How the Fight For Gay Rights is really a Fight for State Power, and how that victory will ultimately cost Homosexuals the very rights they already have
Paul Gordon Collier
The ‘gay rights’ movement is not at all about rights, and the core leaders of the movement are not so much interested in homosexuals as they are in the sovereignty of the state over the sovereignty of the individual. I hope to show in this article two truths; the first truth is that gay marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, and the second truth is that there is a way to give homosexuals the ‘right’ to marry without giving the true ideological leaders of the progressives the real victory they want, the destruction of individual liberty.
Our nation’s founding principles were based on the revolutionary concept of individual liberty. This concept was born from centuries of oppression and murder of those who would dare to practice a religious belief that went against the one endorsed by the state.
Under the same principle, or standard, of individual liberty, the homosexual lobby and their allies are claiming that the state should endorse marriage for homosexuals in the same way that the state currently endorses Jude0 Christian marriage (that being only between a man and a woman).
Even while alternatives to an all-out endorsement of gay marriage by the state have been offered, the homosexual lobby still marches to demand the courts force all Americans to sanction their lifestyles. Civil Unions give homosexuals all the practical benefits of marriage, save for tax benefits, which could very easily be included in civil unions of the future.
If their fight was simply for their unions to have the same same benefits as ‘traditional marriage’, this conversation might be over. But the homosexual lobby, specifically the core sponsors and instigators of the militant movement, are not seeking benefits. They are seeking to fundamentally destroy the Judeo Christian value system this nation was originally founded on.
Some of those core leaders believe that Christianity is the enemy of ‘reason’ and that it should be de facto made to be illegal or narrowly restricted to quiet gatherings in people’s homes. They may or may not hold to progressive ideals, but their value systems do not significantly impede progressive values and standards.
The ‘right’ to marry is not, in actuality, being denied to homosexuals. They have a right to define marriage any way, shape, or form that they so choose. Individuals and businesses have rights to recognize their unions as marriage, even to refer to them as a married couple. Civil Unions could even given them some protections as far as getting the same health benefits that married couples enjoy from their employers.
What doesn’t exist is the official legalization not of gay marriage but of homosexuality. The ‘right’ of the state to force its citizens to accept, and not merely tolerate, homosexuality is what this fight is really about. I could give you reasons for the homosexuals fighting so hard for this recognition from God’s perspective, but I will stay focused on the ‘natural’, as opposed to the ‘sacred’, reasons homosexuals are waging such an aggressive war for state sanction of their lifestyles, and why progressives so enthusiastically support their cause (reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality).
I am speaking here of the core, the real leaders of this insurgency, not of the peripheral players, the vast majority of supporters and activists of this cause. This fight has been going on for a long time, and the core leaders, the true ideologues, are fully aware of the much larger ramifications of the ‘gay marriage’ issue.
The homosexual lobby has gotten as far as it has gotten because it has been given real support from mostly non-homosexuals, in the form of dollars, in the form of cultural creation (through movies, music, tv, etc), and in the form of leadership. Many of these culture creators are themselves part of the peripheral group. They have bought into the idea that this is simply about the right of two individuals to ‘love’ each other, when, in fact, they already have that right, and civil unions give them the same benefits as marriage.
The core supporters, the ones putting up the most dollars, the ones making sure movie companies choose the right ‘pro-gay’ films, know full well this is not about love but the destruction of the Judeo Christian value system, which stands in stark opposition to the progressive value system.
Progressivism is born from a histories-long notion that the state is the most effective wielder of values and beliefs for a society. It is born from centuries-long notions that society’s rights trump individual rights, that the state must protect its citizens from themselves. It is the same value system that enabled magistrates to burn people at the stake for not believing the right version of the state’s religion.
Progressivism is the atavistic belief system of state sovereignty over individual sovereignty. This belief system was so powerful that ‘Christians’ such as Ignatius of the 1st Century AD and Augustine of the 5th Century AD were able to steer the ‘church’ away from the concept of individual liberty taught by Christ to State liberty.
As I have written in an earlier article, progressivism has much more in common with Christendom of the Middle Ages than it does with the founders of our Constitution. In order for the cause of progressivism to be advanced, it needs to eliminate the impediments to this old notion of state sovereignty over individual sovereignty so that their values become the new norm of society once again (or, rather, that the old norms replace the new norms of the American concept of liberty as revealed through the Word of God and championed by Christian Martyrs throughout the centuries).
The ‘fight’ for gay marriage is, in many ways, the ideal vehicle for the proponents of this atavistic value system to champion. A victory on this front will go a long way towards completing the shift, now well on its way to completion, from a value system built on individual liberty to a value system based on state liberty.
The legalization and endorsement of homosexual marriage is the criminalization of Judeo Christian values. By making homosexuality a specific protected ‘right’, the state is outlawing those who would publicly denounce homosexuality. It will require our children be educated by the state to understand that speaking against homosexuality is a criminal offense.
