Hilary White


From their own mouths, Pt 1: LGBT Lobby plans to 'wholly transform the definition of family'

Hilary White
Hilary White

ROME, February 1, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – “Transforming the very fabric of society;” and “radically reordering society’s view of reality”: these are what “being queer” means to the ideologues behind the homosexual political movement that is currently sweeping through legislatures around the world. Is this the insane ranting of a right-wing Christian conspiracy theorist? Is it yet another “attack” by wicked Pope Benedict XVI on innocent gays doing nothing more than seeking a better place in society?

No, they’re the assertions by a lesbian academic about the real purpose and goal of the LGBT political movement.

When Christians and other opponents of the homosexual agenda say this, we hear the screeching of the media pundits around the world. It’s all about equality! Equality!! About overcoming centuries of mindless prejudice…! We hear it so often, we could practically write the script ourselves.

But the quotes above are from the late lesbian homosexual thinker and activist Paula Ettelbrick, who was not the only member of the homosexual movement to forthrightly lay out the plan. As far back as the late 1980s, well before “gay marriage” was a glimmer in the eye of the most radical leftist politician, she wrote, “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.”

“We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality,” she wrote.

In case there were still any question whether the entire “gay marriage” political debacle was about “equality,” Ettelbrick went on to say in a1989 article in OUT/LOOK – entitled,“Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” – that though she objected to the idea of same-sex “marriage” itself, the fight was still useful as a political ploy. Although she believed homosexuals are “fundamentally different” from straight people and should not want to buy into our patriarchal and inherently oppressive institutions, she counseled, “People should marry for symbolic not economic benefits.”

Other lesbian academics have been equally open about the real goals.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Nan Hunter, a professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, wrote in the National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law (yes, there is such a publication) that the purpose of legalizing “gay marriage” was to “destabilize marriage’s gendered definition, thus disrupting the link between gender and marriage, thereby subverting its power differential.”

Indeed, she chronicles efforts to force the issue by activists dating back to the early 1970s.

Michelangelo Signorile wrote in OUT magazine in 1994, “A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

He added, “It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”

In case these seem merely like the wild rantings of obscure academics speaking only to the bats in their ivory belfries, another more recent admission comes from PinkNews, the main online journal of the homosexual movement in Britain.

Chris Ashford, a Reader in Law and Society at the University of Sunderland, said on Friday that, although winning the “gay marriage” fight has been a major step forward for the movement, it ain’t over yet.

Britain’s leading gay political lobby, Stonewall, has said that with the passage of the bill (yes, it’s more or less a foregone conclusion, and has been since it was announced) the political fight will be over. Equality achieved.

What does “equality” look like? “It looks like being ‘normal,’ being the ‘same’ as the dominant heterosexual majority, or at least, a fantasy image of that majority…We will aspire to a monogamous, state-sanctioned relationship…stop those group-sex shenanigans and embrace normality.”

But, Ashford says, “Legislative victory should not mean identity erasure.”

“There remain numerous sexual freedoms to campaign on – yes sexual – that’s what gay rights is about, not merely a civil rights campaign – and there are battles still to be won. Battles relating to pornography, the continued criminalization of consensual sexual acts, re-constructing our ideas of relationships in relation to sex, monogamy and the illusion that only ‘couples’ might want to enter into a state-sanctioned partnership, are just a handful which spring to mind,” he wrote.

The “gay marriage” bill, he concludes, “is not the end of the journey, or the final piece in a jigsaw. It is just another step – albeit a significant one – on a never-ending journey.”

While most of the mainstream media and the political class, whether out of fear of reprisal or genuine collusion, rigidly restrict the discussion to topics of “rights” and “equality.” And it has certainly worked. The “equality” tactic has been the strongest weapon in the movement’s political arsenal when pointed at the generalized fear in western societies of being seen to be “discriminatory,” a fear that has metastasized into a national mental pathology in Britain.

