Monday, November 10, 2008


Infuriated by the surprise (to them) rejection of homosexual 'marriage' in three strates on election day, homosexual protesters have been flexing their muscles in California hoping to stop an approved state constitutional amendment:
More than 20,000 protesters spilled into the streets of Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and even Modesto on Saturday in mostly peaceful demonstrations over passage of Proposition 8, the statewide ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage.

The unfolding street scenes underscored the racial and religious tensions that have surfaced since Tuesday's vote threw into question the legality of 18,000 marriages of gay and lesbian couples and foreclosed the option for any more.

Police estimated that 12,500 boisterous marchers converged about 6 p.m. at Sunset and Santa Monica boulevards in Silver Lake near the site of the former Black Cat bar, which the city recently designated a historic-cultural monument for its '60s role as home of the local gay rights movement.

Particular targets for protest in California have been churches, particularly Mormon churches and temples. This attempt to silence religious opposition is now including an attempt to silence religious opposition of any kind to homosexuality:
About 100 people stood in front of First Baptist Church of Dallas on Sunday morning to protest Dr. Robert Jeffress' sermon, "Why Gay Is Not O.K."

Carrying signs bearing the words "I'm Gay and It's OK" and "Christ Taught Love Not Hate," the protesters lined both sides of San Jacinto Street in front of the downtown church.

They sang "Jesus Loves Me" and cheered when passing motorists honked their horns and waved in support.

"Most of the people here are Christians, and they're taking offense at the Baptist Church trying to say how Christ's love should be interpreted," said Patrick Hancock, who attended the peaceful protest. It was organized earlier this week when someone noticed the sermon topic on the church marquee.

It sounds like the minister has a good grasp of the issue:
Dr.[Robert] Jeffress said the purpose of his sermon was to "let Christians know what the Bible says about this important topic, and to reaffirm that any and every sin can be forgiven."

Dr. Jeffress addressed what he called two "myths" about homosexuality: that prohibitions exist only in the Old Testament, and that Jesus never condemned this behavior.

During one of his three Sunday morning sermons, he cited New Testament passages that he said condemned homosexuality, including Romans 1:27. It speaks of "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, [who] burned in their lust one toward another."

Dr. Jeffress acknowledged that "Jesus never used the word homosexual." However, he said, Christ condemned homosexuality by affirming Old Testament truths and by upholding God's plan for human sexuality – "one man and one woman in a marriage relationship."

And we can be assured that there will be no end to this expanded assault on religion:
"The No on 8 people didn't want us to use the word 'bigots.' But that's what they are, bigots, bigots, bigots," Tyler said, bringing a round of cheers from the growing crowd. "We will never be made invisible again. Never again will we let them define who we are."

This is now turning into a struggle for religious liberty itself. The homosexual movement is going on the offensive, and they see Christians as the obstacle blocking their goal.


trip said...

I agree with what the Bible teaches about homosexuality and view it as a sin. However, I now have one of my best friends from high school (we were in youth group together, in fact) who says that he is gay (we weren't very surprised by this news when he told us) and now got a job at the Gap corporate offices in San Francisco (this seems a bit cliche in light of the news about his sexual preference). In light of that, I think that I have a little more tolerance on the issue than I used to since he is still my friend. While I do not support same-sex marriage legislation, I do support same-sex civil unions as I feel that it is a nice compromise between giving homosexual couples the civil rights that they want while not compromising on the definition of marriage.

Alan said...

Uh-oh--I'm wearing GAP khakis today....

I have no interest in interfering with your friend's personal life. Most people in the world are actively engaged in sinful activity. However, we do have (or are supposed to have) religious freedom in this country, and have the right to state what the Bible says about homosexuality. Religious people also have a right to be active politically. I do agree, though, that if we are going to take a principled stand, we can't let others intimidate us into backing down.

Bill said...

What I found interesting about these protests (apart from the intolerant nature of them aimed at suppressing religious expression) was the media (particularly the NY Times) describing them as "massive" when they only involved, at most, tens of thousands nationwide. That's insignificant. In fact, many times that gather each year in Washington, D.C. to protest Roe v. Wade, yet the mainstream media does not cover the protests (in the Washington Post, these rallies are for some reason reported in the Metro section, as if they were a local matter) and the downplay crowds of up to 100,000 as smaller.

Is there, perhaps, an agenda at play?

Undoubtedly, the phoniest element of this issue is that it is about "freedom" for homosexuals. Nonsense. It is about homosexuals using the power of the state to ratify their sexual conduct and impose acceptance of their sexual conduct on the broader populace. The various alleged instances of "discrimination" against homosexual "couples" are myths. (Such "couples" are in defiance of the natural ordering of the sexes and complementarianism of male and female and so cannot be "married" in any meaningful sense of the word.) Homosexuals can pass their estate to whomever they wish by a will. A homosexual can grant a power of attorney or health care power of attorney to whomever they wish (including the ability to make health are decisions or visit the hospital.) A homosexual can grant own property jointly with another person, homosexual or not.

What a homosexual cannot do is what right reason says is impossible--namely, marry and attain the accoutrements that our law has by centuries of tradition accorded only to marriage. A few narrow areas such as passing an estate to a spouse by intestacy, adoption of children and owning property as tenants by the entirety (in which the estate is legally indivisible.)

But the reasons for those limitations are obvious and homosexual "kick against the goads" in arguing against them.