[Vision2020] oBAMA'S COMING WAR

[J Ford]

Obama’s Coming War on Historic Christianity over
Homosexual Practice and Abortion
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Nov. 3, 2008
If Obama is elected President this Tuesday he has made it a priority of his administration
to pass legislation that will make war against Christians and persons of other religious
convictions who believe that homosexual practice and abortion are immoral acts.
Persecution will take many forms, as indicated by actions that have already taken place in
parts of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe:
• Compulsory indoctrination of our children in schools (kindergarten up), as also of
ourselves in the workplace, that abortion and especially homosexual practice are
moral and civil “rights” and that their opponents are bigots to be excluded from
polite society. As regards their children in the public schools, there will be no
parental notification or opt-out provisions. For examples go here, here, here, here,
here, here.
• Job discrimination, termination, and the imposition of fines on people who
express contrary views toward homosexual practice within, and even outside, the
workplace. For examples go here (pp. 10-17), here, here, here, here.
• Forced subsidization of abortion and homosexual unions through taxes.
• Forced offering of goods and services that directly advance and promote
homosexual practice and abortion, irrespective of the degree to which the
conscience of the provider may be violated. This includes, but is not limited to,
adoption services and foster parenting, health care providers and counselors,
justices of the peace, those who provide wedding services, the legal profession,
print shops, and indeed all businesses with employees. For examples, go here,
here, here, here, here, here (second half), here, here, here, here, here, here, here,
here.
• Severe restrictions in broadcasting and the print media against “homophobic”
utterances as civil rights violations that would incur financial penalties and loss of
license. Limitations would also extend to free speech in the marketplace. For
examples go here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
• Sanctions against Christian colleges and seminaries that allow “discrimination”
against “gay, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders,” involving fines, loss of
federal funds for student loans and research, loss of tax exemptions, and even loss
of accreditation. In short, what happened to Bob Jones University over racial
issues will happen to all Christian institutions that tolerate “homophobic” attitudes
and practices on campus.
2
Persons who express the view that homosexual practice is immoral will be particular
targets of persecution. They will be likened to virulent racists and their civil liberties will
be attenuated accordingly. The appropriate comparison here is not to the limited
toleration that currently exists for moderately different views on the role of women in the
home and in the church. While Scripture contains many positive views about women, it
treats homosexual practice as a gross violation of foundational sexual ethics. To combat
such “hatred,” which allegedly puts homosexual persons at risk of violence, the state will
practice a “zero” tolerance that is more akin to denying black persons their rights. The
analogy is, of course, absurd because, unlike homosexual impulses, being black is not an
impulse to do what Scripture expressly forbids or what nature shows to be structurally
incongruous but rather is a 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, primarily nonbehavioral
condition that is therefore inherently benign. However, logic here will be
irrelevant to the enforcers of “sexual orientation” laws. Proponents of a homosexualist
agenda have been making an analogy to racism for decades. Don’t be surprised when the
analogy is codified into law.
How can Christians, as well as other persons who share similar values, vote for a
candidate who wants to persecute them for their views and to compel them, against their
consciences and subject to civil penalties, to be indoctrinated and participate in the
affirmation of immoral practices? In short, how can Christians vote for someone who will
insure society’s regard for them as bigots? Many persons of faith who rightly recognize
homosexual practice and abortion to be moral evils have justified support for Obama on
the basis of one or more of the following assumptions:
(1) Obama is not so hard-left in his views in the areas of homosexual practice and
abortion.
(2) Even if Obama were hard-left on these issues it would be politically impossible to
pass hard-left legislation.
(3) Even if a “sea change” of hard-left legislation on homosexual practice and
abortion occurred, leading to the persecution of those who think differently, other
issues justify a vote for Obama.
