A legal Pandora’s box


Although a majority of Americans do not favor gay marriage, many believe that the institution of marriage will be redefined. They believe that the historic position of our nation (and of human history) will be rejected as a relic of ignorance and bigotry.

Yet the current changes counted as victories for gay marriage are not happening because the people want it this way, but by judicial coercion; not by democracy but by oligarchy.

A number of years ago, I suggested that legalization of gay marriage as a civil right will open a legal Pandora’s box throughout the nation. When I said this at a University open forum, a visiting law professor rejected my assertion. She was then countered by a highly recognized lawyer in the audience who listed cases currently in the courts that validated my concerns.

I recently stated that it would be more politically and legally amendable and create less social unrest if the gay community said, “All we want is marriage and the benefits that come with it. We are not asking for civil rights status as a minority group along the lines of racial identity. We are not asking for businesses and Churches to be forced to affirm gay marriage. We are not asking for curriculum changes at the schools to include gay marriage and families.”

Instead of this approach, we’re seeing growing numbers of lawsuits aimed at those who hold religious convictions against gay marriage. Religious freedoms of Americans are clearly being threatened over gay marriage.

Gay activists are determined to force the public to bow to the sexual preferences of a very small percentage of our population. If they are successful, people will not be permitted to teach the historical view of our nation and the view Jesus taught that marriage is a gift from God for male and female (Matthew 19:4-6). If you hold to this view, you’ll be forced into public silence or threatened with the accusation of discrimination under federal law.

We must remind ourselves of the explicit and deceptive strategy that has been used to change public opinion. Beyond media efforts to normalize the homosexual lifestyle, the public has been subjected to an endless manipulation of words and ideas to promote the sexual lifestyle of those who prefer same gender sex.

The seven points in the link below survey the distortions of truth used to change the way the public thinks about sexuality and marriage. My purpose in exposing the agenda is not to force my beliefs on others or to suggest that I am more righteous. We simply must recognize the manipulation and deception for the sake of discernment and rational dialogue.

See: The strategy has seven key tactics 

Steve Cornell

About Wisdomforlife

Just another worker in God's field.
This entry was posted in Democracy, Democrats, Diversity, Equal Rights, Equality, Gay, Gay Marriage?, Gender, Hate speech, Homosexual lifestyle, Homosexuality and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to A legal Pandora’s box

  1. What do you want, precisely?

    Do you want to prevent gay people from marrying those they love?

    Do you want to prevent gay children from having sex education which is appropriate to them, and thereby being freed from crippling self-doubt and self-rejection?

    What do you fear?

    Do you fear that anyone might be converted to being gay?

    On Jesus, he was asked about divorce, not about whether gay people who loved each other should live together. You are distorting his message.

  2. If you read my post, you’ll notice I am saying that the issue of gay lifestyle or gay marriage should not be given status with race or gender as a civil rights issue. People can change, restrain sexual behaviors. What do you have to say to those who left the homosexual lifestyle to pursue God’s will for their lives? Are they condemned by gays for choosing to leave the gay lifestyle? Comparisons of desires for same gender sex with the race or gender one is born with are false and manipulative. There is not a bit of reliable evidence to support it outside of the professed desires of those who want same sex relationships. Also, Jesus gave the only divine plan for marriage that came from God — male and female. Anything else is contrary to the will of God.

    • I notice that you imply, falsely, that I did not read your post, and that you fail to answer my questions. However, what do I say to ex-gays? That they are confused, and wrong about God’s will. Gays condemn them for pretending to others that God, or any moral or other reason, suggests that they should deny their God-given sexuality. They increase oppression of others. That is destructive. Sometimes they do so because they make money at it, speaking to audiences like you. That is wicked.

  3. “Although a majority of Americans do not favor gay marriage”

    Wrong. A majority, specifically 53%, favor it. http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/sex-marriage-support-solidifies-above.aspx

    • While it’s true that more people today are accepting of gay marriage than a decade ago, many just don’t care one way or another so it’s hard to get accurate data on this. Obviously, the majority choose heterosexual marriage with gay only being 2-3 percent. This is true until you step on their freedoms and accuse them of hateful bigotry for disagreeing as in the Chic-Fil-A and Duck Dynasty and Cracker Barrel cases. Then they come out by the hundreds of thousands to say enough is enough!

