What the LGBT Lobby Hath Wrought in California

by walterm on May 27, 2013

Here in California, Assembly Bill 640 is making its way through the legislative process, authored by openly homosexual Tom Ammiano (D–San Francisco). AB 640 would require group health plan contracts to cover infertility treatments for same-sex couples, who by definition cannot procreate together. This bill would force insurance carriers and, by extension, policy holders, to pay for these procedures. Ammiano claims that refusing such treatment to registered domestic partners is discriminatory. Now think about this for a moment, according to this bill insurance companies are discriminating (and by extension, you) against same-sex couples if they don’t provide very expensive infertility treatments. The notion that same-sex couples should pay for their own infertility treatments are long gone since they can’t, gasp, procreate naturally. Thus, you, a policy holder, owe them infertility treatments so they can procreate and raise children even though it has been demonstrated conclusively that same-sex couples are not even close to being optimal parents for children.  I cannot understand how I am discriminating against someone by not providing something for free that is nothing more than a purely elective desire and not even close to a need.  But this is what you get from the LGBT lobby and their acolytes.

The tragedy of the LGBT lobby is that in their quest for “gay rights,” they completely and fundamentally throw out all manner of fairness seeking to demonize any opposition.  Their arguments are sloppy, incoherent, and disingenuous, which I will attempt to demonstrate with no malice whatsoever to same-sex couples who conduct their daily lives just like everyone else and are not trying to force everyone else to endorse their unions. As we learned during the US Supreme Court trial a couple of months ago, the plaintiffs arguing for same-sex marriage were asked if gays were being systematically discriminated against in any way other than being denied marriage, and the answer was that they were not.  For millennia, marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman, which is the only way whereby two people can naturally procreate and raise the next generation.  It is a common sense notion, and to be told that you are discriminating against someone on this ground and refusing to change is presumptuous at best, and bullying at worst. The LGBT lobby, in order to get what it wants has taken the low road, and their tactic is to make you out to be a bigot or homophobe just for using your common sense when you are in no way preventing same-sex couple from having relationships and living their lives. I believe I join with most Americans that if same-sex couples want to draw up contractual living arrangements for visitation, survivorship, and tax purposes, they should be allowed to do so.  But please do not falsely charge I am a bigot for holding steadfast to the traditional definition of marriage.

Another bill authored by Ammiano is the highly insidious AB 1266, which mandates that public school students as young as kindergarten would be permitted to participate in sex-segregated clubs and activities regardless of their gender. So if a youngster is male, but on this day identifies as a female, that male can play girl’s field hockey and even use the girl’s locker room. This bill has passed the Assembly and is now in the hands of the California Senate.  I can promise you, this is going to pass and I wouldn’t be surprised if Governor Jerry Brown signed it. As you can surmise, the idea is to break down any and all distinctions between male and female so gender is seen as nothing more than choice, and the key to promulgating this throughout society is to indoctrinate this view into innocent children. So once you have broken down this distinction, there is fundamentally no difference what two men or two women can offer children as compared to what a man and a woman can.  Forever gone will be the distinctions that in a traditional family, the father and mother provide distinct roles based on their gender that provide children with complementary views and roles with respect to being male or female. It doesn’t take a PhD to see that two men or two women cannot provide the much needed balance in roles that children need to understand in order to grow up as properly adjusted and responsible adults.

I think the question we should all be asking is if the end of LGBT efforts justifies the means. The end is the destruction of the traditional family, and also to force, through law, the full acceptance and even special protection of same-sex couples. Whatever they want, you have to provide unless you want to be labeled a bigot or a homophobe. Recall during the civil rights in the 1960s, Martin Luther King refused to call white people derogatory names, demonize them, or instigate violence. He knew that even though his end, civil rights for blacks, was paramount, using the wrong means would do nothing but poison the well and create mistrust of the black community into perpetuity. You don’t see this type of gravitas from the LGBT community, because their motives are not exemplary and their end violates both natural law and the Judeo-Christian ethic. Their entire goal is to force what they want on you, even though you are doing nothing to discriminate against gays or interfere in their chosen lifestyle. Indeed, most Americans believe we should all be able to live our chosen lifestyles as long as they don’t violate laws and don’t hurt our children. The LGBT community knows that the end they seek is hardly good for children, yet they push ahead out of selfishness and spite, not out of love and seeking of the common good. Thus far, they are winning the argument because Americans have not truly considered the consequences of same-sex marriage, particularly with respect to the raising of children. What a shame Americans can be so uninformed and unthinking about future generations, having succumbed to a purely emotional argument about marriage being nothing more than “a committed relationship between two people.” It is far more than that, and my fear is we will find out far too late.

Share

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: