There are key battles which define a generation. Back in the 60s the counter culture unleashed a torrent of radical liberation movements, which included the horrific abortion onslaught. It became one of the key fights for the past half century. It still continues of course, but other major battlefronts have appeared since then.
The most obvious example today is the war being fought over marriage. This is just as significant and monumental a battle as is the battle for life. It is a defining moment for the entire Western world, and it will have repercussions for the entire world.
To destroy the institution of marriage by redefining it out of existence is a social upheaval so momentous and so far-reaching that we cannot even clearly predict just how much damage will ensue. Everything will change when we gut the institution of marriage of its core components. The Pandora’s Box opened will surely not easily be shut.
A new piece by Jennifer Thieme on this very issue is well worth highlighting here. Entitled “The Roe v. Wade of Our Time: The Battle Over Marriage,” she rightly argues about the fundamental importance of this battle. She begins:
“Traditional marriage really means gendered marriage. It means that marriage, as a public policy, has a gender requirement – each gender must be present. This is why we see terms like ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ on marriage licenses. We have historically recognized this gender diversity as a fundamental feature of marriage due to the procreation that can happen between the couple.
“‘Gay marriage’ is a change in policy from gendered marriage to genderless marriage. Marriage licenses and other areas of law surrounding marriage and children will be forced to remove references to gender such as ‘bride,’ ‘groom,’ ‘husband,’ ‘wife,’ ‘mother,’ ‘father.’ These terms will be replaced with gender neutral terms such as ‘spouse,’ ‘partner,’ ‘parent,’ etc. This is why the accommodation of gay people into the institution of marriage changes marriage from gendered to genderless. Now you can understand why this change is not simply allowing gay couples ‘equal rights,’ and why it is not analogous to the ban on interracial marriage that was overturned in 1967.”
Indeed, so far-reaching are these changes that everyone will be adversely affected. And it will of necessity mean the increased power and control of the state over every one of us. So the push by the secular lefties for homosexual marriage is just as much about the push for more coercive government control and dominance over everything. She continues:
“Unfortunately, the change from gendered marriage to genderless marriage will bring about the most sweeping and uncompassionate power grab of the State into family life we have ever witnessed. It’s because we will be replacing an objective, pre-political reason for marriage (procreation of children, and public recognition of parents’ attachment to them) with a subjective, state-defined one (love, equality, time spent with the child, etc). Gendered marriage is the only institution we have that publicly recognizes and affirms the biological connection children have with their parents. Genderless marriage removes this. Thus, gendered marriage is far more compassionate than genderless marriage.
“Conservatives, and libertarians for that matter, should be extremely alarmed at the change from gendered marriage to genderless marriage. How many have heard the story of Lisa Miller, the bio mom who lost custody of her bio daughter to her former lesbian lover due to their civil union? The lover is not related to the child by blood or adoption, and this did not matter to the judge who made the ruling. Lisa escaped with her daughter to Central America. Her name appears on the FBI and INTERPOL Wanted Lists for parental kidnapping, and the Amish pastor who helped her escape has been convicted of ‘aiding an international parental kidnapping of a minor.’ He might be looking at three years jail time.
“Lisa’s biological connection to her own daughter was disregarded in favor of a public policy aimed at promoting equality. The objective, natural, and pre-political reality lost, and the subjective, artificial, and state defined reality won.
“Imagine the precedence this case sets for all families. Imagine the sorts of incentives that will be institutionalized and promoted once genderless marriage becomes the norm. Where is the compassion here? Is this really the world we want, one where biological connections no longer have priority in the eyes of the law?”
She concludes: “As far as social issues go, the battle over marriage is the Roe v. Wade of our time. In 1973 most conservatives (or liberals for that matter) would never have dreamed we’d be looking at 50 million abortions by this time. We’re at a similar point now with the battle between gendered marriage and genderless marriage. Genderless marriage will be the most sweeping power grab over families and children ever witnessed in our country, and we won’t be able to get our freedoms back once it’s in place. Liberals probably do not care about replacing a natural and pre-political institution with an artificial and state defined one … but conservatives and libertarians should be up in arms over it.
“We must be willing to safeguard our natural and pre-political liberties at whatever cost to us personally, or else we will lose them. I am sincerely afraid that good people are backing away from the support of gendered marriage due to fear and ignorance, not because they proactively understand the consequences of genderless marriage. We must take courage and do what is right, because the change we’re debating will impact our posterity far more than it will impact us. After all, most of us had a mom and a dad, but we’re telling future generations to be happy with ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2.’
“Remember: gendered marriage is the compassionate choice.”
Yes quite so. This is the defining battle of our time. If we lose marriage and family, we will eventually lose Western civilisation. But of course that is just what the radicals want.
An Australian Labor MP’s bill to legalise same-sex marriage has been overwhemingly defeated in the House of Representatives. The result of the vote was 42-98.
This is not the end of the battle by any means, but a wonderful victory along the way. Thanks to all of you who prayed and worked so hard to make this happen.
All glory to God.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Yes Bill, fantastic news! I feel like crying for joy. I have not long sent off an e-mail to my fellow pastors to urging them to contact their Federal members re this “gay marriage” bill, pointing out that the same arguments are being used for polyamory, polygamy and bestiality.
This was after I read that Cory Bernardi had resigned from his secretarial position, after his remarks had pointed out the same thing. As yet, I don’t know whether he was pushed, or precisely what his remarks said, but it angered me that his employer did not defend that position.
There is not only anger, but sorrow for this event. Why should step anyone step down or be pushed out in this “diverse and tolerant” society for their views? TIC.
But as you say, “All glory to God.”
Robert Greggery.
The Senator in Question compared Bestiality to Gay marriage. Certainly not the smart thing to do. There is a slippery slope argument, but that is not one to do for this argument.
Ian Nairn
Thanks Ian
Of course Cori did not compare SSM with bestiality. What he did very correctly state was that once a society votes to legalise SSM, then it is only a matter of time before polygamy and other things, even bestiality, will seriously be considered. He is 100% right there, and it is already in fact happening
What happened to Cori Bernardi is exactly what the rest of us can expect if marriage is ever redefined (disintegrated) in Australia.
The most mind numbing thing is that any insignificant fact checking demonstrates how correct Bernardi is: the polygamists have been clinging to exactly the same arguments for a very long time – victimization, inequality, isolation, misunderstood, bigotry, love love love.
God bless Bernardi for standing in truth at significant personal cost. May we all have the courage in God to do likewise.
Simon Fox
Ian, I’m sorry to disagree with you, but that is precisely the slippery slope argument that needs to be made.
Moral relativism, particularly in this area as espoused by the execrable Professor Peter Singer, defines the slippery slope – anything goes, as long as you can persuade the community to accept it.
Unless the West gets back to moral absolutes ie. God’s Law, then the slippery slope will have us sliding down there, and we will face the same judgement as Sodom and Gomorrah – worse, because we should know even better than they what we have done.
I am praying for Sen Bernardi’s swift vindication, and even bigger votes to defeat the remaining Bills.
John Angelico
Thanks guys
And yet even more terrific news! The Australian Senate has just voted on homosexual marriage with another big defeat! Both votes were supposed to be cliff-hangers, yet both were massive wins.
Here is how it all went:
HoR 98 no 42 yes
Sen 41 no 26 yes
Total 139 no 68 yes
A huge win indeed. Many thanks for all your prayers, all your hard work, and all your concern. It has all paid off big time here. Glory to God.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Has there ever been a parliamentary enquiry into the subject? If so, the paper you mentioned above should be presented there. Those with more than air between their ears should be able to follow the argument.
A friend of mine suggested we should set up a social experiment and test the outcomes before we enshrine something into law. So, if we can find an island somewhere with a good climate and fertile soil and send all the people who don’t want to stick with traditional marriage there to establish their society there which will no doubt flurrish and need no mainland government financial or social bale out, because it will be so good and prosperous we will all be blown away with its good results.
Good idea, don’t you think, since we are such an “evidence based” society, they should grab the idea with both hands and run with it.
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett
Ursula, it’s already happening! New Zealand is the “island somewhere with a good climate and fertile soil” carrying out the social experiment you suggest. Sadly, our parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour or redefining marriage (so far, it’s through the first reading to Select Committee).
Just as NZ is a military liability to Australia, so we will become a social liability to Australia. 1,000 NZers migrate to Australia each week – it’s only a matter of time before same sex married people make up a significant portion of that number and then our experiment will become Australia’s problem…
The problem is, we never learn from our mistakes – no one cares what the results of this or other social experiments are, so long as they get their way!
Of course, a good many people here are still fighting to keep marriage as God gave it.
Paul Goodenough, NZ
Stay strong, Paul. You have one of most naturally beautiful countries in the world there. Hopefully The Lord can turn things around and make it one of the most spiritually beautiful as well. I’ll keep NZ in my prayers.
Mick Koster
Thanks for your encouragement and prayers for NZ, Mick.
As we have looked more closely at the Marriage Act 1955 (NZ) we realise how strongly the government of the day viewed marriage and wanted to protect it (rightly or wrongly). We have discovered Section 56 makes it an offence to allege that any persons lawfully married are not truly married. “Allege” means a verbal or published statement. At a stretch, some may suggest the Bible (and God Himself) would be guilty of breaking that law if same sex people may lawfully marry!
Paul Goodenough
Auckland, N.Z.
Fantastic News!!!
