Dana Milbank is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post. He has been the object of a previous jab in this blog, found here. Milbank is an economic nit-wit and a profound lover of all things government. He never met a government spending program he did not like, unless it was spending money for bombs, and he persists in the belief that the top 49% of the income population of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is still not paying its "fair share" of the total federal income tax burden; all of this despite the fact that the top 49% of the income tax population pays 100% of all federal income taxes. Like I said, Milbank is not the brightest bulb in the bank of lights shining upon the envy-filled citizens of Washington DC.
His most recent column appeared in my Denver Post this morning. It was simply entitled "Love conquers hate." Can you guess where this is going? I bet you can. The reference to "love" is a reference to homosexual relations and the reference to "hate" is in regards to biblical teaching. The argument being made in Milbank's column is that God-hating homosexuals are more loving towards their fellow man that homosexual-hating Christians. Let's consider his argument for a moment. You might be surprised to discover that I generally agree with Mr. Milbank on this one, up to a point.
We are all aware that the Supreme Court of the SDA is presently hearing a case in which the expected decision will make homosexual marriage legal and mandatory in all states. No longer will individual states be permitted to enact Constitutional amendments banning homosexual marriages. All citizens of the SDA will soon be living in the immoral paradise whereby marriage is defined as the union of two men or two women. Thanks to the blessings of the Supreme Court the stigma (does it really still exist?) of being a homosexual couple will be removed forever. No more will homosexuals commit themselves to Romeo and Romeo-like suicide death pacts because they are unable to express their love for each other publicly. No more will closet homosexuals (are any of these still around?) be forced to suffer with terminally low self-esteem. Life in the SDA will be almost like homosexual heaven, whatever that is.
As is usually the case when the Supreme Court is hearing an emotionally charged case, the physical confines surrounding the court building are filled with members from the two camps which have a vested interest in the outcome of the hearing. As is also usually the case in situations like this, by far the greatest number of people present are those who are in support of a ruling that will change the law to give them most protected status by the government. The rest of us are just too busy to spend our time marching around government buildings, calling upon our rulers to "leave things just the way they are!"
Apparently Dana decided to wander over to the circus to see what was going on. I have no idea if what he describes is accurate or not. Given his pro-homosexual bias it would be hard to imagine that he is seeing things clearly as he reports upon the festivities. But for the sake of argument today, I will presuppose that Dana's description of the event is precisely what I would have witnessed if I had the misfortune of being there. Dana begins by telling me that, "The biblical-marriage demonstrators were outnumbered 5 to 1 or more outside the Supreme Court Tuesday morning, but they were not lacking in vitriol or vulgarity." He then proceeds to quote several of the signboards he witnessed being carried by the Christians who were present. Those quotes include, "Homo Sex is Sin," "Dirty Homo, Stop Sinning," "Fags are Beasts" and the infamous "God Hates Fags."
Dana draws a conclusion from what he has just seen. He writes, "With opponents like these, is it any wonder that the cause of gay equality is prevailing?...This is how gay men and lesbian women won the battle for gay marriage in American public opinion; not with belligerence, but by peaceful example." His conclusion, although logically consistent, is inaccurate because he supports it with several inaccurate presuppositions.
His first inaccurate presupposition is an example of the old euphemism that one can gather more bees with honey rather than vinegar. That expression is the clear result of a purely utilitarian view of the world. It does not take moral absolutes into consideration. Yes, it is true, one can gather more bees with honey than vinegar but who said that gathering honey is something that should be done? Dana is proud of his homosexual brethren because they are being kind and polite while the Christians are being loud, rude and hateful. He concludes that Amerikans have converted over to pro-homosexual opinions precisely because homosexuals are nicer people than Christians. That observation may, in fact, be true. But it entirely misses the point. Should we convert over to a pro-homosexual view? That is the question.
The second incorrect presupposition, and it is a deadly one, is that pubic opinion is what determines morality. Christians say that homosexual behavior is immoral because the God who exists and has revealed Himself to us through the propositional revelation of the Bible says so. Homosexuals, and those who support them, say that homosexual behavior is moral because the majority of the citizens of the SDA say that it is. Last year smoking marijuana in Colorado was immoral. Today it is moral. Why? Because the majority of citizens of Colorado changed their minds about marijuana. The key point here is that morality is determined by majority vote, not by seeking to find God's opinion on the matter. God has been voted out of the equation by the god known as "the people." The people will allow no competition so God must go.
Dana went on to describe how a couple of allegedly hate-filled Christians were taunting the allegedly kind and loving homosexuals. One Christian man, dressed in military fatigues, said that, "Jesus Christ was not pro-homosexuality....This is what a man looks like you fags." In response to that taunt the kind and loving homosexuals in the audience gently maneuvered themselves around him, to the point where they had him encircled, and proceeded to "softly" sing the old Christian song entitled "This Little Light of Mine." They then invoked the blessing of God upon the intolerant Christian, telling him that they loved him and that love will always conquer hate. The homosexuals also informed him that "we are all God's children."
I agree that there are times when homosexuals are nicer and more polite than Christians. That is especially true when they know they are about to win the argument and obtain the endorsement of the federal government. It appears as if what Dana witnessed was one of those times. But there are also times when being kind and polite is not the correct way to behave. When you see a semi-tractor trailer bearing down upon an old woman crossing the street in a wheelchair do you kindly and gently attempt to inform her to get out of the way or do you abruptly physically grab her chair and jerk it out of the way, hopefully with her still in it?
Ultimately only one opinion matters. God has the final say in all of the affairs of men. Whether men preach the truth of God out of good motives or bad motives does not really matter in the grand scheme of things. God does not change. That is historic Christian truth. The Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God and it has not changed. God's opinion on homosexuals has not changed. Unless they repent they are damned to the Lake of Fire for eternity. I don't consider the fact that I wrote that statement an example of hateful behavior because homosexuals are just like little old ladies in wheelchairs crossing the street. The truly hateful thing to do is to turn away and say nothing about her plight and theirs.