Advancing Religious Liberty
1/15/13 at 03:18 PM 8 Comments

Approval of Same-Sex "Marriage" Leads to Censorship of Speech

text size A A A

Author: Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley

For years we have been warning that same-sex “marriage” is not the end goal of the radical homosexual legal agenda. Instead, the end goal of that movement is the silencing of all dissent. Numerous examples abound in other countries where we see the inevitable consequence of approving same-sex “marriage.” In his latest column on, Alliance Defending Freedom President and General Counsel Alan Sears tells how France is now seeking to censor speech in opposition to efforts to redefine marriage or gender.

When a society’s laws recognizing marriage as the union of one man and one woman are changed to honor the unions of same-sex couples, it’s not just the law that changes—it’s also the society itself that changes. A top-down metamorphosis begins in which every aspect of public law changes to match the new definition of marriage.

Today, this is playing out in France with great clarity.

There, Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem is pressing Twitter to help control the speech of the people by censoring messages that run counter to the position of the French government.

In particular, Belkacem wants Twitter to censor messages that run counter to the government’s decision to grant special rights and an elevated status to people who engage in homosexual behavior and persons who are of one gender but claim to be of another.

Belkacem praises the French government for making it illegal to discriminate based on these and other things and calls on Twitter to share the convictions of the government:

It is the honor of France to have gradually included in the penal code punishment of incitement to hatred or violence against a person or group of persons because of their origin, membership or non-membership in an ethnic group, nation, or of their sexual orientation or gender identity…Twitter [needs] to find solutions so that messages sent from our territory, our language, and destination of our citizens do not bear a clear violation of the principles we have set.

Notice—now that France has added “gender identity” to its national non-discrimination policy, unapproved communiqués on the subject of homosexual behavior are punishable by law. Now that France has embraced and attempted to redefine morality on homosexual behavior, speech against such behavior is literally banned.

And Minister Belkacem approves of this. She said as much when she wrote that French officials support “freedom of expression” but not freedom of expression “with impunity.”

There are so many lessons here for Americans who think that such things can never happen in this country. Believing the falsehood that all advocates of homosexual behavior want is to be left alone, one need only read their own words and examine the legal landscape, where dissenters and people of faith are being persecuted by “human rights commissions” and other government authorities who have no tolerance for a different point of view from their own.

Alan is correct. What we see happening in France is bound to happen here should our society recognize and approve of same-sex “marriage.” And those who think that the First Amendment will stand as a shield against such efforts must remember that the Constitution has never deterred the let from pursuing its agenda. If you have any doubts about that, ask JuleaWard, Elaine Huguenin, Ake Green, and countless others who have had their religious freedom threatened simply because they chose to speak up and live their faith in the public square.

The churches of America must speak up on this issue before it is too late and before the inevitable consequences of recognizing same-sex “marriage” fall on the church. If churches do not speak up now, then they may not have the opportunity later. Visit the marriage resource page of our website for information about the efforts to legally protect marriage. And if you are a pastor, consider preaching a sermon on marriage and why it is important to protect it from radical efforts to redefine this most basic human institution.

This post originally appeared here.

CP Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s).