For a while, advocates pushing for the redefinition of marriage did so from behind closed doors, and in a manner that all but guaranteed their efforts could not be traced back to them. In time, however, they began pushing for redefinition in the light, but always with the careful use of a specific lexicon that allowed them to state what they wanted to accomplish while simultaneously not stating it in concrete terms.
And as this shift was undertaken, purveyors of a distorted and expanded view of marriage carefully attempted to appear tolerant of all who disagreed with them.
Whether they wanted to look tolerant or not, doing so was necessary for achieving the redefinition they sought.
Thus, books like 2009’s In Our Mother’s House, a story about two females named Marmee and Meema, a same-sex “couple” with children, presented the “equality” of same-sex households without openly denigrating those who didn’t agree: although they did encourage readers to question the idea that only a mother and a father build a family.
But such feigned amiability was for when the race began, or even when it was still but half-way over. Now, with what they assume to be the finish line in plain sight, even the merest pretense of tolerance is gone. Rather, there is a brutal, and at times confrontational, air to the jurisprudence and public discourse enveloping those pushing for a redefinition of marriage.
We also saw this intolerance earlier this year in Istanbul, where an international congress comprised of 300 young people from across Europe demanded their home countries “grant same-sex couples the same ‘rights’ as couples in civil marriages.” And they backed up their demands with an evidence-free claim that there is “no significant difference between children raised by same-sex couples and heterosexual couples.”
Recommended
Moreover, they demanded that hundreds of laws be changed, the meaning of “family” be redefined, forced “equality” be promoted, children be reconditioned (read “re-educated”) through school programs, and that the European Charter be amended to define marriage as “two persons.”
Of course, there’s not a need to re-educate if you tolerate, nor is there a need to redefine and amend what tolerance abides.
But here’s the problem—there is no tolerance, and there never has been.
Perhaps some of these young people were raised on stories like that of Marmee and Meema? But it’s more likely they were indoctrinated by academicians and entertainment outlets devoted to the redefinition of marriage and the overthrow of Western Civilization.
We see this same intolerance in New York, where a female same-sex couple is suing St. Joe’s Catholic hospital for denying spousal health care benefits.
This very suit provides a microcosm of how the push for the redefinition of marriage has worked, inasmuch as the law redefining marriage in New York was passed with promises of tolerance for dissenters—particularly religious dissenters—in June 2011. Yet as this case demonstrates, there is no actual tolerance for the religious convictions of the administration at St. Joe’s.
As the Alliance Defense Fund accurately predicted some years ago, the calls for “tolerance” on the part of same-sex “marriage” proponents have long been covers for a broader agenda of absolute intolerance. Now, “Marmee and Meema” and promises to change everything while giving lip-service to preserving the right to dissent have given way to redefining, rewriting, re-educating, and rewording everything that went before.
And where these efforts fail, the power of the courts to enforce the new intolerance is brought to bear on any religious person or institution or religiously affiliated institution that dares to stand its ground.
It’s brave new world…minus the bravery.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member