Gay Activist Claims ‘End of Marriage’ Is Near

There is a “Back to the Future” quality to the current culture clash going on in Indiana, in the country at large, and throughout the Western democracies over marriage and over the gay lobby’s insatiable demands.

End–of-Marriage activist Chai Feldblum famously told an audience at Family Research Council, my organization, that in any conflict between religious freedom and gay rights, she could not imagine an instance where the religious freedom side could win. Or should win. It was not despite that oft-expressed radical belief that President Obama named her to the powerful Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) but because of it.

Is Prof. Feldblum really in favor of ending marriage? You can judge for yourself. She was a prime mover in the manifesto listed here. The radicals who issued this document believe that any number of adults should be given legal custody of any number of children. And when they receive such legal custody, they can induce these children to try to change their sex. They can then legally sign papers for the children to undergo chemical injections and surgical cuttings that will render these children sterile.

For millions of us, such a vision is a nightmare. Yet we are being conscripted daily into the gay movement that, in President Obama’s words, will “fundamentally transform this country.”

We are not given the option to “live and let love.” We must embrace and applaud every advance of this movement. We must celebrate what they want to do to our country, our churches and synagogues, our schools and our families.

Our opponents believe they are the modern equivalent of the black Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. They are not. They were not arrested, jailed, attack or lynched simply for claiming their constitutional rights.

This movement is like the 1960s in one respect: We are once again being drafted. Like it or not, Americans are being forced into supporting a government policy many may consider wrong, immoral and ultimately a failure.

During those troubled 1960s, millions of young Americans protested. Many burned draft cards, refused to report for induction and marched against a government they believed had lost touch with its own people.

We may see such a movement again. Only this time, the Conscientious Objectors will be Christians, Jews, Muslims and others of goodwill who seek to deny no one’s civil rights, but who are determined not to join this new conscript army.

See where this leads. When the gay fashion billionaires, Dolce & Gabbana dared to say marriage should be between one man and one woman, and when they further argued that every child needs a mother and a father, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana were viciously attacked in the media. They were threatened with boycotts of their business. They were called bigots and their statements were said to be hateful. They were bullied into backing down.

Where was their hatred? They are gay and fabulously rich. If their freedom of speech and their right to engage in peaceful commerce are not safe, whose freedom is safe?

In Indiana, a “Mom & Pop” Pizzeria was targeted by gay activists who demanded they agree to cater a wedding reception for a same-sex coupling. The owners declined, saying it would violate their consciences. They were immediately subject to a campaign of online threats, intimidation, charges of hatred.

Step back from this story just a minute: Who in the world wants pizza catered for a wedding reception? Has any one of us ever been to a wedding reception where pizza is served?

Surely, we can see that these pizzeria owners were targeted for bullying because they were known to be Christians. Backers of the pizzeria owners quickly raised nearly $1 million to help them in their plight.

But is it right? Should they have to fight just to stay in business? “Should Mom-And-Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed?” That’s the ominous question raised by Conor Friedersdorf in the liberal online journal, The Atlantic. To his credit, Mr. Friedersdorf, a supporter of legal marriage for same-sex couples, answers NO.

But to all too many in the media, in corporate boardrooms, in academia, the answer is: Crush them! Drive them out of business! Let’s note here, too, that destroying “Mom-and-Pops” is also a nice, politically correct way of eliminating the competition for huge multi-national corporations. Maybe it’s the designator “Mom-and-Pop” that really offends the Left.

We are conscientious objectors in this latest culture clash. We will not go quietly into a “1984” world of Orwellian world of “doublespeak.” We will stand up against the pink panzers of political correctness.

We won’t stop speaking out. Don’t draft us!

Ken Blackwell is Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at Family Research Council.