EDITORIAL

It was a momentous month for homosexual “marriage.”

The relentless march of legislation attempting to redefine marriage bagged two countries at the end of June. Canada and Spain joined Holland and Belgium to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

Canadian friends were practically despondent. Author and artist Michael O'Brien spelled out some of the consequences of the new law in an e-mail: “adoption of children by homosexual parents, the enforced re-education of the young through social engineering programs in the school systems, increased harassment of the churches wherever they resist the Revolution.”

Register readers know how well founded his fears are. When Massachusetts legalized homosexual “marriage,” schools immediately began teaching it and adoption agencies enforcing it.

Worse, said O'Brien, Canadian Catholics in positions of leadership — including the prime minister — are the ones who changed the definition of marriage.

“This is the country our forefathers sacrificed so much to build, its freedoms purchased by and preserved by their courage and blood,” he said. “That country has gone, traded away by careerists and strategists, which is a sobering reminder that democracy is only as good as the moral character of its people. The lyrics of our national anthem come to mind, and die in the throat: O Canada, glorious and free.”

It's enough to break your heart — especially since the logic of the homosexual activists seems unstoppable. The culture tells us every way it can that to stand by traditional marriage is discriminatory and that to deny homosexuals the right to adopt children is narrow-minded. Movies and television shows are all lining up behind a new Prevailing Wisdom that says homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality — it's only the gender preference that changes.

A recent example is the taped-but-never-aired ABC show “Welcome to the Neighborhood,” a reality show in which competing “families” vie for a free house by courting the neighbors. One of the competitors was a homosexual couple who had adopted a child.

When evangelical groups complained that the show stereotyped them and mischaracterized their opposition to homosexual “marriage,” ABC ignored them. But then a homosexual activist group complained that they didn'd want to see anyone opposing homosexual couples on television at all — stereotyped or not. So ABC pulled the show — even though the network had already spent weeks marketing it.

In the midst of it all, New Jersey can give us some hope. The June decision from the courts there reminds us that we're not so crazy after all. Presiding Judge Stephen Skillman not only preserved marriage in New Jersey, but he also pointed out that Massachusetts’ 2003 Goodridge decision is far from the apex of enlightenment it claims to be.

He said the decision conflicted with “the traditional and still prevailing religious and societal view of marriage as a union between one man and one woman that plays a vital role in propagating the species and provides the ideal setting for raising children.”

As the Register has mentioned before, children are bound to suffer if their parents are part of the homosexual scene. From the Village People song “YMCA” to the Showtime television show “Queer as Folk,” homosexual culture has long celebrated sex with teens. One of the most searched-for pornography terms on the Internet is a homosexual slang word for underage teen-age boys. In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger.

Judge Skillman added, “A Constitution is not simply an empty receptacle into which judges may pour their own conceptions of evolving social mores. To yield to the impulse to invalidate legislation merely because members of the court disapprove of public policy is to subvert the sensitive interrelationship between the three branches of government, which is at the heart of democracy.”

In a concurring opinion, Judge Anthony Parillo wrote that to distill marriage to “a close personal relationship” would strip the institution “of any goal or end beyond the intrinsic emotional, psychological or sexual satisfaction that the relationship brings to the individuals involved.”

We can take heart in the fact that we aren'd the only ones who see the obvious with homosexual “marriage.”

Spread the judges’ words. Pass them on to your representatives in state and federal government. (Type in your ZIP code at Vote-Smart.org to find out who your representatives are.)

Ask how they plan to stop the assault on marriage.