Same Sex Marriage: Stealing Heresy From God
Note: This is the third in a three-part series. Parts one and two can be read here.
Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is wrong, says the "gay mafia"-the term the liberal TV personality Bill Maher gave to homosexual activists who "whack" dissenters. According to them, same sex marriage is now not only a "right," no one has the right to oppose it. This new right is so powerful it has completely wiped out the old rights that our founding fathers enshrined in our Constitution: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association.
But we saw in the first column, same sex marriage is not really a right but a preference. Some call it a "right" but they are actually stealing the authority of rights from God and misapplying it to sexual behavior. They have invented a new moral "right" and are attempting to legislate acceptance of it on everyone else (actually, they are trying to have their new morality imposed by liberal judges).
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Now, I'm sure you've heard, "you can't legislate morality." The truth is, all laws legislate morality. Morality is about right and wrong and all laws declare in a legal sense one-behavior right and the opposite behavior wrong. So the question is not whether we can legislate morality, but "Whose morality will we legislate?"
Many don't realize this because they lump morality and religion together. But laws can and do legislate morality without legislating religion. Few people in the political process are trying to tell others what church to go to or what religious rituals to observe. That would be legislating religion. But everyone is trying to tell others how to treat one another. That's legislating morality. While religions may teach that people have certain moral rights (like a right to life or property), you don't need to be religious to know those rights or to support them. You need God to justify them, but not to legislate them.
Liberals can't justify why same-sex marriage is right. Nevertheless, they want to legislate it as a right and will convict you of heresy if you fail to bow to it. Florists, bakers, photographers, Internet CEOs and speakers like myself have all discovered personally that the people who say they are fighting for "tolerance" are often the most intolerant. In the name of "inclusion and diversity," those of us who have a diverse view are being excluded because we don't exhibit lock-step conformity to their intolerant agenda. We are being fired and fined for exercising our real God-given rights. How can this be? We can't work because of our political views-views that are firmly rooted in the biological facts of nature. Is this still America?
At least one advocate of same sex marriage has a real problem with this. Homosexual author Andrew Sullivan expressed revulsion for the intolerance gay activists expressed to former Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich, which ultimately forced his resignation. Sullivan wrote, "The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us." (Maybe Sullivan is speaking of another time, but most "religious right" people I know are tolerant-they would never usurp the free speech or freedom of association rights of those with whom they disagree.)
As headlines nearly every day affirm, there's a growing clash between real rights and the new invented right of same sex marriage. Can anyone see any middle ground between 1) you must celebrate my same sex marriage, and 2) God or my conscience prevents me from doing so? There is none. So which "right" will take precedence: the real right or the invented right?
According to lesbian activist Chai Feldbaum, who was appointed by President Obama to the EEOC, it's not the real right. Speaking about this inevitable conflict between homosexuality and religious liberty she said, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."
So the true rights of freedom of religion, speech and association must give way to the invented right of same sex marriage. Your right to live Christianity, or any other faith, must give way to those who demand that you affirm their lifestyle. That isn't tolerance. That's totalitarianism. Conform or else!
Jesus loved sinners, which is why He wouldn't affirm their sin. Neither can Christians. If we celebrate harmful behavior we are being unloving. Love requires we tell people the truth, even if it upsets them.
In fact, if you are upset with me for the thoughts I've expressed in these three columns, it means that in an important sense you agree with me. If you don't like the behaviors and ideas I am advocating here, you are admitting that all behaviors and ideas are not equal-that some are closer to the real objective moral truth than others. But what is the source of that objective moral truth? As we saw in the first column, the source can't be changeable you or me. It can only be God-the author of Nature's Law.
Since no one can reasonably show that same sex marriage is a right according to Nature's Law (the only objective standard), the "gay mafia" resorts to the tactics of intimidation to silence and punish dissenters. They can't win using sustained reason and arguments. Therefore, they chant fallacious slogans and charge people with heresy by labeling them "bigots" and "homophobes."
Did you think heresy was only a concern of traditional religion? The religion of liberals is no more liberal than that of the most rabid fundamentalist church, which is why liberals have not only stolen rights from God, they've stolen heresy too.
