PDA

View Full Version : Religious crusade against gays has been building for 30yrs


Osiris
05-10-2005, 10:07 AM
From AxisofLogic.com

Religion/World View
Holy War
By Bob Moser
May 9, 2005, 11:33

The religious crusade against gays has been building for 30 years. Now the movement is reaching truly biblical proportions

On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions of two Texas men arrested for having sex. Writing for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the two men were "entitled to respect for their private lives." The state, he declared, "cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

The decision was unusually popular. A national survey found that 75% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats wanted to see sodomy laws struck down. But not everyone cheered.

"Six lawyers robed in black have magically discovered a right of privacy that includes sexual perversion," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America. "This opens the door to bigamy, adult incest, polygamy and prostitution," said Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council.

For anti-gay crusaders, who have been fighting gay rights for three decades, Lawrence was the most unsettling court decision since Roe v. Wade. Fundamentalist groups had filed 15 briefs supporting Texas' sodomy laws, only to see their arguments — that gay sex was a threat to public health and "traditional family values," and that gay people do not deserve equal rights — shot down.

And with the Massachusetts Supreme Court widely expected to rule that fall (as it did) that gay citizens had a right to marry under that state's constitution, anti-gay leaders realized the time was ripe to ratchet up their call to arms.

"America stands at a defining moment," said Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition. "The only comparison is our battle for independence."

The anti-gay movement was about to show why many believe it is, in the words of longtime religious right observer Frederick Clarkson, "the best-organized faction in politics." Immediately after the Lawrence decision, D. James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries, issued a call to arms.

Now that America's courts were "officially off-limits to the moral framework that has allowed us to enjoy freedom and prosperity," Kennedy said the holy war on gay rights should be renewed on the battlefront of public opinion, pressing for a federal marriage amendment.

For right-wing evangelical ministries like Coral Ridge, which brings in more than $35 million annually, the stakes were never higher. Since the late 1970s, attacks on gay people and their "agenda" had helped to fuel, and pay for, the fundamentalist right's unprecedented rise to political power.

From Lawrence to Election Day, when 11 states voted on anti-gay marriage amendments, groups like Coral Ridge and Focus on the Family spent millions on ad campaigns and get-out-the-vote efforts, while gay marriage and "family values" became staples of cable-TV and talk-radio crossfire.

These anti-gay messages were nothing new. For almost 30 years, the religious right in America has employed a variety of strategies, inside the courtroom and outside, in its efforts to beat back the increasingly confident gay rights movement.

Many of its leaders have engaged in the crudest type of name-calling, describing homosexuals as "perverts" with "filthy habits" who seek to snatch the children of straight parents and "convert" them to gay sex. They have continually bandied about disparaging "facts" about gays that are simply untrue — assertions that are remarkably reminiscent of the way white intellectuals and scientists once wrote about the "bestial" black man.

But never has the anti-gay movement had the momentum it has now, and never has it been so close to achieving its larger, ultimate goal. That goal is winning, in the words of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, a "second civil war" for control of the U.S. government.

The Power of the Sword
At the height of the civil rights movement, in 1965, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, an ambitious young minister in Lynchburg, Va., gave a sermon called "Ministers and Marches."

Falwell laid into Christian leaders who were actively supporting civil rights, reminding them of a Bible verse that fundamentalists often invoked as evidence that God did not want them to participate in politics: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh" (II Corinthians 10:13).

Fourteen years later, Falwell co-founded the Moral Majority, the first national effort to stimulate fundamentalist political participation and elect candidates who would, in the words of co-founder Paul Weyrich, "Christianize America."

What explained this apparent sea change? While fundamentalist Christians had long stayed out of electoral politics, Falwell and many others were "extremely unhappy with the 'rights' movements that had sprung up in the '50s and '60s," says Didi Herman, author of The Antigay Agenda.

"First black people, then women, now gay people? The frustration had been mounting. Their actions were catching up with their view."

Falwell was plain enough about his views; in 1964, he told a local paper that the Civil Rights Act had been misnamed: "It should be considered civil wrongs rather than civil rights." His "Old Time Gospel Hour" TV program hosted prominent segregationists like Govs. Lester Maddox of Georgia and George Wallace of Alabama.

But Falwell, like other fundamentalists, worried about "tainting" his religious message by mixing it with politics.

The Rev. Mel White (see also A Thorn in Their Side), an evangelical writer and filmmaker who ghostwrote Falwell's autobiography, says Falwell was led to politics in part by Dr. Francis Schaeffer, a rebellious fundamentalist who had begun spreading the word about "dominion theology" and who many see as the father of the anti-abortion movement.

Dubbed the "Guru of Fundamentalists" by Newsweek in 1982, Schaeffer believed that Christians are called to rule the U.S. — and the world — using biblical law. That meant winning elections.

"Dr. Schaeffer," says White, "convinced Jerry there was no biblical mandate against joining with 'nonbelievers' in a political cause."

Schaeffer was admired by a radical group of fundamentalist thinkers called Christian Reconstructionists. Led by Orthodox Presbyterian minister R.J. Rushdoony, the Reconstructionists argued that the Second Coming couldn't occur until the faithful established a "Biblical kingdom."