We are told that it is “unfair” to “restrict” marriage to “heterosexual couples,” as though we are all in perfect lockstep agreement that there is any other kind. We are accused, strangely, of “racism” and “discrimination” when we so much as ask difficult questions.

So terrorized have the Western peoples become of being called these schoolyard names, again particularly in Britain, that I have witnessed ordinary citizens censor their thoughts, halting in mid-sentence in a private discussion out of fear that they may say something unacceptable.

This terror – essentially a grotesque swelling of the English phobia of making a social faux pas – is the origin of the odd phenomenon of straights turning suspected homophobes over to the authorities for punishment:

Perhaps we should redefine “homophobia” to mean the, largely justified, terror of offending homosexualist bullies.

When Pope Benedict XVI, one of a tiny handful of leaders on the global stage willing to talk about what we’re really talking about, said that the pressure for “gay marriage” in the West “threatens the future of humanity,” the world’s media went into a screaming frenzy.

But here are the homosexuals themselves saying exactly the same thing, and the media is standing by with the tissues. It makes the question about who is working for whom redundant.

Share this article

Featured Image
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood shooting suspect surrenders, is in custody: police

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Nov. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Five hours after a single male shooter reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, chatter on police radio is indicating that the suspect has now been "detained."

"We have our suspect and he says he is alone," said police on the police radio channel. 

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers also confirmed via Twitter shortly after 7:00 pm EST that the suspect was in custody.

The news comes almost exactly an hour after the start of a 6:00 pm. press conference in which Lt. Catherine Buckley had confirmed that a single shooter was still at large, and had exchanged gunfire with police moments before.

According to Lt. Buckley, four, and possibly five police officers have been shot since the first 911 call was received at 11:38 am local time today. An unknown number of civilians have also been shot.

Although initial reports had suggested that the shooting began outside the Planned Parenthood, possibly outside a nearby bank, Lt. Buckley said that in fact the incident began at the Planned Parenthood itself.

She said that the suspect had also brought unknown "items" with him to the Planned Parenthood. 

Pro-life groups have started responding to the news, urging caution in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of the shooter, while also condemning the use of violence in promoting the pro-life cause. 

"Information is very sketchy about the currently active shooting situation in Colorado Springs," said Pavone. "The Planned Parenthood was the address given in the initial call to the police, but we still do not know what connection, if any, the shooting has to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion.

"As leaders in the pro-life movement, we call for calm and pray for a peaceful resolution of this situation."

Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also issued statements.

"Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies," said Newman. "We express deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without further injury to anyone."

"Although we don't know the reasons for the shooting near the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs today, the pro-life movement is praying for the safety of all involved and as a movement we have always unequivocally condemned all forms of violence at abortion clinics. We must continually as a nation stand against violence on all levels," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.


Share this article

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , , ,

Rubio says SCOTUS didn’t ‘settle’ marriage issue: ‘God’s rules always win’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Surging GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says that "God's law" trumps the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision imposing same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The senator also told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage is not "settled," but instead "current law."

“No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and "the proper place for that to be defined is at the state level, where marriage has always been regulated — not by the Supreme Court and not by the federal government.”

However, when laws conflict with religious beliefs, "God's rules always win," said Rubio.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio expounded. “We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

“I continue to believe that marriage law should be between one man and one woman," said the senator, who earlier in the fall was backed by billionaire GOP donor and same-sex "marriage" supporter Paul Singer.

Singer, who also backs looser immigration laws and a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, has long pushed for the GOP to change its position on marriage in part due to the sexual orientation of his son.

Despite Singer's support, Rubio's marriage stance has largely been consistent. He told Brody earlier in the year that "there isn't such a right" to same-sex "marriage."

"You have to have a ridiculous reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

Rubio also said religious liberty should be defended against LGBT activists he says "want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters."

"I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman," he said.

Rubio also hired social conservative leader Eric Teetsel as his director of faith outreach this month.

