“Tolerance is the buzz word ricocheting around politically correct circles over the past few years. What that really means is that all political, philosophical and theologically correct viewpoints must be tolerated, and any other viewpoints must be mercilessly squelched. The bottom line of this whole rhetoric is that the Christian viewpoint is hateful and must be silenced.” Chuck Missler
I first came across Chuck Missler a number of years ago at a Bible Prophesy conference hosted by Hal Lindsey. I lost touch with his work along the way, but recently came across the quote above which hit me hard in the gut, hard in the heart, and hard in the spirit.
Friends we have just lost another word to the politically correct world. We have just lost the time honored word “marriage.” By now we have heard from the Vice President of the United States of America and the President of the United States of America advocating and campaigning on the “right” of gay marriage. Many were already onboard that train, and since the administration’s pronounced blessing on these matrimonial unions many have boarded that same train, the latest being the NAACP which pronounced “it opposed any policy or legislative initiative that ‘seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the constitutional rights of LGBT citizens.’ ”
So you folks out there who believed in the marriage you and your spouse have enjoyed for so many years; who believed in the marriage your parents had for so many years; who believed in the marriage your grandparents and great grandparents enjoyed for so many years … on back into history and cultures across the world and back countless generations to where the God of the universe first pronounced on it in the book of Genesis; where Jesus who many believe is God pronounced on it and blessed it as between one man and one women; an institution on which the Apostle Paul taught so magnificently and likened to the Body of Christ.
Sorry to inform you folks, but all along we have been full of hate and purveyors of discrimination akin to slavery. Holders to such a vile Christian viewpoint are hateful and must be silenced.
Am I now to hate myself and my spouse? Am I to seek redemption at the hands of my now “holy government?” Am I now to denounce the intolerance, hatred and bigotry of my parents who were married well over 50 years? Or myself and my two brothers who have all been married 48 years?
Ladies and gentlemen, this has happened virtually overnight! One day we we had a word “marriage” with a lofty and commonly held meaning across generations and civilizations. Today at best we have yet another hyphenated word “gay-marriage” or “other-marriage”.
Unless we stand firm. Do you really believe that close to half of all Americans support gay marriage? Or do you believe as I do that … “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…” Yes I do believe that all Americans should have equal rights, even homo-sexual Americans. But surely we can address any inequalities by addressing each real or perceived inequality in a legal Constitutional framework and not destroy the bedrock institution of civilization itself.
I don’t believe half of Americans want to “remove the constitutional rights of LGBT citizens” as the NAACP states as the case. What I do believe is that generations of Americans have been under an onslaught of propaganda that actively seeks to silence the voice that has been the American Judeo/Christian ethical conscience since and before the founding of the nation.
We have seen this cultural propaganda onslaught for years as wave after wave of attacks pound the shoreline of culture seeking its destruction.
Do you remember Hugh Heffner and his hedonistic “Playboy Philosophy?” This philosophy captured the attention of a sizable portion of my generation and seduced many young boys and men into thinking the ultimate culmination of manhood was to have their own Playmate of the Month. Fortunately so many of us were utterly incompetent in achieving that goal, but many others succeeded leaving destruction in their wake in the form of failed marriages, abandoned wives and children, and disease.
Then there was the era of easy divorce when couples (mainly men) were given the easy way out of marriages and responsibilities. Again, a wake of destruction followed, with children and women being the primary victims of men “finding themselves”. If there was an upside to this era of easy divorce, it would have been the liberation of women caught in the struggle of abusive husbands.
Dr. Timothy Leary came on the scene in days gone by with his “Turn On, Tune In and Drop Out” philosophy of rampant drug use. Again, substantial numbers of my generation bought into this hedonistic and self centered approach to life with a wake of destruction behind and the culture ratcheted down a notch or two. How much of the death and destruction of todays Mexican drug wars are children of Dr. Leary? And how many brains, dreams and ambitions have been left in the gutter along the way?
And of course the now fashionable homo-sexual lifestyle; just an alternative lifestyle and a different way to express our love to one another.
Lest you believe the landscape of traditional marriage will be unaffected by this onslaught, and that the only result will be a positive expansion of “basic” human rights, read the following Q&As from a pamphlet published by the Alliance Defense Fund::
• All homosexual couples want are the legal benefits of marriage. They are not looking for anything else.
On the contrary, consider what homosexual activists say:
“We can win the freedom to marry. We can seize the terms of the debate, tell our diverse stories, engage the non-gay persuadable public, enlist allies, work the courts and the legislatures in several states, and achieve a legal breakthrough within five years. This won’t just be a change in the law either; it will be a change in society. For if we do it right, the struggle to win the freedom to marry will bring much more along the way.”
