Skip to comments.To Understand the Democratic Party’s Re-definition of Marriage - Follow the Money!
Posted on 10/06/2012 5:58:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
Our country made history in 2008 when we elected our first black president. The 2012 election is already historic as well, but for a much less promising reason. This year marks the first time in history that a major political party has put the redefinition of marriage into its national platform.
The obvious question for many of my friends was, "Why are they in such a hurry?" If their victory is so inevitable, as they always tell the mainstream media; if the next generation is as likely to fall into their grasp as they think; why dont they just trust the process? The answer is simple. Its not as easy as they project.
The radical gay marriage, activist sect within the Democratic Party knows that their time is short. They also know that a win by President Obama is not guaranteed. Think about it this way: if President Obama loses the race this year - its internal "civil union" may turn into a political divorce within 18 to 24 months. A large number of Democrats, perhaps the majority, have not evolved on same-sex marriage or other major wedge issues of our day. These so called wedge issues are actually the most important moral and spiritual issues of our day. Devout Christians believe that God will either bless or curse America based on her faithful execution of His will on these issues.
In light of this kind of sentiment the following excerpt for the current Democratic Platform reads:
We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference. We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.
Democratic National Committee Platform 2012
I appreciate the nod to religious freedom, but we already know that churches have been threatened with government action for refusing to perform ceremonies for homosexual couples. Most recently a church meeting in Miami-Dade County public schools was warned of its possible expulsion from the facilities for their teaching against homosexuality. But even if our religious liberty were not being seriously threatened, we should pause to consider what caused the Democratic National Committee to make this unprecedented move.
My purpose is not to pick on one party. My purpose is to point out how serious our situation has become for ANY major political party who would dare to place these words in their platform. This is a drastic shift for the Democrats. For those who dont remember, the Defense of Marriage Act the platform pledges to repeal was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996. It allowed states to refuse to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states. This means that as recently as sixteen years ago, there was a consensus between BOTH parties that, at minimum, homosexual marriage should not be forced on citizens who did not agree to it. In fact, support was building across the country for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution, which would have protected marriage from redefinition once and for all.
How quickly things have changed! While public opinion has shifted some, the opinion of certain elected officials has shifted much faster and much farther toward the agenda of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) activists. Why could this be?
Here is how the Human Rights Campaignan lobbying organization that raises hundreds of millions of dollars to promote the LGBT agendaexplains what has happened on the federal level: Twice in 2004 and 2006 HRC led the successful fight against the Federal Marriage Amendment [which would have protected traditional marriage] The massive field and lobbying effort in 2004, coupled with a $1 million TV, print and online advertising campaign, effectively communicated the message....
Christians are often criticized for being too concerned about politics, but in reality, we are outspent in these fights 3 to 1 or even 100 to 1. When the mayors of Boston, San Francisco, Chicago and Washington, DC boasted that they would deny Chick-fil-A the right to do business based on its owners personal belief in traditional marriage, they did so with no fear of backlash or negative consequences. What does this tell us? It tells us that, at least in those cities, the LGBT lobby is so powerful that they can easily protect a politician who fights for what they want.
When our president announced his evolution on the issue of redefining marriage to include homosexual couples, many people were confused. What did he hope to gain? Multiple news outlets, including the Washington Post and the New York Times noted that he raised tens of millions of dollars from LGBT donors within hours of his announcement. If you want to know why marriage is threatened in our country, just follow the money.
Has anyone seen the commercial about how it’s so wrong to deport illigals because we don’t recognize homosexual “marriage”? Talk about a sickening propaganda piece. Some gals exclaims, “You mean they’re deporting you just because you’re gay?” I guess being illegal has no bearing - oh, wait, it’s a “liberal” group pushing the ad...
1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
the context is awesome:
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
1Ti 6:6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
1Ti 6:7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
1Ti 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
1Ti 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
1Ti 6:11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
1Ti 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
“We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples”
“... and we don’t support secure equal treatment under the law for children because we think it’s fine to deny children the loving care of a mother or a father.”
Hypocrites all of them. My lib in laws just found out their little girl who is divorced is now playing for the other team. They are devastated. I told my wife they are hypocrites and frankly I dnt care either way and she got in my face about it.
Hey, they are the enlightened progressives. I am just the knuckle dragging homophobe.
Why would your LIB in-laws be devastated that their daughter is a homosexual? After all, shouldn’t it be celebrated? Funny how libs think homosexuality is wonderful until their own children come out of the closet. Look at Cher! She was initially devastated by Chastity’s revelation, too.
Sadly, they usually “come around” and start advocating once again for the disorder. It’s incredible that they dismiss the fact that they knew in their heart of hearts that it’s wrong, otherwise they wouldn’t have that initial reaction.
The perverted homosexuals chant they want equal rights. With equality comes equal ability. When two perverted homosexuals can conceive a child they may have a chance.