Democracy, which Rushdoony called "the great love of the failures and cowards of life," would be replaced by strict Old Testament law — meaning the death penalty for homosexuality, along with a host of other "abominations," including heresy, astrology, and (for women only) "unchastity before marriage."

D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, like James Dobson of Focus on the Family and other Christian Right luminaries, unwaveringly preaches "dominion Christianity" and hosts an annual conference devoted to "Reclaiming America for Christ."

Kennedy also is a longtime benefactor of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for the Ten Commandments monument he installed in the rotunda of that state's judicial building — and for being thrown out of office after refusing to obey federal court orders to remove it.

In 2002, Moore wrote a lengthy concurrence in a custody case involving a lesbian mother. After describing homosexuality as "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature," Moore asserted that "[t]he State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit [homosexual] conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle."

Fear Mongering to the Fore
While conservative Christians have led historic crusades against a number of "evils" in America — witchcraft, alcohol, communism, feminism, abortion — gay sex was never more than a minor concern until 1969, when protests in New York City launched the contemporary gay-rights movement.

In Where We Stand, Susan Fort Wiltshire recalls some early stirrings of a new crusade: "Around 1970, ambitious small-town preachers in the Northwest Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church began to exploit 'the gay issue.' They saw that virulent anti-gay rhetoric could fill football stadiums for revivals in such tiny Panhandle towns as Tulia and Clarendon and Higgins and Perryton."

The crusade went national in 1977, courtesy of Anita Bryant. The perky spokesperson for Coca-Cola, Tupperware and Florida orange juice, Bryant had converted a runner-up finish in the 1959 Miss America pageant into a lucrative career singing "wholesome family music."

Bryant later said she knew next to nothing about gay people when she attended a 1977 revival at Miami's Northside Baptist Church. The preacher railed against a new ordinance in Dade County that protected gay people from discrimination, saying he'd "burn down his church before he would let homosexuals teach in its school."

Bryant was so impressed by the dangers of this new "homosexual agenda" that she launched an initiative to overturn the anti-discrimination ordinance, winning with a 70% vote.

Bryant then founded a national group called Save Our Children and took her anti-gay message on the road, helping fundamentalists organize anti-gay ballot campaigns in the handful of American cities that had passed gay rights laws. These ballot initiatives would become the single most important organizing tool for the fundamentalist right, transforming thousands of previously apolitical churchgoers into grassroots activists.

Save Our Children's primary tactic was fear mongering. Gay people were "sick," "perverted," "twisted," and a threat to American families.

"Homosexuals cannot reproduce," Bryant often said, "so they must recruit. And to freshen their ranks they must recruit the youth of America."

Save Our Children distributed a press kit with a paper titled, "Why Certain Sexual Deviations Are Punishable By Death." Homosexuality was, of course, among those deviations. So was "racial mixing of human seed."

Save Our Children collapsed in 1979, after Bryant had a well-publicized divorce and breakdown, but not before her success in getting national publicity and large donations caught the eye of new-right strategists like Paul Weyrich and Richard Viguerie, the pioneer of right-wing direct-mail fundraising.

"Their other issues just weren't nearly as popular," says Rob Boston, assistant communications director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and author of Close Encounters with the Religious Right.

"Most Americans supported abortion rights. Nobody believed communism inside the U.S. was really a threat. Slamming feminists, you risked alienating half the population. But gay people? Anita Bryant showed that gay-bashing could bring in some real money."

Bryant had also outlined a new gay stereotype, one far removed from the old clichι of limp-wristed "fruits." Inspired by Bryant, budding "family activist" Tim LaHaye painted a full-blown portrait in his 1978 book, The Unhappy Gays.

LaHaye, now famous for co-authoring the blockbuster Left Behind series of end-of-the-world thrillers, wrote that succumbing to the demands of the gay-rights movement would be a mistake of apocalyptic proportions — literally.

"The mercy and grace of God seem to reach their breaking point when homosexuality becomes normal," LaHaye said. "Put another way, when sodomy fills the national cup of man's abominations to overflowing, God earmarks that nation for destruction."

The cover of The Unhappy Gays featured a close-up photograph of rusty chains, symbolizing the "captivity" of homosexuality. "Moral fidelity among homosexuals is almost unknown," LaHaye wrote, citing as evidence "one psychologist writer" (unnamed) who "suggests that is not uncommon for a homosexual to 'have sex' with as many as 2,000 different people in a lifetime."

This "incredible promiscuity" leads to a life of lonely, selfish desperation, said LaHaye, but there is hope: "Homosexuals are made, not born!" and can be cured by being "born again."

Facts and Fiction
There was something missing from these dark depictions of gay people and their "agenda": evidence. It was one thing, after all, to claim that homosexuals were child "recruiters," disease-ridden, and mentally unstable. It was quite another to prove it.

Enter Paul Cameron. After losing his job teaching psychology at the University of Nebraska, Cameron set himself up as an independent sex researcher in the late 1970s, churning out scores of anti-gay pamphlets that were largely distributed in fundamentalist churches.

Cameron's "studies" falsely concluded that gay people were disproportionately responsible for child molestation, for the majority of serial killings, and for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Gay people, according to Cameron's research, were obsessed with consuming human excrement, allowing them to spread deadly diseases simply by shaking hands with unsuspecting strangers or using public restrooms.

"Of all the vices," Cameron concluded in a pamphlet called Medical Aspects of Homosexuality, "only homosexuality constitutes a conspiracy against society."

Cameron's brand of "science" echoed Nazi Germany. "These themes of disease and seduction are strongly reminiscent of older, anti-Semitic discourse," writes Didi Herman in The Antigay Agenda. "Jews historically were associated with disease, filth, urban degeneration, and child stealing."

When the AIDS crisis broke out in the early 1980s, Cameron claimed gay people had unleashed "an octopus of infection spreading across the world," and had done it on purpose. (Jerry Falwell put it in simpler terms; he called AIDS "the gay plague.")

In several newspaper and magazine exposιs, Cameron's studies were revealed to be anything but scientific. In one particularly egregious instance, Cameron published a 1983 study claiming lesbians were 29 times more likely than heterosexual women to intentionally infect their sex partners with venereal diseases. It was later discovered that Cameron's "scientific sample" for this conclusion consisted of just seven women.

After being expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983 for violating ethical standards in his anti-gay publications Cameron began referring to himself as a sociologist — until the American Sociological Association passed a 1986 resolution declaring, "Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and [this group] condemns his constant misrepresentation of sociological research."

But despite the crackpot nature of Cameron's theories and methodology, his "research" was extolled by many in the religious right. In 1986, Summit Ministries, a right-wing Christian group in Colorado, distributed a booklet called Special Report: AIDS, co-written by Cameron, Summit leader David Noebel and Wayne Lutton (Lutton would later be an editor for an anti-immigrant hate group, the Social Contract Press, and act as editorial advisor to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens).

Special Report argued for a drastic solution: locking up "practicing homosexuals" in the name of public health. After all, the authors wrote, "During World War II we exiled Americans of Japanese ancestry simply because we felt they were a national threat during time of war."

Since AIDS has made gay people a "threat to our national survival," they wrote, "We might well prepare holding camps for all sexually active homosexuals with special camps for homosexuals with AIDS."

Right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan and William Bennett, secretary of education in the Reagan administration, were publicly embarrassed when they touted Cameron's 1993 study claiming that gay men have only a 42-year life expectancy. As reporters soon discovered, Cameron had based the study on obituaries printed in gay newspapers — hardly a valid sample.

Even so, just like many of Cameron's other "findings," the life-expectancy study continues to be cited as an established fact by anti-gay leaders like Focus on the Family's James Dobson, whose grasp of the facts was called into question earlier this year after Dobson warned that the popular cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants, who lives in a pineapple under the sea, was being used by gay rights proponents to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.

(Dobson made the comments at a Jan. 19 black-tie dinner in Washington, D.C., where Focus on the Family political allies, including several members of Congress, celebrated last November's election results. "The video itself is innocent enough and does not mention anything overtly sexual," Dobson wrote in a statement released amidst the SpongeBob furor. "But while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister.")

Victory and Defeat
To the dismay of the anti-gay crusaders, polls showed rising public support for gay rights throughout the '80s and '90s. As a result, the crusaders began to rethink their message. "They finally started to realize the 'diseased pervert' rhetoric wasn't going to win over the majority of Americans," says Close Encounters with the Religious Right author Rob Boston.

In Colorado Springs, home to more than 50 Christian Right organizations by 1991, a whole new anti-gay strategy was being cooked up by Colorado For Family Values, organizers of Amendment 2, a statewide ballot initiative that would overturn gay anti-discrimination laws that had been passed by three Colorado towns and prevent any such future protections from being passed.

Realizing the old arguments weren't working, one of Amendment 2's organizers, a born-again "ex-hippie" attorney named Tony Marco, produced a fresh argument: "special rights."

"What gives gay militants their enormous power are money and the operative presumption that gays represent some kind of 'oppressed minority,'" Marco wrote. He recommended "demolishing the presumption that gays are an 'oppressed minority.'"

The best way to do that, Marco believed, was to drum up resentment against gay people — particularly among African Americans and working-class whites — by portraying them as wanting "special rights."

In a 1992 issue of Focus on the Family's Citizen magazine, Marco began making an economic case that gay people already had privileges that most Americans could only dream of. "Homosexuals have an average household income of $55,340," he wrote, "versus $32,144 for the general population and $12,166 for disadvantaged African-American households."

Marco's numbers were grossly misleading and, like Cameron's crackpot science, reminiscent of anti-Semitic propaganda about Jews. His source for gay income was a 1988 survey of gay magazine readers — a skewed sample, The Antigay Agenda author Didi Herman notes, because "readers of glossy gay men's magazines are likely to be among the most affluent members of the gay and lesbian community."

Amendment 2 got a major boost in 1991, when James Dobson began to push it on his daily radio show. Dobson had moved his multimedia empire to a campus in Colorado Springs that same year. Known to most Americans as a soft-spoken purveyor of homespun parenting advice, Dobson was now displaying a much tougher side.

In 1990, Focus' Citizen magazine had published a special issue, declaring the '90s "the Civil War Decade." With the fall of Soviet communism, Dobson wrote, the Cold War would be replaced by a "culture war" fought on three fronts: abortion, public education and homosexuality.

"Children are the prize to the winner of this second civil war," wrote Dobson and his Washington lobbyist, the Family Research Council's Gary Bauer, in Children at Risk, also published that same year. "We are to be intolerant of evil," Dobson told his radio audience in 1994. "Romans 12:9 says, 'Learn to be sincere. Hate what is evil'" (Dobson's emphasis).

When Dobson began pushing Amendment 2, its organizers had been struggling to get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Overnight, the campaign was flooded with volunteers and money. Amendment 2 won by a 53%-47% margin.

The anti-gay movement had won a major round — in the court of public opinion, at least. In 1996, Amendment 2 was overturned by the u.s. Supreme Court in Evans v. Romer. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority decision began with a pointed reference to Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that allowed "separate but equal" treatment of black people and ushered in the Jim Crow era.

The Colorado amendment, Kennedy wrote, imposed a "special disability" on gay men and lesbians, and constituted "a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

But by then, the anti-gay movement had been thoroughly energized. In 1994, in what The Washington Times called "two days of top-secret meetings," around 35 state and national anti-gay leaders had convened in Colorado Springs. Bringing "greetings from Dr. Dobson," Focus on the Family's John Eldridge led things off by presenting a five-point plan to spread the anti-gay message.

"We must never appear to be mean-spirited or bigoted," he said. But as he wound up his exhortation, Eldridge sounded a different note. "I would not say this in other cultural contexts," he said, "but the gay agenda has all the elements of that which is evil. It is deceptive at every turn. It is destroying the souls and lives of those who embrace it."

Calling Names
Old-school gay-bashing did not die away with the rise of the "special rights" strategizing. If anything, the rhetoric was ratcheted up in the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton's proposal to lift the ban on gay military service inspired a verbal arms race.

Gary Bauer took the lead, sprinkling his fundraising appeals and Web-site columns with references to gay people as "perverts" and "weirdness on parade." On "The 700 Club," Pat Robertson said Clinton's proposal would give "preferred status to evil."

Jerry Falwell worried aloud that if the ban were lifted, "our poor boys on the front lines will have to face two different enemies, one from the front and one from the rear."

Fundraising appeals became increasingly outrageous. In January 1998, Christian Action Network founder Martin Mawyer wrote:

The title character in the ABC-TV sitcom Ellen came out of the closet ... AND DUMPED HER FILTHY LESBIAN LIFESTYLE RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF YOUR LIVING ROOM!! IT'S THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF NETWORK TV THAT THE LEAD CHARACTER IS A SODOMITE!! ... Do you think TV ever portrays homosexuals as they really are? Having sex with hundreds of perverts in 'one-night stands' ... spreading their filthy sex diseases to millions of people ... molesting innocent children ... flaunting their grotesque lifestyle ... committing murder and sex crimes more than any other group of people.

In July 1998, Pat Robertson warned the citizens of Orlando, Fla., that if Disney World didn't cancel "Gay Day," their city would be subject to God's wrath, in the form of "terrorist bombs, earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."

That same July, D. James Kennedy's Center for Reclaiming America, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and other anti-gay groups launched a million-dollar ad campaign to promote "ex-gay" ministries specializing in "curing" lesbians and gay men of their sexual orientation (see Curious Cures).

The ex-gay campaign was partly designed to reinforce the message that fundamentalists truly "love the sinner but hate the sin." Ex-gay people were also an essential part of the "special rights" campaign, their existence cited as proof that homosexuality was not genetic, but a matter of choice.

Most of the ex-gay ministries promoted in the campaign, including Focus on the Family's Exodus International, practiced "reparative therapy," a collection of methods that had long been thoroughly discredited in the world of psychology.

Still, the ex-gay ads made a splash. John and Anne Paulk, the ex-gay Focus on the Family employees who were featured in the campaign, landed on the cover of Newsweek, which asked, "Gay for Life?" A year later, John Paulk was photographed hurrying out of Mr. P's, a gay bar in Washington, D.C., joining dozens of other ex-gay leaders who had suffered embarrassing relapses.

Focus on the Family leaders quickly removed Paulk as chairman of Exodus International despite his protestations that he had "no sinful intentions" in visiting Mr. P's.

'The Ultimate Ex-Gay'
On Oct. 6, 1998, one day before D. James Kennedy's anti-gay coalition put out a second round of ex-gay TV ads, 21-year-old college student Matthew Shepard was savagely murdered in Wyoming. Journalists jumped on the connection between the ex-gay campaign and the prejudice that fuels hate crimes.

"You call a group of people evil and sick and immoral often enough and some nutcase out there is going to act on it," wrote columnist Donald Kaul in the Des Moines Register.

The Advocate, a gay newsmagazine, pointedly called Shepard "the ultimate ex-gay."

A counter-attack was not long in coming. In an Orlando Sun-Sentinel op-ed, Gary Bauer accused the "militant homosexual lobby" of a "new McCarthyism" with its claims that anti-gay rhetoric leads to violence. Pat Buchanan agreed: "The left is now using Mr. Shepard's murder both to diabolize Christian teachings on homosexuality and to impose on society its own moral code."

The Family Research Council, along with other anti-gay groups, had often cited a similar fear of being demonized as its rationale for opposing hate-crime laws, asserting that hate crimes legislation would lead to "thought crime" prosecutions of Christians. In 1996, sparked by the fact that Hawaii seemed to be close to legalizing gay marriage, a related argument was deployed — the idea that legalization ultimately would lead to hate crimes prosecutions of Christians who opposed homosexuality.

In January of that year, more than 20 anti-gay groups, including Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition, sent representatives to a church cellar in Memphis, Tenn., for the first secret meeting of the National Pro-Family Forum. The Forum, which continued to meet every three months, scored a symbolic victory that fall, when its members convinced Congress to pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Writing in support of DOMA, Bauer predicted that gay marriage would have dire consequences for Americans of faith: "If they succeed, all distinctions based on sex may fall, and the worst aspects of the rejected Equal Rights Amendment will be imposed. Homosexuals will gain the 'right' to adopt children; ... churches will be pushed outside civil law; and government power will be wielded against anyone who holds the biblical view of homosexuality."

Forest Fire
After the Supreme Court legalized sodomy in 2003, the gay marriage battle was on, with anti-gay crusaders once again sharpening their knives of dire rhetoric.

"Our great nation is under violent attack from within," said Stephen Bennett, Christian singer and ex-gay minister. "We are now at the 11th hour, a point of no return."

"What's at stake here," said Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, "is the very foundation of our society, not only of America but all Western civilization."

"I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry," said the Rev. Jimmy Swaggart. "And I'm gonna be blunt and plain: if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."

From the 2003 Texas sodomy decision until Election Day 2004, the gay-marriage debate seemed to bring out the warrior in everyone. The anti-gay campaign, said Human Rights Campaign Executive Director Cheryl Jacques, was marked by "the highest level of intensity and aggression ever."

In the 11 states where anti-gay marriage measures were on the ballot, television ads urged voters to "defend marriage." In Ohio, Phil Burress' anti-gay group gathered 575,000 signatures in fewer than 90 days to put their constitutional amendment on the ballot. "It's a forest fire with a 100-mile-per-hour wind behind it," Burress told The New York Times.

Just five months after Lawrence vs. Texas, the Pew Research Center found that opposition to gay marriage had climbed from 53 to 59%. A new majority of Americans, 55%, now characterized gay sex as a sin. Thirty years of anti-gay crusades had begun to pay.

As Election Day drew near, James Dobson was taking no chances. His political spin-off group, Focus on the Family Action, organized large rallies in six cities last fall, attracting crowds even Anita Bryant couldn't muster. Three weeks before the election, about 150,000 turned out for Dobson's "Mayday for Marriage" rally in Washington, D.C.

On Oct. 22 in Oklahoma City, Dobson brought the crowd to its feet with a message that Bryant might have delivered in 1977. "Homosexuals are not monogamous," he said. "They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the earth."

On Nov. 2, the anti-gay marriage amendments passed handily in all 11 states — including Ohio, the state that ultimately swung the election in George W. Bush's favor. Many commentators argued that the huge voter turnout in that pivotal battleground state — and therefore George W. Bush's victory — was due largely to the anti-gay amendment driving conservative voters to the polls in record numbers.

"Just a year ago, justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry. George W. Bush is thanking them today," Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi wrote November 4.

The week after the election, Burress called anti-gay leaders together in Washington to start planning for 10 state amendment campaigns in 2005, while other fundamentalist power brokers made it clear to Bush as he prepared for his second term that they expected some return for their considerable investment, including his unwavering support for an amendment to the United States Constitution banning gay marriage nationwide.

"In your re-election, God has graciously granted America — though she doesn't deserve it — a reprieve from paganism," wrote Bob Jones II, President of Bob Jones University, in an open letter of congratulations to President Bush.

"You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be heard with the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Undoubtedly you will have the opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norms regarding the family and sexuality.

"You have four years to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God."

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=522 (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=522)

Jill Monroe
05-10-2005, 10:38 AM
I'm PARAPHRASING these scriptures...butsince people like to use scriptures so frickin much....im gonna do the same thing lol. doesnt the bible say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? does it not also say judge not, lest YE be judged?, do not be concerned with the splinter in your fellow man's eye when you have a log in your own?

by the goddess....these people in the above initial post are almost RABID in their attempts to dehumanize gays and lesbians. THAT POST above is a TRUE EXAMPLE of "religious zealots" and THEY are MORE than exercising their "right to free speech" [are you reading this, Zorcrow?]

None of those people mentioned above probably have a son or daughter, a brother or sister...or even a PARENT who is gay. IF they did....i wonder then how many of them would speak with such fervent condemnation against gays and lesbians.

