Originally published in San Diego Rostra, Jan 13, 2010
Proposition 8 is in the news again. At first the will of the people got struck down because the courts ruled that a law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was unconstitutional. For this reason, Proposition 8 went ahead and made it part of the California constitution. Now a judge is going to rule on whether or not the constitution is constitutional. It never ends. But because this is news once again, I have re-organized some thoughts I wrote a while back on Town Hall, combined with a selection from my book. The purpose of this article is to defend the Conservative case, not only morally, but legally, intellectually, psychologically, and compassionately. The article begins as a dialogue because that is what seems to be missing today, constructive dialogue, as opposed to worthless mudslinging and attempts to silence opposing views. I do not mind people disagreeing with my beliefs, but misrepresenting my position is another matter altogether. I cannot claim to speak for all Conservatives, although I know I’m at least speaking for many. The sincere hope and objective is for people to better understand where we are coming from. Feel free to argue against this article. Just know what you are arguing against rather than rushing to judgment. That’s all I ask.
“Isn’t it important to speak against hate? Those who are against gay marriage are filled with hate, aren’t they?”
With all due respect, that’s quite a sweeping generalization. Have you met and conversed with every single person opposed to gay marriage? Have you allowed them to speak for themselves or are you letting others filter and restate their opinions? And how exactly are you defining hate? I respect your desire to be loving, but please be careful here. Stop, take a deep breath, and notice the subtlety of what is going on. Otherwise you may find yourself guilty of the same kinds of bigotry you claim to be against.
“But disapproving of homosexuality is like disapproving of an entire race because gay people were born that way.”
Actually nothing of the sort has ever been proven and I’ll get into that shortly, but for now, even if you disagree, viewing sexuality as different than race or skin color isn’t really that far of a stretch, is it? To use some common terms, can you, yourself, show compassion and tolerance for people who have a view of homosexuality contrary to your own?
“How can you speak of tolerance when we’re suppressing the rights of gay people? Shouldn’t they be allowed to marry?”
Nobody says they can’t. In fact, gay churches and other liberal churches have been performing homosexual weddings for years. All we ask is that they not force the rest of us to change our own definition of marriage. If they are entitled to their view of marriage, we are also entitled to ours.
“But in most states a gay marriage isn’t recognized legally.”
That is true. But many who oppose changing the definition of marriage still support civil unions. A lot of states have them and we are probably on the road to all having them in time. With such an ideal scenario, there would be no financial benefit denied and no hospital visitation suppressed. So, legally homosexual couples would have the same rights and religiously (depending upon the church) they have the affirmation of marriage. Ten years ago, militant gay activists, while fighting for civil unions, promised that this would be enough. That promise has been broken. I honestly appreciate your desire to be fair and compassionate. I really do. But please think about this for a moment. If gay couples can get married in liberal churches and if they can also have legal civil unions and if they decide to then call themselves married (as they have been doing for many decades) and if nobody is passing any law against their free speech to describe their relationship any way they choose, what possible reason remains for demanding that the entire country change its definition of marriage, other than to insist on affirmation from people who have a right to their own opinion about varying lifestyles?
“But the rest of us are not affected by gay people getting married.”
Yes, That’s the fifty million dollar challenge thrown at conservatives these days. “How exactly does it hurt your own marriage or your own family if two gay people get married?”
On its surface this would seem to be a fair question. Does another person’s marriage have any direct connection to your own? Of course not. But I think we are missing a much bigger point. As Americans, our lives, our marriages and our families, do not exist in isolation. We are profoundly influenced by the direction of society as a whole. As a pastor, I have counseled many gays and I am sympathetic to their plight. Of course I can understand their desire to be married and happy like every one else. At the same time, I would be lying if I said that gay marriage does not affect the rest of us. The truth is, one can list many such effects and I will do so right now:
1) THE EFFECT ON YOUR CHILDREN
Even if your children live in a stable, two parent, heterosexual home, you are only one of many influences in your child’s life. Homosexuality is being presented today as an alternative lifestyle even at the kindergarten level! Books such as Heather Has Two Mommies are being read to your child at some schools. In fact, a recent California ruling now insists on a new way of teaching about families out of respect for gay and trans-gender families. It is also against the law for any government institution in California to speak negatively of gays. Although a good deal of this stuff was already going on, legalization of gay marriage will give the militant gay agenda even more teeth. Please do not try to tell me that these developments will not be affecting your child directly.