"....and we don't support efforts of parents to protect their kids from "chicken dinner" headhunters like ourselves, or keep them from
being seduced, betrayed, sexualized before their years and delivered into lifelong problems, health complications, moral and personal compromise, and the possibility of total loss of life purpose being helped to discover their sexuality by helpful adults helpfully helping themselves, in a helping and helpful manner.
</off vast, black lies and mendacity>
Ah, a little moment of truth, eh? How dare you, you, you .... you knuckledragger you! No compassion, no, um, um ....
Well, you get the idea.
You're in the good space there, FRiend. Just hang on and don't take anything off them. Oh, but watch out -- once they get over their initial shock and dismay, your in-laws will double-down on the left-wing righteousness, and your wife may try to beat concessions out of you, because your normality is still a standing insult to homos everywhere and a challenge to their twisted version of space-time.
I will ping this out in a bit when my stomach feels a bit more settled.
Thanks for the ping.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I don't think it's just the money. It's because Democrats want destruction. That's why leftists and Muzlims have such a comfy relationship - they both love destruction. I will post the real reasons homosexuals want same sex marriage shortly. I do think the Dems' reason is more than just money.
Here’s this list again, wish I’d saved links, but I compiled this a long time ago.
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be 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... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“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. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
This quote is taken far out of context. Maggie Gallagher is one of our nation's foremost defenders of traditional marriage, since the early '90s. Please remove that quote from your list. Wolfson was probably quoting her out of context so he could torture Maggie Gallagher.
Thank you for pointing that out. I assumed that she was quoting someone else, using that as an exampe of what homosexual activists say; but it does look as though she is stating that as her opinion, now that I think about it.
I will remove it from my list!
1972 Gay Rights Platform
May 22, 2010 // american family association of pa // Homosexual Agenda
THE 1972 GAY RIGHTS PLATFORM
(Formulated in Chicago, Illinois.)
1. Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public services. (1972 Federal-1)
2. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance into the Armed Services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges for homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously issued, with retroactive benefits. (1972 Federal-2)
3. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal civil service because of sexual orientation, in hiring and promoting; and prohibiting discriminations against homosexuals in security clearances. (1972 Federal-3)
4. Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons and same-sex couples. (1972 Federal-4)
5. Elimination of bars to the entry, immigration and naturalization of homosexual aliens. (1972 Federal-5)
6. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by Gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality. (1972 Federal-6)
7. Appropriate executive orders, regulations and legislation banning the compiling, maintenance and dissemination of information on an individuals sexual preferences, behavior, and social and political activities for dossiers and data banks. (1972 Federal-7)
8. Federal funding of aid programs of gay mens and womens organizations designed to alleviate the problems encountered by Gay women and men which are engendered by an oppressive sexist society. (1972 Federal-8)
9. Immediate release of all Gay women and men now incarcerated in detention centers, prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense charges relating to victimless crimes or sexual orientation; and that adequate compensation be made for the physical and mental duress encountered; and that all existing records relating to the incarceration be immediately expunged. (1972 Federal-9)
1. All federal legislation and programs enumerated in Demands 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above should be implemented at the State level where applicable. (1972 State-1)
2. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws. (1972 State-2)
3. Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female. (1972 State-3)
4. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of ones personal demesne. (1972 State-4)
5. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status. (1972 State-5)
6. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing. (1972 State-6)
7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent. (1972 State-7)
8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers. (1972 State-8)
Thank you for posting them. I have that somewhere in my files...
I’ll copy this and store it someplace easy to find.
Vicious, vicious, vicious.
Years ago when I lived in Eugene (shudder) and there was a same sex marriage referendum or something similar, I had a bumper sticker against it (of course) on my car. At ten PM a couple of female homosexuals I barely, who lived down the block, came pounding on the front door.
They argued with hub and me, shouting - how dare we have such a bumper sticker? They were out of control agnry. I knew about the “eliminate all age of consent laws” and shoved that in their faces, and their reply:
“Well, that was taken off later as we realized people AREN’T READY FOR THAT YET.”
Disgusting. That’s awesome that you had “The Agenda” at your disposal, however!
I used to have a “live and let live” attitude about homosexuals - the whole topic revolted me but I was “tolerant” (especially if I never came in contact with any of them.)
Then a good friend became active in promoting real marriage, mailed out a newsletter and had a local radio show (which since I lived in another state I couldn’t listen to). His newsletters educated me, and that’s probably where I found a copy of the original agenda. This was in the second half of the 1980s.
Actually the night the weird couple came to the door I had a stack of info I’d xeroxed at Kinko’s, ready to hand out at an event at the university; some pro-homo speaker event.
This was around 19994.
The left has coopted the homo’s desire to be accepted in our society and is using it as a weapon against their chief Enemy.
The homos now are just a vehicle in the left’s agenda to criminalize Christianity.