SPECIAL RIGHTS VS. CIVIL RIGHTS by Gary Morella

he following is in response to advocates of the "million women" march who would include "sexual orientation" as a cause for nondiscrimination in a civil rights sense under the mantra of multiculturalism and diversity.

I respectfully submit that you are wrong for the reasons given below which address the question "is it possible to be Christian and to be homosexual?. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as a Christian, would not agree with your position because the civil rights laws which he fought for were basically a function of skin color and ethnicity which can't be changed as opposed to behavior, in the case of homosexuals, which can. This is well documented and recently verified in a national news report by Dr. King's niece.

Many universities, has confused "diversity" with "perversity" in their providing for the legitimacy of homosexual lifestyles by blatantly promoting same as a part of their multicultural/diversity agenda. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to nondiscrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern. To force the acceptability of such perverse lifestyles under the umbrella of a misplaced compassion, better defined as a pseudo-compassion (reference the writings of Malcolm Muggeridge) is anathema to what the founding fathers intended. And please don't infer by my comments that I'm a "homophobe". I maintain that having a homosexual orientation is not natural. I don't hate anyone. I'm interested in telling that truth which is showing the ultimate charity to homosexuals, not letting them live the lie that the lifestyle which they are living is normal. There are wonderful groups like COURAGE and EXODUS that are making heroic attempts to provide support to homosexuals. I applaud their efforts. What I object to is the propagandizing of the homosexual life- style whether active homosexually or not as being an alternative lifestyle in the sense of heterosexual. Where I coming from you will soon find out if you read what follows objectively. In short, I believe that the inclination, not just the act, is disordered. We are giving the means to overcome these difficulties if we but trust in Someone who suffered much for us. Dr. King, above all, recognized that in his crusade for civil rights. What we're dealing with is a tragedy of epidemic proportions because people are buying into lies. There is even an Australian study which documents that the "pleasure" of the act outweighs the consequences in the minds of many homosexuals.

I once told someone that I could make it without God, without going to Church. They said "lots of luck." They were right. You can't count on yourself alone to overcome the problems awaiting you without support. I conjecture that homosexuals need that because, if not, they will inevitably succumb to the example of the majority and the question of being able to leave chaste lives will become moot. (By the way, you will see below that I make no distinction between homosexuals or heterosexuals in terms of being called to lives of heroic chastity which is only possible by the Grace of God.)

In regard to guarantees that employers could not discriminate against homosexuals in their hiring policy, such assurances for homosexuals can not accurately be classified as "rights," since rights must be based on justice and truth. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, and thus cannot be aligned with justice or with truth. Why should religious organizations be forced to hire those exhibiting a contempt for their beliefs? This is unconstitutional if the free exercise of religion still carries any meaning.

As Ralph McInerney in Catholic Dossier has pointed out, obfuscation has reached the college campuses and campaigns are waged against something called "homophobia," the net effect of which is to suggest that it is the judgment that homosexual acts are sinful that is sinful, not the acts themselves. In this effort, Scripture and magisterial documents are invoked as if they favored homosexuality as erroneously implied in many college editorials. One has a Christian duty, it seems, not to state the Christian message on the matter. During campus campaigns to give recognition to homosexual organiza- tions, no mention is ever made of the serious health dangers that follow homosexual activity. And this on "smoke-free" campuses. Now it is the consequences of the vice that dare not speak their name.

Lenience toward homosexuality is only an aspect of the Dionysian frenzy that characterizes talk of human sexuality. Human persons need the sane and saving doctrine of the Christian witness on homosexuality today more than ever. To give a stone where bread is asked for is unkind. The Church's mission is not to conform to the world, but to judge and save it. Certainly, Dr. King exhibited those qualities in judging the actions of those who would violate the inalienable rights guaranteed all, including unborn babies I might add, under the founding documents of this country.

One of the tragedies of our time is the tendency to encourage homosexuals in their self-deception. Are some people more susceptible than others to this vice? Even if this were so, it is important to acknowledge that everyone is susceptible to it and to every other vice. The moral alternative is not coed and premarital sexual activity with members of the opposite gender. Chastity is required, and possible, in either situation. The tendency to excuse and sanitize homosexual activity must be resisted, just as we should not romanticize infidelity, embezzling or graverobbing.

