THE SERVANT GENERAL
POSTSCRIPT ON THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
The divide between progressive and traditionalist bishops
at the Synod was basically on how to treat people on the wrong
side of sexuality, that is, those who are into cohabitation,
the divorced and remarried, and same-sex unions. The progressives
would like to be nice, caring, accepting, welcoming, non-judgmental,
merciful, compassionate and even bend “the rules”
backward a bit to accommodate those in such situations. On
the other hand, the traditionalists insist on Christian morality,
truth, Church teaching, renunciation of sin, repentance for
wrongdoing, and healing the wound rather than just putting
balm on it.
This article is relevant to this “debate” (it
is a long read but very important for you to understand the
battle that is raging around us). It is not a question of
being nice, as indeed we as Christians should be “nice”
and compassionate, but rather it is whether being “nice”
threatens the very well-being of what we hold dear. By being
nice, would we be chipping away at the solid foundation of
our faith and of Christian morality? By being nice and keeping
quiet about sin, repentance and hell, would we eventually
find ourselves defending lost causes (faith, family, life,
sexual morality), as a selfist, materialistic and even hedonistic
culture overwhelms us?
The anti-family, anti-life, homosexualist forces want us to
be nice, to be tolerant, to simply love. Well, be assured
that when they start to get their way, they will be (and already
are) the most intolerant and hate-filled, wanting to destroy
our Judeo-Christian life and values. They will go to the extent
of violent oppression and persecution.
There will be a year of discussion and discernment by the
people of God, leading up to the Ordinary Synod in October
2015. So make your voices heard.
Stand up now for the authentic faith of Jesus Christ!
How the pro-family movement helped spread ‘gay
marriage’ across America
“gay marriage” steamroller is in the news again,
with another big win in the courts. Pro-family people across
the country are wringing their hands in anguish. How is this
happening? Well, it’s about time we started being honest
with ourselves. In many ways, the biggest help to the homosexual
cause has been the dishonesty, incompetence, and cowardliness
of the pro-family movement itself in dealing with this issue.
Monday, Oct. 6, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would
not review any of the seven appeals from five states where
federal judges had “struck down” the states’
bans on “gay marriage.” This decision not to act
is seen as a major blow.
is not altogether final. There are two other federal cases
pending, and if either of those rule to uphold the ban (which
is likely) many experts predict that the Supreme Court will
then take it up and decide. In particular, the Sixth Circuit
is most likely (though not certain) to rule to uphold the
it looks to be a losing court battle in the long run. Just
a decade ago no one would have dreamed that the federal court
system would be forcing such a perverse thing on Americans,
especially where they’ve voted overwhelmingly against
did we get to this point?
just a few years ago, “gay marriage” was still
an anomaly that took enormous effort to “legalize.”
It had been voted down in 31 states in a row. In a few states
the homosexual lobby was able to get activist state judges
to rule their way, starting with Massachusetts in 2003. But
their main successes came from a campaign of expensive and
sophisticated lobbying in a handful of liberal state legislatures.
2012 they were able to win in their first four statewide referenda
by outspending the pro-family opponents by enormous margins.
And additional liberal state legislatures fell to their lobbying
blitz. But most of the country was still unreachable by that
came the DOMA and Prop 8 decisions by the US Supreme Court
That was the watershed moment that opened the floodgates.
In the months since, the homosexual movement has been on a
roll in the federal courts. With astonishing speed, they persuaded
dishonest, activist federal judges to cavalierly overturn
state laws and even constitutional amendments in state after
state that banned “gay marriage.”
didn’t happen by accident. The homosexual movement put
together an extremely well funded and well planned campaign
to push this through the courts. It included:
1. Bringing together skilled attorneys, staffs, assorted
2. Shrewd judge-shopping
3. A very well crafted, emotionally compelling legal argument
4. A media and public relations juggernaut
5. “Training” sessions for judges on “gay
marriage” by sympathetic bar associations
6. Psychologically focused lobbying of judges and other
high officials (e.g., telling them, “it’s on
the right side of history” – the classic Marxist
7. Effectively using the influence of a new generation of
gullible, liberal activist federal judges (many of whom
were unopposed by Republicans in their Senate confirmations)
The main legal hammer was the clear misuse of the Fourteenth
Amendment “equal protection” clause, which was
endorsed by the US Supreme court in the DOMA ruling. On its
face, it’s an absurd attempt at legal reasoning that
depends on such ideas as homosexuals being a legitimate “class”
of people, rather than simply people engaging in perverse
and dangerous behaviors. But it is now an “official”
legal construct with the imprimatur of the Supreme Court,
and can be wielded with considerable power.
of this was happening below the radar of the average person,
so these cases looked like a relatively normal set of circumstances,
not the gargantuan legal blitzkrieg that it actually was.
