Warnings tend to fall on deaf ears. The lies of those who seek to destroy us are heard so often and so loudly that far too many people tend to believe them. Those sounding the alarm are dismissed as crackpots and derided accordingly.
Yet truth must always be championed, and warnings of impending harm must always be delivered – even if no one is listening. Some of us have long warned that the homosexual agenda is not about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
We have said repeatedly that this is about the total transformation of society. It is not just about eviscerating the institutions of marriage and family, but of radically remaking all of society in the image of the militants. They have told us their aims, but we have refused to listen.
And they have also been willing to use all sorts of falsehoods and deception to con a gullible public. The militants assure us, for example, that special rights for homosexuals, including marriage and adoption rights, will not affect anyone else. But I have provided example after example of how this is a blatant lie. Everything changes, of necessity, when these special rights are granted.
Everyone is forced to submit to the agenda of the radicals or face the music. If I wrote only on this issue, providing case after case, I will have my work cut out for me. Indeed, my next book on this will feature numerous examples of people being jailed, fined or booted out of their jobs for daring to resist the social engineers, and staying true to their own conscience.
A year ago I wrote about a poor New Mexican photographer who told a lesbian couple he would rather not shoot their ‘wedding,’ but suggested others who would. The Christian couple was dragged to court by the lesbians: billmuehlenberg.com/2012/06/06/even-more-attacks-on-faith-and-freedom/
On Thursday the Supreme Court of New Mexico made a further ruling on this case, and basically declared that Christian conscience must always be trumped by homosexuality. This is very alarming indeed, but many of us have long been saying this would most certainly be the case.
Already much commentary on this decision has been made. Let me draw on just one such piece by Ryan T. Anderson. He writes, “Earlier today, the Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a Christian photographer’s ability to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony—even when doing so would violate the photographer’s deeply held religious beliefs.”
He concludes: “Today’s decision highlights the increasing concern many have that anti-discrimination laws and same-sex marriage run roughshod over the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Thomas Messner, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, has documented multiple instances in which laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as laws redefining marriage, already have eroded religious liberty and the rights of conscience. Indeed, earlier this year, the United States Commission on Civil Rights held an entire hearing on conflicts between nondiscrimination policies and civil liberties such as religious freedom.
“In a growing number of incidents, government hasn’t respected the beliefs of Americans. Citizens must insist that government not discriminate against those who hold to the historic definition of marriage. Policy should prohibit the government—or anyone who receives taxpayers’ dollars—from discriminating in employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting against those who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
“We also must work to see marriage law reflect the truth about marriage. If marriage is redefined, believing what virtually every human society once believed about marriage—that it is the union of a man and a woman ordered to procreation and family life—would be seen increasingly as an irrational prejudice that ought to be driven to the margins of culture. The consequences for religious believers are becoming apparent.”
But this is just one case of many. And behind it all, as I already mentioned, is the radicals’ intention to fundamentally transform society. It is not about “equal rights” or “tolerance” and so on. It is about a revolutionary attempt to destroy the West altogether and replace it with an alien and destructive ideology.
Hilary White has just written on this. She speaks about “The revolution of the family: the Marxist roots of ‘homosexualism’.” She discusses British homosexualist Peter Tatchell and a recent article of his: “Tatchell’s Guardian piece was a paean to a document put together in 1971 by what he describes as a collective of ‘anarchists, hippies, leftwingers, feminists, liberals and counter- culturalists’ to bring about ‘a revolution in consciousness’.
“He called the ‘Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto’ ‘a pioneering agenda for social and personal transformation’ that started with the proposal that ‘subverting the supremacy of heterosexual masculinity was the key to genuine liberation.’ Tatchell said it was the book that changed his life.
“The Manifesto sums it all up, Tatchell says, by ‘critiquing’ ‘homophobia, sexism, marriage, the nuclear family, monogamy, the cults of youth and beauty, patriarchy, the gay ghetto and rigid male and female gender roles’ … the whole kaboodle of the sexual revolution.
“The Manifesto itself is quite blunt about identifying the main enemies to defeat: ‘The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family. Consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.’
“Most tellingly, the Manifesto says that ‘reform,’ in other words ‘equality,’ is never going to be enough; what is needed is a total social revolution, a complete reordering of civilisation. Reform, it said, ‘cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, at worst a sickening perversion. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society’s most basic institution – the Patriarchal Family’.”
Her whole article is worth reading, but she finishes with these words: “The main problem with the homosexualist version of the Marxist dream is that you have to get everyone to agree. And I mean everyone. Marxist theorists have always known that utopia will only work if no one is allowed to raise any objection. Everyone has to agree, and no voice of dissent can be tolerated to pop the soap bubble logic of the enterprise.
“The first voice to be aggressively silenced, as always, is therefore the Church that proposes something rather more rich and (ahem) fertile for man’s destiny than this facile materialism and sensualism. The Church that, furthermore, has a more comprehensive understanding of human nature, and knows that total license is not a recipe for human happiness… far from it.”
What has just occurred in New Mexico, and in hundreds of other places around the West, is a prime example of this very thing. The radicals will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete overthrow of the West, and its utter transformation into a Marxist ‘paradise’. And anyone who has different ideas will be resisted with all their fury, and with all the power of a co-opted state.
But we told you so.