Civil Unions: The Slippery Slope to Polygamy

[Editor’s Note: Homosexual activists with Equality Illinois, Stonewall Democrats, Illinois Log Cabin Republicans, and the ACLU of Illinois held a lobby day at the Capitol on April 29th to push for the passage of “civil unions” legislation — HB 2234.]

The move to legalize civil unions is just a sham move to inch society closer to redefining marriage. One writer calls the term “civil unions” an “insipid euphemism” for marriage; I call it an insidious euphemism.

No homosexual activist worth his salt intends to settle for the “compromise” of civil unions. Their short-term goal is to get us ignorant, hate-filled bumpkins to legalize civil unions and then wait a year or two.

Wait for the entertainment industry to propagate enough titillating images of homosexuality and enough disdainful images of conservatives to transform the moral convictions of the unthinking masses.

Wait for the homosexual activist organizations and bloggers to spew more deceitful, venomous hatred about conservatives in their unholy quest to intimidate and humiliate conservatives into silence.

Wait for public school “educators” to use more public resources to inculcate children with arguable ideas about homosexuality while censoring all material written by conservative scholars.

Wait for the dominant media to work its propagandistic magic, like the Chicago Tribune did on Sunday’s editorial page with two — not one — but two lengthy, pro-homosexual editorials. University of Chicago law professor, pro-homosexuality activist, and too-frequent Trib contributor, Geoffrey Stone, who often writes in a tone dripping with derision and sarcasm, donned his tri-cornered hat and offered a pro-civil unions (a.k.a. homosexual marriage) op-ed piece drenched in patriotic spirit and faux-generosity toward those who harbor the antiquated and absurd idea that marriage is centrally and objectively connected to gender complementarity:

• Stone sees society’s acquiescence to perversion as something that “makes us great.”
• Stone sees our relinquishment of the idea that children have a right to a mother and a father as “an important step forward in the continuing moral progress of the United States.”
• Stone sees this radical, subversive social experiment that threatens the well-being of children and the future of America as something to “be enacted quickly and enthusiastically, for it reflects the American spirit at its very best.”

You can almost hear a chorus of school children singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” — while in the background Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and James Madison role over in their graves.

Professor Stone, that tricky little son of a gun, tries to convince people of faith that their opposition to legalized homosexual marriage represents an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state:

“The problem, though, is that in a society that values the separation of church and state, religious doctrine cannot be the source of our secular law.”

Don’t believe him. It is no more unconstitutional for people whose faith tradition teaches that homosexual behavior is immoral to oppose homosexual marriage than it is for people whose faith tradition affirms homosexual behavior to support homosexual marriage. If Professor Stone were to apply his specious reasoning consistently, no one could vote if their positions on issues were shaped by their faith.

And what would Professor Stone make of these words from Martin Luther King Jr.:

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. . . .

I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, non-biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

In deep disappointment, I have wept over the laxity of the church. . . . I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There is a critical distinction between establishing a state religion, which we must never do, and allowing our political decisions to be shaped by values and beliefs emerging from our faith, which we must never prohibit. But there are scholars who can make this argument far more persuasively than I can, scholars like Hadley Arkes, Francis Beckwith, Christopher J. Eberle, and Robert George.

Finally, don’t skim over this statement by the generous American patriot Geoffrey Stone:

“It is, of course, a compromise, but it is a reasonable compromise at this time in our history.”

We no longer have to read between the lines: Those who view homosexuality as morally equivalent to heterosexuality have no intention of settling for civil unions. They view it as a temporary compromise. They will settle for nothing less than legalized homosexual “marriage” in every state in the Union.

But society’s death march will not end there. Once we have homosexual marriage, polygamy is not far behind. The arguments used to justify homosexual marriage are the very same arguments polyamorists will use, and there are more people interested in plural marriage than there are people who are interested in homosexual marriage.

Read more:

I encourage you to read Mark Steyn’s piquant warning about this slippery slope:

We’re in the fast lane to polygamy