To be sure, there is a way to legalize homosexual marriage without criminalizing the Christian faith. Yes, I am aware of ‘Christians’, such as the Jim Wallises of this world, the so-called ‘progressive Christians’. These ‘Christians’ will not be affected by the legalization of gay marriage and thus will not need protections from the state, at least not for a couple of decades or so. They are what I call ‘menu’ Christians.
They have decided that the Word of God is not the literal truth. They would say this, “You must understand that the Word was written for a specific time and a specific age, so, therefore, we can take the parts that are relevant to us and dismiss the other parts”.
To paraphrase, “We have the power to select the ‘truths’ we wish to apply and reject the others, like selecting dishes from a menu at a restaurant”.
They have a right to believe as they see fit, but others, such as me, don’t hold to these views. We believe in the literal truth of the Word. We recognize that not everything is clear, that we will never fully know the truth of God through the Word because we are limited in our ability to understand someone as vast as God, but many parts of the Word are crystal clear to us.
Marriage, as defined between a man and woman, is the fundamental community that God has given us which reveals to us, insofar as we can understand him, the very nature of God in relation to us. Remove the sanctity of marriage, make it illegal for us to deny any other marriage other than the one God defined for us, and you undermine the whole foundation of our faith.
For us, we will need to be given special protections from the state’s legalization of the homosexual lifestyle. For that matter, so will other faiths, such as Mormons and Muslims. But no one is even talking about making sure that the Freedom of Religion is protected.
It would be easy enough to do, to simply make sure that in all the amendments and laws passed by our legislative and judicial representatives there is inserted a religious freedom clause that protects me from being forced to endorse, participate in, or recognize homosexuality and homosexual marriage as being something other than what I know it to be through the Word of God, sin.
Some of these protections would include a provision that prevents the state from teaching my children that homosexuality is normal and people should accept homosexuals and their lifestyles. I don’t mind the state teaching my children we should not bully or assault people because we don’t agree with their lifestyles, but it crosses a line if it teaches my children not to simply be tolerant of lifestyles that don’t match your value system, but to be accepting, even if it invalidates your own value system.
Other protections would include the right not to provide services for a homosexual marriage ceremony. Without such a protection, the Christ-following Christian Wedding Photographer (as opposed to the menu Christians) would be de facto outlawed, thus denying that person their right to the pursuit of happiness.
I do not believe we should deny people basic services and goods, such as, in one instance, a gas station that denied a homosexual couple the right to buy gas, nor should we discriminate against homosexuals in the workplace, or any other group of people who do not believe as we do or live as we believe people should live.
Another protection would be the right of Christ-following Christians, and Muslims, and people of other faiths, to call homosexuality a sin, to be able to publicly proclaim homosexuality is a sin, to not be forced by a government or our employers to recognize and endorse homosexuality and homosexual marriage.
I have engaged with some progressives, most of whom were not homosexuals but supporters of ‘gay rights’. I have conversed with them through Facebook, Twitter, and face-to-face. Not one of them, and I have spoken with well over 50 (at the very least), were willing to concede on any of these points. Most of them eventually ended up with declarations to the effect that churches should be forced, by government threat (which is ultimately the gun), to marry homosexuals if they want to be married in their church.
This last point is important in the purpose of this article, to show you the real agenda behind the so-called ‘gay rights’ movement. The individuals I spoke with were not the thought leaders of this movement. They were, most likely, all of them peripheral agents and not core leaders of the movement. But their thought processes have already been significantly shifted from individual rights to state rights, all under the guise of championing the so-called individual rights of homosexuals.
I should add here once again that homosexuals, in this country today, have a right to pursue their lifestyles and that civil unions offer homosexuals a path to enjoy the same rights as ‘traditional marriage’ couples currently enjoy.
What the peripheral supporters want, what they have been inculcated to believe by the core leaders of the movement, is that unless society as a whole is forced, for the good of all the people (and ultimately by the government gun) to openly support and endorse homosexuality, the rights of homosexuals will continue to be violated.
The far-removed peripheral supporters, the ones who might put a pink equal sign on their facebook page, think this is simply a fight for homosexuals to have the right to love one another. This narrative is carefully being crafted by the core leaders of the movement. We see signs held up by homosexual supporters that say such things as love=love.
Never mind the fact that homosexuals do have the right, today, in this country, without a law being changed or a SCOTUS act of unconstitutionality (such as occurred recently with their unconstitutional DOMA and Prop 8 rulings), to love who they choose to love and live in union with that person where they can enjoy the rights to marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy.
The far-removed peripheral supporters are not even aware that the peripheral supporters want more, they want state-enforced acceptance of their sinful lifestyles, by any means necessary. And these peripheral supporters have no idea that they are simply pawns being used by the core leaders of the movement, who want to see a paradigm shift in values, and that the values these progressives ultimately want to champion will someday make homosexuality itself illegal.
