Same-sex marriage activists have launched a religious war
By Nicholas Stix
web posted March 22, 2004
Seeing Rosie O'Donnell condemn President George W. Bush
just after she "married" her girlfriend, Kelli Carpenter, was
bizarre in a tiresome sort of way. O'Donnell claimed, "We were
inspired to come here by the sitting president and the vile and
vicious and hateful comments he made."
If O'Donnell had any sense of humor or irony, she would look at
herself in the mirror and say, "Gee, for such a tolerant, open-
minded person, I sure do condemn and vituperate an awful lot,
especially on what should have been the happiest day of my life."
Maybe I'm some sort of pervert, but I don't recall bearing
anyone in the world any ill will on my wedding day, much less
having decided to get married, just to spite someone.
O'Donnell is in the habit of changing her rationalizations for her
"wedding," at a moment's notice. First, it was a reaction to her
inability, during her lawsuit last fall against Gruner &
Jahr/Bertelsmann, the publisher of her defunct magazine, to use
"spousal privilege" to keep her girlfriend from being called to
testify. Her "marriage" couldn't be a desperate attempt at
publicity for her forthcoming book, considering the tens of
millions of dollars she lost, due to her failed TV talk show, her
failed magazine, and the bomb of a Broadway musical she
produced about gay pop star, Boy George, could it?
But I'm less concerned with O'Donnell's opportunism, than I am
with her vileness, her viciousness, her hatefulness. I have my
policy differences with President Bush, but I do not question his
compassion or tolerance, which are inseparable from his
But if you disagree with Rosie O'Donnell, you're a "hater," pure
and simple. I'm focusing on O'Donnell, because I think she
exemplifies the gay movement. Like New Yorkers, gay activists
are the most compassionate, tolerant people on earth – just ask
them, they'll tell you. But disagree with any of their demands, and
they'll yell things at you that would make a guest on The Jerry
Springer Show blush. (The first time I tried to see the movie
Basic Instinct, in early 1993, I think it was, gay vandals
shut down the theater with stink bombs, to "protest" that the
serial killer was bisexual. Not that they would admit that it was
they who had done the deed. As a heterosexual couple walked
away from the theater at Manhattan's Union Square, a lesbian
vandal yelled at the woman, "Go home and fake some orgasms!
And the thing gay activists hate more than anything else, is
Now, I could get arrested for saying this in New York, but the
gay campaign for same-sex marriage is a war on Christianity.
And while I'm apparently not permitted to say the following
anywhere in America, America is a Christian nation … and you
don't have to be a Christian to recognize this. (I'm a Jew.)
It was the unique mixture of political freedom and Christianity
that produced in America the most religious nation in the West,
and the freest, most religiously tolerant nation on Earth. (Some
commentators speak of attacks on "Judaeo-Christian ethics," but
I have to confess ignorance of any "Judaeo-Christian" religion.)
Secularists insist that the "constitutional wall of separation of
Church and state" forbids discussing religious issues in political
debates. To which I say: Show me where it says that in the
The notion of a "constitutional" wall of separation of Church and
state derives from a personal position Thomas Jefferson took in
a letter to an acquaintance 200 years ago. But secularists like it,
and so they have projected it onto the Constitution. Better
similes, more in tune with the Constitution, would be of a
"balance" or even a "dance." Besides, secularists aren't even true
to Jefferson; they seek not the separation of religion from
government, but the burying of religion, as one would bury
radioactive waste. In any event, the
First Amendment does not suggest a wall:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances."
The part before the first comma is known as the "establishment
clause"; the part immediately following it, is known as the "free
exercise clause." Together, they balance each other. Gays and
other radical secularists seek to nullify the free exercise clause,
and replace the religious assumptions of the establishment clause
with anti-religious ones. And so, instead of the government not
giving preference to any particular denomination, secularists and
gay activists demand that government be hostile towards, and
use its coercive power against religion, excepting.
Gay activists deny that if they succeed in imposing same-sex
marriage on America, that they will seek to force it on religious
institutions. To anyone who believes them, I say, I have a great
deal for you on a slightly used bridge. For years, homosexual
activists denied that they sought same-sex marriage, right up until
the moment, last June 26, that the U.S. Supreme Court
overturned the Texas sodomy law.
I predict that if gay marriage becomes the law of the land,
religious freedom will be a dead letter. Gays will use the same
carte blanche interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment they
have used in demanding same-sex marriage, in which "equality"
somehow always requires that they be "more equal" than others,
to demand that churches and synagogues be forced by the state
to perform same-sex marriages (or lose their tax-exempt status,
be sued, their clergymen arrested, and/or houses of worship shut
down by government officials), that devout Christians be forced
to rent apartments to gay couples, and that Christian
organizations be forced to hire openly homosexual applicants.
And once they have gotten enough gay "hate crime" and "anti-
discrimination" laws passed at the state and federal level, gay
activists will have people prosecuted, merely for disagreeing with
them. That'll take care of freedom of speech.
Why are gay activists so intent on forcing Christianity to submit
to them? Because Christianity is foundational to America, and
they want to replace America's foundations with those of their
own choosing. And because Christianity condemns sodomy, and
gay activists will not abide being told, "No." Theirs is a
totalitarian will. They will have their way, even if it means having
the Bible censored, and remaking God in their own image.
Nicholas Stix can be reached at Add1dda@aol.com.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com