For the last several decades, there has been a war going on, which now appears to be over. Unfortunately, we lost. The enemy has been devious and clever, with a near flawless, long term strategy to legitimize its activities even though they have been considered to be debauchery for at least 3000 years. The war was won without really firing a shot, having been fought in the arena of public opinion while American society was essentially asleep and generally apathetic to the radical restructuring being thrust upon it. As a result, homosexual rights and affirmation have been firmly embedded into the culture.
I reluctantly came to this conclusion after learning of a rather obscure doctor of philosophy dissertation by a "gay" Ohio State graduate student named Jeff R. Soder. The study, which was accepted by the university's Graduate Program in Human and Community Resource Development, is titled "4-H State Leaders' Readiness To Support Lesbian And Gay Youth-Assessing Leaders' Lesbian And Gay Knowledge, Homophobic Attitudes, And Best Practice Implementation."
In essence, this study attempts to assess how well state 4-H leaders have implemented programs intended to reduce "homophobic" attitudes within member groups. Questionnaires were sent to 4-H leaders nationwide and responses were woven into Mr. Soder's 164 page dissertation. As Mr Soder writes:
"Low correct scores on specific questions (ranked on the Morrison & Morrison Modern Homonegativity Scale) indicated a lack of knowledge that could lead to practices which would undermine sexual minority youth development...Leaders almost unanimously (90%) reported that anti-discrimination polices that protect lesbians and gays were highly visible in their organizations, and almost all leaders (81%) recognized that youth who identified as lesbian or gay were harassed in school settings.
"There was a large association between leaders‘ upbringing and homophobia, with rural leaders scoring high (more homophobic) on the homonegativity scale. There was a large association between political affiliation and homophobia, with politically conservative leaders scoring high (more homophobic) on the homonegativity scale. There was a large association between political affiliation and best practice implementation, with politically conservative leaders scoring low on a best practice implementation checklist... Politically conservative leaders were associated with low knowledge, high homophobia, and low best practice implementation..
"The high correlation between knowledge and attitudes suggests increased 4-H staff development would be beneficial. False beliefs about lesbians and gays that are associated with conservative political affiliation need to be challenged with scientific information through staff development and training."
If you look beyond the aforementioned academic twaddle, I found it revealing that the Ohio State University would actually accept a dissertation toward a Doctor of Philosophy degree on the topic of how well 4-H leaders are carrying out in-place programs intended to erase any vestiges of latent "homophobia" in their respective organizations. Keep in mind that Ohio State is not Berkley and it is in the heart of the Midwest...not the West Coast. It is obvious that this could be "any university" USA.
The study references an established "homonegativity" scale, noting that "False beliefs about lesbians and gays that are associated with conservative political affiliation need to be challenged." Can you imagine a comparable traditional values dissertation being accepted that cited a "Christian Morals Negativity" scale? I think not.
What is clear is that interrogating 4-H leaders for their adherence to the homosexual agenda is in no way a major cultural battle--it is a "mopping up" operation. If the enemy has the resources to spend time and effort on something like this, the battle to protect family values from the corrupting influence of homosexual affirmation is over...the enemy has won.
Nowhere to hide
When one considers that the homosexual rights movement has its own cable channel (LOGO), its own Sirius satellite radio station (Qout), its own advocacy program on Public Television (In The Life, which is seen in 34 states and 240 PBS stations), a plethora of gay-friendly characters on broadcast television, and a strong influence in the film and print medias, it is clear their victory was not unexpected. Even Archie, who was created in 1941 as the epitome of a family-friendly comic book character, has introduced an openly gay individual, Kevin, to add to its venerable cast of Betty, Veronica, Reggie, and Jughead!
The homosexual rights PR campaign has been so successful that almost every major city in America openly celebrates "gay pride" debauchery with the obligatory endorsement from the city's public officials. With the exception of a handful of companies, nearly all Fortune 500 corporations are gay-friendly, offering domestic partner benefits and/or gay/bisexual/lesbian/transgender (GBLT) nondiscrimination clauses in hiring.
Even though there is no current federal statute that identifies sexual orientation as a protected category, most government agencies and academia at all levels showcase their affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle through in-house programs and external policy. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has recently initiated a nationwide study to ferret out evidence of discrimination toward lesbian, gay bisexual or transgender persons in the sale or rental of housing.