However, things have not been entirely smooth for Rubio on marriage. Social conservatives were concerned when the executive director of the LGBT-focused Log Cabin Republicans told Reuters in the spring that the Catholic senator is "not as adamantly opposed to all things LGBT as some of his statements suggest."

The LGBT activist group had meetings with Rubio's office "going back some time," though the senator himself never attended those meetings. Rubio has publicly said that he would attend the homosexual "wedding" of a gay loved one, and also that he believed "that sexual preference is something that people are born with," as opposed to being a choice.

Additionally, days after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Rubio said that he disagreed with the decision but that "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman," he said. "People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.

Rubio also said at the time that "it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…"

“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

The Florida senator said in July that he opposed a constitutional marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution to leave marriage up to the states because that would involve the federal government in state marriage policies.

Featured Image
Former The View star Sherri Shepherd and then-husband Lamar Sally in 2010 s_bukley / Shutterstock.com
Steve Weatherbe

Court orders Sherri Shepherd to pay child support for surrogate son she abandoned

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Sherri Shepherd, a Hollywood celebrity who co-hosted the popular talk show The View for seven years, has lost a maternity suit launched by her ex-husband Lamar Sally, forcing her to pay him alimony and child support for their one-year surrogate son LJ. The decision follows an unseemly fight which pro-life blogger Cassy Fiano says has exposed how surrogacy results in “commodifying” the unborn.

Shepherd, a co-host of the View from 2007 to 2014, met Sally, a screenwriter, in 2010 and they married a year later. Because her eggs were not viable, they arranged a surrogate mother in Pennsylvania to bear them a baby conceived in vitro using Sally’s sperm and a donated egg.

But the marriage soured in mid-term about the time Shepherd lost her job with The View. According to one tabloid explanation, she was worried he would contribute little to parenting responsibilities.  Sally filed for separation in 2014, Shepherd filed for divorce a few days, then Sally sued for sole custody, then alimony and child support.

Earlier this year she told PEOPLE she had gone along with the surrogacy to prevent the breakup of the marriage and had not really wanted the child.

Shepherd, an avowed Christian who once denied evolution on The View and a successful comic actor on Broadway, TV, and in film since the mid-90s, didn’t want anything to do with LJ, as Lamar named the boy, who after all carried none of her genes. She refused to be at bedside for the birth, and refused to let her name be put on the birth certificate and to shoulder any responsibility for LJ’s support.

But in April the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, and now the state’s Superior Court, ruled that Shepherd’s name must go on the birth certificate and she must pay Sally alimony and child support.

“The ultimate outcome is that this baby has two parents and the parents are Lamar Sally and Sherri Shepherd,” Shepherd’s lawyer Tiffany Palmer said.

As for the father, Sally told PEOPLE, “I'm glad it's finally over. I'm glad the judges saw through all the lies that she put out there, and the negative media attention. If she won't be there for L.J. emotionally, I'll be parent enough for the both of us.”

But Shepherd said, “I am appealing the ruling that happened,” though in the meantime, Sally will “get his settlement every month. There’s nothing I can do.”

Commented Fiano in Live Action News, “What’s so sickening about this case is that this little boy, whose life was created in a test tube, was treated as nothing more than a commodity…Saying that you don’t want a baby but will engineer one to get something you want is horrific.” As for trying to get out from child support payments now that the marriage had failed, that was “despicable.”

Fiano went on to characterize the Shepherd-Sally affair as a “notable example” of commodification of children, and “by no means an anomaly.” She cited a British report than over the past five years 123 babies conceived in vitro were callously aborted when they turned out to have Down Syndrome.

“When we’re not ready for babies, we have an abortion,” she added. “But then when we decide we are ready we manufacture them in a laboratory and destroy any extras. Children exist when we want them to exist, to fill the holes in us that we want them to fill, instead of being independent lives with their own inherent value and dignity.”

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook