BY ED VITAGLIANO | AFA Journal News Editor
"All churches who condemn us will be closed." That was
what Michael Swift, a "gay revolutionary," declared in
a February 1987 issue of the Gay Community News.
"Michael Swift" was a pseudonym, and the first line of
the now-infamous homosexual rant which was even reprinted
in the Congressional Record claimed that the entire piece
was a "cruel fantasy" that explained "how the oppressed
desperately dream of being the oppressor."
The "dream" was filled with a nightmare scenario that
seemed like something out of a fascist coup detat: "All
laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked.
make films about the love between heroic men.
unit spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy
and violence will be abolished.
All churches who condemn
us will be closed."
As the article found its way into Christian publications, believers
were horrified, and homosexual activists tried to make light of
its contents, claiming that it was intended merely as a satire.
Not many Christians, however, saw the humor in Swifts sentiments,
such as the following: "We shall sodomize your sons
We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your
gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your
seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms,
in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs,
in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together."
Whether or not the ravings of this
"gay revolutionary" were intended as satire, what is striking
is the remarkable success of the plan found within the article.
Who can doubt that the legal system especially following
the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling in Lawrence v. Texas
(2003) striking down sodomy laws has been brought to heel
by gay activists? Or that Hollywood has freely committed its tremendous
resources to the fight for homosexual legitimacy? Or that the family
unit will virtually cease to exist in any traditional sense should
gay adoption and same-sex marriage become legal everywhere?
While they claim to want only equal protection under law, the real
agenda of homosexual activists is simple: the complete alteration
of American society to fit the homosexual view of human sexuality,
marriage and family.
This is not an overexaggeration. Paula Ettelbrick is former legal
director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and now
executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights
Commission. Ettelbrick stated, "Being queer is more than setting
up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking
state approval for doing so.
Being queer means pushing the
parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming
the very fabric of society.
We must keep our eyes on the
of radically reordering societys views of reality."
That is a pretty comprehensive goal, and activists face a daunting
task if they hope to accomplish it. They must change the views of
a culture that still remains somewhat anchored in the Judeo-Christian
tradition, which considers homosexuality unnatural and sinful. For
Ettelbrick and her ilk to convince the American people to change
their mind on this issue, the foundation of our culture must be
shifted to a new way of perceiving reality that rejects the Judeo-Christian
However, that leaves one major institution standing in the way:
the church. Christians who still hold to the Judeo-Christian
views of human sexuality, marriage and family are called by religious
faithfulness to resist the homosexual movement.
That makes Christians the enemy. In 1987 Steve Warren, a spokesman
for the controversial homosexual group ACT UP, wrote an article
for The Advocate, a magazine for the gay community. Titled
"Warning to the Homophobes," Warren spoke of "the
mean-spirited nature of Judeo-Christian morality."
Even in 1987, Warren felt that the homosexual movement could not
be stopped. And as activists continued to find success, he promised
that "we are going to force you [Christians] to recant everything
you have believed or said about sexuality."
Warren said the Bible, especially, would require a face-lift. "Finally,
we will in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from
your Scriptures and rewrite others," he said, "eliminating
preferential treatment of marriage and using words that will allow
for homosexual interpretations of passages."
So a homosexual utopia awaits these activists,
if only they can deal with those pesky Christians. But if removing
the obstacle of the church is the strategy, what are the tactics
through which this victory might be achieved?
That question was answered as far back as 1985, when in their article
for Christopher Street, a gay magazine, Marshall Kirk and
Hunter Madsen caused a sensation with their blueprint to "persuade
straight America" to accept homosexuality. Their article was
expanded into a book on the subject, the national number one best
seller After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and
Hatred of Gays in the 90s.
