Few shifts in American customs and politics will ever equal the one launched a brief eight years ago by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) community. Considering the alternative lifestyle population makes up less than 4 percent of our nation (Williams Institute), their success is even more remarkable.
Find notes in the website beyondmarriage.org telling the story of the birth of the movement that has since swept the nation.
It began in April 2006, when a “diverse group of nearly twenty LGBT and queer activists” created the agenda to “move America beyond marriage politics.” Their plan was to establish all groups as families with the same rights as married couples. Their ingenious approach pursued “marriage equality” by challenging the “full scope of the conservative marriage agenda.”
They recognized in order to succeed, they must build “alliances across issues and constituencies” and seek government support for any and all self-determined groups. They pulled in seniors and all variety of mixed households. Support quickly grew.
The timing was perfect as heterosexual marriage was in crisis. More than 50 percent were failing and at the same time, couples were choosing to cohabitate and deliberately bare children without the benefit of marriage. The heterosexual collapse of mores and values, in regards to keeping homes together, ignores reliable research proving children do better, overall, when dad and mom are married; when male/female energy combined have a chance to be at its best.
The nest for children, the keystone of society designed by God or nature, if you prefer, has grown weak and penetrable. Stability is gone, replaced by social media and experimentation.
In contrast, it must be noted that many within the LGBT movement support aggressive, environmental efforts. In protection of fragile species, extreme steps have been taken at the expense of the national GNP and against family livelihoods (forest closures). Keeping species in their natural habitat, undisturbed, is their goal because of what happens when the young are removed from homes designated by nature.
The same concerns are not shown for the human nest, as the agenda for alternative living reigns superior. Do young species die and suffer in their homes sometimes? Absolutely, and rescuers are needed, but substitute habitat cannot become the large scale norm if species are to thrive. A fact responsible, traditional and alternative couples need to remember.
Economic concerns? Where were alternative proponents when the closing of the lumber industry in the west decimated rural communities and family security in order to protect wildlife?
Efforts to remind heterosexuals of the magnitude of traditional marriage and keeping children stable are viewed as an attack on LGBT groups. The campaign machine then rages and silences and threatens and frightens with no concern about discrimination towards religions and other aware groups.
Finally, as some LGBT seek to produce designer babies, there is no discussion about the civil rights of every child to claim a mother and a father on their family tree; a confounding reality doomed to create nightmares.
Absolutely, we must respect and support all citizens. A healthy civilization demands it. But with this experimentation we are allowing the very best human nests to be devalued; their paradigms fading and those whose voices sound alarms are mocked and driven from the public square.
Eight years. Four percent. A staggering shift in humanity.
• East Valley resident Linda Turley-Hansen is a syndicated columnist and former veteran Phoenix TV anchor. She can be reached at email@example.com.