home polity my creed contact info books links sitemap
related articles
print email save save as pdf
 

Lien of OZ
Abortion
Artificial Reproduction
Bible Study
Family issues
Fatherhood
Homosexuality
Islam
One World Government
Church Order
Deacons
Elders
Men 
Sunday School
Women
Worship
Scripture
Bible
Theology
Creation
  Eschatology
Evangelise
Fear
Free Will
God
Heresies
Law
Love
Predestination
Reformed
Sacraments
Scripture
Sin
Soteriology
Sovereignty
Truth
Creeds
Ancient
Reformed
Universalistic
Verses
Words
Festivals
December 25
Easter
Halloween
Personal
Sabbath
Government
Church & State
Democracy
Government
Living
Body Mods
Death
Commitment
Discipline
Fear
Family
Kingdom
Modesty
Ourtimes
Prayer
Righteous
Potpourri
Abortion
Dates
Democracy
Historical
Homosex
Letters
Passages
Quotes
Sermons
Tracts
Religions
Evolution
Islam
Israel
Pagan
Copyright
Emails
Home

Marriage–Straight–Crooked–or Queer? 
Return to the 50’s–Why Not?

by Lien of Oz


For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave (adhere) to his wife….

And they shall be one flesh:  Gen 2:24; Mat 19:5 and Mar 10:7.

Christian marriage was ordained of God

  1. for procreation [and nurture] of children;

  2. as a remedy against sin [lust, fornication, promiscuity] and

  3. for mutual ‘society’– [the support, help, and comfort, of each other through prosperity and adversity]

The primary nature of marriage is that of covenant; a solemn vow of commitment between a man and a woman; a binding - and public announcement- not a mere contract.

‘Idealist and moralistic’, may well be the contemporary exclamation. Nevertheless, this has been the Godly standard and one that attained a peak expression immediately post-world war 11 and into the late 50’s. Many of the resultant ‘baby-boomer’ generation of the 60’s

rebelled and launched the so called ‘sexual revolution’. A period coinciding with the ready availability of birth control and led to an attitude that sexuality was open to recreation quite apart from pro-creation.

Pre-marital cavorting and cohabitation led to attendant increases in sexual diseases and unplanned pregnancies and in their wake, the legal provision of abortion, together with significant disillusionment with marriage. This latter was accommodated by easy no fault divorce. A remedy that has only resulted in the creation of increased single parent households, fatherlessness and costly welfare penalties.

Feminists who objected to perceived ‘oppressive’ heterosexual coupling and institutionalised marriage, adapted to lesbian (same-sex) relating as a political statement. Rising numbers of unaffirmed young men too, soon found comfort in each others arms and substitute orgasmic sexual activities. Then in 1972, in the US, avant-garde lesbians, together with growing numbers of ‘queer’ men formed a National Coalition of Homosexual (or gay) Organisations and created an aggressive homosexual agenda. One platform of which demanded the repeal of all legislative provisions that respect the sex or number of persons entering into a ‘marriage’ unit; a proposal that called for the legal benefits of marriage to be extended to all who co-habit regardless of sex (or number).

This marginalised "Queer" company argue that marriage is inextricably linked to religion, in particular Christianity. They ask why (in law) should it remain that way. "In a tolerant, diverse, multicultural society, we should not be required to accept (or be bound by) such old fashioned ideals or laws."

Meanwhile in company with the post-modern relativist, tolerance was designated to become the dominant virtue. Hence, society was expected to value all kinds of diverse cultures and lifestyles, as progressive. A pragmatic judiciary proceeded to decriminalize formerly immoral behaviours and poll driven, legislators ‘bend’ to every militant lobby group. Save for a remnant of restrained fundamentalists, the ‘cloistered’ Christian Church, once guardian of the high moral ground, has begun to cower under the onslaught of mocking, name calling and compromised hypocrisy.

Gay activists have relentlessly pursued their agenda with persistent ‘double-speak’ propaganda. They have brought Western society to the brink of recognising same-sex ‘marriage’ as equal ‘in law’ to that between one man and one woman. This issue promises to be even more furious than the battle lost in regard to the legalisation of abortion.