In fact, it’s likely that nothing like this has ever
been seen before in America, or anywhere else.
resulting string of federal court losses have had the psychological
effect on the pro-family movement as happened in early WWII
with the Japanese takeover of the Pacific. Virtually everything
fell, and that momentum seemed unstoppable.
incompetence of the pro-family legal side
overwhelming as the “gay” blitzkrieg was, it would
not have been successful without the terrible incompetence
of the lawyers on our side. This included pro-family lawyers,
state attorneys general, and even private lawyers hired to
painful for us to discuss this. We are reluctant to sound
unkind to the pro-family legal people who worked hard on these
cases. But this is such a horrible outcome that something
must be said.
Many of you may recall that we had a similar reaction to the
pro-family legal team in our analysis of DOMA and Prop-8 cases.
of those cases suffered from an unaggressive and short-sighted
approach that bordered on malpractice. The pro-family side
did not present a credible case in either one. They were deathly
afraid that telling the truth about homosexuality might offend
someone. By not effectively countering the absurd arguments
and assumptions by the homosexual movement, they made it easy
for the judges to rule as they did.
handling of the Prop 8 case was so bad that the Federal District
Court judge the "out" homosexual rebuked
the pro-family lawyers for the lack of evidence they presented!
It was almost as if the judge had no choice but to rule against
us, based on what he had to work with.
then, the same losing strategy has been repeated over and
over across the country. Similar to the Prop 8 debacle, in
some cases it's been so pathetic that the judge almost had
no choice but to award the ruling to the homosexual side.
conservatives were furious at the nasty manner that Federal
Judge Richard Posner slapped down the arguments from the lawyers
of Wisconsin and Indiana. The pro-homosexual press certainly
had a field day with it. But if you read the reports carefully,
you can almost feel a bit of empathy for Posner having to
listen to pathetic legal arguments that never went beyond
“marriage is a tradition” or that “ it’s
about the welfare of children.”
especially frustrating to know that there are so many excellent
and unassailable (albeit not “politically correct”)
arguments and facts about homosexual behavior that were never
pro-family lawyers refused to consider using the vast storehouse
of medical dangers, diseases, psychological problems, addictions,
domestic violence rates, multiple partners, “gay pride”
perversions, or suicidal behavior, etc. associated with homosexuality,
as counter-arguments. They wouldn’t bring up natural
law or morality. They certainly would not talk about the emotional
trauma suffered by children growing up around homosexual behavior.
Nor would they talk about the ex-gay movement (proof that
homosexuality is not inborn) and the changes that come with
our side came up with only soft arguments like "every
child needs a father and a mother," “marriage is
about procreation, ” the need to respect “the
long history of traditional marriage,” and similar blather.
In fact, many lawyers on our side accepted civil unions as
a reasonable alternative and had no argument against homosexual
"parenting" which made their "mother
and father" argument impossible to defend.
speaking, if homosexual behavior is not dangerous and immoral,
but simply something we don’t prefer, then there is
no reason not to let same-sex couples marry. Our people made
their own case virtually unwinnable.
even worse, they accepted the concept of homosexuals as a
“class” of people, which led right into the absurd
pro-gay-rights interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment
decades-long capitulation of the mainstream pro-family movement
be fair, the recent legal fight only reflected the ideological
decay that has enveloped most of the pro-family movement across
America. Though most people probably haven’t even noticed
it, this has emasculated our movement severely.
Massachusetts State Law still describes homosexuality
as "the abominable and detestable crime against nature."
The Bible has similar exhortations. But you wouldn’t
know it by looking at how today’s mainstream “pro-family”
movement in America sidesteps, compromises, and capitulates
on the issue.
problem is most pronounced when you look at it in context
over time. In the early 1990s the national homosexual movement
began pushing an informal list of demands, which they vigorously
pursued in nearly all their actions.
goals from the early 1990s included:
Tolerance of homosexual behavior in general society
as not immoral, but natural
concept of loving homosexual couples as a legitimate part
as a “class” of people protected in law, not
legal sanctions of homosexual “civil unions”
(marriage was to wait until later)
of the concept of young “gay students”
who need protection in schools
of homosexual couples adopting children
to ban discrimination against homosexuality in the workplace
the time they seemed outlandish and offensive. But now
incredibly every one of those demands is accepted
in some way (or not publicly challenged) by the mainstream
pro-family movement in America.
it is almost impossible to find a pro-family group that will
speak publicly against any of those demands; on the contrary,
many pro-family groups will rebuke you as “hateful”
if you do.
