As Brendan O'Neill noted a few days ago,
"Instead of saying 'We can finally get married', the most common response to the referendum result from both the leaders of the Yes campaign and their considerable army of supporters in the media and political classes has been: 'Gays have finally been validated.' Across the spectrum, from the drag queens who led the Yes lobby to the right-wing politicians who backed them, all the talk was of 'recognition', not marriage. Ireland’s deputy PM Joan Burton said the Yes vote was about 'acceptance in your own country'. Writing in the Irish Examiner, apsychotherapist said 'the referendum was about more than marriage equality… it was about validation and full acceptance [of gay people]'. (Tellingly, Ireland’s psychotherapy industry played a key role in backing the Yes campaign.) PM Enda Kenny also said the referendum was about more than marriage — it was a question of gay people’s 'fragile and deeply personal hopes [being] realised'. Or in the words of novelist Joseph O'Connor, the Yes vote was an act of 'societal empathy' with a section of the population.
"The official Yes campaign went so far as to describe the Yes victory as a boost for the health and wellbeing of all Irish citizens, especially gay ones. A spokespersonsaid 'the effect of legal equality goes beyond the letter of the law… it enters our daily lives and our interaction with others'. In 'embracing' gay people, Ireland had 'improv[ed] the health and wellbeing of all our citizens'. In short, the Yes result made people feel good."
O'Neill is somewhat correct here, but he's neglected one important aspect of the homosexual agenda (whether Ireland, America, or elsewhere). This isn't simply about "validation," or "recognition," or making people "feel good," or the "boosting of esteem." Neither is this about "discrimination." This is an attempt, using the full power of the law, to force the moral legitimization of homosexual behavior upon all who sit under such law. And it is about revenge upon all those—past and present—who have stood, and continue to stand in the way of such "progress." And once such power of the law is obtained, the liberals behind the homosexual agenda will make good use of it. Once again, we were warned.
A decade ago, George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley, a supporter of same-sex "marriage," wrote that, "As states accept same-sex marriage and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, conflicts will grow between the government and discriminatory organizations. There will be many religious-based organizations that will refuse to hire individuals who are homosexual or members of a same-sex marriage. If those individuals are holding a state license of marriage or civil union, it will result in a discriminatory act that was not only based on sexual orientation, but a lawful state status."
The same year, Doug Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, and an opponent of gay marriage, said, "Were federal equal protection or substantive due process to be construed to require states to license same-sex marriage, those who have profound moral or religious objection to the social affirmation of homosexual conduct would be argued to be the out-liers of civil society." Therefore, he argues that churches could be targeted for legal penalties and disadvantages as were universities that participated in racial discrimination decades ago. He added that, "This is hardly a far-fetched (idea), as apparently one of the main aspirations of the homosexual movement is retaliation against the defenders of traditional marriage."
Five years later in 2010, after U.S. District Court Judge Vaugn Walker overturned the will of the California people by declaring Proposition 8--which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman--unconstitutional, Dan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage declared that, “The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry.”
Of course, few of us are unaware of the ever-growing long list of those who have suffered the wrath of the "gaystapo" that seeks to enforce the perverse homosexual agenda. Unless the legal tide in favor of homosexuality is stemmed, Christian conservatives and their like-minded political and cultural allies will continue to find themselves on the wrong side of the law in this battle. If nothing else, I suppose we will then find out who's really devoted to the truth.
Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World