Exclusive marriage between one man and one woman is now being touted as discriminatory; and as of June last year, unconstitutional in Canada. This followed the example of the Netherlands in 2001 then Belgium earlier in 2003. This level of recognition being just one step away from the registration of domestic unions, first initiated in Denmark in 1989, Norway 1993, Greenland 1994, Sweden 1995, Iceland 1996, France 1999, State of Vermont in USA in 2000, most recently Massachusetts 2004 and presently, before the legislators in Britain and the Australian Capital territory.

Homosexual activists have thus far, been remarkably successful in re-defining marriage and family.

Having achieved civil unions, domestic partnerships and ultimately same-sex marriage, these activists attempt to assure us they should not necessarily pose any threat to marriage or family stability. Yet the introduction of these alternative (counterfeit) unions cannot help but impose a perverse moral standard upon us all.

"Being queer," writes lesbian Paula Ettelbrick1 , "means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ……… We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.’’

"Steeped in a patriarchal system…..the institution of marriage has long been the focus of radical feminist revulsion."2

Ettelbrick 3 vacillates in her public comments on same-sex marriage as a means to other goals. For her homosexual marriage does not go far enough to transform society. She proposes that it will- ‘not bring liberation but force assimilation and make us more invisible and undermine ‘lesbian and gay rights’ movement.’

It is an injustice to look at the statutory definition of marriage.’

Ettelbrick 1,4 continues–‘‘As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's views of reality."

Paula Ettelbrick 5 supports the ‘right’ of homosexuals to ‘marry’ but opposes marriage itself as oppressive.

Paula Ettelbrick now Executive Director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human rights Commission (IGLHRC) has aggressively affirmed an intended ‘confrontation with religion and challenge even Pope Paul’s call to arms against homosexual marriage would be successfully combated.’

Other feminist academics such as Ruth Colker in her book ‘Marriage’ agrees with Ettelbrick arguing for changing the Institution of Marriage and to eliminate all its actual and perceived benefits…’’People should marry for symbolic not economic benefits."

Nan Hunter 3 admits that legalizing gay / lesbian marriage– "should destabilise marriage’s gendered definition thus disrupting the link between gender and marriage thereby subverting its power differential."

Mary Dunlop 3 advocates that same-sex marriage is a means of escape from ‘gay bashing.’ She regards heterosexual marriage as ‘a ritual of the most repressive and repugnant kind; creating for women lives of virtual slavery. We must be aware of the oppressive history that weddings symbolise. Lesbian union exhibits a rejection of the patriarchy of the marriage institution." and

Cathy Renna (Spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) says ‘marriage is too religious.’

Further scathing comment, opposing Christian views, come from outspoken (pro-homosexual and pro-pedophile) author Judith Levine. 7

"Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals onto the ark. But it doesn't have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Would polygamy invite abuse of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders."

The late Tom Stoddard 8,9, another staunch proponent for same-sex marriage regularly condemned the oppressive nature of traditional marriage. He fought for the same-sex equivalent for economic benefits and, as a political expression; ‘a means to end gay and lesbian discrimination and eliminate the sexist trappings of traditional marriage’.

Tom Stoddard further declared that– "Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past."

And homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile 10 adds –"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."

"It is also a 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 into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Signorile 11 continues–"Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.’’

When tolerance and diversity are to be accepted by all and discrimination avoided, (Christian) morality must take a back seat. For instance, the recent decision of the US supreme court (Lawrence V Texas) determined that consensual, sexual or private, morality, could no longer be proscribed by law.

Signorile 12 stresses that for ‘gay’ men the term 'monogamy' simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity. ‘. . . The term 'open relationship' has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners’.

Former homosexual, William Aaron,13 asks why is it that homosexuals involved in "committed" relationships do not practice monogamy:

He goes on to explain that – ‘in the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to 'absorb' masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile 'marriages' are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.’

