Gay activists arrested at Liberty University. WorldnetDaily Reports
On the first stop of a 51-day “gay-rights” bus tour aimed at bringing media attention to the non-admission policies for gays at 20 Christian colleges and military schools, 24 members of the Soulforce Equality Ride found themselves sitting in the Lynchburg, Virginia, jail, arrested for trespassing at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and facing possible $2,500 fines and a year in jail.
"It is now our firm belief that Soulforce is not acting in good faith and is simply trying to use such encounters on Christian college campuses as a media attraction and for their ultimate purpose of fundraising," Chancellor Falwell said in a written statement.
Liberty had been targeted by an earlier version of the Equality Ride last year and has a long history of dealings with Soulforce, the homosexual group started by Mel White, a writer who once worked for Falwell.
Equality Ride is modeled after the "freedom rides" of the 1960's civil rights movement and the group, many wearing buttons reading "Learn from history," says its cause is the same as ending racial discrimination was a generation ago.
Alan posted the other day about gay identified activists in Boise making up discrimination to prove their case. I don't think that the soulforce activists are making things up ...
... but I agree that they are not placing all their cards on the table. Jerry is right, it is all for the media show. I learned, while in Azusa, that soulforce sends out letters to local police stations "alerting" them that they will be taking "direct actions" against whatever groups they are protesting.
They want to be arrested. They want the pictures of being handcuffed and halled off to jail because that is the only way they will experience the "image" of discrimination under which they claim to live. In reality, they are disrespectful of other people's beliefs and seek to impose their own morality on these organizations to the point of breaking legitimate laws. They aren't seeking to talk to a few students, they were wanting a public fight, not dialog.
By framing the debate as one of "equality" with the issues of civil rights, they have made a serious tactical mistake. Not only is it not comparable, it is likely to anger other groups who legitimately earned protected class status.
The three criteria set forth in the Civil Rights act of 1964 are
1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination,
2) economic disadvantage, and
3) immutable characteristics.
(From the Liberty Counsel's site)
"The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1)a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics.
The longstanding discrimination resulted in obvious economic disadvantage. Race, color, sex and national origin all share the same common bond of having immutable characteristics. Although religion is the sole category within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that does not share the exact pattern of the immutable physical characteristics, the characteristic of immutability or inalienability is deeply rooted in the founding of the country and became part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. All five categories within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have specific constitutional amendments protecting each class. These constitutional amendments existed prior to the historic 1964 legislation.
"Sexual orientation" does not meet any of the three objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil rights categories. Thus, "sexual orientation" should not be elevated to the category of a protected civil right. At a recent public hearing in Orlando, Florida where the public was invited to speak about a proposal to add "sexual orientation" to the city code, the homosexual community could only find three people who presented potentially legitimate claims of employment discrimination. The rest of the comments focused on the desire to amend the code or hearsay of someone who faced discrimination twenty years ago! No one presented any information about discrimination in public facilities or housing. During the congressional debates over the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which now fills almost 9,000 pages of Congressional Record), the stories of real discrimination were not hard to find.
Typically real discrimination results in economic disadvantage. This is so because people are excluded from the political and economic marketplace. However, a person's "sexual orientation", or more accurately stated, "sexual preference", has not resulted in economic disadvantage. To the contrary, the homosexual community maintains an economic advantage over the heterosexual community. In 1991, the Wall Street Journal published information from the Simmons Market Research Bureau and the United States Census data based on figures from 1988. The survey showed that the average annual income for homosexuals was over $55,430 compared to the national average of $32,144. Simmons Market Research Bureau's first survey was released in 1989. Their second survey, which was released in 1996, produced similar findings. The 1996 study found that 28% of gays earned more than $50,000, while 21% of gay households had incomes over $100,000. A gay research group known as Overlooked Opinions reported similar findings following a survey released in 1993. One internet census reported that 22% of gays and 20% of lesbians had an income of between $70,000 and $100,000, while 29% of gays and 16% of lesbians had incomes in excess of $100,000. This survey was based upon 2001 statistics of 6,351 individuals who identified themselves as gay, lesbian or transgender.
"Sexual orientation" does not include immutable characteristics. One need not debate whether homosexuality is genetic or social. The definition of "sexual orientation" includes the status of being, or the perception of being heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. The definition therefore includes the entire spectrum of human sexuality. The lack of immutable characteristics creates a moving target, one that can change from day to day. The lack of immutable characteristics warns against elevating "sexual orientation" to a protected civil rights category.
As a former gay identified man, I know what it is like to be bullied and even beat up for identifying as gay. While being bullied and beat up are wrong, I never sat at the back of the bus. I was never considered a fraction of a person. I have always had the right to vote.
Being gay is not a civil right. True civil rights cannot be forsaken. Many of us have forsaken the pigeonhole of gay ideology.
That said, there are definitely issues worth discussing. Let's talk about shame and fear. Let's talk about the right of self-determination and tolerating what we may not personally accept. Those are great topics but they are not civil rights issues nor do they have to be used as public manipulation of the media for power hungry activist groups.
We at Exodus hear from many colleges and universities ... Christian and otherwise. I don't know of any other institutions in America where this topic is more openly discussed. Believe me, from the limited experience I have had with Liberty University, they are a very loving and open group of students and faculty. The problem with soulforce is that they have attempted to reframe a perfectly good dialog into something completely about their own social agenda and not true dialog to create real opportunities for those struggling with same sex attraction. It is as if they are trying to reframe a statue into a two dimensional drawing. They are using culture war polarization and soundbytes to flatten the discussion to one that has no depth and doesn't give the full (and misleading) picture of this complex topic.
For example, I have only met Mel White maybe half a dozen times and it isn't like he shared his deepest fears and joy with me. I cannot, will not, attack his testimony. Even so, I did pray and my life did change because of the Lord speaking into my reality that I didn't have to be gay (regardless of orientation.)
In other words, my testimony is as valid as Mel White's.
Soulforce's denial of the "ex-gay" existence and overt manipulation of other groups to grab media attention by copying MLK's freedom rides is an insult not only to the true civil rights movement but also the true dialog that could be occurring with regard to legitimate issues.
Hat tip: La Shawn Barber
Comments