Kirk and Madsen focused the heart of their strategy on using the
media as a propaganda tool in persuading the majority of Americans
that gay is OK. But they also addressed the question of what to
do with the hardened opposition that is, at least in institutional
terms, those following the "religious authority" of the
church. Gay activists, the authors said, should take a two-pronged
approach to neutralizing the threat of a vigorous Christian-led
First, to "confound" what Kirk and Madsen called "the
homophobia of true believers," they suggested that gays "muddy
the moral waters." This would be accomplished in part by "publicizing
support for gays by more moderate churches" and "raising
theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations
of Biblical teachings."
This has been done with amazing success in mainline Protestant
denominations, such as in the Episcopal Church USA, United Methodist
Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian
Church USA. Homosexual activists in each of these major denominations
have so clouded the issues regarding the Biblical view of homosexuality
as to threaten each with schism and ruin.
For those churches which resist the siren call to complete moral
relativism, Kirk and Madsen submitted a secondary strategy. They
suggested that gays "undermine the moral authority of homophobic
churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out
of step with the times.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, when Christians see themselves
portrayed on countless television shows as self-righteous bigots
or hate-filled lunatics who simply refuse to accept the fact that
things have changed in America.
Nevertheless, Kirk and Madsen knew that the religious authority
of Christian denominations in the U.S. would be difficult to dispel;
churches would therefore continue to act as a powerful braking mechanism
on any momentum for the acceptance of the homosexual agenda. Kirk
and Madsen understood, for example, that simply poking fun of "bigoted
Southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred" would not
Instead, they said, "Against the mighty pull of institutional
Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion
(the shield and sword of that accursed secular humanism).
Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before,
on such topics as divorce and abortion."
Thus Christians involved in this theater of the culture war have
become accustomed to defending the Judeo-Christian view on sexuality
against claims that science has "proven" that homosexuality
is genetic. The same is true of the claim that all major mental
health and medical professional groups have declared that being
gay or lesbian is as natural as being left-handed. Such "scientific"
claims have no doubt been instrumental in the dramatic shifts of
American public opinion on this topic.
But beyond these tactics, Kirk and Madsen said plans
must also be drawn up to deal with "the entrenched enemy,"
which might persist in resisting even in the face of the preliminary
schemes. They said: "At a later stage of the media campaign
for gay rights long after other gay ads have become commonplace
it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To
be blunt, they must be vilified."
Again, astute Christians who are paying attention to what is happening
in our culture can already see this occurring. On high school and
college campuses, for example, believers who dare to speak up against
the homosexual agenda are being ridiculed and smeared. In corporations
where they work, some Christians who refuse to acquiesce to the
reigning pro-gay environment are reprimanded or fired.
Nor does it require prophetic insight to understand that churches
will not be immune from coercion, either. In fact, gay and lesbian
activists at the 1986 National March on Washington for Lesbian and
Gay Rights made this demand: "Institutions that discriminate
against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax exempt status."
Is it conceivable that in the near future, churches could be threatened
with the loss of their tax exempt status if they refuse to hire
a homosexual employee?
Some might scoff at such a threat, relying on the Constitutional
protection of religion in the U.S. as a shield. But some homosexual
activists seem to view religious liberty as an obstacle to be overcome.
For example, lesbian lawyer Barbara Findlay predicted that "the
legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between
freedom of religion versus sexual orientation."
If sexual orientation is ever enshrined as a protected status in
federal and state laws, which right will win that showdown?
For the time being, activists can simply attempt to suppress religious
free speech whenever the mood hits them.
For example, when a church in Boston hosted a 2005 conference with
a message that Jesus can free gays and lesbians from that lifestyle,
they were harassed and terrorized by hundreds of homosexual activists
and sympathizers outside while Boston police stood by and
did nothing. (See AFA Journal, 1/06.)
Finally, if activists ever achieve their goal of having sexual
orientation included in federal hate crime statutes, many pro-family
groups fear such a moment will be a beachhead on the way to criminalizing
"anti-gay" speech and thought.
In his article, Warrens final warning should cause wise Christians
to accurately discern the times in which we live: "We have
captured the liberal establishment and the press. We have already
beaten you on a number of battlefields. And we have the spirit of
the age on our side. You have neither the faith nor the strength
to fight us, so you might as well surrender now."