March 26, 2013 | permalink
In honor of today’s SCOTUS hearings on California’s same-sex marriage ban, let’s review the writings of some of the Child Evangelism Fellowship’s keynote speakers. The first set of quotes are from Charles Ware and his book Darwin’s Plantation: Evolution’s Racist Roots (with Ken Ham, 2007, Master Books).
“The homosexual agenda is extending its tentacles throughout the United States culture via media, entertainment, education, and the political system.” (p. 168)
“If homosexual relationships are legitimized based upon personal desires, where does society draw the line with other deviant and destructive behaviors that some find despicable? What makes marriage to children, multiple parties, deceased individuals, or animals wrong?” (p. 172)
In the name of “sexual preference,” countless families have been sacrificed on the altar of personal passion. When some homosexuals “come out,” they fracture family bonds and promises. Spouses who believed they were secure in a relationship til death find themselves deceived and abandoned due to a greater commitment to one’s personal desire than one’s promises.” (p. 177)
So keep that closet door shut! Now let’s hear from Mathew Staver, president and founder of Liberty Counsel, which provides Good News Clubs and the CEF with their legal backup. Staver published a book in 2004 titled Same-Sex Marriage, Putting Every Household at Risk (Broadman & Holman).
“The same-sex marriage movement is radical at its very core and will surely destabilize society. While the cameras are rolling and the journalists are writing, the face of same-sex marriage movement may present itself as tolerant, even mainstream, but the agenda is intolerant and radical. If the camel’s nose ever gets underneath the tent, the tent is history.” (p. 55)
Confused by this mysterious “gay agenda,” to say nothing of camels, I begin to get a grip on Staver’s thinking when he sets aide his obsession with gay peoples’ private business and starts talking about heterosexuals. “To sanction same-sex marriage would be to say that there is no relevance to gender and thus result in the abolition of gender,” he writes.
In other words, if differences between women and men are not reinforced by federal statutes, they will magically vaporize.