New York Attorney: "[SSM] Isn't About Love; It's About Devaluing Marriage"


Raymond Belair also serves as general counsel to Family First of Eastchester and the Children First Foundation of Eastchester. He writes (and mentions our NY "Consequences" Ad in the second paragraph):

Recent news stories about the homosexual lobby's push for so-called same-sex marriage have been heavily fortified with statements about love for all people who find themselves in love. That's fine. But there is no valid reason to raise that point in this discussion, since everyone has a right to love whomever they wish. A radical redefinition of marriage — where marriage is devalued to the point of losing its very nature — is the real objective. Such redefinition is neither necessary nor desirable. The real story here is political coercion to force an agenda upon citizens who do not accept a false premise regarding marriage reinvention

... A further baseless claim of the homosexual lobby is that SSM poses no threat to natural marriage or the nuclear family. But a history of such legalization in other states belies that claim. There is a television spot running in New York that makes a valid point regarding consequences "for kids." It is entirely predictable that after SSM is approved that elementary-school students could be subjected to re-education about homosexual marriage being "normative"; this has happened after SSM passed in Massachusetts. A parent there objected to his 6-year-old's required attendance at programs favorably depicting homosexual marriage. The school board rebuffed him, asserting authority to teach "civic values" in conformity with the Massachusetts SSM law, and that it was good for children to be taught things their parents would never approve of. In California, a first-grade class took a "field trip" to the same-sex wedding of their teacher, who felt it was a "teachable moment." Even if the parents agreed to the attendance, why should such an agreement even be asked of them?