Why conservatives are abandoning the 'gay' issue

"Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?" – 1 Corinthians 6:19 NKJV

Sex is sacred.

For millennia, this biblical principle was the bedrock moral value of the Western World.

The mysterious portal through which human beings enter this world, sex was to be reserved exclusively for a man and a woman joined permanently by marriage vows, and all other forms and circumstances of sexual expression were forbidden – locked away, as it were, in a sort of Pandora’s Box, heavily guarded by the sentinels of Judeo-Christian Civilization. Confining sex to marriage was universally seen as essential to strong marital unions and secure families, and thus to the very fabric of civilization itself.

However, this strict but divinely inspired and life-protecting moral code – after enabling century after century of dazzling societal evolution in the Western world – has unraveled in our own lifetimes.

The change first emerged into stark public view during the 1960s under the banner of "sexual liberation" and "gay liberation." While the public was distracted by colorful spectacles of youthful rebellion, psychedelic drug use and the rock "invasion," just below the surface a full-bore assault on Western institutions and values – particularly traditional sexual morality – was taking place.

As I show in "How Evil Works," the well-documented leftist infiltration and subversion of virtually all of America's institutions during the last two to three generations has included, front and center, the sabotage of traditional morality and religion. After all, from the Marxist perspective, if you're serious about transforming America – from a land of limited government and individual liberty rooted in a transcendent, faith-based moral code to a population of compliant, needy people dependent on a god-like government – you simply must separate the population from Judeo-Christian values and morality. As John Adams put it: "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

Today, a half-century after the tumultuous '60s, what began then has evolved to heights and depths of sexual anarchy and depravity simply unimaginable to previous generations. It's as though some of us sneaked up to Pandora's Box, killed or seduced the guards, broke the locks, opened the box wide and blew up the lid. And the sexual genie, once restrained but now liberated, has penetrated virtually all areas of life and conjured up an ongoing societal transformation.

Find out how corruption and tyranny are being packaged, perfumed and gift-wrapped – and sold to Americans as though they were wonderful! Read David Kupelian's culture-war classic "The Marketing of Evil" and his just-released sequel, "How Evil Works."

We've progressed way beyond free sex. News reports today showcase an epidemic of school teachers having sex with their underage students, teen "sexting" and rampant middle-school "hookups," transgenders marching in parades proudly displaying their surgically mutilated bodies, and ever-increasing tolerance of adult-child sex.

Perhaps most troubling – at least in terms of its potential to shred the fabric of Judeo-Christian civilization – is so-called "same-sex marriage." The God-ordained union of man and woman, the wellbeing of children (who need both father and mother), the soundness of the family as the basic "cell" of a strong and healthy body politic – all this vanishes when the sacredness of marriage is violated and mocked.

As I will shortly explain, if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, moral confusion will dominate our culture, polygamy and other aberrant forms of "marriage" will quickly follow, traditional Christianity will be essentially criminalized, and much more. In a word, America will become unrecognizable.

But first, why is the radical homosexual agenda – including same-sex marriage – advancing right now in America?

Why was one openly homosexual judge able recently to overturn the clear will of the majority of California voters in striking down Proposition 8, which had prohibited same-sex marriage?

Why did the U.S. Senate confirm, with only half-hearted dissent, Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court – a leftwing activist who is either a lesbian, as first reported by CBS News (before being intimidated by the White House into deleting the story), or even if she is not, has a track record of fanatical support for the homosexual activist agenda?

Why is the U.S. Congress, over the urgent pleas of over 1,100 retired generals and admirals who know better than anyone the dangers of allowing open homosexuals in the military, poised to overturn "don't-ask-don't-tell" so gays can flaunt their aberrant sexual lifestyle throughout the U.S. armed forces?

Why are sincere Bible-believing Christians being persecuted, fined and sometimes incarcerated, just for holding to the clear teachings of their religion, which unambiguously condemns homosexuality as a serious sin?

Very simply, most people in today's America, including conservatives, are afraid of "the gay issue." Although most know deep down there's something wrong with homosexuality, they don't want to be called "intolerant," "bigoted," "hateful" or "homophobic." Even though they don't really want open gays in the military, and disapprove of same-sex marriage, are repulsed by Obama's appointment of notorious gay activist Kevin Jennings as the nation's "safe schools" czar, and on and on – the "gay issue" no longer registers on their radar screen as one on which they should take a public stand.

In fact, much of "conservatism" has morphed in recent years into "libertarianism" – which is basically conservatism minus the moral, faith-based dimension. Thus it is that even high-profile conservative warriors seem to be abandoning the "gay issue":

Last week, Glenn Beck told Bill O'Reilly he didn't see a problem with same-sex marriage, prompting the Washington Post to run a story headlined "Glenn Beck, gay marriage advocate?" Here's how the exchange went down:
O'Reilly: "Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?"

Beck: "A threat to the country?"

O'Reilly: "Yeah, is it going to harm it in any way?"