Obama’s Will and Power to Bring about a Legal Sea Change on Homosexual
Practice and Abortion
Let’s take the second assumption first. If Obama is elected, the Democrats will almost
certainly control both the House and Senate, and do so by comfortable margins. The 2008
Democratic National Platform is strongly supportive of homosexual and abortion “rights”
and “opposes any and all efforts to weaken or undermine” these rights (pp. 50-52). What
will stop Obama from implementing his agenda? He only needs a simple majority in both
houses of Congress. With a Democratic-controlled Congress and an opportunity for
Obama to appoint up to five Supreme Court justices and numerous federal court
appointments during his tenure as President, everything Obama wants in these two areas
he will get. This will result in a “sea change” in morals in this country and a wave of
intolerance for those who cannot accept this sea change.
3
Now as to the first assumption: “Obama is a moderate man in his views on homosexual
practice and abortion.” Obama was ranked the most left-of-center Senator in 2007 by the
non-partisan National Journal, assessing 99 votes made by Obama that year (his running
mate Joe Biden, finished third, just edged out for second place). This hard-left standing is
certainly secure as regards his stances on homosexual practice and abortion.
As regards homosexual practice:
• Obama wants to do everything that he can to foist “gay marriage” on all 50
states. Obama wants the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act repealed, going so far as
to call it “abhorrent” even though its main purpose is merely to prevent “gay
marriage” adopted in one state from being foisted on all other states. In Obama's
own words: “Unlike Senator [Hillary] Clinton, I support the complete repeal of
the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)—a position I have held since before
arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law,
I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether.” Under Obama’s influence,
the 2008 Democratic National Platform also calls for its full removal (p. 52).
Obama also strongly opposes California’s Proposition 8, which merely limits the
definition of marriage to a “marriage between a man and a woman,” and any other
amendment to a state constitution that would prevent the courts from arbitrarily
imposing “gay marriage” on the people. He says that he “respects” the California
Supreme Court decision foisting “gay marriage” on the state and opposes any
federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man
and a woman. Obama strongly endorses granting every single marriage benefit to
homosexual unions.
• Federal “sexual orientation” legislations. Obama strongly supports every “sexual
orientation” special-protections law imaginable, including “hate crimes”
legislation (which will make every statement against homosexual practice an
alleged “incitement to violence” that will hold the speaker legally liable),
“employment non-discrimination” legislation (which turns out to be “employment
discrimination” legislation against any who disapprove of a homosexualist agenda
in the workplace), removing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military
(meaning now that all military personnel must now embrace homosexual practice
in their midst), and full adoption rights (making no distinction whatsoever
between homosexual and heterosexual families, even though the former is
constituted by immoral behavior and almost invariably ends in short-term
dissolution). “Sexual orientation” laws constitute state endorsement of
homosexual practice as a valid form of sexual union deserving special societal
protection. Imagine a “sexual orientation” law broadened to include two other
sexual orientations, polysexuality (inclination toward sexual relationships with
more than one person concurrently) and pedosexuality (or pedophilia). Few would
stand for it because such a law would be rightly recognized as establishing official
state endorsement. Sexual orientation laws encompassing homosexuality,
bisexuality, and transsexuality by definition make civil and cultural bigots of
4
everyone who espouses a male-female prerequisite to sexual relations, in the
workplace, at school, in the media, and throughout the public sector.
• Obama’s and Biden’s big lie: “We do not support gay marriage.” Obama and
Biden have attempted to deceive the public by claiming that they are only for
granting civil unions that contain all the civil benefits of marriage without the
name “marriage.” It is impossible for any reasonable person acting reasonably to
oppose every attempt at preventing courts or other states from imposing “gay
marriage” on a state, to insist on the full equality of homosexual unions to
marriage, and then to claim non-support for “gay marriage.” It is a big lie. In his
book, The Audacity of Hope (Crown, 2006), Obama coyly stated that he wanted
“to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage
is misguided.” This “unwillingness” was, at any rate, based only on political
expediency, not moral conviction, for he gave as his reason for not advocating for
“gay marriage” only this: “In the absence of any meaningful consensus, the
heightened focus on marriage [is] a distraction from other attainable measures to
prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians” (p. 222). In short, if “gay
marriage” were “attainable” without doing harm to his own political aspirations or
to other homosexualist goals, he would come out in favor of “gay marriage.” As
soon as he becomes President with a Democratic-controlled Congress he will
“discover” his former “unwillingness to support gay marriage” to be “misguided.”
