The debate for gay marriage is only about gay marriage at the street level.  Both the proponents and opponents of gay marriage at the street level are not rightly focused on the actual core of this battle, the right of the state versus the right of the individual.  Who stands on what side might not be as self-evident as you think it is, especiallly if you are a progressive who accidently found yourself on the Freedomist News Journal.  Here is the real truth behind the rainbow:

gay rights statism

How the Fight For Gay Rights is really a Fight for State Power, and how that victory will ultimately cost Homosexuals the very rights they already have

Paul Gordon Collier

 

The ‘gay rights’ movement is not at all about rights, and the core leaders of the movement are not so much interested in homosexuals as they are in the sovereignty of the state over the sovereignty of the individual.  I hope to show in this article two truths; the first truth is that gay marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, and the second truth is that there is a way to give homosexuals the ‘right’ to marry without giving the true ideological leaders of the progressives the real victory they want, the destruction of individual liberty.

Our nation’s founding principles were based on the revolutionary concept of individual liberty.  This concept was born from centuries of oppression and murder of those who would dare to practice a religious belief that went against the one endorsed by the state.

founding fathers

Under the same principle, or standard, of individual liberty, the homosexual lobby and their allies are claiming that the state should endorse marriage for homosexuals in the same way that the state currently endorses Jude0 Christian marriage (that being only between a man and a woman).

Even while alternatives to an all-out endorsement of gay marriage by the state have been offered, the homosexual lobby still marches to demand the courts force all Americans to sanction their lifestyles.  Civil Unions give homosexuals all the practical benefits of marriage, save for tax benefits, which could very easily be included in civil unions of the future.

If their fight was simply for their unions to have the same same benefits as ‘traditional marriage’, this conversation might be over.  But the homosexual lobby, specifically the core sponsors and instigators of the militant movement, are not seeking benefits.  They are seeking to fundamentally destroy the Judeo Christian value system this nation was originally founded on.

Some of those core leaders believe that Christianity is the enemy of ‘reason’ and that it should be de facto made to be illegal or narrowly restricted to quiet gatherings in people’s homes.  They may or may not hold to progressive ideals, but their value systems do not significantly impede progressive values and standards.

The ‘right’ to marry is not, in actuality, being denied to homosexuals.  They have a right to define marriage any way, shape, or form that they so choose.  Individuals and businesses have rights to recognize their unions as marriage, even to refer to them as a married couple.  Civil Unions could even given them some protections as far as getting the same health benefits that married couples enjoy from their employers.