Soviet communism attempted to construct a society under a new social and ethical system, which subverted the natural moral order. In doing so, people were compelled to live in contradiction to their conscience. Without the influence of the conscience, moral governance shifts from the self to the state. The lesson here is this: when the society demands conduct that is in contradiction to what mankind knows in his heart to be right and true, the state will coerce such conduct. This principle is summed up in “Colson’s Law,” which essentially states that the more a society is governed by conscience, the less it requires outside enforcement or police. The less conscience, or self-governance, the more police will be required (i.e. totalitarianism). 

This same pattern accompanies activist efforts, which seek to legitimize homosexual acts through the imposition of same-sex marriage (SSM). Unable to rely on the democratic process to advance their agenda, gay-rights advocates have instead employed activist judges, propaganda campaigns, indoctrination of youth, and intimidation tactics to impose their moral vision.

The essence of the homosexual agenda and its demand for legal marriage is not about the expansion of civil rights. It is, instead, committed to the complete reordering of our society. Paula Ettlebrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, as much as confirmed this when she said:

Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so . . . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society (quoted in William B. Rubenstein, Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation? Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law [NY: New York Press, 1993], 398, 400.).

In the minds of such, it is Christianity (and religion, in general) that stands in the way of this social transformation. Therefore, it is only natural that as SSM gains traction, there will follow a suppression of religion and persecution of the religious. Harvard professor of law Mary Ann Glendon acknowledged this real consequence of legalizing same-sex marriage. She writes:

Religious freedom, too, is at stake…. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax must fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles (Mary Ann Glendon, “For Better or for Worse? The federal marriage amendment would strike a blow for freedom,” opinion post to online editorial page, The Wall Street Journal, 25 February 2004).

Under unrelenting pressure from this despotic minority, Western nations have already begun to criminalize and suppress any public criticism of homosexuality, encroaching upon our most fundamental rights of conscience and free speech.