There are few segments of the American culture that have not succumbed to pressure exerted by such gay rights organizations as the Human Rights Campaign and allies like the American Civil Liberties Union.. The military, which up to this point has successfully resisted permitting open homosexuals to serve, is under intense pressure to end its "Don't ask, don't tell policy".
Among the few organizations to successfully maintain a ban against open homosexuals is the Boy Scouts of America. In June 2000, the Scouts won a highly publicized case in which the Supreme Court upheld their right to exclude a person who "affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." The case was brought in behalf of James Dale, who was removed from his scoutmaster position when it was learned he was a homosexual.
The legal victory by the Scouts did not come without a price. They have been subjected to a number of harassment law suits by the ACLU and other organizations, which have limited their access to public facilities on the basis that the Boy Scouts are a "religious" organization. Most recently, a May 3, 2010 decision by the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that the City of San Diego improperly leased to the Scouts 18 acres of city-owned park land. The suit claimed the Scout promise to "do duty to God" violates the federal law separating church and state.
The Girl Scouts, on the other hand have, no stated policy on sexual preferences of its members, considering such issues "a private matter." Regarding the issue of faith, a Girl Scout policy statement states, "Since the Girl Scout organization makes no attempt to interpret or define the word 'God' but encourages members to establish for themselves the nature of their spiritual beliefs, it is the policy of the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. that individuals when making the Girl Scout Promise may substitute wording appropriate to their own spiritual beliefs for the word 'God'."
How did this happen?
There are two primary reasons why this war was lost. First, persons and organizations that support and/or promote traditional values were slow to recognize the magnitude of the conflict and the consequences of losing. Accordingly, gay rights activists had years to gain their near insurmountable foothold in the media, government, industry, and academia.
Sadly, the leadership of most of the mainline religious denominations were among the first to recognize homosexuals as a persecuted sexual minority and diligently worked to welcome them into their congregations and even into the pulpit. The result was a precipitous decline in membership and a rupture in church unity with many congregations leaving their respective denominations. Nevertheless, these religious leaders seem more than willing to give up a large part of their membership as well as the authority of scripture solely to affirm homosexuality within the church.
Second, and most important, supporters of traditional values also failed to understand the nature of the homosexual agenda and gay activist groups were to left to frame the dimensions of the debate. That is, that homosexuality was inborn and unchangeable and the issue was one of civil rights to a sexual minority, not the deviant and corrupting behavior that homosexuality had been considered over the last several thousand years.
As a result, "sodomy" has all but disappeared from the contemporary lexicon, and the practice is now popularly referred to by the more modern term of "homosexuality." The practice was given a certain air of respectability by the Supreme Court in the June 26, 2003 decision in Lawrence vs. Texas in which the court essentially ruled that homosexuality defines a class of people, not a behavior. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, agreeing with the majority, wrote "A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state’s moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.”
Indeed, homosexual affirmation has become the "third rail" of the culture war with most organizations acquiescing to homosexual affirmation in order not to be labeled "homophobic." The paranoia extends even to popular broadcasters and columnists who are otherwise conservative but, for the most part avoid issues associated with gay rights in fear of touching the dreaded "third rail" and having to defend themselves against charges of homophobia.
America is moving in the same direction as Canada and most Western democracies concerning homosexuality, where the practice is a protected behavior and steep penalties can be exacted for voicing what might be considered "hate" speech--including statements that speak against homosexuality from a religious perspective.
The holding action.
Sexual liberation is the force behind the homosexual rights movement, and is being used to undermine established traditional values associated with sexuality. As I mentioned in a previous article, "hedonistic secularists realize that the legitimization of homosexuality—particularly legalization of gay marriage—is a dagger into the heart of the Christian faith and the institutions that shelter its values."
Ominously, approval of "gay marriage" is breaking out of its sanctuary in the northeast with the legalization of same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. This perversion will move across America if gay rights activists get their way and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is reversed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court. Although the war to preserve the ages-old historical view of sexuality is essentially over, the defense of marriage is sacred ground and must be held at all costs to avoid a total collapse of the culture.
In 1835, French historian Alexis de Tocqueville traveled about America and noted his observations in his book, Democracy in America. He coined the phrase, American exceptionalism, which he describes as the special place America occupies in the community of nations. Among his observations, he wrote of the importance that marriage served in an orderly society:
"There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is so much respected as in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated. In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home, is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and the evil of fluctuating desires...Whilst the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs."