That article above..is so monstrous to me. I mean i KNEW there was a strong current of anti-gay sentiment in america (hell...america seems to be sick with prejudice , racism and the like more so than ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD)...but reading this article....i find myself comparing all these "christian groups and organizations" to the NAZI's and HITLER of Germany.....for they did the SAME TIME of negative campaigning against Jews...and found ALL SORTS of "evidence" and "statistics" [no matter how grossly exagerated or unfounded] to support their claims.

the EVIL here is not the gay people...it is the PEOPLE mentioned in that post above all those like them....who seem to FORGET the fact that gays and lesbians are HUMAN BEINGS and as long as they are legal citizens in America who pay their taxes then they DESERVE THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION that any other person in this country would have.

Osiris
05-10-2005, 10:50 AM
I am Osiris, and I agree to spellbinders post.:D

Jessica Hamby
05-10-2005, 11:17 AM
Lol, Osiris, do you APPROVE her message? :p

I agree... those are the kind of people who give Christians a BAD WRAP. Lol on the log in your own eye thing Farrah. Its true though... those that claim to be 'ex-gay' make me sick... and im not even gay, lol. Just the idea that they claimed to be ex-gay and went on a crusade against gays after that... its just wrong.

Farrah's right. Gays are HUMAN BEINGS. they pay their taxes, they serve their country[or at least they want to, but are detered by the 'dont ask dont tell' policy.] Did you know that a gay man was dishonorably discharged from the military just a month or so ago because it came out that he was gay? The funny thing was... it didnt disrupt the camraderie of his unit, who aparently already KNEW he was gay... but it upset some outside officer who reported him.

Its a true shame that some people can be so callous and thoughtless.... these people condemning gays have probably never met a gay in their lives... but they just jump on the bandwagon because religious leaders are preaching it.

The bible also says not to eat meat belonging to animals with split hooves... there was this church my grandma went to serving barbecue ribs and pork chops at the fourth of july celebration!

Osiris
05-10-2005, 12:07 PM
The bible also says not to eat meat belonging to animals with split hooves... there was this church my grandma went to serving barbecue ribs and pork chops at the fourth of july celebration!

Please don't get me started. I am a Muslim! Preach anyway....

ZorCrow
05-10-2005, 08:54 PM
Homosexuality is a sin (Leviticuas 18:22, I Corinthians 6:8-10).

I do not endorse homosexual marriage or civil unions.

Marriage is one man and one woman, created by GOD (Genesis chapters 1 and 2, and after the polygamistic age ended in Ezra and Nehemiah's restoration after the Babylonian Captivity, and by JESUS Matthew Chapter 19:5-13).

There is a backlash in our society against gays, and there is a backlash against bible believing Christians.

Homosexuality is a sin in Judiasm, Islam and Christianity, its one of the thing the three monotheistic religions of the world do agree on.

There is a homosexual agenda working against Christians and those in our society who disagree with them, and there are those who are legally fighting on the behalf of us who believe in the Bible, Quran, Penteuch, and Torah as well.

We are in the New Testament, not the old, the Old Testament dietary laws do not apply, Acts Chapter 10 explains that.

ZorCrow
05-10-2005, 09:07 PM
I'm PARAPHRASING these scriptures...butsince people like to use scriptures so frickin much....im gonna do the same thing lol. doesnt the bible say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? does it not also say judge not, lest YE be judged?, do not be concerned with the splinter in your fellow man's eye when you have a log in your own?

Not to you, but to all who use this scripture out of context, let's read the whole chapter and then tell me what you think.

St. Matthew Chapter 7

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Mt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Mt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Mt 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Mt 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Mt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Mt 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Mt 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Mt 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

Mt 7:10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

Mt 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Mt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Mt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Mt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Mt 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Mt 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Mt 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Mt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Mt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mt 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Mt 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Mt 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Mt 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

Mt 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Mt 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

Mt 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

There is a difference in making hypocritical condemnation, and knowing what is righteous and what is wicked.

Harbinger
05-10-2005, 09:10 PM
3. You can be "ex gay" I hate to tell you homosexuality is a choice. If a person has sex with men and he's a guy he's gay, if he has sex with women he's straight, if with both, he's gay in my book (sorry I don't believe men can be bi, they are either gay or straight). Anne Heche was a lesbian now she aint', next question. Being gay is not like being black, being black is a 24/7 thing it's something you can't hide nor deny, I don't wanna hear that crap ever again, being gay is like being black that's bull crap, I love it when gay folks and white folks who have never been black say that ignorant crap.


there is a difference between GAY and BISEXUALITY, Zorcrow. And how can you base the entire cross section of gays and lesbians in this nation on the actions of ONE WOMAN?

furthermore, NO ONE chooses to endure the kind of pain, scrutiny, malice, discrimination and the like that gays and lesbians go through. do some research, sir. there is PLENTY of credible evidence to show that "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" are determined at VERY EARLY AGES. Better yet, try having a conversation with a gay or lesbian..LET THEM tell you how it is.

Many of my friends have known they were gay since as early as age 5...it wasnt something they sat down and deliberately chose...it was a feeling..it was apart of who they are. sexuality is but one facet of who we are...and why this hypocritical country can glorify a woman's breasts and saturation of PORN one moment and then turn around and condemn a human being simply for them being DIFFERENT than what is deemed "normal" as far as sexual oritention goes is BEYOND me.

