The Engage Family Blog

Official Blog of The Family Policy Council of West Virginia

From Tolerance to Intolerance: How the Normalization of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead to the Suppression of Freedom

with 26 comments

Recently popular talk show host and comedian Ellen Degeneres commented upon the position of Sarah Palin’s support of amending the Federal Constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman.  In response to Palin’s comments on Christian Broadcasting Network, Ellen said:

So if you’re wondering…how I fell about this…I don’t like it.  I don’t agree.  Maybe it’s because I’m gay that I think we should all be equal.  But I feel that we’re all equal…I don’t know what people are scared of.  Maybe they think that their children will be influenced…People are gonna be who they’re gonna be…And we need to learn to love them for who they are, and let them love who they want to love (US Magazine.Com)

I do not disagree with Ellen in that all of us have been created in the image of God and there are certain unalienable rights that we possess as human beings.   I also agree with Ellen in that we have the freedom of choice and the freedom to choose whom we give our love and affection to.  However, once our actions move beyond the realm of our own lives to the realm of impacting others health, safety, and/or convenience, then our ability to “freely choose” should be diminished (seeWe Too Are Prochoice). 

From Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right, Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier observed:

When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license.  This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration (bold mine).

A person’s civil rights are not dictated by their behavior, but rather by their humanity, something that is immutable and unchangeable.  However, celebrities such as Ellen are striving to have homosexuality and same-sex marriage receive special legal protection from the government to the detriment and suppression of freedom among individuals, parents, families, church, and community organizations.   

Massachusetts and Connecticut have already succumb to this political battle, while California hangs in the balance.  California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell, recently commented upon the affects of same-sex marriage on the states public education curricula:

I’ve seen the spots on the TV, and (legalized gay marriage) just isn’ going to require any kind of teaching of personal relationships or lifestyles…That’s just not an accurate statement or portrayal (AP, Public Schools Become Focus of Gay Marriage Ban).

Not only has Mr. O’Connell level such an affirmation, but Laura Schulkind who serves as the representative lawyer for school districts across California said:

The education code already has a high expectation that school districts are going to create an environment where respect for human dignity and acceptance of differences, including sexual orientation, are promoted…I don’t see how the legalization of gay marriage or the passage of Prop. 8 changes that obligation (ibid.)

Is this the case?  Will the endorsement of same-sex marriage have no bearing upon the curricula of state schools?  What will ensure that school districts of CA, or any state for that matter, will not require their schools to normalize homosexuality or same-sex marriage?  

What we will briefly observe is that the special legal protection of homosexuality and the allowance of same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to it’s normalization in state schools; therefore, directly affecting state school curricula.  Moreover, this normalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage will lead to the suppression of freedom of individuals, private religious and civic organizations.


Even though CA state law does not require their schools to teach same-sex marriage, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley believes that the state “may require” such instruction in the future (ibid.).

If we simply observe what is taking place in MA, where same-sex marriages have been performed since 2004, we can readily conclude that the normalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriages will be necessitated within our public schools.  Therefore, state schools will “require” curriculum in the future that accomplishes this end.

Brian Camenker, in his article entitled What Same-Sex “Marriage” Has Done to Massachusetts, observed,

In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught.  The federal judges dismissed the case.  The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children!  Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship! (What Same Sex Marriage has done to MA, bold mine). 

Even though schools possess a secondary authority to that of parents, it appears that they are beginning to usurp their authority and rights in choosing whether or not to opt their children out of such classes.  The author of this article shared an experience of his own stemming from this normalization.  Brian shared:

At my own children’s high school there was a school wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December 2003.  It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination.  Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students (ibid.)

By publicly acknowledging and celebrating same-sex marriage, and passing out literature with the purpose of educating youth of the normalcy of same-sex marriage, state schools will integrate such activities as a part of normalizing homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Not only is this happening in MA, it is already happening in CA in spite of what Mr. O’Connell and Ms. Schulkind say.  From an e-mail sent by the Family Research Council we read:

“We’re learning to be allies.”  That’s how one California mom discovered that something was terribly wrong at her kindergartner’s school.  Together with other five-year-olds, her daughter has spent the entire week learning what it means to be “tolerant.”  This morning, without notifying a single parent, Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science kicked off “Coming Out Day” as part of “Gay and Lesbian History Month.”  When parents called the school to complain, an office worker directed them to contact Hayward Unified School District.  Despite several attempts, the District never answered its phone.  Only from the hallway posters did parents learn that the elementary school is hosting a “TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud” next month. 

