- Created on Wednesday, 09 May 2012 17:08
Generally speaking, the homosexual movement has had difficulty convincing the American public opinion on matters like same-sex “marriage.” Ballot initiatives across the country have handed the movement resounding defeats as can be seen in the recent North Carolina primary where same-sex “marriage” was defeated by a landslide. Even in more liberal states, such initiatives have been rammed through the legislature or approved by judicial fiat.
With this failure, the movement has adopted a new strategy. It is now aiming at conquering city by city and town by town. Most voters pay some degree of attention to state and national issues. However, local voters are often not aware of issues right under their nose. The public is accustomed to seeing most local issues as concerned with streets, parks, and local ordinances. Rarely do they expect to see homosexual issues on the local ballot.
It appears the homosexual movement is attempting to take advantage of this lack of awareness by slipping in anti-discrimination ordinances that can have great ramifications on churches, private associations and businesses. These anti-discrimination ordinances come in many forms, but all of them challenge traditional and scientific notions of gender. In a good number of these proposed ordinances gender becomes subjective. In other words, I am whatever I say I am, not what biology says that I am.
One such instance is the debate now in Salina, Kansas. A proposed anti-discrimination ordinance would grant protected class status to individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity. According to the website of the City of Salina, sexual orientation is defined as, “actual, or perceived (our emphasis) male or female heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality by inclination, practice, or expression.”1
Gender identity is defined as, “having or expressing a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s gender.” The designation, “not traditionally associated” would be laughable were it not so serious. It is the equivalent of trying to make 4 + 4 = 1, or 5 or whatever one wants the sum to equal.
These ordinances, if passed, will further blur the distinction between male and female and right and wrong. God made each person to be either male or female, there is no other option despite what the individual may believe. A person with a psychological condition may incorrectly think that he or she is a male or female, however that does not alter the biological fact. Passage of such ordinances will contribute to the already serious identity problems that children face today because of false notions portrayed by the media and entertainment industries.
Even more serious is the threat to the freedom of the Church. According to the questions section from the city of Salina, Kansas concerning this ordinance, it is stated that churches that rent parish halls to the general public would have to comply with this ordinance.2 In other words, if this ordinance passes, parishes which rent their halls to the general public would have to allow homosexual groups to rent their halls.
Truth is not subjective, neither is gender. It is not too much of a stretch for a society that thinks that an unborn child is a blob of tissue to decide that a male can be female or that a female can become a male subject to their whim. The book of Genesis states, “male and female He created them.” 3
Such ordinances seem to be spreading. In the state of Kansas alone, an anti-discrimination ordinance was passed in the small city of Manhattan, then rescinded upon election of a new city council. The capital city of Topeka attempted to pass a domestic partnership registry that went down in defeat. In the university town of Lawrence, pro-family groups received very little notice to oppose the proposed anti-discrimination ordinance which sadly passed. Ordinances will be voted upon in Salina and Hutchinson. Others are being proposed in Wichita and Pittsburg.
Communities in Nebraska, Florida, Pennsylvania and Utah are facing similar challenges. There are probably other communities that have not yet shown up on the radar screen.
The best defense against these measures is to pick them up on the radar. Usually, their advocates try to pass them quickly and without much attention. When a controversy breaks out, it has the good effect of awaking opposition. Then such ordinances can be met with opposition in the form of petitions, calling, letter writing, emailing and publicly protesting this assault upon faith and family.
3. Genesis 1:27