In the Marriage Debate, Better Tears Now Than Tears Later
While passionately pleading with her U.S. House colleagues to reject the wicked, and grossly misnamed, “Respect for Marriage Act,” (RFMA) GOP Representative [Rep.] Vicki Hartzler (MO) broke down in tears:
Despite her pleas, the House passed RFMA with only -- but far from united -- GOP opposition. This awful legislation (soon to be law after it is signed by LGBT-devoted President Biden) which seeks to codify same-sex “marriage” into federal law, is yet another egregious attack on the truth by those dedicated to the theology of self. What’s more, it is a direct attack against the U.S. Constitution. As Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) recently put it, “It’s an absolute abomination with respect to… religious liberty.” In other words, the emotion shown by Rep. Hartzler was quite appropriate.
Nevertheless, liberals mocked and belittled Rep. Hartzler’s heartfelt display of emotion on this very grave issue. Democrat Rep. Ted Liu tweeted, “Want to see tears of hate? Watch the speech below. This MAGA Republican is so hateful of other human beings experiencing the joys of marriage and love that she shed tears of hate.”
Of course, no one should be surprised by Liu’s reaction to Rep. Hartzler’s tears. Liu simply again reminds us that most LGBT apologists -- especially those elected -- aren’t interested in any serious dialogue with anyone who refuses to bow to their evil agenda. Yet, this was far from how they presented their cause merely a few years ago.
As the Left sought full legalization of homosexual behavior throughout the U.S., we were often told that homosexuals merely wanted to be “left alone” and free from the threat of punishment from the government for what went on “in the privacy of one’s home.”
As laws against homosexual behavior disappeared throughout America, the LGBT agenda set its perverse sites on the oldest institution in the history of humanity: marriage. Again, we were told that homosexuals merely wanted the same “rights” as heterosexuals. Alas, as I warned, “live and let live” is not a hallmark of the homosexual agenda.
Nearly two decades ago -- a decade prior to 2015’s infamous Obergefell ruling -- Doug Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, participated in a conference on marriage sponsored by Becket Law and wrote,
Were federal equal protection or substantive due process to be construed to require states to license same-sex marriage, those who have profound moral or religious objection to the social affirmation of homosexual conduct would be argued to be the outliers of civil society.
Therefore, he argued that churches could be targeted for legal penalties and disadvantages as were universities that participated in racial discrimination in the early to mid-twentieth century. Kmiec added that, “This is hardly a far-fetched (idea), as apparently one of the main aspirations of the homosexual movement is retaliation against the defenders of traditional marriage.”
Thus, I concluded in 2014,
There you have it. Ultimately this debate isn’t about marriage or “discrimination.” This is an attempt, using the power of the American legal system, to force moral legitimization of homosexual behavior upon the American people. And it is about revenge upon all those -- past and present -- who have stood, and continue to stand, in the way of such “progress.”
The dubious “Respect for Marriage Act” is likely to be merely another -- albeit powerful -- tool with which to attack right-minded Christians who refuse to budge on the definition of marriage. And take note Christians, as well as those like-minded: it often matters very little how meek and mild you make your case. As Rep. Liu again proves, if you stand for the truth on marriage, the LGBT faithful will almost certainly attack you. You will be called “hateful” and much worse, and you may even suffer physical harm.
Despite these threats and very real dangers, those who know the truth on sex and marriage are to stand strong and continue the fight. We must never give in when it comes to the truth on sex and marriage. In the transgender debate -- which is the tragic, yet logical result of having to debate what is marriage -- and the corresponding absurd issue of “correct pronouns,” biologist and author Colin Wright gets it exactly right:
I cannot stress this enough—DO NOT comply with pronoun exchange rituals. Activists know that being the only person objecting to pronoun exchanges is awkward. That's the point. They want you to mumble their acts of worship and be their unwitting evangelist. Don't do it.— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 12, 2022
Dr. Wright adds, “They will tell you you’re making a big deal out of nothing. But you’re not. You’re refusing to be a vector for a very infectious and harmful mind virus.” The same thing is true in the marriage debate. Never give in to the absurdity that marriage is anything but the union of one man and one woman for life. What is marriage is just as important and foundational to a sound society as what is a male and what is a female.
After the U.S. House passed the RFMA, in an attempt to call out the 169 republicans that voted against it, Rep. Liu tweeted, “The majority of House Republicans are on the wrong side of history.” Never fear that you might be “on the wrong side of history,” for it is far better to be on the right side of the truth than on the right side of history.
When time ends, history -- and mankind’s account of it -- will matter little. What will matter is what is the truth, and did I embrace it or did I reject it. In the end, there will be many bitter tears for those who reject the truth.
Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America