Gays and Lesbians are people just like you Zorcrow...they have a RIGHT to live their lives free of scrutiny....and without people trying to drag them down. Blacks and Jews wouldnt tolerate balantant discrimination or attempts at legislation to some how make it seem "justified"...so why should gays? they are a class of people...and they deserve equal rights and protection under the constitution.

ZorCrow
05-10-2005, 09:13 PM
there is a difference between GAY and BISEXUALITY, Zorcrow. And how can you base the entire cross section of gays and lesbians in this nation on the actions of ONE WOMAN?

furthermore, NO ONE chooses to endure the kind of pain, scrutiny, malice, discrimination and the like that gays and lesbians go through. do some research, sir. there is PLENTY of credible evidence to show that "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" are determined at VERY EARLY AGES. Better yet, try having a conversation with a gay or lesbian..LET THEM tell you how it is.

Many of my friends have known they were gay since as early as age 5...it wasnt something they sat down and deliberately chose...it was a feeling..it was apart of who they are. sexuality is but one facet of who we are...and why this hypocritical country can glorify a woman's breasts and saturation of PORN one moment and then turn around and condemn a human being simply for them being DIFFERENT than what is deemed "normal" as far as sexual oritention goes is BEYOND me.

Gays and Lesbians are people just like you Zorcrow...they have a RIGHT to live their lives free of scrutiny....and without people trying to drag them down. Blacks and Jews wouldnt tolerate balantant discrimination or attempts at legislation to some how make it seem "justified"...so why should gays? they are a class of people...and they deserve equal rights and protection under the constitution.

Equal rights yes, but not the same status, in our society folks make choices all the time, some for the better some for the worse. Also are you Black? I just want to know it becuase it seems to me all these non black folks are telling me being gay is like bein black? You mean I can choose to be white? You mean I can walk do the street and be white when I go to the bank then be black when I go get my haircut? Because you are saying two things

1. All homosexuals are stereotypical homosexuals and can be idenitifed by look or

2. All Blacks choose to be Black? Both are wrong, I know there are gay men that are as masculine as heterosexual men, I know some beautiful lesbian women that are as femine as homosexual women.

I ask you again are you Black? If you are not then you don't know, and nothing is like being black, not being jewish, not being latin, not being gay, not being irish, not being italian, being Black in this world, being for SubSaharan Africa is a whole different thing.

Jill Monroe
05-10-2005, 09:26 PM
not the same STATUS!? so are you suggesting that gays should be "second class citizens" ...the way WOMEN were regarded until 1814??

i'm surprised at you zorcrow. how can a person have the same rights..but NOT the same status? so what "status" do you think they should have? are they "sub human"? "deviant humans"?

Osiris
05-10-2005, 09:27 PM
Dear Zorcrow, I don't quite remember giving my views on homosexuality. Yes the Quran tells us that homosexuality is a sin. So is lying, stealing, murder, adultery, etc. I too personally believe that homosexuality is a choice. However, I don't believe we should legislate religious beliefs, or try to force people into our belief system. Allah tells Muslims "that there should be no compulsion in religion". Furthermore, I do believe in civil unions. If this were an Islamic state that we would follow those laws and it wouldnt even be an option. But, this nation is secular. I do not believe that my tax dollars are any better than someone elses no matter what we believe or our lifestyles.

Gay couples should have the exact same rights as those of straight couples. They pay taxes too. In that sense, it is similar to civil rights, because thats the same thing we were fighting for equality.

Now as far as the bible goes....Id rather not go there. However you said that you are not under dietary laws, yet Jesus(PBUH) not only said "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished."Matt 5:18, but also ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matt 5:17

But, since the bible is infallible, although many Christian scholars and theologians would look at you crazy, its not worth my time or effort.

By the way, don't try to brush me off as not knowlegeable about the bible. I grew up in the Church and have been studying it for 15yrs. So I just want to stop you before you go there.

ZorCrow
05-10-2005, 09:37 PM
Dear Zorcrow, I don't quite remember giving my views on homosexuality. Yes the Quran tells us that homosexuality is a sin. So is lying, stealing, murder, adultery, etc. I too personally believe that homosexuality is a choice. However, I don't believe we should legislate religious beliefs, or try to force people into our belief system. Allah tells Muslims "that there should be no compulsion in religion". Furthermore, I do believe in civil unions. If this were an Islamic state that we would follow those laws and it wouldnt even be an option. But, this nation is secular. I do not believe that my tax dollars are any better than someone elses no matter what we believe or our lifestyles.

Gay couples should have the exact same rights as those of straight couples. They pay taxes too. In that sense, it is similar to civil rights, because thats the same thing we were fighting for equality.

Now as far as the bible goes....Id rather not go there. However you said that you are not under dietary laws, yet Jesus(PBUH) not only said "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished."Matt 5:18, but also ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matt 5:17

But, since the bible is infallible, although many Christian scholars and theologians would look at you crazy, its not worth my time or effort.