Even while acknowledging this Geoffrey Kors-Executive Director of Equality California, continues to stress that ‘To divide families and prevent stable loving relationships from equal treatment under the law that ‘married couples’ take for granted is an insult to same-sex, bi-sex and bi-national couples (when separated between nations).’

Even Andrew Sullivan 14 , a conservative ‘gay’ advocate, in his book ‘Same-Sex Marriage–The Pro and Con’ confesses that any homosexual marriage must entail a greater understanding of the ‘need’ for "extramarital outlets" and "openness of the contract." For homosexuals very likely resist allowing their "varied and complicated lives" to be flattened into a "single, moralistic model."

In reviewing the book Daniel Harris another ‘gay activist’ declares that what he despises most about marriage is that it limits promiscuity. ‘We want marriage but on our terms’.

Sullivan argues 15 that homosexual (same) sex relationships are superior to husband and wife (heterosexual) marriage because of the homosexual’s capacity to understand the ‘need’ for ‘outside’ relationships. He thus, implies that adulterous ‘swinging’ or ‘polyluv’ 16 should similarly be accepted in the heterosexual lifestyle. A practice whereby ‘one feels glad’ that your ‘mate’ is with another.

Levels of promiscuity in the homosexual lifestyle is almost its trademark; as their own advocates acknowledge. Note for instance this comment of Rotello 17 , who is himself openly gay: "...the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes."

Reading these oft repeated comments by leading homosexual activists, writers and journalists, one can deduce that their desire for ‘couple’ recognition is not simply to gain benefits and privileges open to ‘married’ (heterosexual) couples but rather to radically transform our millennially long understanding of marriage and family.

Yet the "single, moralistic model" referred to by Sullivan (above) is precisely the point. – marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman does not—cannot—countenance extramarital outlets. For, while fidelity is not always honoured it still remains essential to the security of marriage; where faithfulness in marriage is right and adultery wrong and destructive. The argument that same-sex marriage would somehow tame the homosexual lifestyle is hardly convincing.

Kirk and Madsen 18 in After the Ball , note that "the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%... Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to ‘open relationship’ for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples.

In an interview with John Hawkins from Right Wing News Andrew Sullivan stressed that his ‘gay agenda’ still demanded the removal of all HIV bans on immigrants and elimination of ‘don’t ask don’t tell concepts and the repeal of the Defence of Marriage Act.

In Australia Sotirios Sarantakos 19 from Charles Sturt University, reports that fewer than one-fifth of gay and lesbian couples seem to favour same-sex marriage. Yet a number of them are currently planning to challenge the prohibition of gay marriage in the courts.

Resultant issues of health risk (see for example ref. 20) to themselves and the community, must also be considered. The health issue is but one major reason why it is wrong for our society to encourage and thereby condemn (penalise) people, to remain trapped in the homosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Charles Socarides 21 –academic critic of the homosexual agenda and recognised expert on homosexual pathology, notes that homosexuals cannot a society make nor even keep ours going for very long. Moreover, if we are to venture down this path of selective recognition of homosexual orientation and permit same –sex marriage, how can we then preclude bi-sexually oriented persons from marrying a man and a woman. To prohibit such a triad would be a denial of those person’s sexuality.

For too long the Church has shrugged off the homosexual agenda as incidental and an unpleasant confrontation to be avoided. Now with the impending re-definition of marriage and family in contemporary society the Church has to suddenly enter the fray and must mount a defence* to retain what has heretofore been regarded, by definition, tradition or axiomatically, as the sacred union between on man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Leaders within the Church itself actually conceding to the persistent and pervasive homosexual propaganda.

* Defence of marriage and/or affirmation and protection of marriage, amendments to National constitutions.

Until this present generation precise legal definition of marriage was not needed because it was accepted as self evident–equivalent to defining why water will make you wet.

Even at their very best, same-sex unions can only ever simulate or mimic marriage but never demonstrate either the biological or emotional complementarity of heterosexual marriage.

