Quoting Quiverfull: Victims of Gay Marriage?

Quoting Quiverfull: Victims of Gay Marriage? April 11, 2013

by Linda Harvey of Mission America

When I was eight years old my Christmas list had one item: a bride doll. How overjoyed I was when Santa left under our tree that beautiful doll with her white veil and satin dress. This was the stuff of little girl dreams that in my future would be a wedding: a bride with a groom. But I wonder, what will eight-year-old girls be allowed to wish for in the coming new era of same-sex marriage? Because if homosexual militants have their dreams fulfilled, all American children will march to a new tune.

Is the Supreme Court considering the implications here? The radicals dream of connecting the dots; expanding their conquered territory. In California, by law, no school children hear any objections to homosexual or transgender behavior. In Massachusetts, the Department of Educationhas decreed that gender confused children must have access to opposite sex restrooms and locker rooms. For the homosexual advocates who dream of totally silencing those of us who object, this isn’t nearly enough. They want every school room, the Boy Scouts, TV shows and Hollywood to sing the same song to America’s little children, that when you grow up, you might date and marry someone of the same-sex or it might be the opposite sex or you might want to change your own sex and this is all good and progressive, all other views are hate.

It’s frustrating to read the transcripts of the Supreme Court oral arguments on the two marriage cases with the consequences of same-sex marriage pretty much unexplored. Our side studiously avoids the core issue: same-sex marriage is wrong because homosexual behavior is wrong. In the Hollingsworth v. Perry case, attorney [Charles] Cooper did say, ‘redefining marriage will have real world consequences,’ and Justice Kennedy mentioned unchartered waters and a cliff. But that’s just as far as these ideas went. Attorney [Ted] Olsen claims homosexuality is something people can’t change and he compares it to race, but he’s wrong and this is an enormously important point.

Since homosexuality is not inborn, the highest court in our land might want to seek input from the largest group of potential victims of this nonsense: all the children of America, not just those in homosexual households, they would live lives with a completely upside-down set of standards about dating, masculinity, femininity, courtship, future dreams and permissible behavior. The widespread embrace of homosexuality at the very least would mess with their minds and innocence at critical stages of development. More experimentation, even for a time, will yield more disease, more anxiety, depression, more teen angst in general. Does this guaranteed revolution bother only me? Or are you concerned as well?

As we witness so-called conservatives and our churches either run from this issue or worse, jump on board, it’s clear that moderate voices will not restrain the radicals from enacting their spiteful plans. All schools, even Christian institutions, will be forced to teach only one, sugarcoated viewpoint, and the wider culture will echo this and shape the new public opinion. Any mention of ex-homosexuals will be horrifying and the equivalent of honoring the Ku Klux Klan. The developing heart and mind of these children will be destabilized and younger and younger children will be sexualized. The evidence about where this revolution takes us is already available. Won’t someone out there start to look at gay marriage through the eyes of our precious children?

Comments open below

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull honestly and thoughtfully.

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Brennan
  • Jolie

    “. In California, by law, no school children hear any objections to homosexual or transgender behavior.” Calm down, they don’t hear any objections to heterosexual and cisgender behaviour either. 😛 I think it’s noteworthy how fundies seem to very deeply believe that one person’s gaining the right to live their lives in the way x immediately equals everyone’s obligation to do/be x. (E.g. either everyone must be straight or everyone will be turned gay).

  • Jolie

    Speaking of which
    “Some people are gay, some people are straight, some ar bi and this is absolutely alright; you should never bully or ridicule someone for being gay, because that’s who they are, and they’re no better or worse than you are”- that’s “pushing the gay agenda”
    “Some people have sex after a while in their relationships, some people wait until marriage, and that’s absolutely alright; you should never bully or ridicule someone for choosing to wait until mearriage because that’s their personal choice, and they’re no better or worse than you are”- far from “pushing the people-who-wait-until-marriage agenda”, this is downright disrespectful to them.
    Fundie logic, I guess….

  • So how will legalizing gay marriage lead to banning bride dolls again? I’m confused.

  • Nea

    Our side studiously avoids the core issue: same-sex marriage is wrong because homosexual behavior is wrong

    Your side kind of has to avoid it, on account of “You can’t be gay because God thinks it’s icky” is not a winnable legal argument, just as “but homosexuality isn’t inborn!” is not a scientifically provable argument.

    And for that matter, considering that the positive polling skews younger and younger all the time, the implication that all the kids in America would be a majority anti-gay-marriage vote is also wrong.

    Three swings, three misses.

  • texcee

    I have a number of gay and lesbian friends and relatives. Almost all of them are monogamous, faithful to their partners, and have been together 25-35 years. One lesbian couple I know in Seattle celebrated legal marriage in December when it became recognized in Washington state. Other couples would absolutely get married if it were legal in their states. I fully support marriage equality and stand with them. Guess what? My marriage isn’t threatened by their relationships, I haven’t seen any indication that anyone else’s marriages are threatened by their relationships, and I don’t feel that I need to divorce my husband and marry another woman. My gay friends are nice, intelligent, law-abiding, tolerant, loving, and wonderful loyal friends. The fact that they are gay and I’m straight never enters into our friendship anymore than the fact that I have green eyes and some of them have brown or blue eyes. And I’ll bet a lot of them had bride dolls as kids, too!

  • Mary

    It seems pretty clear to me from this text that the objections to gay marriage are less about the “ickiness” and more about the violation of gender norms: “they would live lives with a completely upside-down set of standards about dating, masculinity, femininity, courtship, future dreams and permissible behavior.”

    In other words, if some “wives” aren’t women, and some “husbands” aren’t men, then how can we enforce patriarchy?

  • Mary, I’ve often felt like much anti-gay rethoric has gender roles at its base. But I’ve never found a quote from any complementarian from which I could directly derive it.

  • Nightshade

    Might lead to increased sales for little girls who would rather marry a woman instead of a man, they may want two bride dolls instead of one.

  • saraquill

    Honestly, the thought of having two bride dolls for Christmas instead of one warms the cockles of my inner child.

  • Fal

    This. I’m a big fan of consenting-adults-marrying-other-consenting-adults in general but I particularly love pictures of weddings between two women where both of them have chosen to wear dresses. Why? Because OMG TWO DRESSES IN ONE PICTURE. SO MUCH PRETTY. I might be a bit shallow, sigh….

  • SAO

    Gay marriage affects maybe 2% of the population. The garbage that the Fundies spew about a woman’s place in marriage probably does a lot more to devalue the institution of marriage. Who wants to volunteer to be a second-class citizen? No one who was raised to believe she has a choice.

  • In light of the “think of the children” plea at the end, I feel I should mention that while I was with my ex (a cisgender female, while I started as a cisgender female in our relationship and ended it as a transgender male), her three children were far more concerned their father wasn’t going to be barging into their home in the middle of the night to yell at their mother, and that they were going to be able to continue attending the only school they’d ever been to, then they were about what was in the pants of someone who loved and was loved by their mother.

    And when I did come out to them as a man, the response was “oh, ok.”

    Oh, and I definitely wouldn’t choose to fear for my life based on my gender presentation, or worry about whether the person I love will be the one they listen to when it comes time to make my funeral arrangements. I don’t know anyone that chooses to be persecuted for falling in love, oddly enough. Maybe I’m going to the wrong gay bars?