Observing just this small selection of examples will lead us to conclude that the allowance of same-sex marriage in any state, rather it be MA, CA, or WV, will lead to the states normalizing of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  States that look to normalize homosexuality and same-sex marriage through special legal protection and benefits will undeniably suppress the freedom of others.   


As just stated above, any states special legal protection and benefits of homosexuality and same-sex marriage will lead to the suppression of freedom amongst those of differing beliefs. 

On one hand, we have just observed above that parents – who bare the primary responsibility in educating their children – will lose their right to choose whether or not their children should participate in school curricula that endorses homosexuality and other sexual orientations.  

On the other hand, private religious and civic organizations will lose their right in the criteria that they use in determining who can who the hire or who can participate with them.  For example:

The Boy Scouts of America were sued and brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2000 to explain why they had “violated” New Jersey’s law against discrimination against homosexuals.  Though the Scouts won by a razor-thin 5 to 4 margin, the writing on the wall was clear: homosexual activists have pressured local and state governments into giving homosexuals special legal protection instead of securing the inalienable religious and associational rights of private organizations (Daniel Garcia and Rober Regier, Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right)

In addition to the Boy Scouts of America, we have already witnessed in Boston the closing of a Christian adoption agency that refused to place orphans with homosexual couples.  Unfortunately, it appears that similar situations will soon occur in San Fransico considering that the city council has officially condemned Christian opposition to homosexual adoption as hateful and discriminatory (see The Family Research Council).

Moreover, religious organizations that teach homosexuality to be immoral and wrong will potentially be suppressed and silenced from speaking out against it, which is already taking place in parts of Europe and Canada (see Criminalizing Christianity and Sweden’s Shame).

This is not all.  The normalization of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage will even suppress the freedom of businesses.  For instance, in New Mexico, a Christian-owned studio was fined more than $6,000 for refusing to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony (see The Family Research Council).

Although many whom are pro-homosexual and same-sex marriage argue for tolerance and equality are doing so – with the help of state courts – at the expense of suppressing the freedom of individuals, private and civic organizations, and even businesses.  To argue otherwise is a refusal to accept the facts. 


Since the normalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage will lead our country and state from tolerance to intolerance, we, as citizens of WV, need to act now in encouraging and supporting an amendment to our state’s constitution that defines marriage between one man and one woman.  WV are encouraged to call their representatives and encourage them to endorse and support such an amendment to our state’s constitution.

Further Food for Thought:

Settling the Issue: Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT a Civil Right

Marriage: Its Foundational Importance

Marriage Is Foundational For the Well-Being of Society

Homosexual Agenda: Intolerance on the March, written by Alan Sears and Criag Austen

FPCWV: Poll Shows Huge Support in WV for a Marriage Amendment

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Jesse Wisnewski currently serves as the Executive Administrator of Perrow Church in Cross Lanes, WV.  He is currently attending Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary – Charlotte and is completing coursework towards a Master of Divinty.  Jesse and his wife have two sons. 
Consider Sharing This Post:

add to : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook


26 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] Family Voice, the Blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia has this post that reports:  Observing just this small selection of examples will lead us to conclude that the allowance of […]

  2. It is easy to say this just as it was easy in the past to say this about interracial marriage and desegregation and women’s suffrage. Sarah Palin seems to forget that she benefits from the civil rights movement that she now opposes.


    October 27, 2008 at 7:42 pm

  3. David,

    Appreciate your comments and thoughts. Yes, it is easy to express one’s opinion at a keyboard on a blog, it appears that both of us are benefiting. It’s unfortunate that you attempted to associate civil rights with homosexuality. For the former are immutable, whereas the later is a changeable behavior.


    October 27, 2008 at 7:55 pm

  4. When did you “choose” to be attracted to people of the opposite sex? Do you actually believe you could choose otherwise?

    When people start to accept that God has made us in different ways on purpose – gay and straight – and move on to His Word of love and forgiveness, not judgement (for judgement is His, not ours), we will all benefit for it.


