Christians were right about sexuality...but this is no time to gloat
Over at the conservative website RedState, author Sarah Rumpf wrote this provocative thought (emphasis in original):
There are many of us on the right who rolled our eyes when social conservatives warned that gay marriage would be a slippery slope, and soon liberals would be advocating for pedophilia and bestiality and mercy knows what else.
It would be really great if the activist left would stop working so hard to prove their critics right.
Rumpf, who identifies herself as a conservative who "support[s] gay rights," is complaining about the shocking exploitation of a nine-year-old boy by sexually progressive magazine Teen Vogue.
Described by the magazine as "impressive and magical," nine-year-old Nemis Quinn Melancon Golden has been turned into a drag queen named "Queen Lactatia." Nine years old. Drag queen. That's just half a year older than one of my daughters. This manipulation and corruption of an innocent child is not just sickening; it would be criminal in any sane society. As would the disgusting sexual exploitation of children that takes place regularly at so-called gay pride parades and rallies.
But to Rumpf's original point, there was a great deal of effort put into the marginalizing of us "social conservatives" (read: "Christians") over the marriage issue by leftist progressives who seized upon their media stranglehold to paint us as backward bigots intent on depriving people we "hate" of their "right to be happy."
Certainly, there were those among our number who made that dishonest effort all too easy. That didn't help, nor did the willing capitulation of many other self-proclaimed conservatives, who happily tossed their Bible-believing allies under the bus as narrow-minded Chicken Littles in order to attain some kind of cultural approval as the "reasonable conservatives."
The truth is that for those who understand the reality of God and submit to His moral authority, all this sexualizing of our children was glaringly easy to see coming. God's moral law is just as binding as the physical laws He established for our benefit. He gives them to us not to hurt us or deprive us of happiness; He gives them to us for our own protection. We can rebel and break those laws if we choose, but it's as foolish to say there won't be negative consequences for our morality as it would be to say there won't be negative consequences to walking off the edge of a skyscraper, proclaiming we reject God's physical law of gravity.
When Antonin Scalia wrote his scathing dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case, predicting that a tidal wave of sexually immoral permissiveness would follow the ruling, he wasn't just grinding a bigoted axe. He was making a logical deduction – the same logical deduction that many of us "social conservatives" (read: "Christians") made when the Supreme Court did precisely what Scalia had anticipated and effectively "undefined" the institution of marriage in the country.
When you rebel against God, you are rebelling against any firm, logical order for life and morality – including sexual. The consequences are increasingly terrible. They are also predictable.
This isn't a gloating "told you so" rant. There's no point to that. Societally, there is no putting the genie back into the bottle, and we are sentenced now as a people to sleep in the bed that we have made. But what we can do, and should do – and what I implore all people like Ms. Rumpf to do – is recognize what we've done and testify to the better way.
Acknowledge that only in obedience to God can we find freedom from sin and all its ugly consequences, even when those ugly consequences are called "impressive and magical" by those who perish.
Peter Heck is a speaker, author, and teacher. Follow him at @peterheck, email firstname.lastname@example.org, or visit www.peterheck.com.