• What to expect in the first half-year of Obama’s administration on homosexual
issues. Obama has made it a priority in the first months of office—taking a page
from Bill Clinton’s playbook with regard to the military—to get passed in the
Democratic-controlled Congress a series of “sexual orientation” laws that will
make clear the state’s endorsement of homosexual unions, offer special legal
protections to such unions, provide civil penalties against those who oppose the
legitimizing of homosexual unions, and extend all the benefits of marriage to
homosexual unions. At the same time he will get Congress to remove the federal
Defense of Marriage Act, which is the only thing preventing the application of the
“Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the Constitution to require that “gay marriage”
adopted in one state be respected and accepted in all other states. Within two
years all states would be required to accept “gay marriage,” which carries with it
the ultimate governmental and cultural seal of approval. All newspapers will have
to post “gay weddings.” Any time the subject of marriage is taught in schools or
institutions of higher learning “gay marriage” will have to be embraced as the law
of the land and as equal in all respects to male-female marriages. Churches that
allow couples to use their buildings to get married will have their tax-exempt
status put at risk for not allowing “gay marriages.” Those who believe in a malefemale
prerequisite for marriage are immediately institutionalized civilly and
cultural as bigots. American society is not likely ever, this side of heaven, to
return to the view that homosexual unions are intrinsically immoral.
As regards abortion (see further the online articles by Robert George and George
Weigel):
5
• Obama would be the most extreme abortionist ever elected to high office. Obama
as a state legislator was so extreme on this issue that he opposed the Born Alive
Act—which would mandate medical aid to infants who an abortion—even when
assurances were given that it would not impact abortion law. Even when all the
major abortion groups supported it Obama continued to oppose it. And Obama
and his campaign staff repeatedly lied about his actions here and attempted to
cover it up.
• According to Obama, “The first thing that I’d do as President is sign the Freedom
of Choice Act.” This act, with one stroke of the President’s pen, would throw out
every state and national pro-life law. It would establish abortion as a
“fundamental right” for all nine months of pregnancy for any unspecified “health”
reasons. It would strike down parental notification laws, non-use of taxpayer
money to fund abortions, conscience clauses to protect health-care workers from
having to participate in abortions, and the federal partial-birth abortion ban.
• Obama wants to end any government funding of crisis pregnancy centers and has
even opposed the Pregnant Women Support Act, which would provide assistance
for women facing crisis pregnancies and insurance coverage for unborn children
(a provision that even hard-left abortion advocate Senator Ted Kennedy
supported).
With a pro-abortion Democratic-controlled Congress, a rabid pro-abortion Democratic
President who may have the opportunity to appoint up to five or six Supreme Court
justices the damage that could be done on the abortion issue would be incalculable and
might never get turned around.
Why Obama’s Homosexualist and Abortion Agendas Should Be the Main Concerns
for Christian Voters, Not Iraq and the Economy
This leads to the third assumption made by many: No matter how bad things could get
under an Obama administration as regards the persecution of those who do not support
homosexual practice and abortion on demand, other issues justify a vote for Obama. Let’s
consider briefly the two biggest issues other than homosexual practice and abortion.
1. Iraq war. Regardless of whether one believes that the United States should have
become involved in a war in Iraq in the first place, the question is: What is the best
strategy now? Obama’s rigid commitment to pulling American troops completely out of
Iraq within a relatively short window of time could risk something much worse: the
development in Iraq of an Islamic terrorist state comparable to Iran. Do we really want a
man like Obama with absolutely no military experience in charge of such matters? Even
Obama has had to admit that the “surge” of American troop strength in Iraq this past year
has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams—a surge that Obama strongly opposed and that
McCain advocated at great political risk to himself. Moreover, Obama is hardly a “peace”
candidate. He has expressed willingness to take military action in Pakistan and to step up
the war in Afghanistan.