Beck: (laughing) "No I don't. Will the gays come and get us?"

O'Reilly: "No, OK, is it going to harm the country in any way?"

Beck: "I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: 'If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?'"

Whoa. Is this the same Glenn Beck who previously has said he opposed same-sex marriage, even warning that legalizing gay marriage will inevitably lead to legalizing polygamy?
Conservative superstar Ann Coulter is scheduled to deliver the keynote address at – are you ready? – the "HOMOCON 2010" conference of "conservative homosexuals" sponsored by GOProud, a Republican gay organization that backs same-sex marriage and homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military. Excuse me, but same-sex marriage and repeal of "don't-ask-don't tell" don't sound exactly like conservative positions.
You may have heard of GOProud before – it was a proud sponsor of this year's Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. The largest conservative annual gathering in the country, CPAC ignored calls from genuine conservative groups not to allow GOProud to sponsor the conference.

There are many other examples, even among top conservatives. It seems most, if not all, are falling away from this jugular issue for the same reason: They're afraid, and the convenient slide from conservatism to libertarianism – invisible when the issue at hand is government spending, taxation and regulation – comes into full view when dealing with moral issues like homosexuality.

Why are they afraid? The gay activist movement relies heavily on intimidation (or "jamming," as their marketers label it) and no one likes to be mocked, marginalized, demonized, called ugly names, boycotted, persecuted, prosecuted for "hate crimes" (thought crimes, actually), fined or imprisoned.

Moreover, many might understandably ask: With a maniacal Marxist coup underway in Washington, an economy in dire freefall, a wholesale invasion of the U.S. across our southern border and a 13-story mosque about to be built at Ground Zero – who the heck cares about same-sex marriage?

The answer is: You better care, because once gay marriage is legalized in America – something for which there is virtually no precedent in the 5,000 years of Western Civilization – your schools will be required to teach your children that homosexuality is totally normal, your pastors and rabbis will fear preaching their faith's core moral values, and gender confusion and immorality will reign supreme in America.

Moreover, polygamy will inevitably be legalized also, since there simply will no longer be any legal basis for keeping polygamy illegal. For Muslims living in the U.S., for whom polygamy is allowed under the Quran (up to four wives), we will see large numbers of polygamous marriages within the United States of America, just as there are in France today – where polygamy is still illegal! (The French so fear their Muslim subculture, they don't enforce the law. In fact, French taxpayers pay for free housing for many polygamous Muslims, subsidizing special multi-room apartment units to accommodate the various wives and their children.) And of course, polygamy's legalization in the U.S. will serve as a powerful magnet to draw vastly more Muslims to immigrate to the U.S., and no doubt will encourage more American men to convert to Islam to give religious cover to their dreams of convening their own personal harem.

Beyond man-man, woman-woman and polygamous "marriages," every other type of degenerate combination imaginable – and unimaginable – will be civilly sanctified in America as marriage. If two men can be married, then three men can be married. It's difficult to grasp just how perverse life will be in that kind of nightmare America.

Perhaps most ominous, the official normalization of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, has the unique potential to undermine Christianity and render it effectively illegal.

The two competing worldviews cannot mutually co-exist: Traditional, Bible-believing Christians believe homosexuality – like adultery and fornication – is a serious sexual sin. On the other hand, the goal of gay rights is the total normalization and de-stigmatization of homosexuality, to render sexual orientation officially equivalent to race, color and gender as a minority characteristic to be protected. If the latter view becomes sanctified in American law and culture, then a person who expresses the belief that homosexuality is a sin will become a social outcast, like the Ku Klux Klansman is today. That is, opposing sexual immorality because it violates God's laws of life will be considered identical to, and equally reprehensible as, an irrational hatred of blacks and Jews.

Interestingly, after the exchange between Beck and O'Reilly, Beck added that he was OK with same-sex marriage "as long as we are not going down the road of Canada where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech."

Glenn, it will go down "the road of Canada" and other Western countries where Christians are persecuted for openly expressing deeply held biblical views. It has to. Remember Ake Green, the Swedish pastor who was sentenced to a month in jail for criticizing homosexuality during a sermon he gave in his own church? I explain why this extreme level of repression is inevitable in "The Marketing of Evil":

Where and when will this "gay rights" public relations steamroller stop? The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, but also to prohibit and even criminalize public criticism of homosexuality, including the quotation of biblical passages disapproving of homosexuality.

In other words, total jamming of criticism with the force of law. This is already essentially the case in Canada and parts of Scandinavia. "Why?" you might ask. "I thought gays just wanted equal rights and to be free to do what they want in their own bedrooms." No, they've had that for years.

Their campaign will not end until Christians and other traditionalists opposing homosexuality are shut up, discredited, and utterly silenced – and all because of a little factor we've forgotten about in our cleverness, namely this: In truth, there is something wrong with homosexuality.

Simply put, it is unnatural and self-destructive – just as Western Civilization has long understood it.

