The 1973 Roe v Wade high court will forever be stained with the blood of children on its collective hands.
The liberal majority in the 2014 Roberts court will now be labeled with the "C" word—for being cowards. These justices upended American civilization while standing on the sidelines.
Millions of voters in five states were assaulted in the public square, disenfranchised by this court's decision to not overturn erroneous lower court rulings validating same sex "marriage." Like Saul during the stoning of Stephen, they became bystanders, nodding their assent as terrible violence was committed.
The "gay" bullies got their way. Truth and morality were trampled but the black-robed bystanders will plead innocence.
The good news is that this, like Roe, is sure to galvanize the conservative base on the issue of homosexuality like nothing has in decades.
"No political momentum on the other side of this issue." So declared Brit Hume of Fox News on October 6. He was referring to natural marriage advocacy as he reacted to the Supreme Court's non-decision. I don't agree with him about the past, but it's an interesting reaction. The future will be, I predict, an unmistakably renewed fight, as many
Americans are rightly furious. Why are we suddenly forced in many states to recognize homosexual unions as genuine marriage? Didn't we vote on this in thirty- one states?
Roe didn't change the sanctity of life and current court decisions do not change the truth about sodomy.
But while we are mulling this over, we need to be honest. Our side could deploy better arguments, frankly. I respect those fighting the specific battle against recognition of same sex unions. Yet can't we revisit the worth of more boldly proclaiming the whole truth, playing our two trump cards: the deviance of homosexual behavior and the lack of evidence for a "gay gene?"
We need a clear articulation of these points. State laws are being overturned based on a 14th amendment argument, which simply is irrelevant to marriage between people of the same sex. This argument depends on accepting homosexuality as innate, but there's ample evidence this premise is not true. It's immoral behavior not intrinsic to humans, and therefore not encompassed in the word "person" in the amendment language. A defense of this point in some fashion needs to be made by our legal advocates—if it's not too late.
But let's not just pick on certain lawyers because they do operate with some powerful constraints at times. What's needed and totally possible is a firm stand by the GOP, no longer adopting the loaded lingo of the left, like denying being "anti-gay," which makes me want to scream. See for instance, Marco Rubio here.
Is "gay" a biologically different human type? No, there is no such differentiation. There's only learned preference, which can be and often is unlearned. So one cannot be against something that is not a valid minority group.
Why prop up the mythology? We should be deconstructing it instead. After Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003 overturning sodomy laws, many believed one could never again make the "homosexuality is always immoral" argument.
But tell that to the pro-lifers, who are still, forty years later, fighting the insanity of the murderous Roe decision, and gaining ground in the public square. We don't need to avoid the foundational issues. They form the bedrock about why we are in this fight to begin with.
It's easy to see that sodomy is a huge threat to America. Normalizing homosexual behavior presents challenges to public health, children and religious liberty, problems that stand apart from marriage law. Many act as if children are not being taught hateful, harmful propaganda at school, or as if the HIV/AIDS epidemic is over and not seeing 30,000 new cases annually resulting from male/male sex. Or as if the workplace isn't being forced to its knees in tribute to "LGBT" demands, some of which have nothing to do with marriage.
And, most importantly, for those who are Christians, shouldn't we follow the biblical example? The Lord took one approach—a firm NO to homosexual behavior, and not even an honorable (or dishonorable) mention of same sex so-called marriage. He didn't have to bring this up. The underlying conduct was already addressed under the "sinful behavior" category, as an abomination (Lev 18:22).
When Jesus talked about marriage being one male and one female in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, he assumed his listeners knew Judaic law. He didn't cover "same sex marriage" because it didn't exist and still doesn't, as an approved Christian or Jewish relationship. As our eternally existent Lord, Jesus was author of the Levitical code. He, in other words, approved of the designation of homosexuality as an abomination.
But His New Testament silence on same sex "marriage" is misinterpreted as believing Jesus didn't have a strong objection. I think it's the opposite. The entire idea was unthinkable and the pertinent issues—sexual morality and gender distinctions– had already been more than covered.
Jesus didn't change the commandment on adultery to exempt same sex couples. He didn't bring up same sex relationships at all, just as he didn't say, "And by the way, let's clarify that you are to continue to honor your father and mother, not your father and father." He also never noted to his followers that the sun had risen once again that day. The clear standards of Judaic law were well understood and He did not have to spell out the problems with any homosexual relationship.
Sodomy can never be the basis of marriage. We need to be willing to uphold this standard for our children, be available to help those who have same sex attractions overcome them, but if they don't, we must still keep our sense and our knowledge of the truth—and our respect for the teachings of our Lord.
We can already see the rotting "fruits" of the homosexual movement. Despite the eagerness of some "gay Christian" advocates to twist the Lord's teaching about trees and their good and bad fruits, it's pretty obvious that what Jesus meant by "good" is following God's standards. "Bad" would be rebellion against those standards. And where do we imagine homosexuality, the abomination, would fall on this continuum?
Vicious attacks have been launched by the Human Rights Campaign, the Southern Poverty Law Center and others against brave, compassionate, truthful Christian brothers like Peter LaBarbera, Dr. Scott Lively, Dr. Michael Brown and organizations like American Family Association and Family Research Council. Isn't it obvious, isn't this revelation enough, that the poison "fruit" of homosexual advocacy is ripening in today's America, revealing lies and oppression, and it stinks to high heaven?
So going forward, let's deploy a coordinated strategy involving several fronts in this war that might include, by choice, both a harder and a softer-sell approach. Both are needed to address the entire disease, to treat the primary cancer—homosexual behavior—and its metastasis, fraudulent marriage.
And along the way, let's recommit our lives to the teachings of Christ on this issue. How about if we choose today that our houses will serve the Lord?