On 26 June, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States passed judgment on the controversial, landmark case Obergefell vs. Hodges. With a 5-4 ruling, the definition of marriage in the US was overhauled, and redefined.
Marriage “equality” supporters celebrated that their “#LoveWins” campaign had successfully stripped marriage of its man-woman definition. Same-sex couples could now have their “marriage” validated by the State, just like heterosexual couples.
But the changes over just the last two years demonstrate that the Supreme Court decision resulted in more than simple legal recognition of “marriages”.
Obergefell vs. Hodges did NOT legalise marriage equality – it redefined marriage.
If equality was all that same-sex marriage activists were seeking, then they would have been content with same-sex couples being afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, something Australia did close to ten years ago.
But activists want more than that: over the past two years in the United States, many of them have actively worked to ensure something other than ‘equality’ was achieved. What the redefinition of marriage did to the US was to destroy the concepts of gender, tear down protections for the two sexes, break apart the family, and trample the rights of US citizens.
Take a look at the stories we have featured about what has happened in the US since marriage was redefined. Just as in the US, marriage “equality” supporters often times have no idea that consequences of redefining marriage are so vast. This is why we must keep fighting. This is why we must keep warning Australians about the consequences of redefining marriage, and working hard to ensure it does not happen here.
Marriage equality supporters are facing a harsh reality – redefining marriage redefines a country. We must not let Australia suffer the same fate.
Typically, it is not the adults who advocated for same-sex marriage who bear the burden - it is the children of that country. Two years after legalising same-sex marriage, the US is feeling those effects, especially when it comes to fairness between the two genders.
Removing the man-woman definition of marriage has fostered a blind acceptance of gender ideology in mainstream media, and a forced “celebration” of LGBTI lifestyles. This has created an environment in which health professionals are scared into silence.
A recent case in South Carolina in the United States lends credence to the fact that changing the legal definition of marriage will lead to the slow breakdown of the traditional family unit.
Countries which have redefined marriage are now witnessing the consequential domino effect, as other fundamental structures of society are affected. By redefining marriage, the traditional concept of a parent is inevitably changed.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently circulated data among its members indicating that children are unable to safely cross the road on their own until they are at least 14 years of age. However, this same organisation has repeatedly pushed the idea that children under the age of 14 can determine whether or not they are transgender.
An argument can be made for providing free sanitary items on campus for women. However, placing such items in the men’s bathrooms is an absurd virtue-signalling move that panders to transgender people. If this move was really about being “inclusive,” did anyone ask the male bathroom users whether they were comfortable with it?
A new study released by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) shows that there is a stark increase in the percentage of millennials in the U.S. identifying as LGBTQ as opposed to preceding generations.
Justice Ruth Neely was asked by a reporter whether she was “excited” to perform same-sex marriages. Off duty at the time, she expressed her view that marriage should be between a man and a woman. A few months later, the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics filed a complaint against Justice Neely, demanding that she be removed from the volunteer position of circuit court magistrate, and from her paid position as municipal judge of Wyoming.
After the US Supreme Court redefined marriage for the whole country, without providing the mechanisms to deal with the consequences for ordinary citizens, Americans are currently reeling and wrestling with those consequences. Among the fray, there have been some small victories for those who refused to kowtow to the LGBTI agenda.
Redefining marriage opens the door to everything being reconstructed to suit the preferences of the LGBTI lobby. In countries where same-sex marriage has been legalised, the known consequences have already proved more drastic, far-reaching, and ludicrous than presupposed.
Once again, the LGBTI agenda’s crusade for ‘rights’ has superseded the fundamental privilege children should have to their biological identity. It is no coincidence that such cases are becoming more prevalent than ever in countries that have legalised same-sex marriage, such as the United States.
Parents in the US whose children are in school will be relieved to know that their right to speak out against the transgender bathroom policies is being upheld. This decision puts power in the hands of ordinary citizens – the silent majority – so that they can have an influence on these policies at a local level.
Strong families are essential to a healthy, stable society. Yet the redefinition of marriage threatens this. The destruction of this foundation leads to confusion, anxiety, and a search for stability.