Tuesday, January 15, 2013

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

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 Townhall.com, 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.


No comments: