In the wee hours of the morning on Nov. 5, 2008, messages of violence and hate began filling many Internet sites identified with support of homosexuality. On the blog JoeMyGod was the call to “Burn their (expletive) churches to the ground and then tax the charred timbers.”
On Queerty.com one person asked, “Can someone in CA (California) please go burn down the Mormon temples there. PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.”
Another wrote, “I’m going to give them something to be (expletive) scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done.”
The cause for all this venom? California voters had approved Proposition 8 by a 52–48 margin defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The action overturned a California Supreme Court ruling a few months earlier legalizing gay “marriage.”
Before one jumps to the conclusion that it was a bunch of conservatives or Republicans or Bible thumpers who forced this issue, remember that the same day Florida voters also adopted a definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Two of the trendsetting states in America that both voted democratic in the presidential elections also voted to uphold marriage as being between a man and a woman. Obviously opposition to gay “marriage” goes beyond the stereotypes homosexual advocates like to use when describing their opponents.
The reactions to the Proposition 8 vote also exploded another stereotype — that homosexuals just want to be accepted, that they promote tolerance and diversity for all.
Not so. Calling for people to burn churches and temples is not promoting tolerance and diversity. It is brutal intimidation. It is an effort to silence disagreement. It is guerrilla warfare.
The recent confrontation in the Miss USA pageant shows how far gays are willing to go to silence their critics. It was a gay activist — Perez Hilton — who introduced the subject of gay “marriage” into the contest. It was a Baptist Christian — Miss California Carrie Prejean — who paid the price.
As a judge, Hilton asked, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex ‘marriage.’ Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
When Prejean answered, “… I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman — no offense to anybody out there — but that’s how I was raised and … I think that it should be between a man and a woman,” her fate was sealed.
Prejean finished first runner up but Hilton himself said she lost because of the way she answered his question. Another judge wrote that she would have made Prejean 51st runner up if she could have because of her answer to Hilton’s question.
But listen to what else Hilton said. He said if Prejean had won, “I would have gone up on stage, snatched the tiara off her head and run out the door.” Is that support for tolerance and diversity? No. It is intimidation. It is a resort to power when one is unable to win in the battle of ideas.
In light of these actions is it any wonder that Christians who oppose gay marriage are concerned about the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 recently adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives and awaiting vote in the Senate? The bill adds sexual orientation to the categories receiving federal protection from hate crimes.
Some wonder if homosexual advocates act this way now, what will happen when they have the power of the law to back them up. Will all speech opposing homosexuality, including religious speech, be against the law?
In all fairness, it must be acknowledged that many legal experts dismiss concern about religious speech against homosexuality as unfounded. They point out that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 bans criminal acts, not speech.
Perhaps, but experience suggests caution. What a law actually means is determined by the courts, not by the authors of a bill or those who voted for it. And what courts will say is unpredictable.
The case of Canadian Hugh Owens makes that point clear. In 1997 Owens purchased an ad in a Saskatchewan newspaper that quoted passages from the Book of Leviticus. He said he purchased the ad as a Christian to counter some of the Gay Pride Week promotion.
Owens was sued by three gay men who claimed the ad exposed them to hatred in violation of the province’s Human Rights Code. During the trial, witnesses for the plaintiffs affirmed that discrimination against homosexuals is a form of prejudice and that the biblical texts created an environment in which people would get hurt.
Owens was found guilty and ordered to pay a $1,500 fine. On appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench, Owens lost again. In his ruling, Justice J. Barclay wrote, “In other words, the Biblical passage which suggests that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred.”
In 2006, nine years after the ad first appeared, Owens was finally exonerated by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal on a divided vote.
U.S. laws and Canadian laws are different. But what is to prevent a pastor from being indicted for incitement to violence or conspiracy to commit violence if some misguided soul hears a sermon opposing homosexuality and then commits some criminal act against a homosexual?
Freedom from violence is an important principle of American society. Baptists and other Christians have been silent too long about the rights of homosexuals to basic rights of every citizen including the right to be free from violence. One does not lose the rights of citizenship because of sexual orientation.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution. We must be careful not to sacrifice this basic right in an effort to ensure the former. If the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 is to be passed, and it seems that it will be passed, then the bill should first be amended to explicitly protect freedom of speech for all citizens including those who oppose homosexuality.
Society will be irreparably crippled if the battle of ideas, including religiously based ideas, gives way to threats and intimidation.
Share with others: