One of my favorite shows from the late 70's and early 80's was Three's Company. Jack, Janet and Chrissy wanted to live together, but the landlords, the Ropers, wouldn't like it much, having a man and two women in one apartment. So Jack acted like he was gay every time Mr. Roper came around.
Mr. Roper was a bit creeped out by Jack's gay act, but at least he knew he wouldn't have immorality under his roof, by having a straight man and two women in one apartment, where the man could take advantage of the women.
But Jack wasn't gay. He lied to get in the apartment.
In the current debate about gay "rights," I'm trying to understand, from a policy perspective, how we know someone is gay in order to determine if their rights are being violated? For instance, what if a woman doesn't get a job because she is incompetent, but sues the company for refusing to hire her because she's gay, thereby causing a political firestorm, and forcing the company to prove that she was gay AND incompetent. And what if she's lying that she's gay? How do you know?
The gay activists' mantra is that gay "rights" are the new civil rights fight; that the people of the States are a bunch of bigots, and that's why gays can't marry. Pardon me, but, you can clearly see if a man is a man and a woman is a woman but you can't detect what they do in their bedrooms until you ask them, and what if they lie, like Jack did?
One of the directives that Obama issued was a memorandum that promotes gay "rights" across the globe. Hillary Clinton, as State Department head, two days later, "extended 'eligible family member' (EFM) status to same-sex domestic partners of department employees sent to serve abroad. EFM status brings benefits including housing, education, medical services and travel to post." And in doing so, set up a fight between the people of the States and the Federal Government.
States are working on changing the Elliot/Larson Act to include sexual orientation to the many civil rights reasons that dismissals or refusals made by companies in their hiring practices are outlawed.
ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
Act 453 of 1976
Sec. 102. (1) The opportunity to obtain employment, housing and other real estate, and the full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public service, and educational facilities without discrimination because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status as prohibited by this act, is recognized and declared to be a civil right.
So, for the states that have already decided, by popular vote, on the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, are thus put under pressure to reverse society's argument of natural order. Not only that, but this path by the federal government attacks private Americans and their right to vote their conscience or their beliefs on homosexuality.
I remember an Ellen DeGeneres bit when she was doing stand-up, that made fun of people who equate gay "marriage" with bestiality or polygamy. That people who are against gay "marriage" point to the slippery slope of these unnatural or immoral situations that may become necessary to accept if we as a society accept gay "marriage." And without casting judgment on those who promote gay "marriage" as a natural human right, I ask, how do we know if someone abuses a government-imposed "right" in order to receive benefits?
Jeremy Irons put it this way: "I worry that it means we change or debase what marriage is." "Tax-wise it's an interesting one. Could a father not marry his son? It's not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us from inbreeding. But men don't breed, so incest wouldn't cover that." Irons was pointing out that, in order to save from being hit by an inheritance tax, any sort of arrangement could be made, because who's going to know?
What Obama and Clinton have done is incite controversy to promote their own agenda, refusing to acknowledge that the definition of marriage is a duty left to the states, or to the people. If you are in a State that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and you voted on it, it was a secret ballot and no one had to know why or how you voted.
But now, if you try to explain why you are against such an arrangement, you are called a bigot and labeled a hater, thanks to the destruction of constitutional rights of the individual, brought to you by the Obama administration. And you'll never be able to run for political office if you try to explain your thinking without bringing up your spiritual reasoning, which will get you labeled as a bigot, unless you lie.
This deliberate secularization of America forces the people to accept that which they do not agree to, and continues the Big Lie that all liberalism is based upon: that the people need rulers because they are not able to decide things for themselves with direction from their God. The government then becomes a god, just as the kings of past civilizations, and the people, its playthings.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels