By remaining silent, ‘they lost the moral high ground to complain’
"This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation."
--Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, disssenting, in Lawrence v. Texas.
The looming pandemonium concerning homosexual marriage cannot be blamed entirely on the homosexual lobby.
Certainly it was "gay" activists whose campaign brought us to the brink of recognizing "marriage" between two men as equal with marriage between a man and a woman, an issue that promises to be as furious a battle as was the legalization of abortion.
But this crisis never would have materialized had it not been for many heterosexual Christians, who simply did nothing when faced with society's growing acceptance of perversity, sin and evil.
For years millions of these folks shrugged off the homosexual agenda as incidental, or perhaps as a war too unpleasant to wage. Now, suddenly they are alarmed at where their hands-off attitude has led. After sleeping through the roaring radical homosexual revolution, they now demand a constitutional amendment to prevent "redefinition of marriage."
But they come to the fight too late with too little.
And their long, silent acquiescence may fatally have undermined the ability of the rest of us to prevail against the normalization of homosexuality.
“Tolerating” Others’ Eternal Damnation
These well-intentioned appeasers tacitly accepted homosexual perversion to be "a right," undeserving of shame or repugnance. They "tolerantly" accepted unnatural sexual attractions as "just another lifestyle" without consequences. They disregarded Biblical admonitions that homosexual sex is an abomination before the LORD, and that its persistent, unrepentant practice is a bar to salvation, leading to eternal damnation.
Regardless what these people may have believed in their hearts, their live-and-let-live attitude effectively conceded there is no moral basis to oppose homosexuality. It reduced the issue to a matter of preferences. One prefers heterosexual relationships, another homosexual. Appeasers repeatedly empowered homosexuals in this way. And by doing so, they lost the moral high ground to complain.
Now the Supreme Court has applied identical logic in the Lawrence v.Texas sodomy case. A majority of justices decided we cannot invoke morality as the standard for some laws, therefore sodomy became a constitutionally protected "right." But implicit in that decision is that we can't invoke morality for any laws. By the justices' own logic, how could it be otherwise? Why can some laws be based on morality, but not others?
By not condemning unnatural sexual behavior as sinful, wrong and morally repugnant, we lose more than the moral high ground. We lose the fight.
It is reasonable to consider one person to be a tyrant if he desires to restrict another's behavior merely because he doesn't like it. For all intents and purposes somewhere along the line homosexuality ceased being a moral issue to many heterosexuals. And if not as a moral issue, on what other possible grounds can such conduct be opposed without being despotic?
In short, failing to invoke God's law as the basis for opposing homosexuality forfeited the only legitimate basis for opposing another person's so-called "preference."
What’s left? Only utilitarian assertions.
This culture battle now necessarily boils down to mere utilitarian arguments: "Heterosexual homes are better for kids," or "It's the way it's always been." And so forth.
Those arguments ultimately are losers. They require a court of opinion rather than absolute morality. And, as our Supreme Court indicated, public opinion doesn't dictate outcome. After all, the rights of minorities must be protected.
Invoking that kind of reasoning is how courts will ignore the majority of Americans, who insist marriage be restricted to a man and a woman. Morality is not a basis for such restrictions, courts will say, and popular majorities cannot be permitted to oppressively impose their preferences on homosexual minorities.
This corrupting trend away from a moral basis for laws and customs has been underway at least since God gave Moses the tablets, although it appears to have sped up recently.
Consider Time magazine's recent observation of an increase in the number of homosexual college fraternities with this matter-of-fact comment:
“Fraternities such as Gamma meet definite needs in the lives of homosexual students.”
Imagine that sentence when substituting other unrepentant sinners for homosexuals:
"...meet definite needs in the lives of adulterers."
"…meet definite needs in the lives of bigamists."
"…meet definite needs in the lives of pedophiles."
"…meet definite needs in the lives of the incestuous.”
Even editors at Time may find those comments unacceptable, perhaps even immoral. At least today they might. But on what grounds are those any different from homosexual sodomy and homosexual marriage if morality cannot be invoked as the basis for law? Without a moral basis, even incest and pedophilia become mere preferences of minorities. At what degree of degeneration will lawmakers and judges finally say, "Enough is enough, this is immoral!"?
And, why draw the line there, but not at homosexual sex?
Mark Landsbaum, landsbaum@earthlink.net, a former Los Angeles Times staff writer, is an evangelical Christian, freelance writer and author.
All Copyrights© are acknowledged. Material reproduced for
educational and research purposes only.
Contact Me Home
