I Warned You About Homosexual Agenda

The following is a syndicated op-ed I wrote May 16, 2012. I was excoriated for daring to say such things. Even some so-called Christians attempted to take me to task, by accusing me of not loving my fellow man. The fact that they conflate loving sin with loving our fellow man is not my problem.

I am revisiting this as a precursor to my syndicated op-ed for the week of November 4, 2019. What I said 7 years ago is as true today as is what I told a reporter who was interviewing me for the Associated Press in 2003.

You will note that some of those mentioned are no longer in office. But their spawn and wicked counterparts are still there and they themselves have simply been replaced by more of the same.

ARTICLE BEGINS HERE:

If Republicans were not such a vapid, feckless lot of pansies they would have raised holy “what-for” the moment Obama arbitrarily told his attorney general Eric Holder not to enforce the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA). They would have fought for the preservation of the traditional family. But Republicans today are more interested in what the media and leftist anarchist groups think than they are what it is to be a conservative party. It’s a good thing President Lyndon Johnson had Republican leaders like Everett Dirksen to help pass the Civil Rights Act; because, if were left to the Republican leadership we have today they would have been concerned what the media thought and what the coven ugly sisters on The View had to say.

John Boehner couldn’t put a match out with a fire hose–much less defend the interest of those he was elected to represent. Which brings me to my point. There comes a time that when a person must stand up for what is right, and standing up for traditional marriage is what we expect those who call themselves conservative to do.

Homosexuals having the right to marry is not a civil right. It is a full frontal assault on the traditional family and the church (anecdotal instances to the contrary notwithstanding). Obama has “come out” (no particular pun intended) in support of homosexual marriage and promptly raised millions in campaign donations.

The point of my piece today is to repeat for today that which I told an Associated Press writer in a 2003 interview. Arguments that homosexual marriage being pushed as a civil right “bespeaks of something much deeper and more insidious than ‘we just want to get married’; they want to change the entire social order.”

The arguments of homosexual activist groups pursuant to the right to get married based on a plethora of surreptitious and specious reasons is not only no reason for the endorsing of same, but I argue their reasoning proves my point.

Homosexuals claim they cannot legally enjoy the same things heterosexual couples can and that is, simply put, a lie. They can own property together, they make living wills, just like any responsible person, that will clearly define their instructions in the event of illness, decision making, power of attorney, ad nauseum. They can get individual health coverage just like the heterosexuals. Unmarried heterosexuals have no special privileges that are not available to homosexuals.

The simple truth is that it isn’t about marriage: it’s about the goal of homosexual activists changing “the entire social order” to one that suits their agenda. And for liberals, the most effective way to change that which the majority of people do not want changed is to claim said change as a civil right just as blacks fought for their civil rights.

The problem with that line of reasoning should be obvious. In 2007, I wrote: “Civil rights and homosexual rights are not synonymous. Civil rights focus on the right to vote, the guaranteed access to public accommodations, and the desegregation of public facilities and schools. They have never been, nor should they ever be, about attempting to have the federal government mandate acceptance of a particular lifestyle.” (Homosexuality Is Not A Civil Right; 9/25/07; WND.com)

“Homosexuals and cross-dressers may in fact be a lot of things, but an oppressed minority they are not. And I, for one, resent their temerity in suggesting that a rejection of their chosen lifestyle is in any way equivalent to what truly oppressed peoples in this country went through for the right to vote, sit at a lunch counter and/or stay in the hotel of their choice.”

“Homosexuals are not immutable – there is a difference between refusing to change one’s behavior and being unable to change the color of one’s skin. They are no more economically deprived than others, and they certainly do not have a history of political and historical powerlessness. Ergo, sexual orientation is not a civil right. Homosexual activists represent one of the most powerful lobbies per capita in the country.”

For half of my life my closest friend, confidant, and one of the most erudite men I have ever known was a homosexual. He was also my cousin. He and I had many conversations about his choice of lifestyles, and when he passed away I shed bitter tears. I was unable to attend his funeral, learning of his passing only after I had returned from traveling. Even today, I remember how we challenged one another with word games when we were children and the slight way he would tilt his head when he was thinking.

I share this because there are people today who base their support of homosexual marriage on homosexuals they personally know. They filter homosexual marriage through the prism of their friendship and wanting to see their friends “happy.” What that line of reasoning fails to acknowledge is that the homosexual activists’ agenda isn’t about happiness–it is about changing the social dynamic to one absent of absolutes. It is about changing the social dynamic to a construct that approves their agenda. And the most important social dynamic they want to see changed, is the biblical stand most evangelical churches, thankfully, still hold today.

Dr. Bryce Christensen, PH.D. wrote: “Only the ideologically blind would deny that homosexual marriage threatens violence against all the moral and legal traditions that have defined wedlock for millennia. Homosexual activists have themselves asserted that they aim at more than a “mere ‘aping’” of heterosexual marriage: they want homosexual marriage to “destabilize marriage’s gendered definition by disrupting the link between gender and marriage.” They thus value the homosexual wedding ceremony in part because of the “transformation that it makes on the people around us.” But the disruptions in marriage and the accompanying transformations of the American people hardly began with homosexuals or homosexual marriage. To those who have been paying attention to what American culture, legislation, and jurisprudence have been doing to wedlock since at least the Sixties, homosexual marriage looks all too much like the coup de grace administered only after numerous judges, educators, therapists, activists, and entertainers have already done their worst.” (Why Homsexuals Want What Marriage Has Now Become; April 2004)