Goal: The Complete Destruction of Marriage

Professor Judith Stacey

Professor Judith Stacey

This kind of honesty from a liberal is rare, so take note of Professor Judith Stacey’s admission that the aim of homosexual activists and their “useful idiot” apologists is not so much to gain access to the institution of marriage, as it is to ultimately destroy it.

“Why should there be marriage at all? What should limit it to two and why should it be monogamous? Nothing in view gives the state that particular interest.”

“So I would agree that we should get rid of the sexual family, there’s no reason in the contemporary world to base our relationships necessarily on sex.”

Many things cannot be destroyed from the outside. To destroy them, you have to get inside them, often take possession of them. Liberals understand this well, which is why they love to infiltrate good things and corrupt them.

To say that every homosexual activist wants to destroy marriage would be inaccurate and over-simplistic. To be sure, many want to counterfeit marriage so they can gain access to the financial perks our society awards to married couples (as a way of acknowledging the value that real marriage has to society and the hard work it takes).  Still others want to counterfeit marriage because they hope it will lend an air of legitimacy to a harmful and illegitimate sexual behavior.

Ted Cruz 2016


But those who are driving the train–and Professor Stacey is either among or near them–realize that the ultimate goal is to destroy the institution of marriage entirely. They seek sexual anarchy, a complete breakdown of sexual norms and rules, with the ultimate goal being that you can screw who (or what) you want, when you want, how you want, with society’s complete approval and admiration.

Just as counterfeiting money devalues it, so counterfeiting something as important and valuable as marriage devalues it.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • http://www.dakotavoice.com dr. theo

    A large and comprehensive study by sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin refutes the widely held belief that children raised by homosexual couples fare as well (or even better, according to Prof. Stacey) as children raised in intact homes with mothers and fathers.

    The Family Research Council discusses this research on their website and conclude that the following findings are “-virtually irrefutable.” Children (interviewed as adults) raised by homosexual couples:

    -Are much more likely to have received welfare

    -Have lower educational attainment

    -Report less safety and security in their family of origin

    -Report more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of origin

    -Are more likely to suffer from depression

    -Are more likely to be currently cohabiting

    -Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance

    -Are less likely to be currently employed full-time

    -Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed

    -Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual

    -Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting

    -Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”

    -Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will

    -Are more likely to have “attachment” problems related to the ability to depend on others

    -Use marijuana more frequently

    -Smoke more frequently

    Watch TV for long periods more frequently

    Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

    Have been arrested more often

    If they are female, have had more sexual partners-both male and female


    • thisoldspouse

      I realize that it’s anecdotal (at some inconvenient point, the “anecdotal” becomes the norm) but every homosexual I know is on psychotropic drugs for depression and/or hostility mood issues, had very poor relationships with parents, particularly their father, and is anything but faithful in intimate relationships.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        I’ve read a number of studies that indicate higher rates of mental and emotional problems among homosexuals, as well as an unusually high instance of problem relationships with parents-as you indicated, especially with the father.

        It isn’t just anecdotal; it’s clinically documented.

        • jaytheatheist

          So what did those studies attribute to the higher rates? More importantly, when were these studies conducted?

          I often see these sentiments expressed but when one drills down, the studies are often old and do not apply to current times. This is important since the lack of acceptance in society is the cause for higher rates or problems. While such issues persist to this day they were quite pronounced in 20 years ago.

          The point is, if society is acting in an anti-humanistic manner causing pain to a minority group, it should not be surprised when that group struggles. Fortunately, as all current research points out, once these pressures are removed, statistically things flatten out.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Some try to blame it on other people as you do, some blame it on the individual, some blame it on parents, some make no assertions to the cause at all.

            The age of the study makes no difference whatsoever; human nature hasn’t changed in thousands of years, and never will change in the foreseeable future. If you behave contrary to nature and what is right, there is always a price to pay-in physical health, mental health, emotional health, and spiritual health. I paid high prices when I was a drunk and living promiscuously heterosexually.

            Studies done very recently in countries and areas that have been very accepting of homosexual behavior for some time STILL show much higher rates of disease, depression, substance abuse and so on. It isn’t lack of acceptance (and people shouldn’t accept immoral, aberrant and self-destructive behavior anyway), but something deep-down in the individual that still says-despite all the lies they tell themselves and that others tell them-“This isn’t the right way to live.”

            • jaytheatheist

              I don’t think of it as “blaming in on others”. Alaska currently ranks consistently at the top for people suffering from depression. The reasons may be varied but in general many triggers will resolve back to the frailty of the human condition. It is the nature vs nurture argument and while there are indicators for each, nurture certainly plays a strong part.

              Once again, you seem to be only embracing that science which supports your contention and rejecting that which does not. That is disingenuous. A casual stroll through scholarly articles does indeed support your contention of greater mental health issues for GLBT but you simply ignore the stated theories as to why this is and choose to believe there is something inherently insidious about being gay. A conclusion rejected by the same studies you are citing and only supported by some minority opinion (with an agenda) that is roundly rejected by peers.