The Last Battle for America's Heart
There is another battle going on that is flying under the radar of the American people in a similar way as with the conflict over homosexual affirmation. We ignore it at our peril.
When the Iron Curtain fell in 1989, the Marxist/Communist political structure in place across the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe tumbled over like a row of dominoes. Democratically elected governments sprang from the rubble and most of the West thought Marxism was on life support and would soon be relegated to the dustbin of history. It was not to be. A new Marxism was already deeply embedded in the counterculture revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, fueled by an intense disdain, if not hatred, for the American way of life.
The insurgency unleashed powerful forces of change that were often punctuated with riotous protests and domestic terrorism. These forces challenged the generally accepted moral, social and political standards of America’s prevailing culture. The rebellion, in large part student led, demanded unprecedented freedom of sexual expression, ‘liberation’ of women from a perceived male-dominant, patriarchal society, and transformation to a aggressively secular, Marxist-like central government committed to imposing the new order on the masses.
Now, the student radicals of the 60s and 70s--along with their latter day disciples--are firmly entrenched in academia, industry, media and government. Make no mistake, these present day radicals are relentlessly pursuing a fundamental transformation of the American political, social, and cultural structures...a transformation that is intended to move the nation toward a globalist alliance in which American traditions and interests are subordinate to the greater world order.
In order to accomplish the transition to a quasi-socialist, globalist state, it is necessary to collapse the capitalist system (i.e., free enterprise) by absorbing more and more of the economy into the federal government, instituting policies that make the individual more dependent on the state, and pursuing those policies that dilute the prevailing culture to the point where the nation's identity is lost in a mire of multiculturalism. To these ends, we are witnesses to:
- An unprecedented, costly and unsustainable expansion of government spending and entitlements.
- An unconscionable growth in the national debt and the balance of trade.
- An extraordinary federal intrusion into the financial and industrial complex.
- A central government that refuses to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws, which has resulted in millions of undocumented aliens entering the country illegally and placing a heavy burden on state and federal services and entitlements.
- The Balkanization of America due to the federal government's reluctance to secure our borders and settle the status of illegal aliens resident in the country. This inaction, along with rejecting legislation to make English the language of commerce, has resulted in a large immigrant population with divided national loyalties and little incentive to assimilate into America's "melting pot" of ethnicities.
Also included in the radicals' battle plan to destabilize America are:
- An aggressive assault on freedom of religion and the faith of the Founders, which was embedded in the political and moral structure of the republic and is the source of our rights and freedoms.
- Draconian environmental policies that promise to further burden the economy and the taxpayer.
- An energy policy that sees us annually import hundreds of billions of dollars in oil and natural gas when America is literally awash in natural resources including some of the world's largest deposits of natural gas and coal, as well as huge amounts of recoverable oil--not counting the trillion barrels or so of potential oil from shale deposits.
- A tax system focused on wealth redistribution in which more than half of the population pays no income taxes.
Indeed, instead of American exceptionalism we are moving toward an America that is weakened economically, militarily, and morally...one that is interdependent and co-equal with the broader community of nations and no longer the "shining city on a hill." The question we must all ask, then, "is it twilight in America?"
What do we have?
At this point in our history, it is important to remember where we came from as a fledging nation emerging from the Revolutionary War and going through the difficult process of forming a government.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a lady approached Dr. Benjamin Franklin as he left Independence Hall and asked, "Well Doctor what have we got...a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic," replied Doctor Franklin, "if you can keep it."
Franklin knew that the republic was fragile and the nation would have to pull together if it was to survive. Well, it did survive and the Constitution signed that day has guided the nation for over 220 years.
But another lesson that should be learned from Dr. Franklin's comment is that the collective memories of a people can be short-lived, for at any one time the nation is a single generation away from losing what it should cherish the most--its founding principles and way of life. In more direct terms, its Biblical foundation, culture, freedoms and form of government are not irrevocably carved in stone, but must be reclaimed by each succeeding generation.
So what would Benjamin Franklin say today if he were asked, "Well Doctor, do we still have a republic?"
It is all too possible he would say, "You had a republic...but you didn't keep it." Let it not be so, for with God, all things are possible.