What is the difference between someone with homosexual tendencies, someone married with adulterous tendancies, and someone unmarried with fornicating tendancies? All are called to be chaste within the various parameters of the definition of chastity given the situation. This is never easy. It is not realizable by man alone but rather a function of God's Grace which is realized through prayer alone. The key thing to remember, however, is that this is NOT an unrealizable goal with proper support from people willing to tell the truth instead of acquiescing to lies of convenience. [Reference THE COURAGE TO BE CHASTE by Benedict Groeschel and the organization COURAGE, a Catholic ministry to homosexuals in accordance with the Magisterium of the Church. Similar Protestant organizations also exist, e.g. EXODUS]

Moreover, what is the difference between being born or acquiring homosexual tendancies (please note that no distinction is made whether or not homosexual genes exist albeit objective scientific literature has refuted all claims to date), and being born or acquiring MS, blindness, heart disease, or cancer? I would submit that those in the latter group have just as heavy if not heavier crosses to bear than those in the former. For the believers in both groups, there is the realization that this life is fleeting with the promise of sufferings endured by the faithful being rewarded in the next life which is eternal.

The Church speaks out because it is concerned with the supernatural as opposed to the natural. It sees the big picture despite the protestations of those whose lifestyles would suffer because of the clarity of same. Ergo, an acceptable level of interference called moral relativism is introduced to make a wrong, recognized for time immemorial by pagans and Christians alike, right.

We're living in a society that believes it is "immortal." We don't need God because a special type of monotheism reigns, the worship of the god in our mirrors. We're all entitled to make the rules because we believe, like Jack Kevorkian, that total autonomy is the answer. We can do anything, say anything we want as long as we don't infringe on the person or property of our neighbor. If that means redefining the family by introducing three sexes to the two of Genesis as was recently attempted at the U.N. womens conference in Beijing, so be it. If the destruction of the family as the foundation of society results as it most assuredly would under this gender redefinition, so be it. If anarchy rules, so be it. Let's live for today. After all, we can do what we want just like the spoiled brat who ignores the warning of his parents and gets burned by getting too close to the stove. The world in its present state is getting too close to the stove. There is a warning being given by God through His Church. If it continues to be ignored, it will be to our eternal regret! And that is a truth that is not being proclaimed in many of our churches as it needs to be considering that said churches remain the last bastions of truth in a world gone mad.

A member of the Canadian House of Commons stated that "after all, a society is judged by how it treats minorities." It is for precisely this reason that the Church is so concerned with the propagation of the lie that the homosexual lifestyle is a viable alternative to the heterosexual. To not speak out on this matter would be to abrogate a responsibility of love for the Faithful in the same manner as ignoring the abortion holocaust or acquiescing to euthanasia. I would submit that a society is judged by how it treats everyone from conception to natural death.

Homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law. But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase. Where does it end? Do we pass special rights laws prohibiting discrimination of those practicing pedophilia such as the National Man/Boy Love Association (declared a charity by the state of New York)? How about legislation prohibiting the discrimination of bestiality? Just where does it end?

Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons, including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity. Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus, it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.

Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

You don't even have to be a believer to see the fallacy of "special rights for homosexuals." Unbelievers seeing the truth of the natural law can recognize the holes in that argument. If there isn't a natural law, as is suggested by an "I'm OK, you're OK morally relativistic mentality, then answer the question posed by the following scenario presented to first year theology students.

Just what do you appeal to if someone would come into your office with an Uzi and say, "I'm going to blow you away?" You respond by saying "you can't do that, that would not be right." Your attacker responds by saying "it's right for me, it will give me pleasure to kill you." You respond "the police will arrest you." The attacker says, "not before I shoot you." You respond, "I have a gun, too." Your attacker says, "mine is already pointed at you." Without any absolute law, without any sense of the absolute truth of the natural law of an Almighty God marked on our minds with the knowledge of His will, a knowledge which is part of our rational nature, you're in a real dilemma. You can't appeal to anything, least of all the "relativistic values" of your attacker.

Isn't it sad when the main concern at recent U.N. Conferences is the addition of three sexes to the two of Genesis, destroying forever the concept of the family, the very foundation of society, as opposed to condemning forced abortion, female genitalia mutilation, and the cannibalization of fetuses occurring in China and third world countries? Isn't is sad when the holocaust of all holocausts, the killing of millions of unborn infants, is promoted as opposed to being condemned by the U.N. under pressure mainly from the United States, the European Union, and Canada? And finally, isn't it sad when the leader of the free world totally ignores the testimony before both houses of his congress by medical, ethical, and judicial experts as to the unnecessary nature of the hideous, barbaric, procedure known as partial birth abortion, and legalizes INFANTICIDE? If parents are allowed to murder their unwanted children, how long will it be before children will be allowed to murder their unwanted parents who have been judged as becoming a burden to society in their old age?