The core progressives are not supporters of homosexuality. They are supporters of an issue that allows them to set a precedent. That precedent is this, the State has a right to force its citizens to deny their established faith’s beliefs in the interest of protecting the ‘rights’ of a special class of citizens, in this case, the homosexuals.
Without the provisions protecting people of faith from a state endorsement of homosexuality, the state is crossing a fundamental line that directly violates the 1st amendment, the freedom of speech, and, more specifically, the freedom of religion.
The precedent set here will go a lot further than protecting a special class of citizens. It will open wide the door for the state to use this precedent for the sake of protecting the sanctity and security of the state itself.
The return to the same belief system that made it possible for magistrates to execute people who dared believe the Word of God should be printed in their native tongue and made available for all to read, the same belief system that made it possible for the Emperor of Rome to force people to worship him as a God, the same belief system that allowed Adolph Hitler to force Christians to deny the divinity of Christ and worship the “Volk”, or “The People” over Christ, will come to pass within a few short decades of this dangerous precedent, should the progressive ideologues be successful.
And someday, when the ramifications of this precedent have been fully played out, a new generation of leaders will use this new power to outlaw homosexuality itself, for, in the end, homosexuality will become an impediment to the state.
For now, homosexuals are a useful ally. They allow the core leaders of the movement to set in place a new standard of governance that brings us back to the old way of doing things, the return of state sovereignty over individual sovereignty. They also allow the state to fundamentally undermine the other impediment to state sovereignty, the sovereignty of the traditional family.
But after the rights of individuals have been all but dissolved, after the family has been removed as a major institution, the state will come to look at the homosexual lifestyle as an impediment to raising what a state most needs to continue to survive, warriors. A culture of effeminacy will not enable a powerful state to raise men and women willing to murder in the name of the state.
If homosexuals doubt my truth, you should take the time to look at the models the progressive state is built on, models such as Hitler (where Hitler’s nationalism is replaced by internationalism), models such as Stalin and Lenin, models such as Castro and Mussolini (again, in the case of Mussolini, with nationalism being replaced by internationalism). In all these systems, homosexuals were rounded up and killed.
Under the Judeo Christian state, the state that believes in individual liberty, homosexuals can love who they wish to love, they can be given civil rights to enjoy the same tax benefits, the same access to healthcare, the same rights to power of attorney, the same rights to inheritance as a married couple, without criminalizing Christ and his teachings or the other faiths that hold to the belief that homosexuality is a sin.
Under a progressive state, the homosexuals will one day be persecuted violently. The same people who now support you will one day turn you in to the police. That concept of individual liberty is your only protection from the state. And yet, in the name of individual liberty, you seek to put into motion the mechanism by which your own real individual liberty will eventually be undone.
I would like to close this by offering to the homosexuals and their supporters an olive branch. I will endorse homosexual marriage being legalized by the state if you will support the inclusion of protections being placed beside those provisions for people of faith to continue to practice, teach, live, and share a belief system that still holds your lifestyle is, in fact, a sin, and that we will not be forced by the state to endorse or support your individual freedom of the pursuit of happiness, which would violate our individual freedom of the pursuit of happiness.
I am willing to wager no homosexual or supporter of their lifestyle will be willing to accept this olive branch, because they want more than freedom, they want forced acceptance, and this is something I will not, I cannot do, for my God is bigger than your SCOTUS, than your President, than your military, than your police, than your laws, and I obey Him above all others.
Someday soon, the practice of living Christ will be de facto outlawed. In articles to come, I will share with you why you cannot live Christ and deny the sanctity of a marriage as being between a man and a woman. For now, it is sufficient to say that unless the legalization of homosexual marriage is not coupled with specific protections of my religious rights, then the legalization of homosexual marriage is the criminalization of the God that governs the totality of my life, and nothing could be more important to me, not even my own marriage, not even my ‘right’ to the pursuit of happiness itself.
The legalization of homosexual marriage without religious freedom protections being carefully included empowers the state and reduces the reigning (though waning) Rule of Law in this land, the foundational values of individual liberty. In other words, gay rights are really all about state rights (not states rights, but National State power), and those state rights will someday take away the very rights the homosexuals are fighting to obtain, by any means necessary.
wp_cpl_sc cat_id=19070 list_num=3 css_theme=1 sort_order=desc show_comments=false read_more=’Read Freedomist News Journal Article’ target=”_blank” show_excerpt=true excerpt_length=500
cat totalposts=”20″ category=”19070″ thumbnail=”false” excerpt=”false”
VP Shoes offers great shoe designs and brands for the whole family, from Ugg Boots (including Ugg Classic Short) to New Balance, from North Face Denali to Women's Dansko Shoes. VP Shoes offers a fantastic reward program to help you save even more on your shoes.