It’s funny the way people want to advertise their affiliations and persuasions. Bumper stickers, wind socks, shirts and hats, emblems and magnets stuck to cars, coffee cups, refrigerator magnets, vanity license plates, buttons, et al are proudly displayed to let everyone around a person know everything from how smart their child is to which college or university they support to what their political persuasion is to what they believe theologically. It really is nonsensical because I never heard of anyone changing brands of lawn mowers because they saw someone wearing a John Deere cap. Has anyone ever chosen their college or university based on seeing a university wind sock attached to a car window? Do you think anyone has forsaken their Christian faith because they pulled up behind a car with an ichthus with legs and the word “Darwin” in it?
These are personal statements rather than advertisements and that means there are different implications. If I go out in public wearing a shirt emblazoned with the name of my university alma mater I am not expecting (or even hoping for) everyone to like it. People who support rival schools may ignore my shirt, roll their eyes at it, or even say something derogatory about it. If I put a bumper sticker on my vehicle that states I am a proud supporter of one of the two major political parties in America most people won’t give a hoot and of those who do half of them will be opposed to my party of choice. So what? People emblazon their lives with monikers to show off something about themselves. It’s usually harmless. At worst it is a minor irritation for those who disagree with the stated personal preference and at best those who agree might smile and say something like “that goes for me too.” The First Amendment protects everyone’s right to their state their support, opposition, and preference to most everything.
While the Constitution permits everyone to state their preferences it does not guarantee that anyone has to like it (and therefore support it). And therein lies the problem with homosexual activists. They don’t just want the freedom to express their sexual preference. The movement seems to insist that everyone has to like/support it. I heard one activist on a national talk radio show say that he didn’t think anyone who opposed gay rights should have the freedom to even say so publicly! Is that where this movement is heading? Outlawing disagreement?
Let’s just imagine for the sake of discussion that the homosexual activists eventually get everything they want. All 50 states have legal gay marriage. No minister can refuse to preside over a gay wedding. No business can legally refuse to participate in a gay marriage on the basis of religious beliefs. No gay couple can be refused (for any reason) the legal adoption of any child. No one can say anything publicly that disparages or disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle without legalized hate speech consequences. What will be done with the millions of faithful Christians who will never like or even agree with this lifestyle based on their belief in the Bible?
What’s the end game here? Outlaw Christianity? Burn all Bibles? Imprison evangelical Christians who refuse to waver from their firm belief that the Bible unequivocally teaches that homosexuality is a sin? Turn our football stadiums into coliseums where those who refuse to accept and like homosexuality are brutalized for entertainment? Stating the end game is really important to any movement.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made the end game of the civil rights movement perfectly clear in his famous “I Have A Dream” speech from 1963 when he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” That is pretty clear. The civil rights end game was that someday all people would be judged on what is within.
Many in the homosexual movement appeal to the civil rights movement for inspiration and justification for their own struggle. Then I would say they owe a similar kind of statement regarding the end game. Dr. King wanted people to look beyond race. The gay lobby demands everyone acknowledge and accept their sexual preference. From all I can tell homosexual activists aren’t interested in equal rights, they want superior rights. Is that the end game?
Ray Rooney, Jr.