THE NON-CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE

I was reminded this Martin Luther King Day of a post I wrote last March about what that great man would think of the "Gay Rights" movement. As reported in typical fashion by today’s Washington Post, the homosexual lobby has co-opted Kings terminology and tried to make his battle for racial equality equivalent to their struggle for social approval.

The November elections seemed to spell trouble for
the gay equal rights movement, what with 11 new state laws banning
same-sex marriages and wins for social conservatives in Congress.    

Now, after weeks of soul-searching and much internal,
and even public, debate over how to navigate the current political
waters, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organizations,
known as LGBT rights groups, have a plan: to advance an ambitious
agenda, including marriage rights.

…"We plan on working in a coordinated fashion," said Winnie Stachelberg,
political director of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national
gay advocacy organization. "The moment that we’re in now in our civil
rights movement is acknowledging that we play different instruments and
have different strengths, but we want to hear from that orchestra
together."

However, the gay agenda is clearly not the same as King’s civil rights fight. It is different on at least two levels.

First, skin color is a physical characteristic, homosexuality is a sexual desire, most often accompanied by sexual behavior. Fighting for the equal opportunity of people based on things like skin, eye and hair color if far different than fighting for social acceptance of people based on their thoughts and behavior. Thoughts and behavior are moral categories, skin color isn’t. Thoughts and behaviors can be right or wrong, skin color can’t. And it does not matter if you are born with a  natural tendency toward certain desires or behavior – they still can be judged right or wrong. For instance, most people are born with a natural tendency toward desiring after someone other than their spouse and many act on those impulses. That doesn’t make lust and adultery right. In the same way, even if some people are born with homosexual tendencies, that does not exempt them from moral judgment.

This leads to the second big difference between Dr. Kings struggle and the current gay agenda. His civil rights movement, as many before it, was based on the fact that the God of the Bible had made everyone equal and did not like his people mistreated. The base argument against racial prejudice is that it is a sin. There is no deeper reason to fight against it. The gay movement has no such grounding. Not only do they not have theological support for their position, sound theology is loudly against their position. The same God that drove Martin Luther King to act against the sin of prejudice and oppression clearly thinks that homosexuality is a sin as well.

If only Dr. King could take the pulpit today.