2) THE EFFECT ON OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN:
For years we have admitted as a society that children are better of in a two-parent home. Yes, there are loving single parents who have done a wonderful job. And yes, there are unhealthy dysfunctional two parent families. But pointing out exceptions to the rule ignores this giant rule staring us in the face. Ideally, children need a healthy father and a healthy mother. They need both, because men and women are different and each one has different things to offer in a child’s upbringing. We used to feel free to admit this rather obvious truth. But we have gotten so used to rolling over and playing dead for the militant gay activists, we now try to shove truth under the rug. The more children are raised by fathers and mothers together, the better we will all be as a society. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that. Isn’t it interesting how many self described liberals insist we need diversity of genders on the Supreme Court because women will “bring a different perspective” and yet, when these same people are asked about males and females as role models for children, they suddenly switch gears. Studies on ancient Rome and other cultures show that when the family breaks down, the entire country breaks down. So once again, I would say that gay marriage has a rather large influence upon our joint future as Americans.
3) THE LEGAL EFFECT: There will be a legal affect. Don’t kid yourself.
If I thought for one moment that legalized gay marriage would end this matter, I would have less of a problem with it. If I thought the militant gay community would now be satisfied and view things as square, if they could finally admit that they are no longer a persecuted minority and their plight is over, perhaps gay marriage would be something we could all live with. I would still be concerned, but I could live with it. Unfortunately, the militant gay movement has no such intention and this latest “right” is only a small part of a much bigger agenda.
Now, I do draw a distinction between most homosexuals who want to just be left alone and the militant gay agenda, which claims to speak for the majority. Despite my sympathy to the former, unfortunately, it is the militant gays whom we are being forced to deal with. Let’s be honest: The real militant gay agenda is to someday make it against the law to say that homosexuality is wrong. Oh, they’re smart enough to chip away at it one inch at a time, because they know what a stupid country we have become and what a naïve people we have become, but make no mistake: The instigation of Thought Police is the true agenda. As a matter of fact, that agenda was shamelessly written by Marshal Kirk and Hunger Madsen as a manifesto back in the late1980’s. It was called, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s.
This manifesto was an open, strategic agenda to launch a patient and persistent legal and media movement whose goal was to silence anti-homosexual speech. The strategy included lovable gay characters on sitcoms who encounter “old fashioned, narrow minded friends.” But this was only the beginning. In the midst of debates, the soldiers of this cause were to portray anyone who disagreed with homosexuality as some kind of hate monger, even those whom they knew had a love for gays but merely disagreed with the lifestyle.
“Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof…through repeated infra logical emotional conditioning, the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments; the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality” (pg 152-153 )
But calling someone a “homophobe” or “ hate filled” does not go far enough today. After achieving the goals of guilt and “greater sensitivity”, the militant gays are trying their hand at actual speech legislation. Such legislation has already passed in Canada. Now they’re trying to jam it through in the Unites States under the guise of “Hate Crime.” Since violent crimes are already crimes, judging motives such as “hate” really makes Hate Crime Law, Hate Speech Law. Saying that you love the homosexual but simply disapprove of his actions isn’t enough. You will still be branded as hateful and this will be in the name of tolerance. Christians and other Conservatives must be tolerant of the opinion that homosexuality is natural. Of course, homosexuals need not be tolerant of the fact that we might have another point of view.
Legalizing gay marriage in California is going to open up a Pandora’s Box full of litigation. I am just waiting for pastors to be sued for not being willing to perform gay marriages. Supposedly, there is this thing called “separation between church and state” that the Left likes to keep ringing in our ears. But the separation never seems to work both ways, does it? We hear all the time about how the church must never interfere with the state, yet, for some reason this “separated state” is allowed to interfere with the church if the church holds a viewpoint it doesn’t like. Already, a Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not allowing a gay couple to get married on their property and the lawsuit was won. They don’t even have legal gay marriage in New Jersey. Can you just imagine what’s going to start happening in California? I have heard gay activists argue both ways on this issue. On one hand, they point out that Christians need not be concerned with any marriage other than marriages in the church. Strictly secular marriages (supposedly) are none of their business and nothing to worry about. But then, when chastising churches for refusing to support gay marriage, the argument is that Christians are disrespecting “equal protection under the law”, a law which is justified under the guise of not effecting Christianity. The circular reasoning is seldom noticed.
4) THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT
Since homosexuality is emotionally unstable and psychologically abnormal, exposing kids to the teaching that it is natural, harms the child’s healthy development. If this is true of the children being indoctrinated from kindergarten on up, one can only imagine the confusion passed on to children being raised by gay couples. I did not say the gay couple was unloving. I merely point out the dysfunction.
