Last week President Obama came out in support of gay ‘marriage.’ (Selections from the video in which he made the remarks can be viewed here). Moreover, the Presidents’ itinerary suggests that he will have more to say on the subject of same-sex ‘marriage’ in the days immediately ahead.

Everyone is talking about this announcement, together with the remarks of Vice President Biden that preceded it, as if it is a real shock. To those who have been carefully watching the president, however, it comes as no surprise. Last year we reported in our Newsletter how President Obama had told the Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in
the federal courts.

DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 and mandates that the federal government can only recognize a union between one man and one woman as being a ‘marriage’. DOMA also restricts benefits to married couples.

The Attorney General also announced last year (on Feb. 23) that the President believes DOMA discriminates against homosexuals by denying them marital benefits.

The final stage in this process will either be for individual states in America or the federal government itself to grant legal recognition to same-sex ‘marriage.’ If and when that ever happens, we know from the example of Sweden what the result will be. Ever since 2009 when the Swedish government passed a gender neutral marriage law, allowing for homosexual “marriages,” the nation has been working overtime to try to eradicate gender distinctions from every other facet of life. Here are just some examples, most of them taken from Nathalie Rothschild article “Sweden’s New Gender-Neutral Pronoun: Hen,”. While some of these examples are just plain silly, others indicate a type of social totalitarianism that should concern everyone who values freedom of speech and freedom of thought:

  • The country’s online National Encyclopedia has added the pronoun, hen, to the language. It explains the term as a “proposed gender-neutral personal pronoun instead of he [han in Swedish] and she [hon].” (The genderless pronoun “hen” had to be borrowed from the Finnish language since the Swedish language did not possess an appropriate equivalent.)
  • Sweden’s first gender-neutral children’s book has already been published, with the new pronoun used throughout. Similarly, the Swedish lifestyle magazine, Nöjesguiden, recently released an issue in which hen is used throughout.
  • A Swedish children’s clothes company has removed separate boys and girls sections from their stores, choosing instead to mix everything up.
  • A Swedish toy catalogue recently decided to switch things around, showing a girl in denim riding a tractor and a boy in a Spider-Man costume pushing a pink pram.
  • The Swedish Bowling Association is planning to merge male and female bowling tournaments to make the sport gender-neutral.
  • Law-makers have proposed installing gender-neutral restrooms in public places.
  • Various Swedish preschools have banned pupils making references to the gender of other students, so that teachers can no longer say things like, “good morning, boys and girls.”

These examples suggest that there is a relentless logic at work. After all, if the distinctions between men and women do not matter with respect to marriage, then we might legitimately ask where you draw the line. If it is the case (as advocates of same-sex “marriage”, and now the President, argue is the case) that trying to preserve gender distinctions with respect to marriage is an act of discrimination, sexism, and bigotry, then why is it legitimate to maintain these distinctions in any area of life? That is the question Sweden is now asking, and the answers they are giving are hardly reassuring.

In nations other than Sweden we see even even alarming trajectory once same-sex ‘marriages’ are legalized. After the Netherlands legalized same-sex ‘marriage,’ they began giving legal recognition to threesomes.  After Spain did the same they began changing birth certificates so as to refer to ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’ rather than ‘mother’ and ‘father’. In Mexico City, proposals were subsequently introduced to allow for fixed-term marriages. Canada introduced ‘gay marriage’ and there are now credible and logical attempts to use the measure as a precedent for legalising polygamy.

This should also serve as a warning to our nation, which is now in the process of attempting to legalize same-sex ‘marriage.’

To learn about why gay ‘marriage’ is wrong and what you can do about it, visit our new briefing paper on the topic at the following link:

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

9 COMMENTS

    • Especially given that the article cited (Nathalie Rothschild’s) itself identifies that Swedish linguists were advocating the introduction of a gender-neutral pronoun way back in the 1960s.

      I know CV has particular views about gay activisim, but might I suggest it is beyond even the most perspicacious of Swedish gayers to be championing same sex marriage – first permitted in 2009 – through a linguistic change proposed some forty years earlier.

  2. Are you pair still stalking christianvoice?ha ha

    I gotta laugh at the whole gender neutral claptrap, i’ll do my best to explain it to those in office who pass these silly laws, if a person is born with male genitalia then that makes that person a MAN, if a person is born with female genitalia then that makes that person a WOMAN, it could not be simpler.

    And as for obama, he’s just another puppet calling evil good and good evil, another sign of the times.

  4. So Sweden has tried to take action against stereotyping and the limitations that puts on both boys and girls – and somehow this is being equated with gay marriage ?

    Yet again, Christian Voice undermines its point of view with a totally inconsistent argument and a flaw in logic big enough to fly a jumbo jet through.