Click to read Ephesians 6:10-18
| Print |

We recommend "Landscape" print layout.


Same-Sex Marriage Imposes a Homosexist Worldview


By Carman Bradley


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 ends its heterosexist worldview and adopts 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.[i]

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.”[ii]  In 1997, EGALE ratified a Guiding Principle that “Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should have access to the same range of relationship options as heterosexuals.”[iii]  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.”[iv]

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” – a hierarchy of relationships.  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.[v]  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 defeating the McCloskey/Short (homosexual) 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. [vi]  

Four years later it was the homosexist worldview which prevailed.  And 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.[vii]

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,”[viii]  and Justice of the Supreme Court, Rosalie Abella, says the judiciaries are pushing “the juggernaut of rights.”[ix]

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.

demographic lib era.jpg

















The Nation, a journal for mostly gay readers, recorded 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.[x]  

This prediction has come true and the invented cosmology may be labeled “Homosexism.”  Heterosexism and homosexism 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 under gird, but in reality the state can only hold to one worldview at a time.    

The bane of secular humanism is religion and in Canada the secular humanist target is Christianity.  To the secular humanist ideologue the faithfully religious must be publicly silenced and politically neutered, if not de-programmed.  Dostoevsky’s dictum: “If there is no God, everything is permitted,” 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 elements of the humanist dream for utopia.    

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.[xi] 

And 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, alleges that 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.[xii]

In this anything goes secular humanist worldview, Glass predicts parents will abort genetically imperfect fetuses or use gene therapy to alter their unborn children.  Moreover, inert (homosexual) couples will 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 put the issues as follows:

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.[xiii]

Marriage and family cannot prosper in a homosexist state.  And public Christian witness faces unprecedented obstacles in a homosexist nation. 


Copyright © 2008 StandForGod.Org


[i] Joe Woodward, “Religions unite over sex and the family,” Calgary Herald, 20 February 2001, pp.A1 and A2.

[ii] Didi Herman, “Are We Family? Lesbian Rights and Women’s Liberation,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 28.4 (Winter 1990): 803 as cited by Greener 54.

[iii] Ian Laurie Arron, Director of Advocacy of EGALE Canada Inc., Affidavit Supreme Court of Canada, 16 July 2003, File no. 29866, p. 6.

[iv] Frank Browning, The Culture of Desire: Paradox and Perversity in Gay Lives Today (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), p.153.

[v] Tom Arnold, “B.C. court says no to gay marriage,” National Post, Thursday 4 October 2001, p.A1.

[vi] Frank Stirk, “Marriage Upheld by B.C. Judge,” Christian Week, Vol. 15, Issue 13, October 16, 2001. Cindy Silver also represented REAL Women of B.C., the Canadian Alliance of Social Justice and Family Values Associations and Focus on the Family Canada.

[vii] Iain T. Benson, “The Idolatry of Law: When Law is Seen as “like Religion,” Centre Points 12, Winter 2004/2005,, 10/16/05.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Robert M. Baird & M. Katherine Baird Ed., Homosexuality: Debating the Issues (Amherst New York: Prometheus Books, 1995), p.33.

[xi] Gina Kolata, Clone (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1998), p.228.

[xii] Ibid., p.76.

[xiii] George Gilder, Men and Marriage (Gretna Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, Inc, 1987), p.185.