— Homosexual Activist Evan Wolfson, quoted in “All Together Now,” The Advocate, September 11, 2001
“[You should] fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage entirely. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”
— Homosexual Activist Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal
Wave,” OUT, December 1993 – January 1994
“[We] will dethrone the traditional family based on blood relationships in favor of the families we choose.”
— Homosexual Activist William Eskridge, “The Case for Same-Sex Marriage,” 1996
Openly homosexual author Andrew Sullivan has admitted that most homosexual men’s “understanding of the sexual commitment in a marriage is considerably broader than what nearly all heterosexual couples would tolerate.” He adds that homosexual men have a need for “extramarital outlets” and same-sex “marriage” will make adultery more acceptable for all married couples.
(See Andrew Sullivan, “Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality,” 1995.)
• My state passed a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), so aren’t we protected from being forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” in our state?
Homosexual activists have pointed out that they will continue to wed in Massachusetts (where same-sex “marriage” has been legalized)—or any other place where same-sex “marriage” is allowed—and come home and file a constitutional challenge to state and federal DOMA laws, stating these laws violate the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution.
The matter could most likely reach the United States Supreme Court which might strike down all of the state defense of marriage laws.
• I have heard many politicians state that they are against same-sex “marriage,” but they are against a federal marriage amendment that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman. They believe this issue should be left up to the states to decide.
The problem here is that the issue will not be left to the states to decide. Same-sex “marriage” proponents claim that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution compels states to legally recognize marriages formed in other states. While states have never been compelled to recognize marriages that violate their own public policy, lawsuits have been filed in several states demanding recognition of same-sex “marriage” licenses. There is a strong likelihood a federal judge will eventually rule that states must recognize same-sex “marriages” from another state. Unless such a decision is overturned by the Supreme Court, same-sex “marriage” would then become the law of the land.
• Can’t we find a compromise like “civil unions” that will provide same-sex couples with the legal benefits they desire and protect traditional marriage as well?
“Civil unions” or “domestic partner” legislation—granting all the legal benefits of marriage—weaken the institution of marriage. In France, Denmark, and Germany—and other countries that have developed versions of “civil unions” or “civil solidarity pacts” for same-sex couples—heterosexual couples have taken advantage of these arrangements to forgo the legal responsibilities of traditional marriage and enter into temporary arrangements.
(See David Frum, “The Fall of France,” National Review, November 8, 1999, and Chris Crain, “Gays May Ruin Traditional Marriage,” New York Blade, August 3, 2001.)
In Scandinavia, the traditional family has been radically redefined and the number of children born out of wedlock has skyrocketed. This is important because those who seek to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage, without the commitment of marriage, can come and go as they please—resulting in family instability and increasing illegitimacy rates and other problems.
Children are the big losers when the traditional family is radically redefined.
Finally, in a study done by the University of Vermont—and funded by a homosexual activist foundation—79 percent of married heterosexuals felt that monogamy was right, compared to 50 percent of homosexuals in “civil unions” (which provide almost all of the legal privileges of marriage). Both of these statistics are troubling but highlight the illusion that same-sex unions will provide stable homes.
If the door is opened to same-sex “marriage,” other groups—such as polygamists—will demand that their unions be legally recognized as well. Such challenges are already in court.
Therefore, while the “civil union” compromise would seem to protect the institution of marriage, in practice it would only weaken it.
• Isn’t a person born homosexual?
After decades of claims, there is no credible evidence based on scientific research, that in any way proves homosexuality is an innate characteristic. To date no one has been able to duplicate studies that have claimed to find a genetic component to homosexuality. Regardless, the Bible is clear on its teaching related to homosexual behavior. To act on such an impulse is sinful and both socially and personally destructive.
Exodus International is one ministry that has played an instrumental role in helping thousands of individuals stop homosexual behavior. For more information, go to www.exodus-international.org.
• Won’t churches be protected from having to
perform same-sex “marriages”?
If same-sex “marriage” is legalized, churches could find themselves in a difficult position. While some homosexual activist groups deny that churches would be pressured to perform same-sex “marriages,” antidiscrimination laws that include “sexual orientation” could force churches to make a choice between their tax-exempt status, denial of equal access to public property, and violating their Biblical beliefs.
Raymond Flynn, a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, furthers this concern: “The issue of legalizing same-sex marriage raises the question: Does this mean there will be cases brought against the Catholic Church for discrimination? I think it is the next step. I don’t think people will stop until the whole sacred institution of marriage crumbles.”
And finally, we find that the state of California is seeking to criminalize any attempt to make gay teens straight. So there you have it; as with giving a 13 year old girl the “right” to an abortion without the consent or knowledge of parents, we now are faced with government preventing parents from seeking help for their teens which they believe to be on a destructive life style path.
So which is it? Do we stand firm against this latest onslaught, or do we just give up the precious word “marriage” to perversion?