There is a spirit resurrecting across the United States, a welcome force for the restoration of Good against Evil, the reintroduction and reinforcement of all things right and well that made Western civilization possible.
I am writing about the pro-family movement, of course, which is witnessing a necessary resurgence in the United States. Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court imposed one of its most egregious decisions: Obergefell v. Hodges. Blasting through constitutional amendments enacted by several states, Obergefell imposed same-sex “marriage” on the entire country. Judicial fiat, a threat to democracy, and a disturbing revision of our constitution’s foundational principles marked the reception of this disordered court decision.
LGBT propaganda, promotion, and punishment have been unleashed on the country ever since. A backlash against the abuses of this coercive agenda has risen up, from boycotts against major businesses pushing Pride to a growing recession of attendance and support for Pride parades in public squares and city centers.
The latest Supreme Court rulings should have all pro-family conservatives cheering, too. The Supreme Court upheld the rights of parents to opt their children out of listening to LGBT-themed stories and propaganda. The Supreme Court also upheld age verification laws for access to pornographic websites. This necessary reform protects children (and adults) from the harms of these illicit, explicit images, and also from sexual confusion. Just listen to the testimonies of former homosexuals Christopher Yuan and Greg Quinlan. They recount how their encounter with Hugh Hefner shaped their warped sexual behaviors before they were set free.
The United States Supreme Court also upheld bans on the sexual mutilation of minors, rephrased in Orwellian fashion as “gender-affirming care” by trans militants. The Court has also announced that it will take up Chiles v. Salazar, which will decide whether governments have the authority to criminalize so-called “conversion therapy,” i.e., therapies that help individuals break free of unwanted homosexual attractions and identity dysphoria. LGBT activists are particularly alarmed by this case, because if the court—very likely—strikes down those therapy bans, it will further undermine the lie that people are “born that way.” Successful reparative, restorative, and reintegrative therapies have helped thousands of individuals deal with homosexual attraction and transgender confusion. Removing the legal barriers in 20 states will mark a cultural turning point against the LGBT agenda as a whole.
The pro-family revolution is rising, and the laws of nature are reasserting themselves.
But why now?
Two so-called “gay” conservatives, Andrew Sullivan and Douglas Murray, have indicated in their distinct British-American fashion that the whole “LGBT movement” has gone too far.
Sullivan writes in How the Gay Rights Movement Radicalized, and Lost Its Way:
But a funny thing happened in the wake of these [gay rights] triumphs. Far from celebrating victory, defending the gains, and staying vigilant, winding down as a movement that had achieved its core objectives—including the end of H.I.V. in the United States as an unstoppable plague—gay and lesbian rights groups did the opposite. Swayed by the broader liberal shift to the “social justice” left, they radicalized.
Douglas Murray writes in Standing up to bullying, unscientific transgender activist mob:
But by presenting the complex issue of trans as the inevitable next step in a campaign for ever more rights, our societies in the West took a mad turn.
After all, the acceptance of other arguments were [sic] based on the idea that the people getting their rights were equals—and that society would not need to change itself or alter its fundamentals in order to grant these rights.
The moral force of both movements were [sic] founded on the basis of “Just like us.” And that is how they succeeded.
The “trans-rights” movement, by contrast, turned everything completely on its head. They insisted not just that some people feel that they have been born in the wrong body, but that nobody is born with any discernible biological sex.
Yes, they both rightly decry the madness of transgenderism. Yes, they point out the vile insanity of believing that sex is just a social construct and that one can change one’s sex like flipping a light switch or changing one’s clothes.
But a more sinister problem lurks beneath the whole transgender movement, and it begins with where the whole movement originated. How did our country, and Western culture in general, begin accepting and normalizing the notion that men could become women? Why are we facing the anti-biological onslaught of men invading women’s sports, prison cells, and their very selves?
Before there was transgenderism as a political movement, there was the homosexual movement.
Sullivan and Murray are brilliant men, with a way with words, a penchant for pointing out the obvious, and a gift for documenting how the insanity has roared upon us. What they cannot admit to, however, is that their own preferences are part of the problem. They can talk about the anti-biological bigotry of men dressing up in dresses or women cutting off their breasts and hair to butch up as boys. But lesbians were cutting off their hair and their procreative distinctions long before. Men were misusing their sexual organs to engage in destructive conduct with one another as well.
The normalization of homosexuality is contrary to biology. The gay “rights” movement is anti-biological, and it is also illogical. Yes, there are only two sexes. Douglas Murray set the record straight (no pun intended) on Bill Maher’s program a few months ago. But those two sexes have a complementarity in sexual intercourse that cannot express itself between two individuals of the same sex. It is a misuse of organs for a man to use another man as if he were a woman, and for a woman to do the same to another woman as if she were a man.
Neither of these men can claim to care about biology when they insist they were “born that way,” and there is no evidence to justify that cult-like assertion. In fact, as recently as 2019, a longitudinal study tracking 500,000 subjects confirmed that there is no “gay gene.” Would either of these men be willing to address this biological fact, as well?
Furthermore, Sullivan and Murray can cast calumny on cross-dressing as a civil right. But since when was it sensible to do the same thing with sodomy? Two men abusing each other and calling it “love” was rightly deemed a crime against nature and a mental illness until the homosexual activists—using abusive tactics similar to what the trans tyrants have engaged in today—cudgeled and bullied the American Psychiatric Association to stop recognizing homosexuality as a mental illness. The gay gaslighting is unmistakable.
Furthermore, the glib use of the term “civil rights” in association with homosexuality, which both of them flaunt, is aberrant as well as abhorrent. Invidious discrimination against individuals on account of their integumentary melanin count or the diversity of their ethnic background is wrong. Individuals did not choose those distinctions, and they cause no harm to the body politic. Homosexual conduct is harmful to the individual, and the normalization of this conduct has unleashed untold problems in societies, not just now but then. Militant homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah led to divine judgment, but also among the tribesmen of Benjamin. Venereal disease spread like the plague throughout the bathhouses of Imperial Rome due to men engaging in unseemly acts with other men. Let us not forget the harms done to children in the Greek city-states and the Ottoman Empire, as well as the collapse of entire city-states (see Ancient Greco-Roman historian Polybius’ eyewitness accounts), and the marauding of homosexual gangs in Medieval Europe to the present day. Also read the harrowing accounts of the Ugandan Martyrs, who chose glorious execution rather than submitting their bodies to the unwanted advances of King Mwanga II.
The two gay “conservatives” would mock my arguments, certainly. Perhaps I’ve fallen into the slippery slope fallacy? Quite the contrary. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court imposed same-sex “marriage” on the Commonwealth in 2003, government institutions changed the marriage licenses from “Husband and Wife” to “Partner A and Partner B.” Male and female were erased, effaced, and replaced with a cold, inert non-binary pairing. That is transgenderism at its outset. If sex does not matter when it comes to marriage, then it does not matter at all. Hence, the boys invaded the girls’ locker rooms, fitting rooms, and all the other rooms that were theirs.
The argument against transgenderism is going our way. Pro-Family forces are rising, but we cannot allow the current celebrations to obscure the origins of the problem. We have the T because of the LGB, and we must tell the truth about the entire alphabet of sexual dysfunction if we hope to eradicate this entire agenda and make male and female great again. We have to make marriage great again—and that means making Mom and Dad great again.