Gay Marriage Activist: “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

Kathy Stickel, Maine Gay Marriage

In a statement that should come as a shock to exactly nobody who understands the real agenda behind gay marriage, lesbian author, journalist and gay rights activist Masha Gessen lays out the real plan behind the push for “marriage equality” (emphasis added):

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.…(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. 

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

It’s a pretty shocking claim. Shocking not because of what she says – that much is obvious – but because of the rare honesty of someone willing to say it.

Because of that, it will be drowned out. It will be denied. If Gessen isn’t disowned by her movement, she will be marginalized or ignored.

We’ve seen this kind of thing before. Are you aware that pro-abortion feminists like Camile Paglia, Judith Arcana, Naomi Wolf,and others have admitted, frankly, that abortion is the taking of a human life? Many are not. Their openness works against linguistic obfuscation that drives the pro-abortion movement, just as Gosnell’s trial throws the reality of abortion into stark relief.

Allow me to quote from them (with my added emphasis) and see if you’ve heard any of this in mainstream abortion debates.

Of the three, Paglia was perhaps the most blunt, when she wrote:

I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

Arcana, herself an abortionist, was similarly honest:

I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.

Wolf, though she tried to lessen the impact of her statement with the nuance of appeals to emotion and necessary evils was also quite direct:

War is legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Letting the dying die in peace is often legal and sometimes even necessary. Abortion should be legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the foetus, in its full humanity, must die.

Wolf’s statement was made in 1995. Arcana’s in 1999. Paglia’s in 2008. If you search the Internet, you can find more such statements over the years.

But has this changed the debate about abortion? No. Have the majority of abortion supporters been equally honest about just what it is that they are advocating for – the taking of human life? Absolutely not. We’re still, 40 years later, arguing with people about whether or not an unborn child is even a human being. We can’t even get the media to cover Kermit Gosnell’s demonic practices, despite the fact that he is responsible for the deaths of more people than any serial killer in history.

And so it will be with gay marriage. The fact that any in the movement are willing to admit their true agenda signals, as it did with abortion supporters before them, that they sense victory on the horizon. Things have reached a tipping point where public support for gay marriage has outweighed reason or critical thought.

If enough people support their cause, what difference does it make if people know the truth? In the view of people like Gessen, the cat is already out of the bag.

But to my mind, truth matters. In my view, the more people who know what is really at stake, the better. Let’s not let the deception stand.

Spread the word.


Categories:Marriage Politics Pro-Life

  • Russell Sikes

    I must say, being told to leave the faith over a year ago opened my eyes. The church is filled with hypocrites for the leadership believes in abortion, homosexual marriage and married priests. If you want to know more you have my email.

  • Neil Budrow

    as long as youre calling things what they are……its PRO-CHOICE people, not PRO-ABORTION!!!
    and @Garrett, “if it aint broke, dont fix it”? ones trying to “fix” youre marriage…you can keep on being married just like you are now. it wont affect your marriage in any way.. did you know that? and “reinvent the wheel”? we ADDED airplanes since wheels were invented, it didnt affect the wheel at ALL, wouldnt you agree?..but if you think it did affect the wheel, then please share how..

    • Ralph Bonuccelli

      What kind of choice is it? The innocent have no say. The Pro-life, Anti-abortion people are forced to pay for what they believe to be murder. That’s choice?
      And it WILL affect your marriage because you are changing the very core of the institution and it’s purpose in society. An argument for rights is quite different than totally redefining institutions. Also the introduction of the airplane changed technology of the wheel and tires significantly. Yes they are round…bad analogy.

    • enness

      Let’s be real, here. We’re not talking about the ‘choice’ of paper or plastic, chocolate or vanilla. We’re talking about the ‘choice’ to murder. The industry does absolutely everything to make sure that women are as ignorant about this as possible and that their blood business is as unrestricted as possible.

  • Garrett

    WOW. That’s all I can say. I can’t imagine that having 5 parents would have improved my life. If anything, it would have left me quite confused. I don’t understand how someone can say that the institution of marriage should change, marriage has arguably guided the world as we know it to its existence today. There are some things that don’t need to change. Like the saying “if its not broken don’t fix it” or “trying to reinvent the wheel,” are very applicable here. Of course, these people will argue that marriage is broken, when in fact, it is the way people perceive marriage which is broken, as we can clearly, clearly see.

    • enness

      “that baby’s biological father is my brother”

      That’s a screwed-up family situation.

  • Cathy Neece

    This statement by MG is filled with the word…”I”

  • Chris

    The world is sick, but at least we’re seeing some honesty.


    Steve – Here’s another perspective from a Catholic couple

    In their case, I don’t think they care if it’s marriage or a civil Union as long as the four of them stay together. Pax, Greg



Receive our updates via email.