By the way, don't try to brush me off as not knowlegeable about the bible. I grew up in the Church and have been studying it for 15yrs. So I just want to stop you before you go there.

It is good Abdur Salaam, (that is whom you remind me off, whether you are him or not that I do not know) but I am knowledgeable as well, JESUS completed the law I know you are knowledgeable so look at Galatians chapter 3 and 4 and realize we are under a new covenant. Also remeber in the old testament in Dueteronomy Chapters 12 verses 15 through 16

De 12:15 Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart.

De 12:16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water.

So in the Old Testament outside of the holy place and sanctified places the children of Israel to survive could eat the clean and unclean.

I do agree with "no compulsion in faith" statement, but we have to draw a line, somewhere, and I PERSONALLY OF MY OWN MIND think that the line should be drawn here, at gay marriage.

Osiris
05-10-2005, 09:44 PM
It is good Abdur Salaam, (that is whom you remind me off, whether you are him or not that I do not know) but I am knowledgeable as well, JESUS completed the law I know you are knowledgeable so look at Galatians chapter 3 and 4 and realize we are under a new covenant. Also remeber in the old testament in Dueteronomy Chapters 12 verses 15 through 16

De 12:15 Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart.

De 12:16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water.

So in the Old Testament outside of the holy place and sanctified places the children of Israel to survive could eat the clean and unclean.

I do agree with "no compulsion in faith" statement, but we have to draw a line, somewhere, and I PERSONALLY OF MY OWN MIND think that the line should be drawn here, at gay marriage.

Abdur Salaam? Whos that?:shrug: Moving right along, even in Islam you are allowed to eat swine to survive. Whats your point? Does that invalidate the law because there are alternatives?

2:173 He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful.

إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحْمَ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ بِهِ لِغَيْرِ اللّهِ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلاَ عَادٍ فَلا إِثْمَ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ


Furthermore, don't you find it a little coincidental that everytime the breaking or disregard of the law is justified in scripture is comes from a book that Paul authored? Then again Paul wrote the Majority of the NT. Maybe its just me.

ZorCrow
05-10-2005, 09:44 PM
not the same STATUS!? so are you suggesting that gays should be "second class citizens" ...the way WOMEN were regarded until 1814??

i'm surprised at you zorcrow. how can a person have the same rights..but NOT the same status? so what "status" do you think they should have? are they "sub human"? "deviant humans"?

We have something called a Republic in America. That means in certain cases the majority makes a decision to decide some laws in their states. Every state that has voted on it, that voted on it last fall overwhemingly voted against Gay marriage. The Nation has spoken, the will of the people is that we draw a line here. Athiests, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Wiccans, Agnostics alike, all voted against gay marriage in a thundering majority. Even here in Michigan.

It's very simple Spellbinder, we dont' allow polygamy, we don't allow Bigamy, we don't allow adults to marry children, we don't allow gay marriage. It's the same guise. If adults want to be swingers or live in some kind of arrangement that is fine, but when they bring it to the law,
the law says otherwise. Bill Clinton, the Democrat, the LIberal, the enemy of all Republicans, signed the Defense of Marriage Act saying that the U.S. Government does not recognize gay marriages. In Masschetesuts (sp?) the will of the people has been ignored by judges. Even in liberal California they voted against gay marriages.

We have spoken as a society . . . the powers that be should listen.

Osiris
05-10-2005, 09:50 PM
Interacial couples werent allowed to marry at a point in time as well. Should they have given up because it was "the will of the people"?

Im sorry, religious beliefs and ideologies aside, I dont see how in our secular government we can tell two tax paying consenting adults that because we don't agree with their relationship or union that they shouldnt be afforded the same rights as other tax paying consenting adults in relationships.

ZorCrow
05-10-2005, 09:58 PM
Interacial couples werent allowed to marry at a point in time as well. Should they have given up because it was "the will of the people"?

Im sorry, religious beliefs and ideologies aside, I dont see how in our secular government we can tell two tax paying consenting adults that because we don't agree with their relationship or union that they shouldnt be afforded the same rights as other tax paying consenting adults in relationships.

Even from a secular standpoint, not a faith issue, we do it all the time in America, the same is with polygamy. If one man wants to marry 10 women and they want it, and they are consenting adults and he is paying for he women and kids, then she should be able to right? NOpe, not according to what is good for our nation, the same for one woman who wants to marry 4 men, et. al.

Also, race is different than sexual preferences. One Black man like me should be able to marry any woman, Black, or Asian or whatever I please as anyone should.



OUr government is hypocritical in many aspects, but that is the law.

Osiris
05-10-2005, 10:07 PM
Dont get me started on polygamy! I am a Muslim remember?

I think that too many arguments are being rolled into one. Its not whether or not the law is the law, but its how we feel about the law. I don't think its fair personally, I think there are many laws that are not fair. That's my argument.

When people don't like laws they campaign and try to change them. When Homosexuals try to do this they are told they have no right. Thats what Im talking about, why don't they have the right to protest the law? You better believe with the rate of conversion and growth of Islam in America it wont be long before we start changing some laws and it won't matter who agrees or not, its still the right of any taxpayer to ask for equal rights, whether the Govt gives it to them or not is another issue.