Gay "Marriage" is about Power, not Love ...

...writes Mark Shea:

People such as Pastor Stephen Boisson can answer that question. He was ordered by Canadian Caesar to renounce his Christian belief that homosexual acts are immoral and subjected to years of legal torment by the State. Same deal for Swedish pastor Ake Green who transgressed the New Piety by stating what Christianity has always taught about one of the sins that cries out to heaven for vengeance.


The point is this: in a free society, homosexuals can do as they please in the privacy of their own home. I don’t need to know about it, just as I don’t need to know if you had carnal relations with your wife last night. Not my business. It is, I think, silly for those rare fringe Christians to talk about criminalizing the Love that Dare Not Speak its Name (unless they’d also like to criminalize the serial adulteries of Newt Gingrich and stone to death millions of marriage-destroying heterosexuals as well). And, in fact, nobody beyond a few fringies is talking about that, so the panic-mongers in the gay community who perpetually go on about “Christian homophobia” are just blowing smoke. Not every sin is a crime and nobody is talking about any legal punishments for gays.

But practicing homosexuals (nota bene: I have nothing but respect for those with same sex attraction who choose to live chastely) and other enemies of people of faith are eagerly pushing to make it a crime to so much as think that homosexuality is an immoral perversion. That’s what gay “marriage” is really about: creating a legal basis to punish thoughtcrime as “hate speech”. It is fired by the insistence that mere tolerance of homosexuals is not enough. You. MUST. approve of homosexual acts and if you voice any disapproval of them—if you so much as utter a whisper that homosexuality is an obviously disordered form of sexuality—you shall be punished with the full weight of the law.

In short, gay “marriage” is prelude to legal persecution of the Church for teaching what it teaches about sexuality. That’s where this is going. That’s what this is about.

Here is the article on Pastor Boisson - who may well be a obsessed nut for all I know, but is most certainly the canary in the coal mine for those of us who dissent from the politically correct:

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.


The complaint stems from Canada’s debate leading up to state legislation recognizing so-called same-sex marriage. In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as “wicked” and stated that: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

The activist subsequently filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission — a quasi-judicial body that investigates alleged discrimination within the Canadian province. The government tribunal published its decision [http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf] on May 30.

While agreeing that Boisson’s letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Moreover, the tribunal’s decision “prohibited [Boisson] from making disparaging remarks in the future” about the activist who filed the complaint and witnesses who supported the complaint. Many of Canada’s religious leaders and civil libertarians have expressed concern that the government’s human rights tribunals are interpreting any criticism of homosexual activism as ‘disparaging’.

Here is the HRC decision.

George Weigel makes a great point about the vast expansion of government power behind the homosexual marriage law:

“Gay marriage” in fact represents a vast expansion of state power: In this instance, the state of New York is declaring that it has the competence to redefine a basic human institution in order to satisfy the demands of an interest group looking for the kind of social acceptance that putatively comes from legal recognition. But as Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York and others argued during the days before the fateful vote on June 24, the state of New York does not have such competence, and the assertion that it does casts an ominous shadow over the future. For if the state in fact has the competence, or authority, to declare that Adam and Steve, or Eve and Evelyn, are married, and has the related authority to compel others to recognize such marriages as the equivalent of what we have known as marriage for millennia, then why stop at marriage between two men or two women? Why not polyamory or polygamy? Why can’t any combination of men and women sharing financial resources and body parts declare itself a marriage, and then demand from the state a redress of its grievances and legal recognition of it as a family? On what principled ground is the New York state legislature, or any other state legislature, going to say “No” to that, once it has declared that Adam and Steve, or Eve and Evelyn, can in fact get married according to the laws of the state?

Good question.

Any answers?

Bueller?