Advertisement - story continues below

Homosexual activists fancy their cause as identical to that of blacks and the '60s civil rights movement. But being black is not unnatural and self-destructive. Being of African origin obviously doesn't involve fleeing one's own conscience and the author of that conscience – God.

It's not about rights. It's about redefining truth and censoring all criticism so that militant homosexuals can be comfortable in their "lifestyle" without having to be disturbed by reality.

Remember, all of us – homosexuals included – have a conscience (that other-dimensional standard that God has tucked away inside each of us) that causes us inner conflict when we're doing the wrong thing.

But if we tumble into the grip of dark forces we don't understand and then start to defend our obsessions and compulsions, we inevitably come to regard our conscience as an enemy. And although we may be somewhat successful in drowning out that inner warning bell, what happens when this same rejected conscience factor appears in another person and gets too close to us for comfort? We feel threatened.

Advertisement - story continues below

Therefore, we feel compelled to silence the "voice of conscience" – not just the one inside of us, but the one in other people, which tends to revive our own conscience with which we're at war. This means we can't tolerate dissent. We simply can't stand it. It makes us want to scream.

To the homosexual living in denial, then, even a loving offer of help from, say, a Christian ex-gay ministry or "reparative therapy" counselor (to help overcome homosexual addiction) feels like the most vile, abusive hatred. In fact, it's real love – which we misinterpret as hatred and "bigotry" simply because it causes us to confront a truth that is not welcome in us.

In the end, there are only two choices: Either we acknowledge as a society, with love and tolerance, that there is something wrong with homosexuality – as we affirmed for centuries, from the Pilgrims' time until just recently – or we go into terminal denial and tell each other homosexuality is perfectly normal and healthy. If we go that way, we are denying the core moral lessons not just of Christianity and Judaism, but of common sense, experience, medicine and history.

Once we rip the lid off Pandora's Box, we can't control what flies out. No tea party rally, no mid-term election, can put it back in the box. Therefore, my conservative friends, while you're fretting over the bad economy, and the unguarded border and the inmates running the asylum in Washington, think on these things also, and ask yourself:

If preserving America's moral values isn't worth fighting for, what is?

The abortion lesson

In closing, let's learn the hard lesson of the other big "social issue" of our age, abortion. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to strike down all abortion laws in all 50 states with Roe v. Wade. Why did they do that, and with such a wide majority?

We gave them permission. By the end of 1972, more than a dozen states had laws permitting abortion under some circumstances. The "abortion-rights" vanguard group, NARAL, founded by Dr. Bernard Nathanson and Lawrence Lader, had persuaded the press – and through the press, much of the public – that legalizing abortion was the right thing to do. As I document in "The Marketing of Evil," Nathanson detailed to me how he and others laid the marketing groundwork for media and public acceptance of abortion, followed by total legalization by the Supreme Court.

"We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one," the now repentant Nathanson told me, explaining the gallingly cynical and dishonest methods of persuasion he and others used:

Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1 million.

Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

As a result, in 1973, with the permission of the public, press and various states, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to unrestrained abortion and the deaths of tens of millions of innocents.

The gay rights movement has also been engaged for many years in a stunningly effective marketing campaign, as I have documented in detail, laying the groundwork for the Supreme Court's eventual imposition of its will on the entire nation. And since the current Supreme Court is likely split on gay marriage 4 to 4, one black-robed man will again decide the future of Western Civilization.

Don't give him permission to vote the wrong way.

What do I mean? Can you imagine what would have happened had a judge ruled in 1810 instead of 2010 – two centuries ago – that it's perfectly fine for men to marry men? The probable outcome would have been: A) He would have been impeached – before lunch – and that's if he were lucky. B) If he were not lucky, he would have been challenged to a duel, or C) he would have been so fearful of the outraged population that he would have slipped out of town on an early stagecoach, never to be heard from again.

Can you imagine the Supreme Court ruling in 1773 instead of 1973 – two centuries ago – that it's perfectly fine to rip beautiful little preborn babies apart, suck out their brains, chemically burn them alive, or tear them limb from limb with forceps? For the probable outcome, see A, B and C above.

Good, decent Americans are losing the war over "gay rights" – even though they have been winning virtually all of the battles – because they're surrendering! State election after state election proves voters do not want same-sex marriage. Why retreat when you're winning?

Say no. Stop giving permission for the forces of corruption and confusion to transform your country so that your children grow up in a land unrecognizable to our founding fathers.

Oh, and speaking of our founding fathers, Glenn: The three founders you picture daily on your Fox TV show under the heading "Faith. Hope. Charity" – namely Sam Adams, George Washington and Ben Franklin – would have been horrified, appalled and aghast at the mere thought of men marrying men and women marrying women.

If you want to honor the founders, don't abandon their values.

America, you have a choice right now. Hold to what you know deep in your heart is right, even if both your enemies and your friends give you a hard time. Or, take the easy route and be comfortable, but lose your culture, your country, your children, and ultimately your self-respect.

If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.