illustration purposes, material containing mature language is included
under this issue. Therefore, these pages are not appropriate for
There has been much public debate on the issue of homosexual civil rights.
In December of 1999, the small New England state of Vermont became the
hot spot for this debate following the State Supreme Court so-called "mandate"
that the benefits of marriage be extended to same-gender couples. This
"mandate" was cleverly used by the Vermont Legislature and Governor to
put representative government on hold in order to further the agenda of
a special interest group. Polls showed that the majority of Vermonters
did not support "domestic partnership" or "gay marriage". However,
only five months following the court's decision the legislature passed
and the Governor signed into law a "civil union" bill that, as of July
1, 2000, gives same-gender couples who enter into "civil unions"
the same rights and benefits as married couples.
To date, much of the debate in Vermont has focused on two points. First,
those who favor extending marriage benefits to same-gender couples argue
that it is simply a matter of civil rights. Second, a large number
of the opposition argue either from a common sense "this is wrong" or from
a biblical point of view. Our approach will be to show, using available
research and expert insight, that the homosexual agenda is bad for homosexuals,
bad for children, and bad for society. Additionally, we will reveal
how the homosexual movement is using the courts to bypass the legislative
process, leading to the necessary precedence for continued constitutional
abuse. Finally, we offer hope, including testimonials from former
homosexuals, for those homosexuals seeking reorientation therapy.