5 - SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IMPOSES A HOMOSEXIST WORLDVIEW (2005-FUTURE)

When same-sex marriage advocates make their claim on the basis of equality or human rights, they do not acknowledge that their rights-based argument, if accepted, should apply to all sexual orientations.  Moreover, what they are really asking is that the state end its heterosexist worldview and adopt a homosexist worldview.  Rabbi Reuven Bulka remarks on the strategy, “Nobody wants to look like they’re denying anyone else equal rights – that’s the mantra of today equal rights.  Still with regards to the definition of marriage, this is not an issue of equality, but a claim to sameness; and it’s not the same...If everything is marriage then nothing is marriage”[1] Gay rights lawyer, Didi Herman, wrote in 1990, “Law reform is part of an ideological battle, and fighting over the meanings of marriage and family constitutes resistance to heterosexual hegemony.”[2]  In 1997, EGALE ratified a Guiding Principle that “Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should have access to the same range of relationship options as heterosexuals.”[3]  Paula Ettelbrick, legal director of Lambda, says, “I don’t know that any of us are ready to push for more than two people getting married,” yet she fears if only gays and lesbians are given the right to marry, others (bisexuals and group-sexuals) who can not marry will be “outlaws among outlaws.”[4]

Marriage redefinition signifies the state is now “<indifferent>” in its governance of homosexuals and heterosexuals.  In effect the state has abandoned heterosexism - the “privileged” protection of husband, wife, father, mother and child with the associated policy of “tolerance” towards homosexuals and, in its place, has fully adopted homosexism - requiring the “privileged advocacy” by the state of the virtues and equivalency of same-sex sexual relations, unions and family variations.  Same-sex marriage has never been about “protective” human rights legislation.  First of all, some 97 percent of homosexuals will never chose to marry.  Secondly, as Paula Ettelbrick points out above, many homosexuals fear opening the door to same-sex marriage will bring about a new source for so-called “moral oppression.”  Thirdly, according to BC Supreme Court Judge Ian H. Pitfield, homosexual couples already have all the freedoms of expression or association, as well as mobility rights and rights of liberty and security, without the right of marriage.[5]  Same-sex marriage is really about affirming homosexuality as a lifestyle choice and about forcing the rest of society to come around to this homosexist consensus.  Marriage redefinition goes well beyond protective “resistance to heterosexual hegemony.”  Same-sex marriage heralds the intent of the state (lead by the judicial system) to enforce censorship upon any opposition to the homosexual claim to “sameness” in governance and in societal association at large. 

In 2001, Cindy Silver, legal co-counsel for the B.C. Coalition for Marriage and Family, after winning the McCloskey/Short marriage challenge in the B.C. Supreme Court, said: "This judgment means that people who believe in marriage in its traditional sense will be able to continue to believe in that and to instruct their children accordingly, and to anticipate that public education will be mindful of that view.  It preserves the rights of people to believe those things without fear of hindrance or reprisal."  She added, "There's no doubt that this case was an attempt to force society's approval of homosexual relationships as being morally and socially equal to opposite-sex married couples." [6]  Four years later it is the homosexist worldview which has prevailed.  All that was affirmative in Cindy Silver’s 2001 synopsis is now in the negative. 

Some might rush to applaud a policy of <indifference> held by the state, arguing that government has no place legislating morality - the corollary of separation of church and state.  But then who will?  Not the religious.  They, like vocal heterosexists, will be silenced from public voice.  The tragic paradox in adopting a homosexist worldview is that the state will not back away from morality, but rather will take on a major role in legislating homosexist values, particularly focusing on influencing the next generation.  Iain T. Benson in “The Idolatry of Law: When Law is Seen as ‘Like Religion’,” warns Canadians to beware of a totalitarian “jurocracy,” where judges deem themselves capable of replacing morals, philosophy, or religion and making their own wills the measure of right and wrong.  In a jurocracy (as in a theocracy) an elitist party usurps their proper role in a democracy.  Benson writes: “This new legal movement uses the language of ‘equality’ and ‘dignity’ (the first of which is in the constitution itself) to effect ends that are well beyond the usual judicial role.  In this new juggernaut of forced consensus, what is really at issue is the power of judges to force their own personal moral and theological beliefs upon society.  Under the guise of ‘legal interpretation,’ the ‘new theologians,’ believing law is comprehensive, promulgate the dogmatic rules of the day.”[7] And in the same-sex marriage era, the new state morality will no longer be rooted in religious values, but in <secular-humanist> principles.  The homosexist worldview will underpin future governance in custody, parenting, adultery, reproduction, biogenetics, death and countless other societal areas.  In their own words, Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry says the court’s role is to “forge a new social concensus,”[8]  and Justice of the Supreme Court, Rosalie Abella, says they are pushing “the juggernaut of rights.”[9]

5.1 - Homosexism

Homosexuals face tremendous “cognitive dissonance” living out their lives in an overwhelmingly heterosexual social reality.  Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of imbalance (unpleasant psychological tension) when people find themselves doing things that do not fit with what they know or with the opinions they hold or with the natural realities they experience.  In the late 1950s, social psychologist, Leon Festinger observed that in people who have dissonant cognitions (pieces of knowledge), the level of psychological stress increases with the degree of discrepancy between cognitions and the number of discrepant cognitions.  He discovered that to cope with dissonance, after a decision is made, people will attend to information that conforms to their attitudes and values while ignoring, denying or distorting information that is inconsistent with their beliefs.  Indeed, people alter aspects of the decision alternatives to reduce dissonance, which leads to viewing the chosen alternative as more desirable and the rejected alternative as less desirable.  This effect is called the spreading of alternatives and Festinger labeled the social model the “free-choice paradigm.”[10]   Viewed from the perspective of cognitive dissonance theory, the homosexual claim to same-sex marriage rights is a logical extension of a chain of beliefs, ideological choices and political objectives, which have evolved into a complete worldview which can be labeled “homosexism.”  The tragedy in this Canadian same-sex marriage decision is that the state has not admitted to the public that the decision to redefine marriage inclusive of gays and lesbians signifies the state itself has adopted the homosexist worldview.