We've long since crossed lines that were never meant to be crossed recognizing the truth of an absolute, natural law written on the hearts of man by a loving God. To ignore that law by capitulating to the lie of a morally relativistic code of secular norms where "I'm OK, you're OK" becomes the only commandment begs paying the piper at some future date. That is not the brave new world that I want for my children or anyone elses because it denies that our freedom depends on the mind and will of God. It is no longer freedom but slavery to claim that we can use our reason and free will to decide what is right or wrong independent of God's manifest will in human nature and divine revelation. It is the death knell of authentic human freedom becoming, ultimately, the harbinger of final eternal death.

People aren't being judged. Their actions are. Their dispositions in regard to these actions are known but to God who is our ultimate judge. But their actions, overlaid against the Judeo/Christian tradition of Dr. King, most certainly can be judged which is what the Church is charged to do else the Ten Commandments become the Ten Suggestions. What is happening at this university is that well meaning people have been misled by groups such as the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered Alliance who are the ones primarily responsible for persecuting homosexuals because they refuse to tell them the truth about what they are doing. The Church, out of love and a concern for their immortal souls as well as their physical well being, is telling them the truth through the exegesis of Scripture and its teaching Magisterium. Those who would distort the Christian message are practicing eisegesis to suit a particular agenda - a very common trait since the Church makes us uncomfortable with our vices.

Is it possible to be Christian and to be homosexual? That question needs to be reposed per what being "homosexual" really means. Is it possible to be Christian and be inclined to unnatural acts of sexual perversion? The answer is yes, of course, as there is no guarantee that Christians because of their beliefs are not tempted to sin. A better question would be "Is it possible to remain a Christian and live a lifestyle that equates sexual perversion with normality? The answer is a resounding No. For to do so makes a mockery of Sacred Scripture (Matthew 5:17-19) which states emphatically that Jesus condemns the sin while loving the sinner. "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Morever, the CHRISTIAN admonishment in this chapter of Matthew makes no distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality, i.e., all people are heterosexual, homosexuality being a perversion of same. [HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE POLITICS OF TRUTH, Dr. Jeffrey Santinover]. This perversion is dealt with severely in the law above that Jesus came to fulfil NOT abolish. It was not the moral force of the old Law that changed. Jesus and Christianity are very clear about that but rather the ceremonial aspects of the Old Law that were called into question.

Let's look further into the Gospel of Matthew to see what Jesus said (Matthew 5:21-31). "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire....You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart...It is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell."

Would the apologists for the homosexual lifestyle have us believe that the last statement above excuses them from any responsibility for living same because homosexuality is not explicitly referred to? That is ridiculous on two accounts, 1) it most certainly IS referred to many times in both Old and New Testaments which Christians hold to be the inspired word of God, in particular see Romans 1:24-28, and 2) Jesus took the old law one step further and made the actions leading to the act as severe as the act itself. Are we to believe as Christians that somehow homosexuality fell through the cracks in Sacred Scripture? The evidence is to the contrary. Homosexuality as a perversion of heterosexuality falls under many scriptural admonitions, e.g., fornication, adultery. But it is ALSO expressly addressed because it is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance (Genesis 18:20-21). Thus, to imply that Jesus never said anything about being inclined to unnatural acts is a "perversion" of Sacred Scripture and makes the perpetrator liable to severe judgment under Matthew 18:6.

To give a message to those inclined to sexual perversion that "they are OK as they are" is unChristian in the extreme given the above observations. It makes no more sense than to tell an alcoholic that you may continue drinking to get over the disease of alcoholism. Moreover, it is akin to giving a serial killer more bullets with the blessings of society to shoot whomever he desires.

It is possible to be Christian and be inclined to sexual perversion, i.e., sin. But one cannot live the lie that it is possible to be Christian and not recognize said sin for what it is. The Magdelenes of the Gospel were most certainly forgiven, but the words of Jesus following His forgiveness are conveniently forgotten. "Go and sin no more." That is what it means to be Christian. To make that attempt to live your Faith. To recognize that you are being called to heroic chastity which will be mocked by the world. To say to someone inclined to sexual perversion that "we say that you are OK who you are" with the clear implication that you may continue to live the lie that the homosexual lifestyle somehow has a Christian blessing is tragic. It's tragic because souls are at stake - those living the lie and, especially, those telling it.

A locally newly formed group called Vision claims to "help Christians by teaching 'Rainbow Family Values,' focusing on issues of sexual expression, pornography and spirituality. There is also a close scrutiny of the study of the Scriptures."

I would ask a simple question. How is teaching the above "helping Christians"? I would conjecture that the "help" given comes under the heading of "lies" being promulgated by university groups such as Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/ Transgendered Alliances.