As the Supreme Court prepares for decisions on gay marriage, it’s deeply troubling that many of those promoting it are some of the most intolerant people in our country. They operate with an approach that says, “See things my way, or else!”
Whatever your opinion on gay marriage, we must not sit silently by and allow this kind of radical intolerance to threaten civility and freedom.
Don’t fall for the naive line that says, “What’s the big deal? It won’t affect others if two men get married.” This way of thinking naively plays into a larger coercive agenda that will not be good for the nation.
You can be certain that marriage is not the only thing gay activists demand. Marriage is the issue being used to obtain status as a protected minority under civil rights legislation. Why do you think repeated efforts are made to suggest that being gay is equal with racial identity?
This comparison (although false) has been a main part of the overall strategy to cause the public to bow before the sexual preferences of 2-3 percent of the citizens. They demand nothing short of full endorsement of homosexuality in every part of public life. The false comparison of racial identity with the kind of sex people prefer has been an effective tool for manipulating an uninformed public. Yet it is almost inconceivable that people as intelligent as Supreme Court justices do not see through this irrational line of argument.
It might be more politically and legally amendable and cause less social unrest if the gay community said, “All we want is marriage and the benefits that come with it, but we are not asking for civil rights status as a minority group along the lines of racial identity. We are not asking for businesses and Churches to be forced to affirm gay marriage. We are not asking for curriculum changes at the public schools to include gay marriage and families.”
No allowance for disagreement
Radical gay activists put those who graciously disagree with gay marriage in a very difficult position. Their goal is to eliminate all allowance for disagreement. If you hope to show kindness to those who prefer a homosexual lifestyle, it will only be accepted if it comes with full endorsement. If you show the slightest disagreement, your kindness will be scoffed at and you’ll be labeled with vicious titles like, “hate-monger, bigot, racist, homophobic, etc…
This radical coercive approach must end but I am not sure the Supreme Court has the wisdom to stop it. In another recent decision of the court, Justice Kennedy actually slandered those who disagree with gay marriage naively implying that they “disparage and injure” the “personhood and dignity” of gays and stand in “violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
Evidently one is incapable of treating homosexual couples with respect if he chooses to view marriage as an institution intended for heterosexual unions. Do we really want a society where people are not free to believe this way about marriage without facing accusations like those issued by Justice Kennedy?
Anger among homosexuals
The public is largely unaware of how much anger and bitterness are part of the homosexual lifestyle. Gay activists want us to believe that the anger is primarily due to society’s lack of acceptance of gays. This is not the case. More often, the anger is rooted personal histories of injury among those who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. This is one reason gay relationships are known for significant domestic problems.
But I have friends who are gay
I understand how some people are hesitant to say anything negative about homosexuality because they have gay friends and don’t want to hurt them. This is more of an altruistic response but let’s remind ourselves that true friendship (based in respect and tolerance) should allow for differences of perspective without fear of being irrationally accused of hate and bigotry. If a friend labels you with these vicious misrepresentations for simply disagreeing with him; he is not a true friend. He only accepts friendship if you see things his way. This is at the heart of the problem that is disrupting civility and threading freedom in our nation.
Did you choose to be heterosexual?
Whether one claims heterosexual or homosexual orientation, the desires and actions associated with one’s orientation must be treated as choices capable of action or 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, for example, 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 acts, then sexuality (whatever orientation one claims) must be treated as a behavior people can act on or restrain.
Aren’t we commanded to love sinners?
Those who carelessly use the line about loving sinners who are broken and in need of salvation should note that radical gay activists do not mirror the broken and humble “sinners” who seek grace and salvation. They act more like the intolerant religious leaders of Jesus’ day — the self-righteous who condemn and ostracize any one who disagrees with them.
Is sexual orientation a civil right?
If sexual orientation is granted civil rights status (equal to one’s racial identity), the full weight of federal law will sooner or later silence and punish anyone who teaches that God’s will for marriage is limited to one man and one woman and that homosexual behavior is a violation of the Creator’s law. If you hold these views, you will be required to keep them to yourself and you will not be permitted to act on them in any way that is considered discriminatory. Christian Churches and business people will be forced to embrace homosexuality or risk lawsuits and punishments. Is this freedom?
Please pray about the upcoming court decisions. Stand firmly and graciously for the freedoms that we value in this nation.