We have not been crying wolf. We have not been exaggerating the danger. The unthinkable is now reality in Canada. And it could be coming to America next.
In 2012, headlines announced, “Homeschooling families can’t teach homosexual acts sinful in class, says Alberta government.”
As the article explained, “Under Alberta’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program, says the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.”
So, in the privacy of your own home, as you teach and instruct your own children, you would be forbidden by law to teach them what the Bible said about homosexual practice. And how, pray tell, was the government planning to monitor this?
In 2015, Dawn Stefanowicz, herself the child of a gay father who died of AIDS, raised her voice as well. The headline to her article read, “A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights.”
She wrote, “I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the U.S. Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.
“In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered ‘homophobic’ (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment or prosecution by the government.”
She was not exaggerating. In fact, she may have understated her case. The latest headlines from Canada announce something even more Orwellian: “Canada’s New Law Lets Government Take Children Away If Parents Don’t Accept Their Gender Identity.”
What exactly does this mean?
“A Canadian province has passed a law that gives rights to the government to take away children from families that don’t accept their kid’s chosen ‘gender identity’ or ‘gender expression’.
“The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017, also known as Bill 89, was passed in Ontario by a vote of 63 to 23, The Christian Times reported.”
This is beyond mind-boggling. It might even be beyond Orwellian. Really now, would even Orwell have predicted that the government could seize your 8-year-old boy if you wouldn’t let him dress like a girl or if you refused to affirm his perceived female identity?
For good reason, Jack Fonseca, a political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition, slammed the new bill in no uncertain terms: “With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history. Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”
And it is not just an era of totalitarian power. It is an era of misguided totalitarian power.
Not only is it saying that the government, not the parent, knows best. It is saying that the child, not the parent, knows best. It is saying that it is impossible that little Johnny is confused and that one day, he will outgrow his belief that he is really a girl.
No. If he’s convinced he’s a girl and his parents don’t affirm this, he could presumably tell his teachers at school, who would then report this to the government.
Soon enough, there’s a knock at your door, and government agents are taking your son—yes, your very own child—and putting him in a new environment where he can live as Jane.
As nightmarish as this scenario sounds, it is now the law. And it was passed with ease by a vote of 63 to 23.
Soon enough, Johnny will be taking hormone blockers to stop the onset of puberty, and before you know it, he’ll be a lovely young lady, sex-change surgery and all. And there’s nothing you can do to stop it. Nothing.
There’s a reason that so many of us have been raising our voices so loudly for so many years. It’s not because we hate gays or transgenders. It’s because we foresaw the disastrous consequences of LGBT activism and have been standing as watchmen on the wall, sounding the alarm. I urge you from the bottom of my heart: Please don’t hit the snooze button again.
And please don’t console yourself by saying, “Well, that’s Canada, not America.”
First, are the people of Canada unimportant? Does something matter only if it affects America? Surely you won’t say, “Who cares if Christian families in Canada have their children seized by the government? I’m OK here in America.”
Second, we’ve seen how LGBT activism has become the principle threat to our freedoms of speech, conscience and religion here in the States. Canada is just one step ahead.
Third, already in America, “A federal district court judge just dismissed a mother’s lawsuit, essentially upholding Minnesota’s very harmful and unconstitutional ’emancipation statute’ that allows minor children — with the aid of outside groups — to leave their families whenever there is conflict, as long as the child is living independently and can support himself or herself.”
In the case at hand, the mother’s minor son had “decided to be treated with hormones in an effort to ‘change’ his biological sex and to change his name.” The mother opposed this, which was one of the reasons the child sought “emancipation.” Now, the government (here in America) is helping to underwrite his “transition,” and there’s nothing his mother can do to prevent it.
Recently, the flagship gay publication The Advocate, celebrated an 8-year-old drag queen—meaning, a boy who identifies as a boy but who likes to dress up as a girl. (Interestingly, the boy lives in Canada.)
Yes, “Montreal’s newest drag superstar has the poise of someone four times his age.
“A new girl on the Montreal drag scene is making the city’s other queens look geriatric by comparison. That would be Lactatia—a.k.a. Nemis Quinn Mélançon Golden, an 8-year-old who started getting into drag at the ripe old age of 7.”
In this case, the boy’s parents are highly supportive of him (that’s bad enough). But if they weren’t supportive of him, since this is part of his gender expression, the government could remove him from his home.
This madness must be stopped. {eoa}
See an error in this article?
To contact us or to submit an article