              In just about all I have perused discrimination and social rejection was listed as a prime suspected factor. This is precisely why professional organizations such as the APA reject Regnerus’ flawed conclusions.

              This goes for studies in other countries. What you are not considering is that while there are countries whose laws are ahead of ours in acceptance, GLBT folks often still face uphill struggles with their families and societal circles. Passing a law isn’t a magically key to acceptance.

              As far as your “contrary” to nature statement, I would agree that but point out that homosexuality is not contrary to nature. It is found in species other than ours throughout nature. Therefore, while it is a relatively rare behavior, it is not “contrary” nature - no more than left handedness is.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                I embrace real science, not bias and assumption packaged as “science.” It doesn’t take long to look through the background of so-called information that indicates homosexual behavior is normal, or that such aberrant behavior isn’t detrimental to children who are exposed to it and find out that the purveyors of this “information” are desperate to excuse the inexcusable.

                Real science indicates that the anus was not made to receive the penis. Real science indicates the penis was not made to put put into an anus. Real science indicates that the penis and the vagina were designed to be used in concert with one another, for mutual pleasure, for intimacy, and most obviously, for procreation.

                All of creation is fallen, broken, and malfunctioning. Some human beings malfunction and engage in homosexual behavior, and some animals do, too (I had a cat who had homosexual tendencies when I was a kid).

                But while animals lack the intelligence and moral sense to be able to correct their behavior, God created human beings with both (and more) to be able to modify their behavior for their own good and the good of others.

                People should try to live up to their potential, rather than applaud the lowest common denominator.

              • jaytheatheist

                I think it safe to say that you do not embrace “real” science. You consistently abbreviate what you are willing to support to what you understand and that understanding comes with a throttle of religious belief.

                For instance, you are convinced that the anus is a non sexual organ. If you had a solid understanding of physiology, you would not have such a position as you would understand that stimulation of prostate via anal penetration leads to great pleasure. If you had an understanding of psychology, you would also come to understand that anal sex it is simply another expression of intimacy. Think not? What are you views on oral sex? Obviously the mouth was not made for servicing another’s sexual organs.

                Yet, these concepts will not register with you since you are fixated on only accepting that science that supports you dogma.

                Real science? hardly. Dogmatic assertions.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                See why I quickly grow tired of trying to have a rational conversation with you? You are so deluded by your desire to do whatever you want, that you ignore all science, common sense and facts to the point of making patently absurd statements. You do it with your irrational devotion to evolution doctrine, and you do it with homosexual behavior. Homosexuals can generate pleasure and an odd form of intimacy by misusing their sex organs and other parts of their body, but they can never use their sex organs for the obvious scientific and biological purpose of sex: procreation.

                To you, perversion and misuse is some sort of “norm.”

                My patience is ended. You once again prove that some people are in complete rebellion not only against what is right, but against science and reason itself.

              • WXRGina

                Good grief! Jay, you have really outdone yourself with the breathtaking absurdity of this comment. Maybe you have spent too much time in the Belly of the Beast of this nation. You should get out of there more often and visit the real world.

      • http://www.dakotavoice.com dr. theo

        Professionally, I can validate what you have observed, spouse. Homosexuals, at least the ones that are apparent, are all messed-up people, on multiple psych drugs and what we in the profession call “drama queens.” Their lives are like a very bad soap opera. You and I know what’s missing, but they have rejected that for a life-style that thoroughly engulfs, and ultimately destroys them.

        • jaytheatheist

          I wasn’t aware that “drama queen” was a clinical term. I sense that you are embellishing.

          • http://www.dakotavoice.com dr. theo

            OK, hystrionic, if you prefer, but ask any ER doc or nurse what a “drama queen” is and you’ll see that I haven’t embellished anything.

    • jaytheatheist

      It should be noted that Mark Regnerus is on the wrong side of his profession.

      A court brief that he signed concerning same sex parenting was challenged by his own professional association. The American Sociological Association files n amicus brief and argued that Regnerus’ data did not support his paper’s conclusion. In fact, no differences among outcomes of children raised by straight parents versus children raised by gay parents was identified.

      While certainly Mark Regnerus is entitled to his own beliefs, he is not entitled to his own facts…nor should he make them up.

      • http://www.dakotavoice.com dr. theo

        Of course, not just the ASA, but the entire liberal cabal rose with one voice to shout down Regnerus, an out-spoken Christian (who are hated by all liberals, but I’m sure you know that Jay) who proved that the left’s contention that it doesn’t matter what the parents are, kids usually do fine either way. This is what happens when someone dares speak against the liberal orthodoxy in the universities. The journal that published Regnerus’ paper has investigated and stands-by their decision to publish it as a proper study. Also, there have been over eighty signatories of a letter of support for Regnerus and his findings, all scholars in related fields.