Leftist political parties, trendy social engineers, a sympathetic mainstream media, and militant homosexual activists are all ranting about the need for same-sex marriage. It has become a mantra, a touchstone of secular left thinking.
Anyone who dares to question this agenda is treated as a heretic or worse. Our trendy elites would have us believe that everyone is in favour of same-sex marriage – certainly all homosexuals are. But the truth of the matter is far different.
Consider a recent protest rally for homosexual marriage in Melbourne. It had all the usual misinformation, falsehoods and deception. But there was one small bit of honesty to be found amongst it all. Surprisingly, perhaps unintentionally, one homosexual activist gave the game away by actually telling the truth. This is the revealing quote as found in a Melbourne Age article about the rally:
“Providing a reality check, Radical Women spokeswoman Alison Thorne told the Melbourne rally that marriage was an oppressive institution designed to condemn women to lives of slavery, but same-sex couples should nevertheless be equally entitled to it. She then led the crowd in a chant: ‘Kevin Rudd, ALP, we demand equality’.”
Wow, what a great quote. I am sure many fellow homosexuals wished she had simply shut up. And many may be kicking themselves for allowing the MSM to pick up on this juicy quote. Of course it says nothing new. Those of us who are not reliant on a censorious MSM know full well that many, if not most, homosexuals are not even interested in marriage.
Indeed, there has been a longstanding debate amongst homosexuals over the question of homosexual marriage. Some are in favour, some are opposed, and there are many options in between. As one example, one Victorian leader put it this way: “Obviously while there is a lack of unanimity about gay marriage, our human rights must be the same as everyone else’s. If someone wants to get married or doesn’t want to get married, it’s their choice.”
One Australian homosexual lobby group has actually split over this issue. Two committee members have resigned from the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, claiming it has not pushed hard enough for marriage rights. But the Lobby said that marriage reform was “not a priority”.
Consider just a few of many quotes on this issue. An Australian lesbian said this about former Prime Minister John Howard’s attempts to keep marriage as the union of a man and a woman for life: “When it comes to same-sex marriages, John Howard has got us pretty well summed up. We’re not cut out for it. . . . [Heterosexuals are] welcome to it. ‘For life’! It’d be like sitting through one of those interminable bloody Indian films but when you get to the end it starts all over again and you can’t leave. Let’s leave marriage and other drudgery to heterosexuals. They’ve had millenniums of practice. They’re good at child-rearing and taking out the rubbish. I never wanted to be like them, even when I was one of them. . . . Surely we can come up with something better: semi-marriage or quarter-marriage, which would narrow the field down to eight. Or a casual, part-time or temporary marriage. Or even a flexitime marriage.”
And the same lesbian, when asked whether open relationships work, was quite candid in her response: “I don’t know, but I know closed ones don’t. How many good, loving lesbian relationships have floundered on the rock of sexual tedium? That’s what worries me about our demands for holy matrimony because we want to be ‘just like them’. If we go on demanding exclusive access to those we love, our relationships will end in anger and sadness – just like theirs.”
An Australian homosexual activist put it in even stronger terms: “I think gay marriage is an absolute non-starter as an issue. We have spent the last 40 years trying to get the state out of our bedrooms. Why are we now demanding recognition from John Howard? The notion of these extraordinary, creative, avant-guard gay people rushing to cover themselves in grey cardigans and join their straight cousins in the suburbs with some bureaucratic document just sh*ts me.”
Another Australian homosexual said much the same: “Whether we like it or not, marriage is, as John Howard memorably said, a bedrock cultural institution for heterosexuals; and most gay men seek different rules for their relationships.” And activist Dennis Altman even said that homosexual marriage was “a great deal of self-indulgent crap,” although he later tried to tone down his remarks.
Also, a letter writer to a homosexual newspaper, commenting on Altman’s remark, concurs: “Stop being selfish, and centre your efforts on bettering this world for those that still need to get recognition, acceptance and the right to survive peacefully, before you try getting the ability to get legally married so you can get legally divorced a year later.”
But even those in favour of same-sex marriage do not necessarily think in terms of marriage as is commonly accepted. One homosexual writer for example, Andrew Sullivan, writes that if homosexual marriage contracts come into force, they would have to be “different”: that is, they would have to allow for “extra-marital outlets” and other major changes. Of course that undermines the very essence of marriage, which is the covenant of life-long sexual faithfulness.
Indeed, as even homosexual researchers have admitted, monogamy is fairly rare in homosexual relationships. Many homosexual commentators have made it clear that if and when they do achieve the right to “marry” they will demand to radically redefine what that term means. Several examples can be mentioned here.
Lesbian activist Paula Ettelbrick put it this way: “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . . . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . . . 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.”
American homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile makes similar remarks, urging activists 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 that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake – and one that would perhaps benefit society – is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”
And the percentage of homosexuals who actually want marriage rights is very small indeed. In Australia, studies have found that only about one-fifth of homosexuals and lesbians have showed an interest in same-sex marriage. A major article on the subject in the homosexual press found that there are deep divisions over the issue, and same-sex marriage was far from a high priority for most.
So why the push for same-sex marriage?
As many homosexuals themselves admit, a major reason why they want marriage is not so much to be like heterosexuals, or because they want to abandon their more free and promiscuous lifestyle, but because of its symbolic value. It will give them public recognition, approval and acceptance. This has long been the overriding goal of the homosexual lobby: complete social and public endorsement and approval. Thus by getting marriage rights, and, in turn, the last hurdle for gays, full adoption rights, homosexuals will have achieved their longstanding goal: legitimising the gay lifestyle.
A leading American homosexual who has championed the cause of gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, admits that this will be an important effect of same sex marriage: “it will ennoble and dignify gay love and sex as it has done straight love and sex”. Australian homosexual activists have also acknowledged that their attempt to join heterosexuals in marriage is about legitimacy and acceptance.
Consider the words of one leading figure: “this isn’t about sex, it’s about symbolism. Despite, or perhaps because of, an increase in de facto relationships and divorce, many Australians value marriage highly. For better or worse, it bestows on a relationship society’s ultimate seal of approval. This is why social conservatives deeply loathe marriage equality and why, as the inheritors of centuries of stigma, many same-sex couples yearn for it.” That is what these activists really want: social approval. That is why there is such a concentrated effort to redefine marriage by the homosexual lobby. Indeed, the bottom line of all homosexual activism is ultimately just that: complete social acceptance and approval. As homosexual authors Kirk and Madsen put it back in 1989, “to gain straight tolerance and acceptance is not just a legitimate goal of gay activism, it must be the principal goal.”