An Australian Labor MP’s bill to legalise same-sex marriage has been overwhemingly defeated in the House of Representatives. The result of the vote was 42-98.
This is not the end of the battle by any means, but a wonderful victory along the way. Thanks to all of you who prayed and worked so hard to make this happen.
All glory to God.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Yes Bill, fantastic news! I feel like crying for joy. I have not long sent off an e-mail to my fellow pastors to urging them to contact their Federal members re this “gay marriage” bill, pointing out that the same arguments are being used for polyamory, polygamy and bestiality.
This was after I read that Cory Bernardi had resigned from his secretarial position, after his remarks had pointed out the same thing. As yet, I don’t know whether he was pushed, or precisely what his remarks said, but it angered me that his employer did not defend that position.
There is not only anger, but sorrow for this event. Why should step anyone step down or be pushed out in this “diverse and tolerant” society for their views? TIC.
But as you say, “All glory to God.”
Robert Greggery.
The Senator in Question compared Bestiality to Gay marriage. Certainly not the smart thing to do. There is a slippery slope argument, but that is not one to do for this argument.
Ian Nairn
Thanks Ian
Of course Cori did not compare SSM with bestiality. What he did very correctly state was that once a society votes to legalise SSM, then it is only a matter of time before polygamy and other things, even bestiality, will seriously be considered. He is 100% right there, and it is already in fact happening
I discuss Cori a bit here:
https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/09/19/tremendous-win-for-marriage/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
What happened to Cori Bernardi is exactly what the rest of us can expect if marriage is ever redefined (disintegrated) in Australia.
The most mind numbing thing is that any insignificant fact checking demonstrates how correct Bernardi is: the polygamists have been clinging to exactly the same arguments for a very long time – victimization, inequality, isolation, misunderstood, bigotry, love love love.
God bless Bernardi for standing in truth at significant personal cost. May we all have the courage in God to do likewise.
Simon Fox
Ian, I’m sorry to disagree with you, but that is precisely the slippery slope argument that needs to be made.
Moral relativism, particularly in this area as espoused by the execrable Professor Peter Singer, defines the slippery slope – anything goes, as long as you can persuade the community to accept it.
Unless the West gets back to moral absolutes ie. God’s Law, then the slippery slope will have us sliding down there, and we will face the same judgement as Sodom and Gomorrah – worse, because we should know even better than they what we have done.
I am praying for Sen Bernardi’s swift vindication, and even bigger votes to defeat the remaining Bills.
John Angelico
Thanks guys
And yet even more terrific news! The Australian Senate has just voted on homosexual marriage with another big defeat! Both votes were supposed to be cliff-hangers, yet both were massive wins.
Here is how it all went:
HoR 98 no 42 yes
Sen 41 no 26 yes
Total 139 no 68 yes
A huge win indeed. Many thanks for all your prayers, all your hard work, and all your concern. It has all paid off big time here. Glory to God.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Has there ever been a parliamentary enquiry into the subject? If so, the paper you mentioned above should be presented there. Those with more than air between their ears should be able to follow the argument.
A friend of mine suggested we should set up a social experiment and test the outcomes before we enshrine something into law. So, if we can find an island somewhere with a good climate and fertile soil and send all the people who don’t want to stick with traditional marriage there to establish their society there which will no doubt flurrish and need no mainland government financial or social bale out, because it will be so good and prosperous we will all be blown away with its good results.
Good idea, don’t you think, since we are such an “evidence based” society, they should grab the idea with both hands and run with it.
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett
Ursula, it’s already happening! New Zealand is the “island somewhere with a good climate and fertile soil” carrying out the social experiment you suggest. Sadly, our parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour or redefining marriage (so far, it’s through the first reading to Select Committee).
Just as NZ is a military liability to Australia, so we will become a social liability to Australia. 1,000 NZers migrate to Australia each week – it’s only a matter of time before same sex married people make up a significant portion of that number and then our experiment will become Australia’s problem…
The problem is, we never learn from our mistakes – no one cares what the results of this or other social experiments are, so long as they get their way!
Of course, a good many people here are still fighting to keep marriage as God gave it.
Paul Goodenough, NZ
Stay strong, Paul. You have one of most naturally beautiful countries in the world there. Hopefully The Lord can turn things around and make it one of the most spiritually beautiful as well. I’ll keep NZ in my prayers.
Mick Koster
Thanks for your encouragement and prayers for NZ, Mick.
As we have looked more closely at the Marriage Act 1955 (NZ) we realise how strongly the government of the day viewed marriage and wanted to protect it (rightly or wrongly). We have discovered Section 56 makes it an offence to allege that any persons lawfully married are not truly married. “Allege” means a verbal or published statement. At a stretch, some may suggest the Bible (and God Himself) would be guilty of breaking that law if same sex people may lawfully marry!
Paul Goodenough
Auckland, N.Z.