Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Revenge of the Gays

No one should be surprised that the Gay Gestapo saw to it that Brendan Eich got what they thought he deserved. “Live and let live” is not a hallmark of the homosexual agenda. We were warned.

In December of 2005 The Becket Fund, a nonprofit institute dedicated to protecting freedom of religion, held a conference to discuss the legal ramifications of same-sex marriage. Ten of the nation’s top First Amendment scholars, liberal, conservative, and moderate, were brought in to present their views of same-sex marriage and the likely outcomes if it is legalized. As a result of the conference a series of papers was published.  These papers were widely reported on. Publications such as The Weekly Standard, National Review, World Magazine, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The San Francisco Chronicle, and many others have covered the results of this conference.

The conference focused on four topics: Can the government force religious institutions to recognize same-sex unions? Can the government withhold benefits, such as tax exemption, from religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex unions? How will freedom of religion arguments fare against legal same-sex marriage? What are the effects on biblical (traditional) marriage?

Mark Stern, general counsel for the liberal leaning American Jewish Congress and a supporter of gay marriage, wrote in his paper, “No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage would, however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable.” According to Peter Steinfels, writing for The New York Times, what Mr. Stern has in mind are “schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.”

George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley, also a supporter of gay marriage, in his Becket paper noted that, “As states accept same-sex marriage and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, conflicts will grow between the government and discriminatory organizations. There will be many religious-based organizations that will refuse to hire individuals who are homosexual or members of a same-sex marriage. If those individuals are holding a state license of marriage or civil union, it will result in a discriminatory act that was not only based on sexual orientation, but a lawful state status.”

Doug Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, and an opponent of gay marriage, participated in the Becket conference and wrote, “Were federal equal protection or substantive due process to be construed to require states to license same-sex marriage, those who have profound moral or religious objection to the social affirmation of homosexual conduct would be argued to be the out-liers of civil society.” Therefore, he argues that churches could be targeted for legal penalties and disadvantages as were universities that participated in racial discrimination decades ago.

He adds that, “This is hardly a far-fetched (idea), as apparently one of the main aspirations of the homosexual movement is retaliation against the defenders of traditional marriage.” Dan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage hinted at “aspirations of the homosexual movement” as well, and took it even further. After the will of the California people was undone with a judge ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Brown declared that, “The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry.”

There you have it. Ultimately this debate isn’t about marriage or “discrimination.” This is an attempt, using the power of the American legal system, to force moral legitimization of homosexual behavior upon the American people. And it is about revenge upon all those—past and present—who have stood, and continue to stand in the way of such “progress.”

Unless America comes to her senses, there almost certainly will be many more Brendan Eichs, Barronelle Stutzmans, Jack Phillips, and Elaine Huguenins. After all, the undoing of an absolute truth (marriage is a union of one man and one woman) is bound to be confrontational and messy. When you call good evil and evil good, there are bound to be casualties.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

7 comments:

  1. Trevor, I'm disappointed. I thought you had reasoned your way through this issue. In the real world, you can find people who by physical appearance or upon medical inspection are not clearly male nor female, and others who possess characteristics of both sexes. There are medical terms and classifications for these conditions. They are documented and you cannot deny them. These people are not children of a lesser God. In spite of this I see your worldview discriminates against them so as to deny equal rights to things we take for granted. Things like love. Things like civil recognition of their right to care for and provide for a significant other and enjoy the legal status accorded to the relationship of marriage. You seem bent on going through life with an attitude that these people are sinners because God made them sexually indeterminant. Some of these people underwent medical procedures as children in an attempt to force them into preconceived sexual categories. Many of those medical procedures only made their situation worse as they grew into adolescense and eventually adulthood. Haven't they suffered enough? You appear to be worried that something they might do could somehow infringe upon your ability to enjoy rights and freedoms of your own marriage. Or perhaps you feel that prohibition of religious discrimination in conduct of business and services infringes upon your personal rights. To that I can only warn that there is a religious excuse for every discrimination one man can make against another. Institutionalizing any one discrimination will legitimize all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Speaking of "reason:" There is virtually no one who, upon medical inspection, is not clearly male or female. There are medical terms for lots of nonsense (I've linked to several recently: on psychology, ADHD, etc.) God loves us all, but He never tolerates sin. Men having sex with men, and women having sex with women, is a sexual sin--just as adultery, prostitution, pornography, and the like.