6
It seems to me that an evaluation of the Iraq war depends largely on whether the outcome
is a Turkey-style democracy in Iraq or a fundamentalist Islamic state. Most political
pundits in early 1780 or in the summer of 1864 argued that Washington and Lincoln,
respectively, were disasters and that serious thought should be given to getting out of the
war against Britain and the war against the southern secessionists. History has proven
both groups of pundits wrong. I’m not saying that I know for certain what we should do
as regards the Iraq war. I’m saying that nobody at the present time has a clear vision
about the future. And whether we stay in Iraq as long as there is reasonable hope for
achieving a Turkey-style democracy or get out before such reasonable hope fades, it is
not likely that the United States is going to turn into a rogue militarist state or a pacifist
nation. I think that the greatest military risks lie with Obama’s strategy because he
appears willing to pull out of Iraq no matter what the outcome of a pullout, even if it
leads to the victory of radical Islamic fundamentalists, which presents the further risk of
encouraging terrorist activity around the globe. However, I don’t see any evidence that an
Obama victory would result in a “sea change” on foreign policy for the better or that a
McCain victory would result in a “sea change” on foreign policy for the worse. No matter
who wins, the United States will still reserve the option to intervene militarily around the
globe. People are not going to be persecuted or regarded as bigots as a result of their
stance on the Iraq war or any other war.
2. The economy and the poor. No one has a crystal ball on this one, neither campaign.
I’m not a big “cut taxes” guy and in that sense am not a convinced Republican. I think
that there are good arguments about how to handle the economy in both parties, and
failings in both parties. For me this consideration is a wash. Republicans have a
reputation for disregarding the poor, favoring big corporations, and making the rich
richer. Democrats have a reputation for thinking that the government can fix everything,
overspending and overtaxing, and creating bloated and wasteful bureaucracies. Obviously
there has to be a balance between helping the poor and exerting fiscal restraint. If McCain
gets elected, there will still be hundreds of millions of dollars spent on social programs. If
Obama gets elected I would hope that we don’t turn into a socialist state, though Obama
has talked about enforced redistribution of wealth and has hobnobbed with socialist
radicals. Again I don’t see a “sea change” for the worse if McCain is elected or a “sea
change” for the better if Obama is elected. I don’t see myself or other Christians being
persecuted on the issue of the economy no matter who gets elected. There are obviously a
lot of voters who think that they will be better off economically if a Democratic
administration is in power. History, however, does not always bear this assumption out.
The conservative Reagan administration, for example, was characterized by an economic
boom that took us out of the Carter malaise.
In conclusion, the only sea change for the worse that Christians are likely to experience is
the sea change on homosexual practice and abortion that an Obama victory would bring.
The country’s legal and moral stance on abortion and especially homosexual practice will
deteriorate rapidly and likely remain in a deteriorated state for at least decades to come.
Should the issues of homosexual practice and abortion, then, be paramount in this
election? Or, to put it in a different way, can you vote for a candidate who will turn your
7
family into persecuted and marginalized outcasts of the state? Can you vote for a
presidential candidate who thinks you are a bigot and will codify that belief into law? In
so doing, would you be taking a page from the story of Jacob and Esau—selling one’s
birthright in the hopes of some bread and lentil stew (Gen 25:29-34)? I do not here
presume to tell anyone for whom they should vote. Nevertheless, these are difficult
questions that every Christian should reflect on before casting a vote.
See also my article, “Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the
Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex” here.
Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon is Associate Professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and
the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon
Press, 2001). The views put forward in this essay are the author’s own and do not claim
to represent the official views of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
_________________________________________________________________
When your life is on the go—take your life with you.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081103/10132baf/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081103/10132baf/attachment-0001.htm