to live in a theocracy, and certainly there is no law against public displays of affection, but don't expect people with children to pretend that overt displays of homosexual affection are not offensive and repugnant to the vast majority of normal people.
Yep, that's right, I said NORMAL. I have raised my seven sons to understand that to seek out and taunt a homosexual person is gravely wrong. Any real man would never stand by and fail to defend a homosexual person,or anyone else who is being bullied, but common decency does not imply acquiesence.
Same sex couples have every right to enjoy the park and they can very well do so without anybody knowing or caring what they do in private. To impose their private life upon others has NOTHING to do with affection and everything to do with making a statement. And that is a statement that should NEVER be forced upon innocent children who, by the way, happen to frequent parks.
When Smarmy Gavin was taping a Dr. Phil segment after we won Prop 8, I was able to make eye contact with him while the famous video Zack refers to above was shown.
When I had his attention I simply mouthed the words:
"Thank you".
That was the ad that changed the game forever.
Prop 8 was rolling toward passage, and if we would have lost Cali we would have lost the war.
But the disgusting, "we know better than all of the human race before us" arrogance of these self-absorbed shallow elitist social engineers is impossible to cover up.
It always shines through.
And when it does, all the careful media brainwashing goes down the drain.
Thanks again, Mr. Newsome.
Exactly, tam. This Blogger is nailing herself to a cross because people (gay and straight) had the audacity to respond to her post that she cant go to the park because of gay people. That post was pure anti gay animus and had nothing to do with marriage.
Zack, how about this: same sex couples want the same legal protections as opposite sex couples. They can't have that without being able to marry under state and federal law. That's why there is a push to legalize same sex marriage.
Same sex couples are different from male-female couples. As such, they are rightly treated differently in our society. This is a very basic concept that homosexuals like to skip. Read slowly: Two men and two women are different from a man and a woman. My 8yo daughter can read that and understand it.
Individuals all have the same rights in this country; we all have the same rights/limitations on who we can marry.
OvercameSSA, yes, same-sex couples are different from male-female couples, they cannot reproduce offspring together using unmodified gametes. They might be able to reproduce using modified gametes, but it would not be ethical or good public policy and it should be prohibited. In that regard they are like a brother and his sister.
Actually, she devolved. But whatever, for everyone of her there are tens of thousands who move to the rights side of history.
14th,
To truly devolve she would have to do something more obvious; like dust off the failed policies of Nero and declare them to be fresh new.
@Bryce
They can accomplish the same benifets as straight couples without having to redefine marriage.
In fact in Washington, they did just that with their "everything but Marriage" initiative. So what was the deal with pushing for state recognition? If you already get all the same benefits, then why push to redefine a word?
They still didn't receive all the legal benefits that marriage provides. And still, there is no federal recognition of domestic partnerships.
Marriage is defined by God as between a man and a woman. The government has no right to redefine a word to its liking. It's as simple as that. True marriage is positive for a society because it is meant to produce children who grow up and become good citizens who give back to the society, which is why married couples receive some government benefits. Same-sex couples do not produce children who give back to society, so why should they be reaping the additional benefits of a society they do not additionally contribute to in a way that married couples do? You already have your civil unions, but don't for one minute think it's marriage. Also, it should be noted that true gay people are generally not the ones fighting this fight--they would rather be left alone. It's people who are "gay" because it's "cool" to be that are all up in arms about something that actually doesn't affect them at all. Also, I have no problem with gay people. I love them like I love any other one of God's people. All of us are human and have our own struggles, some more than others, but it's not a reason to redefine a Godly law.
Ash writes: "...the more people experience--or even observe--hostility from the ssm movement, the more defectors said movement will have..."
You do realize that your principle goes both ways, don't you? So let's do a quick review of what peoole have observed in just the past week: Pastor "Gay Concentration Camp" Worley, Pastor "Government Should Execute Gays" Knapp, the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle Church where pre-schoolers entertain adults by singing about gays burning in eternal hellfire, and a gay teen brutally attacked by a group of violent anti-gay boys (known as "traditional marriage supporters" in your circle) simply because he acknowledged that he is gay. That's quite a bit of hostility from the anti-gay side and again, those are just a few examples from the past week. What will next week bring and how many defectors from your side will it cause?
CrazyCatholic writes: "Marriage is defined by God as between a man and a woman. The government has no right to redefine a word to its liking. It's as simple as that."
You're incorrect. It's as simple as that. Civil marriage is defined by civil law. Yes, many religious traditionas place special significance on the marriage - the significance, meanings and rituals surrounding marriage vary from religion to religion but the government issued marriage licenses are identical. Civil marriage does not require a religious ceremony or that its participants practice any religion at all. Just because some religions have a cherished ceremony to mark two people entering into a civil contract doesn't mean that religions own or define that civil contract. You need to understand that religions are entitled to set whatever definition and parameters around marriage they want but they're not entitled to mirror those parameters in civil law.
14th Amend,
Yes, it goes both ways, but I see more of a risk for your side.
The fact that people hold moral and/or religious disapproval of homosexuality is nothing new. So, no, I don't think that is going to cause defectors.
Acts/threats of violence against gay people could cause someone who is on the fence to become pro-ssm...maybe. The fence-sitter might conclude that a person beating up a teen has nothing to do with the ssm debate, and remain on the fence (not to mention that teens get beat up all the time for a variety of reasons).
No one can logically conclude that keeping what is the *status quo* for marriage in most places will somehow result in gay people being put in concentration camps. Sure, people will be repulsed at those types of suggestions (as I am repulsed), but they most likely will not see that as a reality that will come from *keeping* marriage as it is currently defined; nor will they necessarily see it as representative of the entire pro-marriage movement.
But when a relatively new movement comes along, demanding *changes* and preaching "tolerance," "love," and "diversity," while systematically attempting to shut down opponents by branding them as "bigots," threatening their employment, preventing them from using government facilities, banning them from malls, etc., a lot of people--who might've been sucked in by the tolerance message, or who are apathetic--could see this as a rude awakening.
The LGBT lobby comes off as petty and vindictive in many cases. They demand total compliance with their ideology from *every* individual and t-shirt company in town. When the people who have an "I don't really care" attitude see that someone could run across a polite Facebook comment on marriage and cause the writer of the comment to get their salary sliced in half, that has the ability to sour people.
14th,
When its said that marriage is instituted by God, it has two meanings: 1) It is found in Holy Scripture, inspired by God.
2) Its meant that it is natural, that is, it is derived from Man's nature which was created by God. Thomas Jefferson recognizes that human rights arise from Man's nature in the declaration of independence.
So it is with Civil and Criminal Law, it arises from Man's nature and not from some whim or consensus. To ignore the objective foundation of law is to make Law subjective. And WW2 showed one horrible way in which subjective law and morality can turn out.