    And there is "discrimination" at work on both sides here. It's simply a matter of whose moral standard we are going to live by.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Trevor. Your phrase "virtually no one" means that you acknowledge there are some, and they are real people that God made and God loves. Their "sin" is that they are physically or genetically imperfect. Some have a genetic resistance to natural hormones that typically govern physical or mental sexual development. Where do they fit into your narrow definition of strictly male and fermale roles?

    Do you take it upon yourself to know these real cases from the rest? Do you take it upon yourself to determine which sexual classification they must fit into? Are you going to look down their pants and x-ray their insides before you judge the character of their soul? If you demand the right to judge, you must be up to the task of appropriate inspection for this determination. Otherwise you must admit you are arbitrarily choosing to condemn some people who are guilty only of being born different from the genetic\hormonal\physical norms that you find acceptable.

    This subject may be related to the biblical concept of "uncleanness". For instance, as a determined condition for a man who has had a wet dream, or the uncleanness that results from a woman bearing a child or undergoing menstruation, the act of sex itself, -or the determined condition of someone suffering from leprosy. There are specified behaviors for the condition of being unclean, specifically the ritual requirement to wash or not touch, and failure to follow them is considered a sin. Are these behavioral sins different than the sin of homosexuality? Is all sin equal before the eyes of God?

    OK, enough of that. Regarding ADHD, don't get me started about abuse of Ritalin in a diagnostic system geared more toward pharmaceutical and "educational" profits rather than doing what's best for patients. Keeping children quiet and inhibited has become a targeted goal of the profit-based educational system. Surrealistic images from Pink Floyd's "The Wall" do come to mind.

    Lastly, your first paragraph references Brendan Eich, but you never seem to explain the context of that reference. I had to google his name to find the story about a controversy over his political contributions on Prop 8. Many casual readers may be left scratching their heads. -Or maybe I'm just out of touch on hot button issues (like persecution and victimhood) of the Christian right these days...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there are people born with physical or genetic abnormalities that makes their gender difficult to determine at birth. However, I'm not talking about such things. I'm talking about sexual immorality--specifically homosexuality. Isn't it telling that when it comes to homosexuality, or the transgender nonsense, these medical conditions are never part of the debate?

      Brendan Eich is mentioned in the opening. He's the former Mozilla CEO (and inventor of JAVA) who was forced out because of contributing to the Prop 8 campaign. I'll add a link. Thanks.

      Delete
  4. Now you say you're not talking about those people, -specifically that fraction of people in apparent "same sex" relationships who were born with genetic or hormonal sexual abnormalities. Since you have now excused them, allow me to focus upon this point. Under your definition of marriage solely for one man and one woman (one male and one female), can those people marry? Yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Genetically "those people" are either male or female. Genetic testing will determine this. (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003269.htm)

      Thus yes, God's definition of marriage still applies.

      Delete
  5. Hummm... genetic testing was not available when the norms you defend were defined. This was done based solely on appearance and behavior. For millenia, appearance was the method by which God's sexual definitions (and thus a right to marriage) were enforced.

    Regarding appearance, a "genetic male" can have female sex organs. The proof is from the web reference you cited. Quote: "In very rare instances, the physical appearance may be fully developed as the opposite of the genetic sex. For example, a genetic male may have developed the appearance of a normal female." This would also be true for a genetic female who develops the appearance of a male.

    IF you defend the way traditional sexual roles have been defined by the church (by appearance and behavior) then you still hold that these people must not be allowed to marry. Or was the Church wrong? If you believe this, it would be good to hear you say so.

    Of course, this says nothing for genetic XO, XXY, and YY chromosome sets, which also exist and are mentioned at the web reference you cited. No one can say if these people are genetically a third sex (which would be chromosomally indeterminate). Further, your classic sexual definitions for marriage (a general requirement specifying sexual capacity for reproduction of any marriage pair) fails to address the following conditions, -also from your cited reference:

    True hermaphrodism. This is a very rare condition, in which tissue from both the ovaries and testicles is present. The child may have parts of both male and female genitals.

    Mixed gonadal dysgenesis (MGD). This is an intersex condition, in which there are some male structures (gonad, testis), as well as a uterus, vagina, and fallopian tubes.

    At any rate, if you are going to adhere to your latest excuse, it sounds like you are willing to condemn a whole lot of people for whom you possess no determinative genetic test data. I suspect the truth is you are cynically parroting what you think your target demographic wants to hear. The first thing you mention in the article is that a contributor to prop 8 was subject to pressure from a LGBT political lobby. The key of the message is persecution and victimhood. The best way to keep the base motivated is to tell them their cause is under attack. It's kind of like Bill Oreilly's traditional "attack on Christmas" pieces that he does every year.

    Or am I wrong?

    ReplyDelete