What I Wanted to Say

Something I've learned since entering the world of blogs: My number of readers goes up (way up) when I post a comment at Mike Cope's blog.

And that's true in more than one sense. First, the number of people who read the comments at Mike's blog is greater than the number of people who read the posts at my blog. Second, by commenting at the other place, I get referral visits to my blog from people who wonder about this smart, dumb, or somewhere-in-between "Frank" who posted a comment there.

Anyway, something happened a day or two ago that has me writing back here at home again. I typed a comment in response to Mike's lengthy post about homosexuality. But the comment never got published. When I view it from my computer, I'm informed that "Your comment is still awaiting moderation" or some such. View it from your computer, and you won't see a thing.

So it's like my comment's been given a "time out" or doesn't have a ticket to the game. I don't know why. But I do know that I still want to weigh in about this one. So, for the sake of those who will hear me here, here's what I tried to say.

In his post, Mike says: "The church should not endorse homosexual marriages, but should advocate (out of justice and compassion) for full civil rights for gay couples. Just because we may not endorse another person's decisions doesn't mean we don't advocate for their protection and civil rights."

In response, I said, " . . . I think it's important for Christians to know that current political struggles for the civil rights of homosexual couples are not as socially benign as they might seem. The fact is, legal rights and recourse are currently available to people who live together and/or share business and property interests. I'm convinced that the current push is not for the sake of gaining legal rights, but for the sake of establishing new legal definitions of marriage. That question, and I think you agree, is kingdom business. This is where, trying to be harmless as doves, we shouldn't forget to be wise as serpents."

Now, here's why I wrote that. From my recent experiences in the State of Connecticut, I think that the homosexual lobby has a big plan. If I'm right, then it goes like this:

Since we know that a flat-out declaration of war in favor of gay marriage isn't going to achieve what we want, here's what we'll do. First, preying upon the sympathies of people who would never vote for gay marriage, but who do value fairness, we'll tell the stories; like the time when Jim couldn't even visit his life partner, Steve, who was in the ICU because, after all, Jim is not related to Steve by blood or by marriage (a close parallel to the specter of "back-alley abortion clinics" used to shore up Roe v. Wade).

This will tug at the heart strings and will motivate the anti-gay-marriage people to strike a compassionate compromise: civil unions. But (and this is the part those straight dunderheads don't get) the difference between what we'll call "civil unions" and legal marriage will be the difference between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Then, once this becomes the norm, the shift from "civil union" to "marriage" will simply be a change of language. Hey, it worked for "gay" and "queer." Why not "marriage"?

Next, as the grammatical distinction disappears and the legal realities emerge, it's a simple matter of a couple moving from, say, Connecticut to Tennessee. The question of the legal standing of the same-sex couple will, quite literally, become a federal case. Finally, de facto marriage will be declared "marriage."

I think that's how the play-book reads. If so, then people who oppose same-sex "marriage" should not be fooled into a compassionate support for so-called civil unions. The homosexual lobby is well-funded, influential, savvy, and, above all, determined. Christians should not, in the name of love or any other reason, go along with them.