      It’s likely that a majority still support traditional marriage. But their passivity and opposition toward gay marriage should not be read as phobia or hate toward people who choose a gay lifestyle. Those who project hate, bigotry and fear should be firmly corrected for wrongfully impugning the motives of people who disagree with them. Civil people will not remain silent in the face of this kind of manipulation, false accusation and intolerance.

      • “It’s likely that a majority still support traditional marriage.”

        No, it’s not.

        And ‘support traditional marriage’ is a silly phrase. I support both gay and straight couples getting married, and supporting one doesn’t mean I don’t support the other.

      • “Favor” is too strong a word for the overall ambivalence that people feel toward the issue. The polls are deceptive — until you force or coerce or wrongly impugn people. Then (as the cases I pointed to) they come out by hundreds of thousands to say, “Don’t tell a business owner that he cannot make a statement of support for traditional marriage or we’ll give him the best year of business he has ever had – Chic-Fil_A.” “Don’t take Duck Dynasty stuff off your shelves to make a statement about gay marriage or we’ll stop patronizing your business” – thus Cracker Barrel’s quick reversal of their decision. Don’t maliciously impugn Phil Robertson or you’ll hear from a million supporters of the show. These are hard numbers not superficial polls.

      • Yes, but 40% of Americans are still wrong, and that’s plenty enough to give a chicken restaurant good business.

      • Wrong? Says whom? Are you making yourself judge on the matter? If you don’t believe in absolute truth, why wouldn’t you say, “40 percent see things differently but they have every right to their opinion and I could never say they are right or wrong.” Interesting.

      • I believe that right and wrong are determined by harm and benefit.

        More harm is caused by denying benefits to homosexual couples. No harm is caused to straight couples if gays are allowed to be married.

        Therefore, the anti-gay are wrong.

      • And the rest of humanity must yield to your definitions of “harm and benefit”? Or, are these just your opinions without any binding effect on those who have different opinions? Always interesting to hear atheists invoke moral authority!

      • “And the rest of humanity must yield to your definitions of “harm and benefit”?”

        Must? Nope. Should? Probably.

        “Or, are these just your opinions without any binding effect on those who have different opinions?”

        They’re my opinions and conveniently seem to match federal law in most cases.

      • Do you think gay marriage is legal in a growing number of states because the democratic process led to it? Think again. In state after state, the courts thumbed their judicial noses at the public and forced their opinion of sexuality on entire states. Are we an oligarchy or a democracy? Is this what representation was meant to be?

        Even more disturbing is how all of this has been done under a contrived sense of evolutionary progress. By changing the terms from “sexual preference” to sexual orientation,” people give themselves the delusional sense that they are progressive. “The infantile notions of by-gone eras are left behind,” we’re told. Yet there is no reliable scientific evidence to support comparing the kinds of sex people want with the race they are born with. If you want a same-sex relationship as a consenting adult, you’re free to have one in every state of the nation. But to ask the whole country to equate the kind of sex you want with unalterable realities like race and gender, not only lacks scientific evidence, it removes sexuality from moral categories and offends people who are turning away from the lifestyle.

        If the state offers gay couples benefits and privileges that come with legal marriage, it should not be done as a civil right for a special class of citizens. This would violate the religious and individual freedoms of those who disagree with homosexual behavior. If the state equates homosexuality with race, people will be obligated to honor it under threat of civil law. Manipulating the category of civil rights like this will only cause deeper alienation between gays and society. Is this what we want? I don’t.

      • “Do you think gay marriage is legal in a growing number of states because the democratic process led to it? ”

        Do I care if I think allowing gay marriage is the moral choice? No…no I do not care.

        If they voted, the democratic process would have allowed slavery to continue longer than it did. We have judiciary for just such a purpose.

        “Even more disturbing is how all of this has been done under a contrived sense of evolutionary progress.”

        No it hasn’t.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s