While most people probably think that prophecy is based on some sort of private revelation, that is not usually the case. Certainly God does occasionally speak to particular men and women in a unique way, but far more often, prophecy relies on the gift of reading the tea leaves, as it were. Holy Scripture is filled with prescriptions: "If you do this, then such-and-such will follow;" the greatest example, of course, being the command to observe God's law, which will be rewarded with a certain measure of happiness in this world and life everlasting.
Phyllis Schafly is surely a prophetess, but she gladly admits she had help in "predicting" events. She simply read the feminist playbook and shared what she learned. Feminist E.J.Graff commends her:
“Social conservative crusader Phyllis Schlafly, it turns out, was right when in the 1970s she warned that if the Equal Rights Amendment were ratified, we’d have homosexual marriage, women in combat, and unisex bathrooms. The ERA was never ratified, but the country took many of its lessons to heart,” she wrote.
Graff, a Brandeis Women’s Studies Research Center resident scholar and the author of “What Is Marriage For? The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution,” naturally qualified her admission by asserting that while Schlafly made an accurate prediction, same-sex marriage and other outcomes “weren’t things to warn against but to embrace.”
Asked by WND whether she felt any sense of vindication, Schlafly was matter of fact, pointing out that while she was roundly ridiculed, “most of what I said came from the feminists own words.”
“It was clear from the actual text of the ERA,” said Schlafly, still politically active at age 89 as president of the group she founded in the 1980s, Eagle Forum. Schlafly argued the ERA would put “gay rights” into the U.S. Constitution because the key word used in the amendment is “sex,” not “women.”
“If you cannot discriminate on account of sex,” she reasoned, “it is perfectly obvious that if two men show up at the city clerk and want a marriage license, and the clerk says, ‘I’m not giving it to you because you are men,’ she had discriminated on account of sex.”
Many feminists then and now have been advocating for an androgynous world view, and furthermore, if you read their material it becomes clear that marriage between same-sex couples is not the goal. The real goal is the elimination of marriage altogether. In that regard, the strategy has been borne out by three facts:
- few same-sex couples rush to get married when the option is made available. There are the requisite photo-ops and a few who tie the knot, but if we are to believe that those with SSA comprise 10% of the population, a lot more marriages would naturally flow from a heart-felt desire to be accepted in the larger institution;
- a wide swath of male/female couples don't bother to get married before cohabitating, giving lie to the fact that "only with marriage" will couples be treated seriously and have access to the perks of wedded bliss;
- neither same-sex couples nor male/female couples necessarily tie child-bearing to marriage, since almost half of our children are conceived in myriad settings apart from tradition, and the wider culture has long ceased treating children any differently bacause of the situation in which they live.
This is all to prove that the "playbook" (certainly not a secret, but available in any college course catalog or neighbourhood bookstore) has been clear in its contempt for intimacy being tied to either commitment or babies.
Significantly, future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored a book in 1977 – funded by taxpayers, Schlafly pointed out – called “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.” Ginsburg and co-author Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, a feminist activist, “laid it all out,” Schlafly said. “They said the idea of the family, with husband breadwinner and wife homemaker, must be eliminated.”
Gender-neutral bathrooms, women in combat, and polyamory were all included in the Trojan Horse, which passed itself off as a push for equal pay for women. The real enemy is only now becoming clear:
“Having stable, nuclear families like that is the way we became a great country,” she said, “and it’s absolutely essential, if you want to have limited government – which conservatives all say they believe in.”
Schlafly said a nation that tolerates a 41 percent illegitimacy rate invites “Big Brother government to come in and do what the provider husband is not doing.”
Keep all of this in mind as we consider what is being pushed in our legislatures, our schools, and the media. Let's be sure that we're not so myopic about the value of every child -- which is undisputed -- that we drop the ball on subsequently teaching them virtue and accountability. Wouldn't it be ironic if we finally overturned Roe v. Wade (please God!) and yet there were so few families left that the overtaxed government simply collapsed? The breadth of Mrs. Schafly's prophecies have yet to come to pass.