Gay rights advocates have used civil rights language to defend their desire for same-sex marriage for the past several decades.
Slowly (by constant repetition of the argument) a growing percentage of society has bought into the comparison between the kind of sex people desire and unchangeable realities like race and gender.
Beyond the logical problems with this comparison, the strategy has actually turned gay rights into a divisive and polarizing debate that is threatening the very acceptance desired by homosexuals.
Why can’t we find a better way to resolve this matter without portraying those who disagree as hateful bigots who discriminate against a minority? I realize that the assumption that gay is equal with race and gender is essential to the radical homosexual agenda, but I think it’s bad for the nation to buy into this agenda.
A few words of clarification
First, I realize that sexual desire is one of the most powerful passions of human beings. We would cease to exist without sexual desire. Yet both heterosexual and homosexual desires have been behind some of the most horrific crimes against humanity. Because we are corrupt beings, our sexuality, like every other part of our existence, requires laws to restrain it, and to punish abuses of our passions.
There is not a person on the earth who can claim innocence with regard to sexuality. Jesus exposed this truth to hypocritical religious leaders when he said, “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).
Secondly, Whether one claims heterosexual or homosexual orientation, the desires and actions associated with orientation must be treated as willful choices capable of restraint. Otherwise one cannot speak of sexual actions (like adultery, rape or incest) as culpable moral behaviors.
While we cannot tell a person of race to restrain or stop being Asian or African-American, we must require people of both heterosexual and homosexual orientation to restrain and control their sexual behavior — under threat of punishment for wrongful expressions of it. If a society makes laws regarding sexual actions, sexuality (whatever orientation one claims) must be treated as chosen behavior.
Finally, I firmly reject unlawful and evil treatment of those who identify themselves as oriented toward homosexuality. We have sadly witnessed far too much cruelty toward people based on differences. This is where there are some legitimate comparisons between the way homosexuals and people of certain races have been wrongly treated.
But why can’t these matters be addressed without making an area of behavior comparable with one’s unchangeable nature?
Overreaching on gay rights
When gay rights advocates attached their cause to civil rights language, they went too far with the comparisons and invited disagreement from those who simply observed the illogical inconsistencies. But when advocates went to the level of coercion and manipulation by demonizing anyone who disagrees, they’ve engaged in the very intolerance that has been wrongly aimed at them.
Supreme court confusion
Despite their gifted intellects, it appears that five Supreme Court justices carelessly accept the emotionally charged and counter productive false comparisons. The court stopped short of making gay marriage a constitutional right and chose to leave in place state laws banning same-sex marriage, the recent 5-4 decision used inflammatory civil rights language to pave the way to a constitutional civil right for gay marriage.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy slandered those who disagree by implying that they “disparage and injure” the “personhood and dignity” of gays and stand in “violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
On this way of reasoning, evidently one is not capable of treating homosexual couples with respect if he chooses to view marriage as an institution divinely intended for heterosexual unions.
Do we really want a society where people are not free to believe this way about marriage without facing accusations of being hateful, discriminating bigots?
Will coercion on gay marriage support tolerance and respect for those who choose a homosexual relationship?
Can we find a more rational and less divisive way to secure legally shared benefits and experiences for homosexual couples?
Stop and think about the unnecessary and polarizing ways radical homosexual activists are using to force society to conform to their lifestyles. Consider how it produces some of the very behaviors once opposed by gays and actually creates new victims of discrimination.
In his dissent, Justice Scalia wrote, “By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,”
It appears that President Obama also bought into the false and inflammatory comparison. He called DOMA “discrimination enshrined in law.” Of the court’s decision, Obama said, “when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.” Implication? Anyone who sees things differently on gay marriage is guilty of discrimination. This is a manipulative and divisive way to frame a needed conversation.
Wouldn’t it be better to avoid the civil rights language and look for ways for the state to offer more equitable treatment? Is it possible to find a way to address core concerns without polarizing the public and denigrating those who have different views. Does it really help to characterize those who do not support gay marriage on religious or moral grounds as people of hatred, bigotry and irrational phobias?
Although I do not believe in gay marriage, I am neither hateful nor fearful of those who choose a gay lifestyle. In opposing a change to marriage to include homosexual unions, I have no intention or motivation to portray homosexuals as evil people or to support wrongful treatment of them. In my worldview, we are all sinners in desperate need of the grace of God. We are clearly going in the wrong direction with this debate by seeking freedoms for one group by denying freedoms for another.
The path currently sought by radical homosexual activists is to force all of society to see things their way or face severe legal consequences. They are already attacking the religious and moral freedoms of Americans with this agenda and we are only seeing the beginning. Anyone who tells you that this approach will never threaten religious liberty is lying to you. If this becomes a matter of civil rights with the full force of federal law behind it, churches throughout this nation will be attacked with the strong-arm of law if they fail to offer full endorsement of gay marriage.
The Supreme Court carelessly and recklessly sent an implied mandate to lawmakers to conform to gay marriage or be numbered among the hateful bigots. I hope that lawmakers will not cave to the manipulation and false comparisons, but will expose the agenda as a means to silence and coerce Americans against their moral and religious convictions.
I think we can find a better way to have this discussion so that States can offer equitable treatment without sharply dividing people against one another and threatening the freedoms of fellow citizens.