Well, it has happened again. In spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of citizens throughout the country disapprove of the legalization of homosexual marriage, those who know better have forced it upon us by judicial fiat. This time it was in Iowa, the veritable heart of America, where homosexuals were rescued from the oppression of unsanctioned marriages. Couple this with the Obama administration’s desire to declare homosexuals to be a superior and protected class of citizens through new and expanded hate crimes legislation, and you have the makings of a disaster the likes of which we have seen before. Yes, we have seen this before. You see, our homosexual friends are guilty of behaving like…Christians! I bet you weren’t expecting that, huh? Read on that you may understand that being “right” always comes with a price…
U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, says his state’s Supreme Court actually confessed to being guilty of “activism” in its opinion today paving the way for same-sex “marriage” in the state. Iowa’s high court said same-sex marriages “could begin” in as little as three weeks, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut as the three states formally recognizing homosexual duos. King was interviewed by Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND about the decision. “The opinion strikes me as very much an activist reach to overturn the will of the people of the state of Iowa,” King said. “This turns on its head the entire composition of human history and law.” He called it the “most activist opinion that I have every read.”
Citing the court’s boasts about how it had led in the fight against slavery and for women’s rights, and equating same-sex “marriage” with those issues, King called the statement “a self-assigned confession of activists. It’s the will of the people that’s supposed to lead the way,” he said. “The constitution is not supposed to change unless it’s changed by the people. The ruling should “infuriate” every Iowan, he said. “I don’t think Iowans have changed their opinions. If they did they would have changed the law.”
Once again we see a minority group using the courts to tyrannically impose its will on a population that would otherwise never accede to their demands. In fact a poll released at the same time of this ruling shows that more than 62 percent of Iowans oppose homosexual marriage, and fewer than 30 percent support it, though about half of those opposed would support civil unions. Unfortunately the court ruled that civil unions weren’t an acceptable alternative. Why? Because this is about being “right,” and these activist courts are convinced it is their job to make things “right.” Never mind that it is their job to interpret the law, not “fix” it. By linking homosexual marriage to the fight against slavery the court is claiming to be operating on some higher moral authority that seems to exist above the law. One could make the argument that this higher moral authority could come from God except for the fact that we know his feelings on homosexuality.
Nevertheless, in spite of all this, as always, the Obama administration stands poised to make things even worse:
President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section. – White House Website
Yes, the infamous Matthew Shepherd Act, whereby homosexuals are granted status as a “protected” class of citizen as though there was something that was innately special about being a homosexual. Worse still is the implication that protecting them is something of a priority over protecting the rest of us.
All hate crimes legislation is a direct threat to both our religious liberties and our right to free speech. In other countries where these kind of laws have been implemented, pastors and Christians have been arrested and fined for speaking what the Biblical scriptures teach about homosexuality. There is even a recently passed state law in Colorado that makes it a crime to hand out Christian literature that speaks against this lifestyle. It can happen here. It is happening here.
I cannot help but recognize the similarity between the radical agenda that is driving the push to legalize homosexual marriage, and a previous time of “manufactured” intolerance. As you will see, we have been here before. Journey back in time to sixteenth century France and the conflict between the Protestants (called Huguenots) and the dominant Roman Catholic Church. You will find that those driving the homosexual agenda have learned a lot from their Huguenot brothers about how to force themselves, and their agenda, on an unwilling majority. However, they seem to be oblivious to the consequences of those actions. There is a price to be paid for being “right.”
The Protestant Reformation was fueled by the unprecedented access to Biblical scriptures that resulted from both the invention of the printing press and the translating of the Bible into the various languages of the European Christians. “Sola Scriptura” (by Scripture alone) was one of the mantras of the Reformation. This doctrine maintains that Scripture, as contained in the Bible, is the only authority for the Christian in matters of faith, life and conduct. According to this doctrine, the teachings and traditions of the church are to be completely subordinate to the Scriptures. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, holds Scripture and Tradition to be of the same inspired Deposit of Faith. Men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin began espousing interpretations of the Bible that clashed with the traditional teachings of Roman Catholicism.
Because the societies of the time were built around monarchist governments that were dominated by Roman Catholics, the Huguenots did not enjoy many, if any, privileges to freely express their religious beliefs. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church the Huguenots were heretics and were regularly punished as such. As a result the Huguenots felt they were forced to pursue a course of violence in order to obtain the privilege to worship as they wished. This manifested itself through several “wars of religion” throughout the first half of the sixteenth century. These wars led to many concessions that earned both the right to worship in their own establishments and to freely be recognized for their beliefs without fear of reprisals for heresy. However, once the Huguenots had earned tolerance for their belief system, tolerance soon was not enough. Why? Because they knew they were “right.” As I’m sure our homosexual friends would agree, being “right” entitles you to more than just tolerance. So more was sought.
These were very religious people in a very religious time. They felt that the scriptures validated their belief system over the more “pagan” traditions of the Roman Catholicism, therefore they felt it was their Christian duty to impose their beliefs on the Catholics and force them to admit the error of their ways. And so it was that the Huguenots, always in the minority, attacked Roman Catholicism with both words and violence. The Huguenots took to the practice of Iconoclasm, the deliberate destruction of Catholic symbols, statues and churches. Does this remind you of any behavior you have been seeing out of the aggressive homosexual advocates? They too have been trespassing into church services to disrupt them with their agenda as well as pursuing vandalism against their property in the wake of their failure to win enough votes to legalize homosexual marriage in California. Quite blatant behavior for minorities wouldn’t you say?
The Catholics of the sixteenth century were, of course, enraged at this violation of their establishments and the defacing of their sacred symbols. Their traditions were being trampled upon even as the monarchy insisted they show “tolerance” and resist the temptation to strike back. However this was an untenable situation. The Huguenots were no longer content to seek tolerance for their belief system and the right to practice it. Their arrogance demanded that the Catholics acknowledge that they were “right.”
Positions hardened on both sides of the religious divide. Catholic militants began urging the king to outlaw any expression of Protestant faith. Many wanted the Huguenots to pay for the trouble they caused with their lives. Meanwhile, the Huguenots proudly justified their actions by claiming they had the right to resist “illegitimate authority.” Many of you will immediately recognize that as the primary justification for the later American Revolution. In both instances the king rightly recognized a threat to his authority. Unlike in the American Revolution however, the Huguenots were clearly a minority who was wearing out its welcome.
The monarchy, for its part, was still attempting to moderate the dispute. Though largely dominated by Catholics, it was official policy to show tolerance to the Huguenots in hopes of trying to maintain some influence with their leaders in the hope they could reign in the radicals. Contrary to how history has portrayed her, Catherine De Medici was very much in favor of granting Huguenots concessions in hopes of maintaining the social order. Unfortunately she would end up receiving much of the blame for the event that was about to unfold.
Tensions were raised to a fever pitch when the King Charles IX indicated he would consider sending military aid to a Huguenot army that was invading the Netherlands. In May of 1572 Dutch Protestants were in revolt against Catholic King Philip II of Spain. The majority of the French population naturally despised the idea of allying with heretics against a Catholic King. Worse still, was Charles’ plan to marry his sister to a Protestant Prince, Henry of Bourbon. In the age of monarchies marriages between to conflicting factions were often used to ease the tensions between warring parties. This could in many ways be seen as the equivalent of homosexuals today using the courts to circumvent the will of the people. For the Catholics of sixteenth century France, this mixed marriage would turn out to be that one straw of tolerance more than the camel’s back could bear. There would be no more.
The wedding was to be a very public affair. All the more enraging to those who valued their Catholic traditions. It drew huge numbers of Huguenots to Paris to celebrate what the Catholics viewed as legitimizing heresy. Like a modern day gay pride parade, the Huguenots would be intolerably arrogant and flagrantly flaunting themselves through the streets. Unlike a modern day gay pride parade however, almost no Huguenots left Paris alive.
August 25, 1572 was one of the bloodiest days in Western history. Perhaps the bloodiest one to not involve a military engagement. Forever known as the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, the death toll remains a matter of dispute. Many claim it was in the neighborhood of 30,000 but some claim as many as 100,000 were murdered. This was largely due to the fact that the killings went on for months. I will leave the details of the massacre to some other essay. An attempted assassination of Protestant Admiral Coligny is alleged to have sparked it. Rumors of a Huguenot army outside of Paris were prevalent at the time leading to a belief the King ordered a pre-emptive strike. Of course the Huguenots claim that the massacre was initiated on the Kings orders and many allege an ambush was planned all along.
What was unique about it was how enthusiastically the general population of France took to violence in a manner almost resembling a festival. As word spread of the massacre, the population considered itself to have permission, if not a duty, to rid themselves of the infestation of heresy. The Huguenots paid for their arrogance. Many of the victims were forced to recant their faith or recite Catholic prayers. Infants were “baptized” in the blood of their parents. Pregnant women had their babies cut from their wombs. Looting and Pillaging were common. In a word…anarchy.
Now before anyone gets the wrong idea let me state I would in no way argue the massacre in 1572 was justified, and though I am making a connection between the arrogance of the Huguenots and the arrogance of modern day homosexuals, I am not suggesting that such a response is in order today. American society allows a lot more options for people to express their displeasures than sixteenth century France. However I would contend that a minority that does not enjoy widespread popular acceptance ought not to try to bully a majority that values its traditional way of life.
Homosexuals often try to link their “efforts” to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. But unlike homosexuals, Martin Luther King Jr.’s movement always enjoyed the popular support of the majority of Americans. That is not now, nor has it ever been, true of the movement to legalize homosexual marriage. Remember the poll that showed only 30% of Iowans would support such a thing. Yet the homosexuals found a way around them. In 1572 The Catholics stood in support of “traditional” values and the Huguenots stood against an “illegitimate authority.” Both were convinced they were “right.” Now the citizens of Iowa can see their traditional values trampled on BY an “illegitimate authority.” Homosexuals enjoy all the rights and protections of every other American citizen. That homosexuals are some sort of persecuted minority is nothing more than a fabrication of their own making. They pursue the legalization of homosexual marriage out of an arrogant desire to make all of us acknowledge they are “right.” They pursue “hate crimes” legislation merely to put criticism of their lifestyle out of reach.
The problem with the advocates of homosexual marriage is that they demand the dissolution of the standard of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and replace it with…nothing! The absence of a standard definition for marriage will only lead to further insistence on toleration for the intolerable on down the line. What the homosexuals are advocating is anarchy. Anarchy always breeds violence. The movement for the legalization of homosexual marriage can’t claim any higher motivation than selfishness. They have manufactured an issue where there should be none, and have the audacity to claim their critics to be “haters” and “intolerant.” The arrogance of this minority, in demanding that the rest of us bow down and accept that they are “right,” is astounding. This cannot possibly end well for them.