    October 27, 2008 at 11:24 pm

  5. David,

    Good to hear back from you. Great question, “when did you ‘choose’ to be attracted to people of the opposite sex?” At the moment via “comments” I will not be able to respond in detail; however, I would like to do so at a later point. Nonetheless, you communicate well so I am lead to believe that you are aware of the history and science that I can pull from to show that yes, it is a choice and that homosexuality is changeable behavior.

    I disagree with you David when you said that God makes us either gay or straight. My two questions are: Who are you referring to when you refer to God and what external source do you use as your guide?

    On another note, what is there to forgive if there is nothing to judge between right and wrong? As a Christian, I do agree with you that it is God’s judgment call in the end between Christians and non-Christians; however, He never told us not to judge. When doing so we are to do so in a way that is marked with humility, in that we remove the plank from our own eye before removing the speck from another’s eye.

    In the end, with the normalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, David, we all do not benefit. For some will recieve a special legal protection at the expense of supressing the freedom of others like myself.

    Thanks for chatting David.

    Jesse Wisnewski


    October 28, 2008 at 12:27 am

  6. Here’s the problem. You’re still using your faith as a justification for your argument against the legal recognition of gay relationships. Our government doesn’t work like that.

    It is not special protection. It’s equal rights. Do you understand that as the law currently stands, should my partner (of whom I have spent the last 6 years with, own a home and car with) be admitted to a hospital in an emergency, I do not have the legal rights to see him since I am not his ‘family’? That’s justice? That’s ok with you? Ok with God? We love each other much like I am sure you love your wife. Where is the harm in that?

    I did not choose to be gay. Just like you didn’t chose to be straight. Frankly, I find your question to David, about which God he is referring to, utterly arrogant. You’re suggesting that you speak for God. You don’t. God is love, not judgment.


    October 28, 2008 at 4:07 am

  7. Jesse,

    I only hope that God will save your soul despite your judgment and lack of humility. After all, Jesus asks us to be as He was, and I know that He would not tell Dave that he cannot visit the person he lives in the hospital.

    May God have mercy on you.



    October 28, 2008 at 5:06 am

  8. Dave,

    Thanks for joining in on the conversation. You said that I am “still” using my faith as a justification for my argument and based upon what was written I am uncertain to what exactly you are eluding to. Besides, our government lives and thrives off of the involvement of all its citizens, irrespective of their beliefs and/or morality.

    As written above what you and others are requesting is indeed special legal protection. I am sorry that one day you and/or your partner will potentially be put in that situation that others have. There is no harm in your choice to express love to your parnter in whatever way you see fit. But Dave, when your decisions begin to trump mine and interfere with my freedom and others, then the “freedom” by which you choose must be considered.

    I’m sorry that you think I am arrogant to ask questions of clarification. That was not my intent. If anyone speaks for God, as you are doing yourself, then it is imperative to know who you are speaking for and based upon what grounds (i.e. what is your source?).

    Dave, as a citizen of this country I have a right to voice my opinion as yourself. Just like your opinion it will either be received or not. Nonetheless, it is my desire to intelligently, humbly, and lovingly communicate my position with the hope of educating those that may not be fully aware of the issues.

    If you believe that I am acting in malice or hatred, then I ask for your forgiveness.

    Dave, thanks again for joining in.

    Jesse Wisnewski


    October 28, 2008 at 2:23 pm

  9. Hey David,

    Thanks for writing back. Sometimes conversations like this end fairly abruptly. We appreciate it that you are willing to continue conversing.

    David, I never judged you or pronounced judgement on anyone else. If you believe that I am acting in arrogance then forgive me.

    Since you are continuing to talk for Jesus and declaring what He would or would not do then I need to ask again, “Upon what grounds (i.e. external source) are you using to speak for God?”

    This is not meant to be arrogant as Dave suggested. This is a question of clarification.


    Jesse Wisnewski


    October 28, 2008 at 2:29 pm

  10. Any individual (married or not married…heterosexual or self-identified homosexual) can obtain legal documents through an attorney that allow you make these arrangements. You can establish hospital visitation, inheritance recipients, and the other desired arrangements for your “loved one”.