I know! The fat is in the fire now! Somebody had to say it! It might as well be me. Too many conservatives dance around this issue. They are willing to call gay marriage wrong but they are unwilling to call homosexuality itself wrong. Well, let’s be clear. If there is nothing wrong with being gay, then there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, and gay people make good sense when they point this out. Unfortunately, it begs the more obvious question: Is there something wrong with homosexuality? Yes there is. It causes psychological harm. I do not say this to sound condemning or to make anyone feel unwarranted guilt, but the truth is, people are involving themselves in a process that is unnatural. This was the widespread teaching of the American Psychiatric Association prior to the year 1973. Many people are unaware of the circumstances, which led to homosexuality being declassified as an emotional disorder by the APA. You may never have heard about the pressure from gay activists and gay psychiatrists who were involved in the meetings. You should know that the discussions leading to the vote were not characterized with scholarly study but rather a great deal of fear. In fact, so extended was the pressure, that only one third of the ballots sent out were ever returned. Out of those returned, only 58 percent agreed to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Get that? 58 percent out of the one third returned or about 19 percent overall! 5
Prior to this time, homosexuals not only sought help from psychologists but also received healing. Dr. Charles Socarides, who had successfully treated gays for more than 20 years said that the militant gay movement was responsible for “the greatest medical hoax of the century.” 1
Although, many gay people sincerely claim that they cannot remember a time when they weren’t attracted to the same sex that does not necessarily mean they were born homosexuals. Elizabeth Moberly, a research Psychologist for Oxford and Cambridge, explains this by pointing out that people absorb their key influences of sexual orientation between the ages of 2 and 5, a time in life most of us would not remember anyway.2
Even molecular biologist Dean Hammer of the National Cancer Institute who headed one of the famous studies which sought to find genetic explanations said, “Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psycho-social factors.” 3
It may someday be discovered that there are two types of homosexuality, a learned behavior and a genetic predisposition. In either case the homosexual in all likelihood did not choose his/her sexual orientation and should not be blamed for inward feelings or impulses. Likewise, in either case, the acting out of such impulses would still be unnatural behavior. It is believed that one can be born with a predisposition toward alcoholism too, but we would not encourage an alcoholic to drink.
“If homosexuality is really so unnatural how come most people don’t view it that way?”
Actually, I am convinced that most people do. They have trouble admitting this because of today’s political climate which has been growing now for over three decades.
I went to high school in the early seventies coming out of a home so sheltered that for years I had never even heard of homosexuality. When I discovered that certain fellow actors in my High School drama department were gay, my initial response was one of repulsion despite the fact that they were very nice people. Of course, in a theater atmosphere people quickly learn to dismiss such feelings as rigid and old fashioned. So, in no time at all I decided that varying sexual lifestyles must be respected. There was no room for judgment and back woods thinking. In hindsight, it is interesting to note that my first reaction had nothing to do with the Bible because I wasn’t even a Christian or Bible believer at the time. I was merely making a simple, obvious observation that men were meant for women and vice-versa. Still, in time, it was easier to accept the idea that my feelings were outdated than to consider the possibility that the majority opinion may be mistaken.
But what does the majority really think? That is the interesting question. Have you ever seen a sitcom where two men danced or one man accidentally kissed another? We see it all the time. It’s a common device and we laugh all the time. It’s an easy guaranteed laugh. Consider the finale of Cheers. Two gay lovers were in the middle of a quarrel when one pleaded with his partner calling him by the pet name “Muffin”. The audience laughed hysterically and I’m sure the producers felt that this was a very progressive episode because of a willingness to portray gay romance as normal. One question: Why did people laugh? Why did the writers obviously intend for people to laugh? What is funny about a man calling his lover “Muffin”? If indeed we recognize the normality of that relationship, what exactly strikes us as humorous?
Centuries ago, Hans Christian Anderson illustrated the value of a simple childlike mind. Remember his story of The Emperor’s New Clothes? A charlatan tailor, wanting to rook the king of a fortune, fashioned him a set of “fine apparel.” There was one stipulation; Only intelligent people could see these clothes. Of course the clothes didn’t really exist, so nobody ever really saw them. But nobody wanted to be viewed as unintelligent either. “If I can’t see the clothes” one reasoned to himself, “the problem must be with me. After all, every one else sees them.”
You remember the rest. At a grand parade one small child tugged his mother’s skirt and said, “But Mommie, he’s not wearing any clothes.”
Nakedness was once nakedness. Now, as the result of one clever tailor, the word “naked” in relation to the king was politically incorrect.
Could this same tailor have visited the United States? Maybe what we need today is an innocent child, like the one in the fairy tale; some red faced, nose running kid who hasn’t studied genetics, hasn’t studied psychology, hasn’t studied scripture and hasn’t had sensitivity training. All he knows is what he sees and feels. Maybe if something looks unnatural it is unnatural. Maybe we all know the truth and are afraid to admit it. Maybe the king isn’t wearing any clothes.
This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.
NOTE: For a further and fuller discussion of this topic, see my book, I’d Like To Believe In Jesus, But…” Chapter Four: Why Does the Bible Call Certain Practices Sinful?”
Footnotes:
1) Dr. Charles Socarides, Overcoming Homosexuality (New York, 1980) P. 5.
2) For a full study of her views, see Elizabeth Moberly, Homosexuality, A New Christian Ethic (Attic Press, 1982).
3) Time Magazine, Nov. 13, 1995.
Share this on