A few examples (out of hundreds we could bring up):
Numerous state and national pro-family groups have publicly
supported civil unions and refused to challenge the concept
of “gay” adoptions.
president of a national pro-marriage organization was featured
in a video of his visit to the home of notorious anti-Christian
hater Dan Savage and his “husband” to show his
tolerance of their lifestyle.
2009, the founder and then-board member of a national pro-marriage
organization told a crowd at Boston College Law School,
“It’s possible that gay couples could on average
be much better parents than opposite-sex couples precisely
because they don’t have children as a result of sexual
year, a major theme of the annual rally of a national pro-marriage
organization was “tolerance” and showing that
we’re “not haters.”
the largest pro-family group in Utah posted a nasty attack
against a longtime Utah pro-family leader because she had
described gay parenting as “child abuse.”
our knowledge, no national pro-family conference (generally
held in Washington, DC) has had a speaker on homosexual
medical issues or the homosexual agenda in the schools.
Much of this comes about because pro-family people are afraid
of liberals and don’t want to be called names. They
want to be seen as “reasonable.” They want to
be nice. There is a lot more cowardice in the pro-family movement
than most of us would like to admit.
great deal of this also emanates from a deeply flawed interpretation
of Scripture, which puts being “nice” and “loving”
on a higher level than stopping evil, protecting children,
or even telling the truth. This is the first religious-based
movement we know of certainly in America that
has done that.
can learn a lot from the emerging pro-family groups
in other countries. From Jamaica to Africa to Eastern Europe
and beyond, we have seen pro-family groups that are fearless,
truthful, and understand the battle very clearly.
to be fair, there are some U.S. pro-family groups on the state
and national level and many smaller informal groups
that do the right thing. But sadly, they are in the
misguided grasp of the constitutional role of courts
a federal judge re-define marriage years after a state’s
voters have had their say? Does the US Constitution give the
federal government authority over this kind of issue? Many
feel that it’s a ridiculous idea and an unbelievable
fact, the framers of the US Constitution and most state constitutions
intended for the courts to have very narrow powers, usually
limited to disputes over a case at hand. They did not want
judges to be able to act as unelected dictators, creating,
changing, and removing laws as they pleased, and re-defining
basic terms or changing their intent. Judges have always been
known to be imperfect, and are often swayed by emotion, the
political climate, and egotism. The infamous Dred Scott decision
is often brought up as an example, but there are many others.
hours of the October 6 notification by the Supreme Court,
top public officials (including some “conservative”
Republicans) in Colorado, Wisconsin, Indiana, Utah, and Virginia
declared that gay marriage was now “the law of the land”
(or similar rhetoric) and announced that they would immediately
begin to comply. In other states, officials are holding back.
brings back memories of 2004 when then-Governor Mitt Romney
of Massachusetts was passionately advised by numerous legal
commentators around the country to push back and not extend
the Goodridge “gay marriage” ruling to the entire
state. There was no legal requirement for him to do anything,
they argued. But instead, Romney declared that “it’s
the law now” and went ahead and began implementing "gay
many scholars have argued that courts’ rulings outside
of their particular cases are not “law” and officials
are not compelled to treat them as general law. Furthermore,
what we have now are simply more “Dred Scott”
types of decisions by a federal judiciary that is out of control.
State officials and citizens must look at it in that light.
the context of history one can’t overstate how insane
the actions of the federal courts have been in their “gay
marriage” revolution. They are declaring the equivalent
of 1 + 1 = 3, that the fictional construct of “gay marriage”
(with its nonsensical label “marriage equality”)
not only exists but must be recognized by an unwilling citizenry.
have all suffered because pro-family groups, religious groups,
and legal groups have too often taken the easy road and have
abandoned their moral obligation to tell the truth. It saddens
us to have to say that so bluntly, but it's true.
refocusing of our movement, at least by those willing to take
on the battle, must take place.
with permission from MassResistance
* * *