    Marriage is not a “right” to everyone. There are other limitations for marriage in our society (age restrictions – an adult can’t marry a child; relationship restrictions – a relative can’t marry his/her sibling; number restrictions – multiple people can not join together in marriage).


    October 28, 2008 at 3:34 pm

  11. I’m not about to engage in a lengthy conversation with the “homosexual community” about judgment, love, God, etc. I will say from the Christian point of view that the matter under discussion is God’s province not Caeser’s. You know the Scripture. Render unto God the things that are God’s and unto Caeser the things that are Caeser’s. Having Caeser enforce any law that has school teachers indoctrinating kindergarteners and elementary school children with the wonders of homosexuality flies in the face of God. But the Ellen Degeneres of this world will beg Caeser to enforce the law created by those who worship Caeser rather than God.

    joe rorke

    October 28, 2008 at 5:36 pm

  12. joe rorke Said:

    “Having Caeser enforce any law that has school teachers indoctrinating kindergarteners and elementary school children with the wonders of homosexuality flies in the face of God. But the Ellen Degeneres of this world will beg Caeser to enforce the law created by those who worship Caeser rather than God.”

    If I understand your above argument, you are saying:

    1) You believe you have a Biblical moral imperative (Mat. 22:15-22) for civil disobedience if any institution asks you to do something that “flies in the face of God.”

    2)By using the word “province” I can infer that, using the definition in Webster’s (proper or appropriate function or scope), I am hearing you say that the issue of homosexuality is one that falls under God’s proper or appropriate function or scope and not the government, again using Mat. 22:15-22)

    Just a few observations or questions:

    1) Where do you see the context of homosexuality in the passage you quote? Basic Biblical Hermeneutics would require us to look at the context of this passage – a conversation about taxes. (I know there is pan-cultural application to all scriptures but this passage must be evenly applied to all political expressions, not just issues of sexuality – an argument that would prevent you from resisting a law made by the government even if it was anti-christian when looking at Christ’s words – there are no qualifiers or exception clauses here)

    2) I am concerned by the use of quotations around the phrase homosexual community. Why the quotes? Do you not observe a community of people who are homosexual that share a common experience – a set of values, stories and experience?

    3) Have you ever thought about why the homosexual community views the conservative, evangelical church and it’s stance on this issue? If so why not? I personally have – to the extent of actually having dinner recently with a homosexual couple who contacted me about our new church plant. I was the first pastor that actually was willing to talk “to” them instead of “at” them. I will say that it is interesting that we expend so much energy to defeat the sin of homosexuality yet the evangelical church is largely silent on issues like human trafficking/slavery, poverty, pride, arrogance, debt, and gluttony.

    My biggest fear for this issue is that as a church, we forget how to stand up for Biblical truth in humility, remembering that the homosexual is not our enemy. I recently read 2 Timothy 2:22-26 and was reminded on it’s challenge regarding how we should engage the culture – not by shouting at it but by being crucified for it to reconcile men to God – even homosexuals.

    Run away from infantile indulgence. Run after mature righteousness—faith, love, peace—joining those who are in honest and serious prayer before God. Refuse to get involved in inane discussions; they always end up in fights. God’s servant must not be argumentative, but a gentle listener and a teacher who keeps cool, working firmly but patiently with those who refuse to obey. You never know how or when God might sober them up with a change of heart and a turning to the truth, enabling them to escape the Devil’s trap, where they are caught and held captive, forced to run his errands.

    What would happen if the conservative Christian community (of which I am one) would engage homosexuals,the prideful, arrogant, and obese with, as Pal challenges, “…working firmly but patiently with those who refuse to obey.”?

    Shane Montgomery

    October 30, 2008 at 9:53 pm

  13. Please excuse the spelling errors I just caught when I reread my post – I apologize.

    Shane Montgomery

    October 30, 2008 at 10:02 pm

  14. Shane,

    Jesse Wisnewski here. Thanks for joining in on the conversation.

    No problem with incorrect spellings, I think that is just a part of posting comments!

    When you said, “What would happen if the conservative Christian community (of which I am one) would engage homosexuals” I think you hit the nail on the head. It is vitally important to engage all and not marginalize an entire people group based upon behavior, rather it is homosexuality, lying, gluttony, adultery, etc…

    I agree with you in regards to your “hermeneutical” comments. However, there is more there than simply a conversation on taxes. Whatever we render to “Ceasar” is done in light of our submission to God through Christ first and foremost. Therefore, our submission to any form of government is limited in that we are to be submitted to God. What does this mean?