The Nation, a journal for mostly gay readers, records on May 3, 1993: “All the crosscurrents of present-day liberation struggles are subsumed in the gay struggle. The gay movement is in some ways similar to the movement that other communities have experienced in the nation’s past, but it is also something more, because sexual identity is in crisis throughout the population, and gay people – at once the most conspicuous subjects and objects of the crisis – have been forced to invent a complete cosmology to grasp it.  No one says the changes will come easily.  But it’s just possible that a small and despised sexual minority will change America forever.”[11]  This cosmology may be labeled “Homosexism” - the view that there is no “meant” relationship between anatomical sex (genitalia), sexuality and gender.  The meanings attached to male and female are seen as social constructs, and as such, homosexists believe they can be “deconstructed.”   The act of “coming out,” of declaring publicly one’s sexual orientation, has been characterized as a political act, it is at the least a declaration of having adopted the homosexist worldview.   Heterosexuals do not “come-out” and not all people who participate in homosexual intimacy identity themselves as homosexual or bisexual for that matter.  

This new cosmology is an umbrella ideology for most non-heterosexuals: gays, bisexuals, lesbians, transsexuals and self-labeled queers.  Homosexism proclaims that one’s sexuality is a given, not a matter of choice, and therefore, the acting out of one’s sexual attractions is seen as a morally neutral decision.  Gays and lesbians claim an innate orientation.  Transsexuals and queers contend sexual orientation is fluid.  Bisexuals declare alternating and simultaneous orientations.  The worldview holds that there is no conflict of credibility, no ideological irrationalities, between the various assertions of these non-heterosexual orientations; in fact, homosexism allows for identity change within these categories and even heterosexuals may sway into the homosexual lifestyle. 

However, homosexist activists deny the scientific evidence of successful sexual reorientation and vilify ex-gays and ex-lesbians who witness to achieving a new and fulfilling heterosexual life.  Judging their own value system to be as good, if not superior to the heterosexual paradigm that entertains sexual reorientation, Erinn Tozer and Mary McClanahan go so far as to deny the legitimacy of a homosexual’s desire to change.  They write: “An individual's desire to change is a reflection of an oppressive and prejudicial society wherein lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons are considered deviant and inferior.  Therefore, this request is not truly voluntary.  If psychologists are complying with the Principle of Social Responsibility, they will recognize that the cause of human suffering, in this case, is the sociopolitical context wherein the gay population exists.”[12]  What they advocate instead of reorientation therapy is talking the client out of his or her wish.  Tozer and McClanahan explain: “What about the client who insists, even after this discussion, that she or he wants to be heterosexual?…we believe that it is more ethical to let a client continue to struggle honestly with her or his identity than to collude, even peripherally, with a practice that is discriminatory, oppressive, and ultimately ineffective in its own stated ends.”[13]  The witness of ex-gays and ex-lesbians is a huge hope for some who wish to escape their lifestyle and a tremendous source of cognitive dissonance among others. 

Homosexism has its own lexicon in which traditional terms like “promiscuity” become “sexually active lifestyle,” “semen” turns into “bloodily fluids,” “fidelity” slips into “serial-monogamy” or “multipartnerism” (with consensual rules).  An effective construct in homosexism is the notion of the “homophobe” – virtually any person who challenges homosexist ideology.  The use of the term “homophobe” is a doubly effective propaganda tactic in the war of ideologies.  This “name calling” tactic attempts to link a rational point-of-view (heterosexism) to a negative symbol (HOMOPHOBIA/RACISM), leading homosexuals to reject competing arguments on the conjecture that the person is racist.  Some heterosexuals will follow suit, while others will resist entering into confrontations to avoid the emotionally offensive label.  The extent of the use of this construct in shielding homosexism from close scrutiny and criticism is evident when homosexuals who criticize gay or lesbian lifestyles are characterized within their own communities as victims of “internalized” homophobia.  The treatment of AIDS activist Larry Kramer is a rich example.  At the height of the AIDS shock, in a chronic rage of cognitive dissonance, Kramer struck out at (1) gay men, (2) the religious right, and (3) middle-class male heterosexuals, with equal veracity:  (1) “Get your stupid heads out of the sand, you turkeys!…I am sick of guys who moan that giving up careless sex until this blows over is worse than death.  How can they value life so little and cocks and asses so much?  Come with me, guys, while I visit a few of our friends in Intensive Care at NYU.  Notice the looks in their eyes, guys.  They’d give up sex forever if you could promise them life.  This is a horrible illness, wasting, wretched, painful, ghastly to watch and to witness and to endure.” [14]  (2) “I have learned, during these past seven years, to hate.  I hate everyone who is higher in the pecking order and in being so placed, like some incontinent pigeon, shits all over all those below.  And, sadly, tragically, as more and more of my friends die - the number is way over two hundred by now - I hate this country I once loved so much.  And as each day Ronald Reagan and the Catholic Church and various self-styled spokespeople for God - the Right Wing, the Moral Majority, fundamentalists, Mormons, Southern Baptists, born-agains, Orthodox Jews, Hasidic Jews…enemies all - take the law into their own hands…”[15]  (3) “I am going to tell you something you’ve never heard before.  I am going to tell you that the AIDS pandemic is the fault of the white, middle-class, male majority.  AIDS is here because the straight world would not grant equal rights to gay people.  If we had been allowed to get married, to have legal rights, there would be no AIDS cannonballing through America….Yes, indeed, the white man made AIDS…The greedy heterosexual white man with money, who two thousand years into the so-called Christian era, is still boss and master.”[16] 

In a now famous letter to the Native, playwright Robert Chesley wrote: “Read anything by Kramer closely.  I think you’ll find that the subtext is always: the wages of gay sin are death….I am not downplaying the seriousness of Kaposi’s sarcoma.  But something else is happening here, which is also serious: gay homophobia and anti-eroticism.”  To this day, advocates of homosexism have not reconciled the negative <ecological consequences> of gay sex with their worldview.  Larry Kramer said of his AIDS activism: “I have failed and I am ashamed of my failure.  I blame myself - somehow I wasn’t convincing enough or clever enough or cute enough to break through your denial or self-pity or death wish or self-destruction or whatever the fuck is going on.  I’m very tired of trying to make you hear me.”[18]  Instead, homosexists contend it is society’s responsibility to find medical technology to prevent all sexually transmitted diseases, rather than the gay community’s responsibility to keep sexuality in line with what medical technology can cure. 

Mark Blasius, in Gay and Lesbian Politics: Sexuality and the Emergence of a New Ethic, claims that being lesbian or gay is by definition political.  His idea of gay ethos describes a “way of life” that emerges not so much from moral as from existential criteria, specifically the content of lived experience.[19]  In this ethos, lesbians and gays “invent themselves, recognize each other, and establish a relationship to the culture in which they live.”  Central to the creation of self and ethos, states Blasuis, is the elaboration and defense of lesbian and gay rights, aimed at “self-determination of one’s relationships with others.”[20]  This right encompasses what he describes as the central “moments” in lesbian and gay rights struggles, rights for sexual freedom, equality and “equity in the cultural and social acknowledgment of one’s health needs and the consequent receipt of the benefits of citizenship.”[21]  Blasius uses AIDS politics to elaborate his claim to an equity right, but his idea extends beyond that to a general claim for “a right of access to protection from any biological risks derived from sexual relations.”[22]  He assumes this right from the larger right to sexual self-determination, arguing that in an era of “biopower” and population management the government has an affirmative responsibility to ensure the health of its citizens.  In effect homosexism requires of society and government to enshrine a philosophy or right that “absolutely anything goes” - any nature of relationship(s), any form of family and any partner volume, form and frequency of sexual act.  Furthermore, should there be any health and safety issues arising from the sexual activity protected under these rights, the risks must be surmounted by government, apparently without obligation to the individual responsible for the choice of unsafe lifestyle.  In reviewing Blasius’ book, Shane Phelan, highlights the flaw in this irresponsible “what I want when I want” line of argument.  Phelan writes: “Do governments, even ones heavily invested in biopower and strategies of governmentality, have a responsibility to protect citizens from all health consequences of their behavior?  If this holds only for sexual behavior but not for other forms of self-creation and expression (and it is not clear that Blasius would so limit it), what would justify such privileging?  Blasius notes that sexual relationships are a central means through which we (gays and lesbians, at least) define ourselves.  Do governments then have an obligation to support all the central ways in which we define ourselves?…What of those whose means of definition is a religion that disapproves of homosexuality?  Should they be allowed to discriminate against people whose sexual tastes they abhor?  If not, why exactly should sexuality be privileged over other forms of identity formation and maintenance?[23]

Engaging in dangerous sexual activities, taking no responsibility for one’s actions and expecting government to carry the burden of resolving the <ecological> hazards is one of many homosexist irrationalities. The privileged status of “man-man” sexual relations over “man-boy” relations is another inconsistency.  The homosexist argument claims that because most homosexuals did not choose their orientation, their same-sex attraction is innate, a characteristic like gender or skin color.  Ignoring the insufficiency of this argument to explain the fluidity of queer and bisexual orientations, two questions arise: “why should ‘innate’ man-man sexual attractions be privileged over ‘innate’ man-boy sexual relations?” and “is it credible to contend the difference between a constitutionally protected sexual orientation and a pathological illness boils down to a question of puberty?”  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines pedophilia as “sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally 13 or younger). The individual with Pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least five years older than the child.”[24]  Christopher Hewitt did a review of 18 educational textbooks and found that all drew moral and conceptual distinctions between man-man sex and man-boy sex in our society.  Man-man, labeled homosexuality, was presented as normal and acceptable.  Man-boy, labeled pedophilia, was presented as pathological and harmful.  He discovered in all, some 21 separate societies were quoted in defense of homosexuality, of which 81 per cent were in fact transgenerational (man-boy) examples.  Ancient Greek society (man-boy) was used 94.4 per cent of the time.  Hewlett concluded it is hard to buy the logic that all sexual orientations - gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer and transsexual are “natural,” except for pedophilia, which has characterized so much of historic homosexual behavior.  Homosexuals who claim they were made this way, have what evidence to privilege their innate orientation over pedophilia?  Who is the really hardened invert?  In spite of the legal prohibition against pedophilia and strong penalties for acting out this orientation, men continue to have these relationships, which according to some studies are not all mutually bad. 

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) vehemently denies that “consensual” sex with a child is “child sex abuse.”  In July 1998, the NAMBLA agenda gained official status when the American Psychological Association (APA) published a study by three professors, Bruce Rind from Temple University, Philip Tromovitch from University of Pennsylvania and Robert Bauserman from University of Michigan.  The report based on a quantitative analysis of 59 studies, concluded that “child sexual abuse does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population.”  The authors want to redefine “child sexual abuse.”  If it was “a willing encounter” between “a child and an adult” or “an adolescent and adult” with “positive reactions” on the part of the child or adolescent, it would no longer be called “child sexual abuse.”  It would be labelled scientifically as “adult-child sex” or “adult-adolescent sex.”  They want society to use a “value-neutral term.”[25]  The study appeared in the 1998 issue of APA-published Psychological Bulletin.  The APA claims that publication “does not imply endorsement,” yet in no way has the APA criticized the study nor renounced its premise or recommendations.  In fact, on May 14, the association’s chief executive officer, Raymond Fowler, said the report has been peer-reviewed and “is a good study.”

“Man-boy” sex has been spelled out explicitly in a “gay manifesto for the 1990’s” written by two Harvard graduates, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.  Their book, After The Ball, concludes with a section entitled, “Gay Love Among the Pagans,” in which the authors confess to the emptiness, pathos and misery that the modern “gay lifestyle” brings to people’s lives by the time they are thirty-five or forty.  They are no longer attractive or sought after by younger homosexuals.  Their answer - to return to the “traditional gay family” of the time of Plato.  Kirk and Madsen write: “The ancient Greek model seems to have worked something like this….As with all relationships, that of the erastes and the eromenos entailed an understood exchange: the youth would share his beauty and enthusiasm, the adult his strength, security, and guidance – as well as more tangible assets, including training in arms, a position in the adult’s business, and so forth.  Both parties would benefit to an extent beyond mere genital relief.  From the point of view of the community, as well, this arrangement discharged a natural need – for homosexual gratification – in a manner advantageous to public character and morality.  Similarly, it was understood that when the eromenos became a full-fledged man – and absorbed all (socially valuable) teaching that the erastes could impart – he would cease to be a lover, and would marry a woman and sire children.  Neither his nor his former erastes’ marriage, however, would end their friendship, nor prevent either one of them from forming a fresh alliance, in turn, with a younger male…and so on.  Something like this, suitably updated (that is, without the wife and kids), is what we tentatively recommend as a new ideal for gay men – family structure of their own.”[26]

Hunter and Madsen are careful to state later in the book that they would “not advocate sex with minors,” but who is a minor?  Puberty, they point out, is now arriving earlier in children’s lives, often in the 10 to 12 year-old range.  And modern societies, under the pressure of various lobbies, are lowering the age of consent.  It is 14 years now in many jurisdictions and 12 years in the Netherlands.  William Gairdner points out that we are not far separated in legislation from the Netherlands.  He writes: “Unbelievably, radical homosexuals have become so influential and mainstream ever since about 1960, that by 1977 the U.S. Federal Commission on Civil Rights actually called (so far unsuccessfully) for a lowering of the age of consent for all sexual acts, from the current 14 for heterosexual and 18 for homosexual acts, to age 12 for both. Such a law would have given anyone the ‘right’ to sexually use consenting children in any way they pleased without fear of parental interference.  In other words, under such a law you could not legally prevent a 40-year-old from seducing your ‘consenting’ 12-year-old son or daughter.  In Holland today, the age of consent for homosexual sex is 12, as long as parents do not formally object.  Such laws, wherever they may arise in history, always represent a blatant retreat by the State from its traditional protections: of family, of sound parental authority, of children from bad parents, of the sexual exclusivity of the family, and of normal procreational life.”[27]  According to the DSM, a man-boy marriage at age thirteen would be a pedophilic union.  However, if one could go to the Netherlands and get married, the boy could legally be age twelve.

Regarding this idea that sexual orientation is biologically inborn and is essentially an involuntary condition “beyond the reach of moral judgment,” Paul Waller writes: “The same logic would confer moral legitimation on pedophiles, who could also and did claim that they were made that way and therefore were unable to help themselves.”[28]  Waller notes that among gay-rights militants, ideological rationalizations for child sexual exploitation often take bizarre forms: “Many gay men acknowledge that they have initiated encounters [with young boys].  They argue that these types of relationships offer young boys the only real possibility for healthy acculturation into homosexuality…These attitudes, so pronounced and accepted in [gay] culture…allowed a Covenant House-Father Bruce Ritter case to develop and operate for twenty years…I despair of a liberal culture in which such pathological behavior, such physical and psychological traumas can be inflicted on children and adolescents, and rationalized in the name of gay rights…This aspect of the controversy is not peripheral.  The virtual silence about male (homosexual) pedophilia and pederasty maintained by the mental health and social-work practitioners for, lo, these many years, is scandalous….‘Homophobia’ has been incessantly and unfavorably been contrasted with tolerance of ‘alternative lifestyles.’”[29] A comprehensive and independent study, examining 10,667 abuse cases in the American Catholic Church, from1950 to 2002, revealed that 81 percent of all cases involved priests abusing boys or adolescent males.(Father Raymond J. De Souza, "That depends what you mean by 'gay' " National Post, 24 November 2005, p.A16.
 

Homosexism also asserts there are no differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, which are legitimate grounds for discrimination.  The worldview does not recognize the inert nature of homosexual union as a differentiating limitation for rights to marriage and family.  The worldview is also wedded to the feminist analysis of reality and to the promotion of free sex ideology.  In the anthology Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, Margret Small describes a homosexist cognitive dissonance imperative - the need to berate the alternative and competing worldview.   She writes: “[Heterosexual] Men justify this male-beneficent organization of women’s labor through the creed, the ‘ideology of heterosexuality,’ which ‘says it is natural for women to…take care of men.’  Heterosexuality is ‘not merely an act in relation to impregnation, but the dominant ideology’ which defines women as ‘appendages of men.’  It is not ‘reproduction itself’ which determines the social organization which places men above women.  ‘The ideology of heterosexuality’ does that, ‘not the simple act of intercourse.’”[30]  Near the start of the sexual liberation era, Phyllis Chesler declared the connection of feminism to homosexist ideology: “What is the feminist method? Given our conditioning as women, can we ever become feminist revolutionaries (or human beings), without becoming lesbians?”[31]  In 1989, Sonja Johnson outlined, in Wildfire: Igniting The She/volution, the problem with heterosexism and simultaneously pointed out the targets for homosexist reform: “All women are battered women in patriarchy.  Every woman born is in an abusive relationship with men as a class and with their system since the raison d’etre of all men’s institutions  - political, legal, educational, religious, economic, and social - is to achieve and perpetuate the slavery of women and dominion of men.”[32]  She goes on to say: “As grim at this is, it is only a surface picture…Some understanding of why women under terror merge so completely with their torturers and so strongly resist awareness of men’s perfidy and gynocidal intent helps explain why women as a class the world over bond with and support men’s woman-hating, woman-destroying governments, institutions, values, ideologies, and cosmologies.  Why, in short, we vote, go to church, believe in male gods, follow male gurus and channeled entities, attend and teach at universities, send our children to school, become lawyers and corporation servers, marry, and work for male-defined ‘women’s rights.’”[33]  Remember, when the same-sex marriage lobby parades their select homosexual couples before the media in seemingly harmless marriage ceremonies that they are appealing to your “emotion” for support.  However, the “intellectual” reality is that marriage redefinition lays open the institution to some 97 percent of homosexuals who have no interest in marriage and who are part of a cultural minority which has consistently shown rabid hostility towards the institution for forty years.  Keep the cheery images of two blushing brides or two charming grooms in true historical perspective.     

Last but not least, the homosexist worldview proclaims boundariless non-judgmental free sex, often called “positive sex” or “sex positive” ethos.  Homosexists disassociate sexual intercourse from its procreative moorings and attach no limitations to sexual self-expression.  The notion of “free sex” is captured on the Calgary Birth Control Association website, which reads under the title “OUR PHILOSOPHY”: “At CBCA we believe that sexuality is a natural and healthy part of life.  Healthy sexual relationships are based on trust, respect and equality.  We work for the right of all people to get information that helps them make choices and decisions about their sexuality…In our work we want to give clear information without passing judgment. [my underline] [34] Regrettably, without violating any of these three tenets, it is possible to have multiple encounters, in a bathhouse cubical, with people to whom you never speak or know.  Moreover, in this paradigm should a pregnancy (hetero- or bisexual) disturb the false “serenity” of the free sex ideology, abortion is the technological therapy.   And should sexually transmitted disease defy the notion of “free,” there are pharmaceutical therapies.  In reality the homosexist worldview is feasible only under consistent and careful application of the so-called <“Condom Code.”> 

Homosexism and heterosexism cannot be integrated; the dynamic between them is zero-sum - the gains of one are at the cost of the other.   Legislation, such as same-sex marriage, attempts to treat the distinct worldviews with indifference and to unite the “social spaces” they undergird, but in reality the state can only hold to one worldview at a time.    

5.2 - Indifference to Homosexuality Implies a Homosexist Worldview

Choosing the judicial system as the battle ground, human rights as the claimed grievance and sympathetic judiciary as allies has been the strategy to deconstruct heterosexism and overcome majority resistance.   In just two decades, the Supreme Court has taken the Charter, which said nothing about “sexual orientation” when ratified in 1982 (in spite of gay rights lobby), and by a characteristically elitist and undemocratic process of judicial rulings, has read homosexual rights into the Charter.  At the 1998 International Human Rights Commission, Justice Rosalie Abella, described the allied ideological battle: “…unlike civil liberties, which re-arranges no social relationships and only protects our political ones, human rights is a direct assault on the status quo.  It is inherently about change.”[35]  Here the “status quo” is “heterosexism” and the “assault” is on “marriage” and “family.”  F.L. Morton and Rainer Knopff have called the unprecedented levels of ideological advocacy and politically proactive behavior by the Supreme Court the “Charter Revolution.”[36]  The goals of the Charter Revolution have moved well beyond private, public and workplace security and equal monetary tax benefits for gays and lesbians.  The homosexist constitutional sweep must leave no distinct heterosexual space - no privileged heterosexual institutions, no tolerance for the heterosexist point-of-view.  And Prime Minister Martin declares this paradigm of total indifference when he insists that parity is not enough, only “sameness” before the state will suffice.   In February 2005, Prime Minister Martin said in a speech on Bill C-38 (The Civil Marriage Act) before the House: “…some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to ‘civil union.’  This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage.  In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.  Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter.  For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: ‘Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples.  Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality.”  Actually, the courts have not been consistent on the need for “sameness.”  In the McCloskey verdict (in BC), Judge Ian H. Pitfield concluded that marital discrimination against same-sex couples is justified.  He wrote in the ruling: “The objective of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples is sufficiently important to warrant infringing on the rights of the petitioners.  The gain to society from the preservation of the deep-rooted and fundamental legal institution of opposite-sex marriage outweighs the detrimental effect of the law on the petitioners.”  He went on to say that equality rights can be overridden by Section 1 of the Canadian Charter.  Judge Pitfield dismissed other arguments, ruling that, for same-sex couples, the freedoms of expression or association, as well as mobility rights and rights of liberty and security, are not infringed by the ban on marriage.[37]

Tragically, for the heterosexual majority (likely 97 percent of voters, although not all are against redefining marriage), there now appears to be no democratic way to stop the imposition of homosexism over our state.  For those who might claim the governing Liberals have duly represented Canadians, while holding onto to power through Belinda Stronach’s single defecting vote, a brief review of the facts tells a different story.  A key outcome of the framing of the same-sex marriage decision as the choice between two exclusive and conflicting worldviews is the clarity this brings to the dilemma for the centrist Liberal Party.  Faced with no plausible middle position, i.e. some mix of homosexists ideals and heterosexist tenets, the Liberals have been caught between social conservatives on the right - staunchly heterosexist - and socialists on the left - resolutely homosexist.   The result being, the Liberal Party’s position has flip-flopped between right and left.  Once the Liberal Government decided to support marriage redefinition the Government’s strategy became one of escaping accountability for the unpopular left of center policy by arguing that upholding the Charter gives them no alternative.  The Liberal button - “It’s the Charter Stupid!” - declares the centerpiece of the Liberal pro-same-sex marriage argument.  Tragically, such “rights-based” propaganda has worked well manipulating public debate by emotion.  This “who could be against human rights” strategy is intuitively appealing and has had the effect of deflecting serious engagement of the issues.  For example, neither the Liberals nor the Supreme Court have been forthright enough to admit that marriage redefinition, on the basis of a human rights sexual orientation argument, must inevitably lead to bisexual marriage access.   The fact bisexual marriage is not on the present legislative agenda is itself proof that marriage redefinition is not a human rights issue, but an issue of political power.  The reality that the Charter, when democratically ratified by all provinces and the federal government, said nothing about homosexuality and the fact that a Liberal majority Parliament, in June 1999, ratified the traditional definition of marriage by 216-55 votes are now out of sight.  Moreover, the reality that the Supreme Court reference did not rule the current definition of marriage unconstitutional has been disguised.   The button’s intended “self-evident” proclamation also flies in the face of the 35 Liberals who did not vote for same-sex marriage and the reality that Prime Minister Martin had to order his 39 cabinet ministers to vote for same-sex marriage regardless of the majority wish of their constituents. 

Indeed, the slim circumstances under which the Liberals flip-flopped to a pro-same-sex marriage stance was made clear in May 2004, when former Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, gave a speech before a US homosexual organization in Philadelphia.  Equality Forum honored him on the occasion with an award for his pro-homosexual position.  In his speech Mr. Cauchon admitted that only four individuals in Ottawa were instrumental in reversing Liberal same-sex marriage policy - himself, Paul Genest (policy advisor to PM), Alex Himelfarb (Clerk of the Privy Council) and Morris Rosenburg (Deputy Minister of Justice).[38]  Before reading the underlining basis for Mr. Cauchon’s desire to redefine marriage, ask yourself: (1) Is it possible to stamp out “homophobia” without first getting rid of “heterosexism”? (2) Is it possible to wipeout “heterosexism” without first eradicating the influence of orthodox religion?  Mr. Cauchon said: “When I started traveling across the country talking about same-sex marriage, I faced a lot of opposition of course.  When I was talking to people, trying to understand why they were opposed, I've realized that there is no valid reason to oppose, and I've realized that, sadly, there is a lot of homophobia.  In my society there is no place at all for homophobia.  And that is why I decided to proceed in making sure we put in place in Canada, and if we can around the world, a just society based on equality.  Sadly enough homophobia exists still in Canada, and in other countries around the world.”[39]  Mr. Cauchon also related that Mr. Genest heavily lobbied former Prime Minister Chrétien on a daily basis to get his support for same-sex marriage.  Once he got Mr. Chrétien on side, everything fell into place since Mr. Chrétien ruled as a semi-dictator over his Caucus and obedient Cabinet.[40]

Besides himself, Mr. Cauchon singled out the work of Paul Genest, who was policy advisor to former Prime Minister Chrétien, who, according to Mr. Cauchon, played "a key role" in the same-sex marriage question.  He and Mr. Genest met on a daily basis to talk about how he should manage the approach and the strategy on the same-sex marriage issue.[41]  And in June 2003, Prime Minister Chrétien announced he would not be appealing lower court rulings even though marriage law is a federal jurisdiction and the lower courts were in effect defying state governance; rather the Liberal Government asked the Supreme Court to make one more “read-in” ruling on what the Charter had to say about same-sex marriage.  In effect, this process took the polarized and sensitive matter out of the political and democratic realm and placed the onus for a decision into the hands of the judges, a majority of whom turn out to have held opinions similar to Justice Rosalie Abella.  Prime Minister Chrétien gave his articulation of the same-sex marriage issue on August 19, 2003, before a divided Liberal caucus in North Bay.  He said: “Circumstances demand that we deal with the issue now because of very recent court decisions based on the Charter of Rights.  The Canadian Alliance has attacked the courts for years.  They attack so-called judicial activism.  It is code for their profound opposition to the Charter of Rights.  A Charter that was passed by Parliament and that Liberals and all Canadians respect and cherish.  So let us not fall into their trap on this issue.  This is not about weakening Parliament.  It is not about weakening traditional religion.  It is not about weakening the Canadian social fabric.  In fact, it is about giving Parliament its rightful voice.  It is about protecting religious traditions and rites.  It is about giving force and effect to Canadian values. Values of mutual respect, justice and equality.  All of us understand that Parliament must always act in accordance with the Constitution.  In the case of same-sex couples, we need to be guided by how court after court has been interpreting the Charter of Rights.  And the courts have been telling us that the notion of separate but equal has no place in Canada.”[42]

Morton and Knopff have given a name to the coalition of judges and special interest groups promoting judicial authority over democratic authority, they call the alliance the “Court Party.”  They declare on the matter of “judicial activism”: “How did an institution that for more than a century occupied an important but secondary role in our political system suddenly become such a pivotal player?  Most commentators attribute this institutional and political revolution to the 1982 entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  While there is more than a grain of truth to this explanation, it is, on its own, overly legalistic.  Parchment barriers do not cause revolutions; leaders, elite cadres, and their supporters do.  Judges themselves are the most prominent leaders of the Charter Revolution.  The judges deny this, claiming that they do only what they are mandated to do by the constitutional documents.  Nonsense!  More often than not they make up the law as they go along…Judges did not - could not – make the Charter revolution alone.  At every turn their innovations have been promoted and supported by a coalition of societal interests that strategically straddle the state-society divide.  Despite important differences, these groups share a common interest in enhancing judicial power.  Accordingly, we call this coalition the Court Party…”[43]  

On June 26, 2003, the Ontario Law Society sponsored a panel (“Court Party” reunion) consisting of the lawyers who had successfully argued for same-sex marriages in the Ontario courts.  Attending this panel and the reception afterwards were invited guests including the judges who decided in favour of same-sex marriage and representatives of homosexual advocacy groups, plus organizations offering services for homosexuals and lesbians as well as representatives from all three levels of government.  On the lower court level, Mr. Justice Harry LaForme, who wrote the majority decision in support of same-sex marriage, was present.  At the reception, Chief Justice McMurtry thanked Madam Justice Claire L'Heureux Dubé for her excellent work on homosexual rights.  He stated: “Claire L'Heureux Dubé advocated gay rights in Mossop and added dignity to equality in Egan.  I would like to refer, briefly, to her dissent in Mossop, in 1993, ten years ago. I think her dissenting opinion can be said to be reflected in our recent same-sex marriage decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal.”  In her response, Madam Justice L'Heureux Dubé said:“… courts have been at the forefront of this [homosexual] evolution not to say revolution. It's fascinating that the courts played a unique role…It is not me you should celebrate.  It is the Chief Justice [McMurtry], and Gillese and MacPherson that have made history… the Ontario Court of Appeal handed out, I am told, as I have not read it yet, one of the most perfect decisions on an issue which was difficult. It took a lot of courage… Canadian law owes them a great deal.”[44]

Actually, analysis of funding of the legal challenges by gay activists reveals that the homosexist lobby owes as much to the Canadian taxpayer, who has involuntarily paid most of the bills for their legal challenges, while heterosexist defenders of marriage are obliged to raise their own funds.  Chief Justice Roy McMurtry of the Ontario Court of Appeal not only decided that traditional matrimonial law in Canada is unconstitutional; he ordered that the federal treasury pay the costs of the homosexual challengers. $645,000 went to Toronto Lawyer Martha McCarthy who acted for several of the homosexual challengers, and $409,162 to Toronto lawyer R. Douglas Elliot who argued the case on behalf of the Metropolitan Community Church.  EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) received generous financial support from the Court Challenges Program for its legal challenges on same-sex marriage.  The Court Challenges Program also paid the costs of the Canadian Coalition of Liberal Rabbis for Same-sex Marriage to be intervenors.  The National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the National Film Board are listed on EGALE's website as sponsors of their efforts.  According to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, hundreds of thousands of dollars flow annually from NAC to Lesbian advocacy groups.[45]

At the same Ontario Law Society event, Cynthia Peterson, lawyer in the Ontario case, said of the Liberal same-sex marriage strategy: “The reference [to the Supreme Court of Canada] in my view is a political necessity, not a legal one.  The government decided not to appeal the decisions, which I commend them for, but we know even within the governing party, there isn't unanimous support for that decision.  So there is a lot of political pressure on the government....The reference is to get the approval of the Supreme Court of Canada, so that when it goes to the House for a free vote ... they can say that the Supreme Court has said that religious freedoms will be protected.  There is a real political value in that...the other political value is in the Alberta situation...we know the government there is doing everything possible to prevent same-sex marriages.  But if we can get assistance from the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference to either pre-empt the battle altogether or use it to ensure uniformity across the country, then I think there will be real value there as well ... I'm pretty confident that this is more a political necessity than a legal one and that it will not in any way undo any of the legal victories that we've won.”[46]

And how did the Court Party act out its proverbial finest hour?  In making their December 2004 judgment, the Supreme Court decided that neither the Constitution Act of 1867, nor the current Charter, entrenches the definition of “marriage” as heterosexual.  The Court said, “The ‘frozen concepts’ reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.”[47]  Although the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament has exclusive authority “respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage,” and that “the word ‘marriage’ does not exclude same-sex marriage,” the Court refused to answer the Government’s Question #4 - “Is the traditional definition of marriage consistent with the Charter?”  Paradoxically, the Court defended its decision in part because of the decisions taken by five lower (provincial) courts to overturn the (federal) marriage law.  In this “Catch 22” dynamic, the Court joined with the Liberal Government in asserting that the same-sex litigants in these rulings “have relied upon the finality of the [provincial] decisions and have acquired rights which are entitled to be protected.” Alberta’s position was largely ignored.  The Supreme Court choose not to answer Question #4 because a response of “no” would “throw the [proposed] law into confusion ” and “the lower courts’ decisions in the matters giving rise to this reference are binding in their respective provinces.”  The Supreme Court concluded, “These circumstances, weighted against the hypothetical benefit Parliament might derive from an answer, indicate the Court should decline to answer.”  In the end, the Supreme Court chose not to take the Court Party “dance” to its ideological conclusion by ordering Parliament to redefine marriage.  Rather than be the historic scapegoat in this pivotal matter, the Court returned the “redefinition decision” to Parliament, ruling that the state can either “retain” or “change” the definition, as long as same-sex “union” is addressed.  Their ruling caused so much interpretive confusion, that the Liberals continued to claim the Charter demands same-sex marriage and the Conservatives took the opposite view.  Henceforth, the Liberals argued that only the notwithstanding clause could stop same-sex marriage.  After the June 2005 vote in favour of same-sex marriage, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler reiterated the Government’s strategy:  “Where a law has been found to be unconstitutional, the only options open to Parliament are to either remedy the unconstitutionality - which is what we are doing with Bill C-38 - or to overrule that court decision by invoking the notwithstanding clause."[48]   The impact of the legal precedence behind this single sentence for the future governance of society is titanic.  The state has in effect declared Canadian governance to be founded upon a homosexist model, protected by a constitution that is an evolving “living tree” rooted uniquely in the minds of nine Supreme Court justices, and only the use of the notwithstanding clause can override their interpretations.  Only the notwithstanding clause can prevent the imposition of the homosexist worldview upon Canadian society.

In his speech before the House, on February 16, 2005, Prime Minister Martin literally declared that the democratic will of Canadians can and will be thwarted.  Our Constitution, according to him is there to impose homosexism upon Canadian society.  He said: “The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this – not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter. The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.  We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker.  We must also embrace them in fact.”[49]  Claiming to “square the circle” in the zero-sum same-sex marriage decision, Mr. Martin declares: “This bill protects minority rights.  This bill affirms the Charter guarantee of religious freedom.  It is that straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and it is that important.”[50] [my underline – three millenniums of traditional marriage is hardly an impulse, homosexists are the ones on the offensive, heterosexism is what’s under assault]

What is straight forward is the unavoidable collision of heterosexist and homosexist worldviews, homosexual rights and religious freedoms.  In its ruling on same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court addressed the “allegation” that redefinition of marriage would create what has been labeled a “collision of rights.”  In facing this charge, the Court Party further demonstrated it’s willingness to “dance.”  In declining to respond to the Government’s Question #4, the Supreme Court defended its position by asserting that “the federal government has stated its intention to address the issue of same-sex marriage legislatively regardless of the Court’s opinion on this matter.” Yet in its dismissal of the “allegation” of a “collision of rights,” the Court argued, “The Proposed Act has not been passed, much less implemented.  Therefore, the alleged collision of rights is purely abstract…Charter decisions should not and must not be made in a factual vacuum.”  This argument also contradicts the Court’s interpretation that same-sex litigants in lower court rulings “have relied upon the finality of the decisions and have acquired rights which are entitled to be protected.”  These irrationalities aside, the Supreme Court in its ruling referred to the Canadian values of “tolerance, respect and equality.”  Given these noble tenets, it is ironic that redefinition of marriage will symbolize the full shift from “toleration and equality” laws to “indifference and sameness” rulings.  And in its pursuit of indifference and sameness in governance, the state has chosen homosexual lifestyle advocacy over “respect” for established marriage values, traditional family values and orthodox religious values.  Thus far only a few thousand homosexual couples have registered for same-sex marriage.  As a percent of all couples, this number amounts to 0.015 percent.  Tyranny of the majority by the minority is not mutual tolerance, is not mutual equality and is not mutual respect. 

5.3 - Secular Humanism Proclaims a Homosexist Worldview

According to the 2001 Census, 21.9 percent of Canadians have no religious affiliation.  Many of these people may not see themselves as “declared” secularists, but most have nonetheless chosen to integrate their lives around the mood of their specific age rather than around God.  Secularists live as if material order is supreme, as if God does not exist.  Secularism advocates human betterment without reference to religion or theology.  While secularism may not indicate theoretical atheism, it certainly does represent practical atheism.  Secularism is deeply in debt to the rise of the “scientific paradigm” - the notion that the world of things is the whole of existence.  Carl Sagan and Peter Singer illustrate key aspects of the secular scientific paradigm.  In Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan writes: “To discover that the Universe is some 8 to 15 billion years and not 6 to 12 thousand years old improves our appreciation of its sweep and grandeur; to entertain the notion that we are a particularly complex arrangement of atoms, and not some breath of divinity, at the very least enhances our respect for atoms; to discover, as now seems probable, that our planet is one of billions of other worlds in the Milky Way Galaxy and that our galaxy is one of billions more, majestically expands the arena of what is possible; to find that our ancestors were also the ancestors of apes ties us to the rest of life and makes possible important - if occasionally rueful - reflections on human nature.”[51] Peter Singer, in Practical Ethics, writes under the topic “Has Life a Meaning”: “When we reject belief in a God we must give up the idea that life on this planet has some pre-ordained meaning.  Life as a whole has no meaning.  Life began, as best available theories tell us, in a chance combination of gases; it then evolved through random mutations and natural selection.  All this just happened; it did not happen for any overall purpose.  Now that it has resulted in the existence of beings who prefer some states of affairs to others, however, it may be possible for particular lives to be meaningful.  In this sense atheists can find meaning in life.”[52]  He gives his views on practical ethics in a Godless universe: “If the fetus does not have the same claim on life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee…In thinking about this matter we should put aside feelings based on small, helpless and – sometimes – cute appearance of human infants…If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants.”[53]  Applicable to secularism, Dostoevsky warns: “If God is dead, then everything is justifiable.” 

Secularism places the emphasis on temporal social enjoyment rather than on eternal spiritual values.  Secularists live their entire lives without acknowledging God.  In a strikingly equivalent religious paradigm Gnostics acknowledge the existence of an unknown god and act as if relationship with this deity is impossible.  Although only 0.004 percent of Canadians are declared Gnostics, Howard Bloom writes that Gnosticism is the most common thread of religious thought today.  He calls it the “American Religion” and concludes: “even our secularists, indeed even our professed atheists, are more Gnostic than humanist in their ultimate presuppositions.”[54] In his book Darwin’s God, Cornelius G. Hunter writes on Gnosticism: “The deity is absolutely transmundane, its nature alien to that of the universe which it neither created nor governs and to which it is the complete antithesis…The world is the work of lowly powers.”[55]  Hunter observes that the Gnostic’s belief in “lowly powers” was fulfilled in Darwin’s evolution by natural selection - the theory that life was not divinely created but developed by random chance and selective survival of the fittest.  The acceptance of evolution, in turn reinforced Gnosticism in modern thought.  Hunter writes: “Two important themes are discernible in the writings of Darwin and his fellow naturalists: Gnosticism and natural theology.”[56]  And natural theology is theology based on reason and ordinary (temporal) experience.  It is distinguished from revealed theology which is based on Scripture and religious experience.  Philosopher Michael Ruse observes that Victorians in Darwin’s time had trouble with the idea that God created a natural world that often seemed devoid of His presence.  Ruse writes: “Darwin is characterized as one held to some kind of ‘deistic’ belief in a God who works at a distance through unbroken law: having set the world in motion, God now sits back and does nothing.”[57]   While it may not be fair to say all secularists are Darwinists, the reverse may very well prove to be true.

Although declared humanists make up only 0.007 percent of Canadians the impact of humanism on state governance is huge.  Humanism is a life-stance not dissimilar to secularism, dedicated to the betterment of society through the use of reason and ethics from a non-religious viewpoint.  Humanists do not believe in any deity and consider the notions of an afterlife and rewards and punishments after death by a supernatural god as meaningless.  Two influential Canadian humanists include: Pierre Elliott Trudeau[58] and Henry Morgentaler.[59]  Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique and principle founder of the feminist movement in the 1960s and pro-choice advocate, and the Episcopalian Rev. Dr. John Shelby Spong, author of the 2001 release A New Christianity For a New World are recipients of Humanist of the Year awards. 

Under the title “Resolution to Combat Religious Influence,” the HAC proclaims: “The Humanist Association of Canada is a national association that includes humanists, atheists, agnostics, rationalists, freethinkers, and non-church-affiliated people.[60]  We believe that Canada could be a model for many countries on how to develop a free and democratic society composed of many different ethnic, religious, and philosophical groups living in harmony.  We believe strongly in the separation of church and state and the neutrality of the state in matters of religion …Many current practices are undemocratic and unfair… We believe in a secular school system for all… Another example is the recitation of prayers at official functions.  These are unacceptable…Although unsuccessful, many of our members signed a petition to have the reference to God removed from the preamble of the Canadian Constitution.  This petition was read out in Parliament by MP Svend Robinson on June 8, 1999.” [61]   

Same-sex marriage legislation accomplishes in symbolism and practicality what these humanists and MP Robinson could not achieve by a direct and informed democratic process.  The humanists wanted “God” removed from the statement “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God,” and replaced by “intellectual knowledge.”  In ruling the way they did on marriage redefinition, the Supreme Court has finally completed the progressive amputation of the worth of this theist Preamble statement.  Begun in the late 1970s with the legalization of “abortion-on-demand” and subsequently through a chain of homosexual liberation rulings, executed in earnest after 1982, the Supreme Court justices have consistently acted as if Canada is a “comprehensive” liberal secular constitutional state.  According to the Preamble to our Constitution, if it has legal effect, this conduct is unconstitutional.  “What is the value of this Preamble reference to God, if there is never a time when theology is considered as part of governance decision-making?”  Moreover, these “principles” were proclaimed a century before the 1970s.  Surely, the living tree analogy doesn’t apply to God.  The God referred to in the Preamble is not a human projection, to be reimaged as “intellectual knowledge” would desire.  “What is the value of this Preamble acknowledgement of God’s supremacy, if the highest court in the land holds to a secular humanist worldview in all its rulings?” Certainly, in matters as pivotal to religion as the meaning of marriage, the Court Party has proved its secular humanist bias.  The latter half of this website is entirely devoted to debunking the notion that somehow, in the enlightenment and spirit of sexual liberation, God has morphed into some new deity harnessed by a postmodern pro-homosexual “cosmology.”  What has really taken place in so-called “liberal” churches is the mutation of theologies towards secular humanism, to some novel compromised mix of religious and Darwinian notions – what Howard Bloom calls the “American Religion.”        

Tenets of the secular humanist worldview which now pervade our governance include: (1) universe created by a mysterious accidental explosion of energy; (2) Earth accidentally created by a fortuitous union of gases; (3) life on earth inadvertently created by the 1/10⁵⁰ chance match (union) of DNA and RNA molecules in a primordial soup; (4) humankind created through a continuous evolutionary chain of random species mutations influencing either survival or extinction reaching back billions of years to the LUCA – last universal common ancestor; (5) there is no supernatural design behind the beauty, pleasure and mathematics of existence; (6) life has no extrinsic (higher) purpose or meaning; (7) fundamental law of nature is survival of the fittest; there are no absolute rights and wrongs.  Moral ethics are a derivative of societal evolution; and (8) Eschatology (end times): there is no hereafter, humankind is just a chance sophisticated arrangement of atoms and molecules awaiting some accidental asteroid collision with Earth, which will simply rearrange these atoms in a less sophisticated pattern and re-start the Darwinian process.

The bane of secular humanism is religion.  To the secular humanist ideologue the faithfully religious must be publicly silenced and politically neutered, if not de-programmed.  Dostoevsky's dictum is the key to achieving secular humanist utopia.  Secular humanist support for same-sex marriage and homosexual liberation in general, draws tremendous momentum from the undermining and constraining impact homosexism has upon world religions.  Moreover, same-sex marriage will also undermine resistance to human genetic engineering, use of artificial wombs and human cloning - all of which are humanist dreams.  The International Academy of Humanists proclaims: “The potential benefits of cloning may be so immense that it would be a tragedy if ancient theological scruples should lead to a Luddite rejection of cloning.”[62]  Mona Greenbaum, of the Lesbian Mothers Association of Quebec, claims that lesbians should have the same access to fertility technology that married heterosexual women have.  And Brigitte Boisselier, director of CLONAID, claims there is already demand for cloning among gay couples.  Bentley Glass, then president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, declares, “No parents in the future time will have a right to burden society with a malformed or a mentally incompetent child…Just as every child must have the right to full educational opportunity and a sound nutrition, so every child has the inalienable right to sound heritage.”[63]  In this anything goes secular humanist worldview, Glass predicts parents will abort genetically imperfect fetuses or use gene therapy to alter their unborn children.  Inert (homosexual) couples may harness the power of technology to overcome biological procreative design shortcomings.  

The heterosexual system of marriage and family is the chief obstacle to this secular humanist technocratic future.  If traditional marriage endures, the realm of the state and the development and use of the technology can be limited.  George Gilder further warns, “if the family should widely breakdown, then the world of artificial wombs, clones, and child-development centers would become an important reality rather than a laboratory curiosity.”[64]  And if “orthodox” religion endures marriage and family will prosper and survive. 

Previous   Contents    Next