'Gay marriage' spark to spread wildfire?

'Gay marriage' spark to spread wildfire?
WorldNetDaily ^ | 10-28-06 | J. Matt Barber

Posted on 10/29/2006 6:28:29 AM PST by Woodland

You can put a pig in a mini-skirt, high heals and lipstick and call him Angelina Jolie, but he's still a pig just the same. That's just what pro-homosexual activists are trying to do this election season in Colorado. No, they haven't partnered with PETA to raise awareness about the systematic discrimination of "transgendered" farm animals; but what they have done is enter into a clever and disingenuous game of political semantics relative to the so-called "gay-marriage" debate.

On Nov. 7, Coloradans will vote on Referendum I.

What is Referendum I? Well, opponents say that it's a clear attempt by homosexual activists to circumvent Colorado's marriage protection laws and legalize "gay marriage" through sleight of hand, while calling it something else. They assert that it's a not so thinly veiled attempt to pass off counterfeit marriage beneath that innocuous pseudonym we've all come to know – "Domestic Partnerships." (The bill associated with the referendum is the "Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act.")

Proponents claim that the referendum doesn't codify "gay marriage," but rather, simply grants certain legal protections to homosexual couples that they cannot otherwise obtain.

So, who's lying?

One can derive the answer by looking at the unequivocal language of the referendum itself: The Colorado Legislative Council's "Blue Book" analysis of the ballot initiative states that Referendum I "creates a new legal relationship, called a domestic partnership, providing same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the legal protections and responsibilities granted to married couples by Colorado law." The text of the Referendum indicates the bill's intent "to extend to same-sex couples in a Domestic Partnership the benefits, protections and responsibilities that are granted by Colorado law to spouses."

So the verdict's in, and the jury wasn't out long – guilty as charged. "Domestic Partnerships" as defined under Referendum I, are very simply "gay marriages" by another name.

So, why all the fuss?

We've all heard the old adage "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile." Well, in this case, If Coloradans pass Referendum I, it will be the first time that "domestic partnerships" will have been approved by the voters of a state, and it will require thousands of changes to existing Colorado state law, at a high cost to the taxpayer.

Under these circumstances, that old "give 'em an inch" adage will be inverted. Colorado voters will have essentially given 'em a mile – and with little effort, homosexual activists will take the last inch.

We've seen it time and time again. Liberal activist courts are all too happy to accommodate the very vocal and very motivated homosexual lobby. If Referendum I passes, then in very short order the courts, under the guise of equal protection under the law, will require that the term "marriage" be included among the "benefits, protections, and responsibilities" now afforded to "domestic partners." And what difference does it really make? What's in a word, when one already enjoys the substance of what that word defines?

That's the strategy, folks. And voters in other states need to sit up and take notice. Colorado is clearly the test market in this new, end-around attempt to radically redefine marriage.

If "Domestic Partnerships" are legalized via ballot initiative in Colorado (a traditionally red state), then it's guaranteed that the homosexual lobby will eagerly fan the flames of pseudo-tolerance, until similar initiatives have spread like wildfire and are placed on the ballot in every single state in the union.

Don't be fooled by the homosexual lobby's benign language and incessant use of their favorite straw man – equality. Homosexuals can easily obtain all the legal protections they claim to seek through various legal instruments such as a living will, power of attorney and other contractual relationships.

No, the agenda is unfortunately much more sinister than that. It seeks not only to blur the lines between male and female, "gay" and straight; but desperately seeks to obliterate all distinctions between male and female, "gay" and straight. It seeks to entirely undermine, if not destroy, traditional notions of marriage and family.

So-called "homosexual marriage" – whether it's called "same-sex marriage," "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" – is counterfeit marriage. It will never be true marriage. Homosexual activists know this in their heart of hearts. But if the law of the land recognizes "homosexual marriage" as equal to legitimate marriage, then by default, marriage is rendered pointless. If everything is marriage, than nothing is marriage at all.

This is the mission underlying Colorado's Referendum I, and this will be the mission behind the deluge of similar state initiatives sure to follow should Referendum I become law. It's up to the voters of Colorado to dump a bucket of cold water on this "gay marriage" spark before it's allowed to engulf and destroy marriage as we know it – before it's allowed to wipe out marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years.

It's up to the voters of Colorado to vote no on Referendum I. America will be watching.

Related special offer:

"The Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation"

#####

J. Matt Barber is general counsel for Americans for Truth and is a conservative, pro-family political strategist. As a former undefeated professional boxer, Barber now fights his battles in the ring of culture and policy. He received both his law degree and Master of Arts in public policy from Regent University. Matt is a contributing editor for TheConservativeVoice.com, and a contributor to the Washington Times' "Insight Magazine," AmericanThinker.com, and a number of other top online and print publications.