Group Marriage is Next, Admits Dutch ‘Father’ of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

Boris Dittrich

Boris Dittrich

Boris Dittrich, the homosexual activist called the “father” of the political movement in favor of Dutch same-sex “marriage”, has admitted that group marriages of three or more people, is the next, inevitable logical step in the dismantling of the western world’s traditional marriage laws.

In a video interview with Yagg, the French online homosexual magazine, Dittrich, a former Dutch MP and homosexualist activist working for Human Rights Watch, related the carefully laid-out plan that established first public acceptance legal civil partnerships, which in turn led inevitably to changing the definition of marriage.

The redefinition of marriage, he said, has led to discussions of allowing group marriages of three or more persons. “But that’s the beginning of something completely new,” he added. He predicted that this next step “will take a lot of years.”

Dittrich admitted that “it took a long time” to push the notion of “marriage equality” through the political process. Until he and other homosexual activists started the process in the Netherlands, “there was nowhere in the world marriage equality existed”. He started the discussion as early as 1994 but it took another “seven years of debate” before a bill could be presented.

He pointed out that opponents of the change in the Netherlands brought the same arguments and objections that are currently being made in France, which is facing a similar legal change.

In the countries where it has been created, most of the legislators pushing for gay “marriage” started the process by promising that “civil partnerships” were as far as it would go. In the UK, when homosexualists pushed for civil unions, the public was assured that the category of civil partnerships was being created solely in order to ensure fair taxation and property inheritance laws for people in same-sex relationships.

This line of argument was widely accepted even by religious leaders who denied, almost as vigorously as the lobbyists themselves, that there was any danger of the definition of marriage being abolished. British MPs supporting the plan insisted that civil partnerships were the end of the line and that marriage would remain untouched.

Dittrich, however, told Yagg that bringing in civil partnerships was always intended as the first step in the larger plan. When he entered Parliament as an MP, Dittrich said he “immediately” started to talk about same-sex “marriage” but quickly realized that the public was not ready to accept it. A slower route had to be taken.

“We thought it might be psychologically better to first introduce registered partnerships,” he said. Once this was established in 1998, he said that “people got used to the idea that two men or two women went to the municipality, had their relationship recognized by the law. And people called it a ‘gay marriage’.

“So for the general public there was no distinction. And people got used to it and they realized there was no revolution that broke out and the country didn’t fall into a moral abyss.

“So then the next step of marriage equality, and really being equal, was a logical step.”

The most effective wedge to bring the idea before the public was to “focus on the principles of equality and non-discrimination,” and emphasise the “distinction between Church and state.”

“So if people are against marriage between two people of the same sex, well, OK, that’s fine they don’t have to deal with it. I told all these religious people, ‘we don’t touch religious marriage,’ but we are talking about civil marriage.”

“And according to the law, everybody should be treated equally.”


About Author

  • Of course group marriage will be next and then other disordered, unnatural forms of marriage such as a father to his daughter or a mother to her son, or brother to brother, sister to sister…evil does not stop- it will continue to expand until it covers the globe unless people stand up together and say: “No more!” Homosexual men and women are a minority; homosexuals who aggressively promote homosexual marriage are a minority even among homosexuals and yet they have so convinced people that to stand against homosexual marriage means we are racist – and so we cower and let evil continue to develop and grow – millions and millions of human babies continue to be exterminated in the womb because we have been convinced that to stand against this slaughter is to be ‘anti-woman’ – we must not allow ourselves to be labeled in this way! We must begin to speak out and to stop this madness no matter what the cost! Thank God our new Pope Francis has never let anyone or anything stop him from speaking out and acting on behalf of the Church and her teachings. Let us support him in prayer and in action…so much is being made of the fact that Joe Biden will be leading an entourage to attend the Installation of Pope Francis…Biden not only accepts but promotes here and abroad the mass murder of human babies in the womb…I pray he will be struck by grace in the presence of holiness and repent and convert before it is too late…

  • CDville

    “…and the country didn’t fall into a moral abyss. ” You think not?

  • Noel Fitzpatrick

    I am not sure of the purpose of this article.

    Reading it I go back to what I learned in school that between Christians marriage is always a sacrament and that divorce decrees of civil authorities are null
    and void.

    Now it seems in the US marriage is a temporary arrangement and divorces/annulments are available on request. In Ireland marriage is for the middle classes, as for the poor it is usually not practised.

    I have no problems with civil partnerships. I heard of a Catholic lawyer who recommended this for two widows who wished to share a house and avoid death duties.

    The article also reminds me of when I was in school preparing for my first State Exam. The Latin teacher skipped a part of Caesar’s war with the
    ancient Britains about having wives in common. Guess what part turned up in the exam?