Marriage has been universal across many cultures for 1000’s of years. It has proved to regulate male-female sexual conjugation to provide social cohesion. And in particular, aims to bind men to their wife their children. Maintenance of a strong social and legal support for marriage is of inestimable value to children and to parents of children and so also to the stability of society in general.

Unfortunately marriage, as an ideal is already tottering due to the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce, out-of-wedlock births and common law cohabitation. We are now simply reaping the consequences of its devaluation. Instead of pursuing a queer, radical, untested and inherently flawed, social experiment, for a same-sex equivalent, we should be seeking to restore marriage to vitality and health and thereby, regain this ‘keystone’ in the arch of civilization. The very fact that we have to debate this issue at all tells us that this arch has all but collapsed. Getting it firmly back in place is, as the lawyers say, a "compelling state interest."

Yes the 50’s did have a lot going for it! Who would now dare to say that, other than the date, we have in any way morally progressed?

23 Feb 2004

Statistics.

Gays and Lesbians with a population density in Australia of no more than 2% are endeavouring to change the century’s long stability of marriage for no more than a forecast one fifth of even this small minority.

Ref. Alternative Law Journal http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLJ/1999/15.html

The actual ABS statistics from the 2001 census regarding the (existing) number of same-sex couples  make for interesting reading. When you consider how SMALL the figures are, [~ one half of the above ‘gay’ predictions of 38,000] one has to question why governments have given so much attention to changing the law so as to recognise ‘same-sex couples'.

2001 Australia wide figures
    * number of same-sex couples  19,594  or 0.1% of population  (1996 census figure 9,486) 

This result came about after the ‘gay’ media sought to encourage census reporting of their unions.

 In the USA the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, using 2001 census figures, report between 0.6 and 0.8 % of all households as ‘gay or lesbian’

See. http://maineaidsnetwork.com/outright/samesex.htm

References.

  1. Paula Ettelbrick, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?", in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

  2. OutSmart Magazine, May 2002, Houston’s G & L On Line Service. www.texastriangle.com/archive/1028/up4.htm

  3. National Journal of sexual Orientation Law V.1 Issue 1

  4. http://starbulletin.com/96/04/09/editorial/viewpoint.html

  5. Same-sex marriage debate U-M Law School Nov 14 2001

  6. www.worldnetdaily.org 8 Aug 2003

  7. Judith Levine, "Stop the Wedding!: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough," The Village Voice, July 23-29, 2003. Levine declines to mention that the 1972 Gay Rights Platform also called for abolishing age of consent laws. This is a curious omission since Levine herself has written in favour of lowering the age of consent to 12 for sex between children and adults in her book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (p. 88). See also http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0330/levine.php

  8. http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/events/021897ev.htm 18 Feb.1997

  9. Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.also. "Why Gay People Should Seek the Right to Marry." OUT/LOOK National Gay and Lesbian Quarterly, n.6. Fall 1989.

  10. Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.

  11. Michelangelo Signorile, "I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do," OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.

  12. Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), p. 213.

  13. William Aaron, Straight (New York: Bantam Books, 1972), p. 208, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, p. 125, quoted by Robert H. Knight in "How Domestic Partnerships and 'Gay Marriage' Threaten the Family," Insight (Washington: Family Research Council, June 1994), p. 9.

  14. Andrew Sullivan and Joseph Landau– Same-sex Marriage: Pro and Con. Also http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php?artnum=19890828

  15. Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (New York: Vintage Books, 1995, 1996).

  16. "They Call it Polyluv," The New York Times Magazine, Feb. 16, 1997, Section 6, p. 15.

  17. Rotello, G. (1997): Sexual Ecology. AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. Dutton, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK.

  18. Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen, in After the Ball, op. cit., pg. 330

  19. Sotirios Sarantakos; Charles Sturt University, Alternative Law Journal http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLJ/1999/15.html

  20. John R. Diggs, Jr.–The Health Risks of Gay Sex; Corporate Research Council; 2002… Refer also to numerous CDC reports in USA or in Australia, the periodic Gay Community Surveys or the regular 6 monthly SMASH, MMASH or NCHSR documentation,

  21. Charles W. Socarides, M.D., How America When Gay, He is clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Centre in New York.


Leading Gay and Lesbian proponents for ‘Gay Marriage’

Thomas Stoddard -1949-97- was regarded as one of America’s foremost ‘gay’ civil rights advocates and Member of the Manhattan New York Barr Association.

From 1970’s he played a major lead in New York City’s Gay Activist Alliance being the author of a 1986 bill seeking protection for NY ‘gays’. In 1993 he was probably the first ‘gay activist’ on a formal visit to the White House and again in 1995 for the Presidential Conference on AIDS.

From1986 to 92 he was Executive Director of the Lambda Legal and Educational Fund [New York]

In 1996 was the leading [grand] marshal in the Manhattan Gay and Lesbian Pride March.

He died of AIDS on 12 Feb 1997 [aged 48] leaving his long-time companion Walter Reiman.

Michelangelo Signorile –Editor at large and main columnist for gay journal ‘The Advocate’.

Columnist for OUT magazine and regular contributor to The New York Times; USA Today; New York Observer; New York Magazine and Village Voice and author of numerous books-2 main ones Queer in America and Life Outside.

Signorile grew up in Brooklyn and on Staten Island in the 1960s and 1970s he attended the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, studying journalism.

In the late 80s Signorile became involved in gay politics and AIDS activism, running the media committee of the direct action group ACT UP in New York.

Although boasting of promiscuous ‘gay abandon’ during the 80’s he now enjoys union with ‘David’ a film studies Professor who was recently a visiting Professor to Dunedin University –New Zealand.

Andrew Sullivan holds a BA in Modern History and Languages from Oxford University and Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard. Sullivan still claims to remain a devout Catholic.

He was Senior Editor [at 27 between 1991 & 1996] of The New Republic and is US columnist for Sunday Times of London. Recently he was expelled as a regular columnist for New York Times Magazine following revelations concerning his positive HIV status (through oral sex) and involvement in risky ‘bareback’ sexual practices.

He is a prolific ‘gay’ columnist and author. Yet his lifestyle does not tally with that defined in his book Virtually Normal. He is an avid but conservative, advocate for same-sex marriage. "Gay marriage is the only alternative to a life of meaningless promiscuity."

Hosts his own website www.andrewsullivan.com

Paula Ettelbrick since 1994 has been a Professor in Law at University of Michigan.

She is recently been appointed as Executive Director of the (San Francisco based) International Gay & Lesbian Human rights Commission [IGLHRC] which together with the United Nations Gay ,Lesbian & Bi-sexual Employees [UNGLOBE] is pushing the case for the recognition of sexual orientation under global ‘human rights’ treaties and covenants.

Paula Ettelbrick has held major office as Family Policy Director for LAMBDA Legal Defence and Education Fund–Lobbyist for the Empire state PRIDE agenda–a staunch feminist and lesbian activist and formerly Director for the National Centre for Lesbian Rights

As an advocate for same-sex marriage she sees this only as an initial step to overturn traditional concepts of marriage and family. Quote "It is an injustice to look at the statutory definition of marriage. (UM Law School debate with Prof. Gerald Bradley [Notre Dame] on same-sex marriage 14 Nov. 2001)

She is formerly in ‘civil union’ with Prof. Suzanne Goldberg senior attorney for LAMBDA and they are responsible (care for) at least one child Adam. Though Paula Ettelbrick often comments in regard to her children ––‘she hopes her children will complain more about cleaning their room than about their parents being lesbians.’

Suzanne Goldberg is a co-author with Liza Kean of the book– Strangers in Law; Gay People on Trial– Together with Mitchell Katine she represented LAMBDA in overturning the ‘Homosexual Conduct Law’ in Houston- Texas. She is also supporting Jennifer Pizer in suing a Christian Doctor for refusing to inseminate (with donor sperm) a lesbian client. [CNS News 19 Feb 03]

February 2004