    This means if the government forbids us to do what God commands us to do or commands us to do what God forbids then we have an obligation to disobey the civil authorities so that we may obey God.

    On another note, based upon your “communal” response to Joe’s use of the “homosexual community,” do you believe that truth is bound by one’s community? Thanks for clarifying!

    I appreciate the fact that you joined in on the conversation. Thanks for stopping by Shane.

    Jesse Wisnewski


    October 30, 2008 at 11:40 pm

  15. Re: Truth being bound by one’s community

    Not at all – actually, I was trying to ask if it is possible for Non-Christians to find community – When I teach on community at our church I often tell people that community – by it’s very definition – is a collection of people with common values, experiences and language. Since I am in Arkansas I often ask if anyone has ever “called the hogs” – of course – doing that is community around a specific culture.

    I feel the church should realize that often we do not have the corner on the community market. In fact, I found myself in a posiiton several years ago where I actually got to know someone not in church who had a stronger, more Christlike community than I did.

    Moral truth crosses cultures – but amazingly it also shows up in non-christian communities in areas of compassion, service, and justice more than those truths often surface in church.

    Shane Montgomery

    November 1, 2008 at 12:21 pm

  16. Shane…thanks for clarifying. There are a plethora of non-Christian and/or secular organizations that model community as you described it very well. I find the topic of community and ecclessiology very interesting. In fact, for one of my courses this semester I am researching how the church can best structure itself in order to facilitate community in light of the modern individualistic shift to a postmodern communal emphasis.

    Talk with you later…Jesse Wisnewski


    November 1, 2008 at 1:48 pm

  17. That would be a great course to audit – please let me know your conclusions.

    Shane Montgomery

    November 2, 2008 at 2:00 am

  18. […] However, if homosexuals are extended the “right” to “marry,” individuals, social organizations, businesses, churches, and schools, WILL LOSE their Civil Rights as cited above (see From Tolerance to Intolerance: How the Normalization of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage Will Lea…).  […]

  19. […] Since I have addressed “A Need for Equal Rights” and “A Desire for the Exclusion of Religion in Political Discussions” elsewhere, I will spend my time with you this morning address “A ‘Gray’ Standard of Morality” (for the posts addressing the afore mentioned categories, see Settling the Issue: Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT a Civil Right and From Tolerance to Intolerance: How the Normalization of Same-Sex Marriage and Homosexuality Will Lea…). […]

  20. […] on November 20, 2008 In responding to a follow-up comment of mine, where I stated that the normalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage will lead to the suppression of freedom, one of our readers responded, saying: How? How will you lose your right to freedom of speech? […]

  21. […] and demeans our spirits and souls as LGBTI human beings. ~ Jesse Wisnewski from Family Voice: From Tolerance to Intolerance: How the Normalization of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage Will Lea… ~ ~ We are SPIRITS in human bodies. ~ These bodies and minds are NATURAL. ~ HOMO-LOVING […]

  22. […] From Tolerance to Intolerance: How the Normalization of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage Will Lea… […]

  23. […] From Tolerance to Intolerance:  How the Normalization of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage WILL L… […]

  24. […] From Tolerance to Intolerance: How the Normalization of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage Will Lea… […]

  25. […] Although this may be a matter of semantics, the purposeful verbiage of “pride” has tremendous implications and furthers the LGBTagenda to mitigate any negative association with their behavior.  Consequently, the acceptance and eventual normalization of homosexual behavior will lead to suppression of individual, private and civic organizations, and even businesses freedom to not take “pride” in the matter.  To argue otherwise is a refusal to accept the facts (for further reading on this point, see From Tolerance to Intolerance: How the Normalization of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage Will Lea…) […]

  26. There is nothing wrong with encouraging the acceptance homosexuality and bisexuality in society. It certainly won’t hurt anyone. It should be seen as normal and equal to heterosexuality, because it is! A huge benefit to society is that same-sex couples can adopt babies to give them a loving home and family.


    July 13, 2013 at 10:15 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: