Obliterating Parents and Families

Posted January 30, 2013

The homosexual activists keep insisting that they just want to be left alone to do their own thing. They merely want the state out of the bedroom, they claim. If that were all they wanted, most folks would agree. But that of course is not just what they want. They are on a mission to destroy marriage and family, and even to deconstruct the very nature of parenting.

Thus we have seen a full-scale war declared on mothers and fathers as part of their radical social engineering agenda. They are intent on remaking family, parenting and marriage into their own distorted image. And sadly they are succeeding on many fronts.

Aided and abetted by a radical judiciary, a compliant mainstream media, and so many of our ruling elites, they are very quickly demolishing the very concept of parenting and family. And that, as I document in my book, Strained Relations, is exactly what they have always wanted to do.

Consider a few more recent examples of this. In Florida a judge has declared that a child can have three parents. The story goes this way: “In what could become a landmark decision, a Florida judge has ruled that a 23-month-old girl can have three people listed on her birth certificate as her parents.

“Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Antonio Marin approved a settlement between a lesbian couple, Maria Italiano and Cher Filippazzo, who were legally ‘married’ in Connecticut, and Massimiliano Gerina, a homosexual who donated sperm for Italiano to become pregnant.”

It is exactly this sort of radical social engineering which is resulting in laws being changed all around the Western world to basically obliterate the very notion of mothers and fathers. What has just occurred in Scotland is another case in point:

“The words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be dropped from Scottish matrimonial law under First Minister Alex Salmond’s plans to redefine marriage. Official consultation documents which accompany the Scottish Government’s draft Bill spell out the changes to terminology. Where current matrimonial law refers to ‘mother’ and ‘father’, the Scottish Government plans for legislation to use the gender–neutral term ‘parent’.”

Not everyone there was thrilled with the idea. The former leader of the Scottish National Party, Gordon Wilson, said: “The politically correct elite are going mad. They are going far beyond what people envisage.” And Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust put it this way:

“The Scottish Government’s plan to introduce a new lexicon for family relationships shows just how far its proposals to redefine marriage extend. It is engaging in a linguistic revolution to accommodate the wishes of a tiny minority of same-sex couples who want their relationships to be recognised as a marriage. Under these proposals, marriage is not so much being extended to same-sex couples as being taken over by them.”

It is not just those who can be called members of the religious right who are appalled at all this. Consider the thoughts of UK columnist Brendan O’Neill. Last year he penned a piece entitled, “How the gay-marriage campaign has unleashed a bureaucratic assault on people’s identities”. In it he is not reserved in expressing his contempt for this PC madness:

“Anyone who thinks the introduction of gay marriage will give rise to a new era of liberty and choice should look at the Canadian experience. There, the passing of the 2005 Civil Marriage Act, which allows same-sex unions, unleashed a phenomenal amount of state meddling in families and relationships. Most notably, the state utterly overhauled the traditional language of the family, airbrushing from official documents terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ and even ‘mother’ and ‘father’. The Orwellian obliteration of such longstanding identities, which mean a great deal to many people, demonstrates that modern politicians are more than happy to ride roughshod over the majority in their desperate pursuit of some PC political points.”

He concludes: “Such tinkering with lingo, the replacement of words that have real depth and meaning for millions of people with bureaucratic terms that no normal person uses, reveals the social-engineering instinct that lies behind the gay-marriage campaign. Because this is not simply about elevating gay relationships, as we are so often told—more importantly, it is about demoting and devaluing traditional relationships, as built on marriage as it was once understood. Who in their right mind introduces their husband or wife as their ‘spouse’? What normal woman describes herself as ‘Parent 1’ to her children rather than ‘mother’? No one does. The emergence of such vapid terminology on the back of the gay-marriage bandwagon shows that traditional identities will be trounced in the name of allowing political elites to look cool by backing gay marriage.

“What message does it send to people who define themselves as husbands, wives, mothers or fathers when those ancient terms, so packed with moral purchase, are over-night replaced by bureaucratic [nonsense]? It doesn’t matter, it seems. Those people and their identities count for little in the face of David Cameron’s desire to look both caring and daring as he gives his blessing to gay marriage.”

More recently O’Neill had a great piece describing just what this whole push for homosexual marriage and adoption rights is really all about. Homosexual marriage, he writes, “is depicted as a glorious moment in human history, on a par with blacks in America winning civil rights or women getting the vote. Has the world gone mad? I hope so, because otherwise I definitely have.

“Nothing in Britain’s gay marriage debate adds up. For example, we’re told the passing of the gay marriage bill is an historic victory for the brave gay activists who despite being mocked as perverts and poofs took part in London’s first gay pride parades in the 1970s. Yet this fantastically overlooks the fact that those marchers denounced marriage and the family as ‘patriarchal prisons’ that ‘enslave women, gays and children’.

“For all the harebrained attempts to doll up the passing of the marriage bill as the endpoint to 50 years of gay agitation, the truth is early gay radicals campaigned against marriage, not for it. Marriage is a ‘rotten, oppressive institution’, said the 1970 Gay Manifesto. Homosexuals are ‘in revolt against the nuclear family structure’, said the influential Gay is Good tract of 1972.”

O’Neill’s conclusion is quite telling: “Gay marriage is an entirely invented issue, magicked up by a morally bereft political class desperate to appear meaningful, purposeful. So now they congratulate themselves for having made history while ordinary Brits look on in bamboozlement, decidedly unconvinced that history has happened or that our aloof, principle-lite rulers are the new Rosa Parks.”

Yes our ruling elites deserve as much blame and censure as the homosexual militants. Both are allowing the West in general and parenting and family in particular to be destroyed. No social experiment has ever been this momentous and this fraught with danger.

Yet the activists don’t care a bit. Their real aim is about one thing only: destruction, obliteration, and annihilation. And they are doing a great job of all that.