Gay Activists' Smears And Distortions
by Alex Saitta
May 3, 2004
Below is an Op-Ed that was written by Clyo Wilson, entitled, Homosexual Relationships Will Flourish. It appeared in the Greenville News on March 17. It illustrates how homosexual activists ignore the facts and use personal attacks and distortions in the gay marriage debate. The op-ed piece is in black print and my comments are in red.
We live in an exciting, confusing and dangerous time as gay people in America. The Massachusetts Supreme Court just upheld the decision to allow same-sex couples to marry and receive all the civil rights guaranteed by law. And yet the specter of young Matthew Shepard hanging on a desolate fence in Laramie, Wyo., still haunts us and reminds us of what we are capable of doing to each other and what could happen to any of us who dare to live openly as gay men and lesbians.
(Her first point, doesn't address the issue, but rather it is a personal attack or smear against those who oppose homosexual marriage. Her reference to "civil rights" and "hanging" implies if you oppose the homosexual lifestyle, you are like a member of the KKK, that hanged blacks. To insinuate heterosexuals will hang openly homosexual men and women is ridiculous. If that were the case, hangings would be taking place and they aren't.)
Good Christians tell us we need to repent and get right with God and yet our welcome in most churches is lukewarm at best. In fact, we really are not welcome as ourselves in most churches. Not only do good Christians cast the first stone, they hurl a barrage of stones that amounts to nothing more than a spiritual stoning from which many gays and lesbians cannot recover. You, see, many of us were stoned in our own homes by our own families, so for some the current stonings are leading to spiritual death — a death without resurrection for many.
(Her angle here is to exaggerate, by claiming a crime has been committed by heterosexuals against homosexuals. In particular, she characterizes Christians as hurling stones -- a physical act that is illegal, rather than describing it as it is, Christians voicing their religious belief, which is protected by the U.S. Constitution.)
I guess on some level I am a traitor to my community. I don't believe we ought to call our unions marriage. I don't believe that it is in our best interest politically and spiritually to emulate a heterosexual ritual/institution that currently is a miserable failure. At least 50 percent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, which we all know, leads to a host of other social ills. The papers and our own neighborhoods and churches are filled with heterosexual couples having babies without being married and heterosexual marriages agreed to and performed on a whim and as quickly annulled. Is this what is in such desperate need of protecting?
(Her point is that marriage is in such bad shape, there is no reason to protect it, and adopting homosexual marriage can't possibly make it any worse. Marriage is going through a rough patch, however, that indicates we need to work harder than ever to improve and restore it. We should not tear-down the institution further by adopting gay marriage.)
We are not asking to be married in churches by ordained ministers. We are not asking that thousands of years of tradition be disregarded and discarded. We are not asking that anyone change his or her religious beliefs. We are simply asking for our committed relationships to be valid in the eyes of the civil law of the land resulting in the same rights, privileges, protections and responsibilities afforded heterosexual marriages.
The Christian conservatives, of which our current president is one, want to go so far as to amend the Constitution of the United States to protect what they believe to be the sanctity of marriage, defining it as a union between one man and one woman.
(Her target is clear, Christian conservatives like us. We will be smeared and the reason for our opposition will be distorted. Get a load of this next distortion... )
How about the sanctity of those heterosexual marriages that harbor pedophiles that prey on their own children while spouses turn a blind eye. Or perhaps we're talking about the sanctity of those marriages that protect husbands who love their wives so much that they beat them black and blue. Maybe we're trying to protect the union of one man and one woman who believe there is no God. I know, we are protecting the sanctity of the marriage of one divorced man to one divorced woman. Now what did Jesus have to say about divorce, hmmm?
(I think this is her worst distortion saying, by protecting marriage, Christians are working to protect husbands who are pedophiles and wife beaters. There is no limit on how low homosexual activists will go to get what they want.)
The truth is, homosexuals cannot be stoned out of existence. We cannot be legislated out of existence.
(This smear attempts to paint conservative Christians as evil predators -- no one is trying to stone or even legislate homosexuals out of existence.)
Our relationships will last with or without legal protection. They will probably continue to flourish and be stronger. There won't be a need for a constitutional amendment to ensure that they continue to exist. They will endure because at the center of them is our commitment to each other, not on paper, but in our hearts.
(The bottom line is the homosexual crowd will say anything to get what its wants. If good people sit back, they'll be run over by this slash and burn bunch. We conservatives need to meet homosexual activists in the center of the ring, and engage them with our opinions and beliefs, blow by blow, all along being able to shake off the smears and distortions that will surely be thrown our way. That way, and only that way, will marriage remain protected as the God given institution it is.)
I cut my comments down to 250 words, and wrote a letter to the editor of the Greenville News. It appeared on April 3rd.