The following is a syndicated column I wrote February 24, 2004. With Obama’s commitment to forcing acceptance of the homosexual agenda upon us it is especially relevant today:
If I were asked, “Do you like homosexuals?” I would probably say, “No.” Of course, I would be inclined to answer “no” if asked the same of black people, white people, midgets or Hispanics. My point being that I don’t like or dislike people based on group affiliation, height or race. I like or dislike a person based on shared interests and sometimes just because they’re likeable.
The problem with the homosexual activist agenda is it refuses to recognize this. They espouse a position wherein we must accept them based on their lifestyle instead of despite it. The homosexual movement is about forced acceptance, not tolerance.
I am an unapologetic cigar smoker who hates cigarettes and sees no redeeming qualities in drinking. I accept that certain of my friends drink – I tolerate smoking from friends who smoke cigarettes. It is my prerogative as to that which I accept or tolerate.
Tolerance is not a negative. As a result of tolerance, homosexuals enjoy full rights and protections, just as every other American. In fact, as a protected minority, they enjoy greater provision under the law than white heterosexual born-again Christian males.
It is interesting to observe that the unthinkable never reveals its hand all at once.
America largely accepts the idea that AIDS-HIV somehow morphed into a heterosexual disease. Accordingly, taxpayers participate, willingly or unwillingly, in the search for a cure that will encourage behavior the majority find objectionable.
In 1962, the Supreme Court in its wisdom ordered God removed from public schools under the mythical exclusion clause in the Constitution. Next came abortion on demand – a woman’s right to murder her unborn child because of its inconvenience. The idea being it’s a “choice,” not a child. Paralleling abortion on demand were the ’60s. Sex, drugs, God is dead and if it feels good do it.
Under the guise of sensitivity awareness, a greater threat to children than polio is forced upon every grade level. Marjorie King’s definitive exposition “Queering the Schools” (City Journal, Spring 2003), lays bare the homosexual activist’s plan for public education.
Many evangelical churches and church groups stood by (some more smugly than others) as homosexuality weakened, then split and finally destroyed mainline churches. Now the larvae of our tolerance are hatching. Which brings us to the greatest threat to marriage, family and child rearing in the history of America – homosexual marriage and same-sex unions.
In his brilliant exposition, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia – The ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage collapses” (Weekly Standard, Feb. 2, 2004), Stanley Kurtz in frighteningly graphic factuality, writes that marriage and the American family as it now exists will soon be no more. He presents in clear terms that the United States is in the second of the four-stage death process to marriage, family and child rearing.
Homosexual activists try to posit the same-sex marriage movement as similar to the civil-rights movements. But per my comments in an Associated Press article not long ago, “the whole thing bespeaks of something much deeper and more insidious than ‘we just want to get married.’ They want to change the entire social order.”
As Kurtz puts it, “Americans take it for granted that, despite recent troubles, marriage will always exist. This is a mistake. Marriage is disappearing in Scandinavia, and the forces undermining it there are active throughout the West.”
The stage has been meticulously set. God, church and authority no longer have the meaning they did scant few decades ago. The Bible – the definitive guide to leading a Spirit-filled life – is now viewed as little more than a book written by sexist men. It is intellectualized, instead of believed. As clearly presented as sin is in the Scriptures, church leaders with the disregard of a second-story robber routinely dismiss the teachings of same.
Under the pretense of enlightenment, good will, being hip or not wanting to be the only one, parents give tacit approval for their children to be socially programmed.
It took less than six months for the high court ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas to open the flood gates to homosexual marriages – and this in states with laws forbidding it. Even with a constitutional amendment, there looms long, precedent-setting court battles to reverse the damage that has been done.
We must fight against this heresy, but the chances of our prevailing without constructionist jurists are not good. One more reason to let the elected know we are not pleased with them. Not pleased enough to see them replaced if they don’t start listening to our voices.