The Rule of Law and the Gay Agenda

Political Pistachio – by Douglas V. Gibbs

Social issues are local issues.  From a constitutional point of view, social issues are none of the federal government’s business.  The Republican Party is the party of social issues.  Was it not slavery, a social issue, that spurned the creation of the Grand Ol’ Party?

The topic of the homosexual agenda has a lot to do with the Constitution. Marriage is a State issue, and federal interference is unconstitutional. My opinion has always been “why is government involved in marriage in the first place?” The two times marriage licenses (or should we call them “just in case there’s a divorce” licenses) appeared, during reconstruction after the American Civil War, and during the 1930s under FDR, they emerged so that the government could control marriage, and tax marriage.  

Growing up, I was exposed to the homosexual lifestyle, so I recognize what the lifestyle is about, and how sexuality is the primary focus of the homosexual agenda.  I’ve never hated an individual because they were gay, but because of my opinion regarding their behavior I have been labeled a bigot, hater, homophobe, and all of the other names they can muster.

I have always been a believer that the non-profit status was created to silence the churches. Homosexuality used to be something nobody cared the preachers talked about from the pulpit, but now politicians have politicized the issue. Thanks to the politicization of the issue, suddenly the churches are being told they can’t talk about it. Since when is that the decision of the government?  Since when is government supposed to be defining what can be discussed inside the four walls of a church by a pastor, and then change what he can talk about at will by simply redefining an issue as a political issue?

Separation of Church and State is a misleading concept as it is defined today. Our understanding of it in today’s vernacular is more often, than not, incorrect. As Alexis de Toqueville noticed when he visited the United States in the 1830s, the politicians prayed, and the pastors preached on politics, but the church never controlled the government, and the government never controlled the church. In many ways, the church and government were symbiotic. Unfortunately, the extremes of ideology has poisoned that relationship. Jefferson’s quote about a “wall of separation between church and state” meant that the federal government could not interfere in cases of religion. If a legal case needed to be decided where religion is involved, it is only supposed to be handled in the State courts. The federal courts have no authority to take those cases. However, the extreme beliefs that a teacher can’t have a Christian Cross on their desk, or that children can’t pray at school or on the steps of the Supreme Court, is not in line with the way the First Amendment is worded.  The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .”

Back to the case of homosexuality, I personally don’t care what they do in their lives. However, the militant members of the gay community are using the force of law to compel their opposition into silence, and submission, and that, regardless of who uses that kind of tactic, is tyrannical, and against the spirit that constructed the constitutional foundation of this nation.

In the case of churches, I think they should be left alone and treated more like businesses. It should be their decision if they want to marry gays, or not. Then, they will reap the benefits, or the consequences, that goes with that decision. But for the government to force pastors to marry gays (as we saw recently in Idaho), force Christian bakers to bake a gay cake (of which the lawsuit wound up putting that bakery out of business, and the owners into bankruptcy), or for government officials to demand transcripts of sermons to make sure pastors are not saying anything “anti-gay” (as we saw in Houston with the mayor of that city), is something that should not be happening in the United States.

On April 4, the Constitution Association will have a “former homosexual” as our speaker, Joe Dallas, as a response to the California Republican Party voting to include the Log Cabin Republicans (a gay group) officially into the party, ignoring a part of the GOP bylaw that does not allow groups with specific “lifestyle” agendas (** see below). Due to my experience growing up, and my interaction with a large number of gays in my lifetime after my exposure to the lifestyle because of my biological father, as well as the incredibly high number of former gays that exist out there, it is my opinion that homosexuality is not solely genetic, and it is something that can be changed in one’s life. I believe there may be a propensity towards homosexual activity, but in a number of studies I have been involved with, along with personal experience, I have only come across one homosexual in my life that has indicated they were not sexually abused as a child, and he was a blog commenter that I cannot be sure was being truthful. Therefore, based on my personal understanding, it is my speculation that sexual abuse plays a huge role in the decision to pursue a homosexual lifestyle. The guest speaker is simply being provided to give a point of view that many folks may not consider, and to show that there is such a thing as “former gays.”

I recognize the homosexual agenda’s desire to have at least “civil unions” for homosexuals, but the legal advantages of being a legally recognized “couple” can just as easily be drafted through legal paperwork. I do not like the fact that the gay community (or at least the militant members of that community) are trying to redefine marriage, which I believe to be historically in the United States a religious institution, despite the opinion of those that may not agree with them.

Though the homosexual agenda is a growing leftist strategy, the enemy here is statism.  Freedom is only possible in a virtuous society.  As we move away from moral standards by culturally accepting homosexuality, abortion, assisted suicide, and so on and so forth, a cultural shift that infects both political parties (though it is more rampant through the Democrat Party), we are moving towards bondage. The rule of law has been abandoned, and John Locke would be disappointed in us. We have tossed the rule of law aside for the rule of man in the guise of men in black robes that demand we call them “your honor,” who have been consistently overturning the vote of the people, and the laws made by their representatives at the State level.  When you abandon the rule of law, and embrace the rule of man, it doesn’t take long before you start dancing around a golden calf.

Sadly, while the moderates of the Republican Party demand that compromising the party’s platform and our moral compass is necessary in order to create a big tent, the votes they are gaining by turning their back on the voting base are far outnumbered by the voters who are walking away from the GOP, disgusted by the Party of Reagan, and changing their party affiliation to “decline to state,” or “independent.”

On a final note, I find it fascinating that the homosexual agenda has adopted the rainbow as their symbol.  The rainbow, according to Scripture, first appeared after the Great Flood as a promise to Noah and his family that God would never flood the Earth again.  The Great Flood was a response to man’s wickedness, the normalization of sexual deviation in society (strange flesh), and to purge impure DNA from humanity’s bloodline (nephilim).  Yet, the very symbol that emerged after God’s angry response to man’s wickedness has now become the celebratory symbol of man’s wickedness.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-rule-of-law-and-gay-agenda.html