Homosexuality & Religion in the United States: An Historical Examination

by Joshua Belyeu



* * * * * * * * * *

As something which has affected many different areas in American society today, the topic of homosexuality has triggered endless debates, both civil and otherwise. The mass media loves to champion it with buzzwords like "equality" or "fairness", while comdemning opponents as "bigots" or accusing them of "discrimination". Its even become so bad now, that privately-owned businesses are being forced by the Supreme Court to comply with an unjust legal ruling, or else face fines and the potential loss of their livelihood.

Obviously, this issue can't be solved by any one person, and my thoughts certainly won't be revolutionary to most people. My only aim with this is to use common sense and rational logic, telling the truth in love regardless of what others think of me. That takes courage in today's world, so this may end up being one of the bravest things I've ever done.

First, a little background on me: I am 37 years old, born and raised in the great state of Texas. I am also a follower of Jesus Christ, which to many elsewhere, makes me even more of a threat. Its a sad fact that at present, people like me are demonized by those with more Liberal views. I am a light-skinned male born and raised in the American South, who follows Christ and doesn't apologize for it. That said, I am far from perfect, by any reasonable standard. I've said and done things in my life, which I'm in no way proud of. Thankfully, past sins don't defeat a person's argument by default.

However, its often said that its always best to start at the beginning. Homosexual marriage laws are not ends in themselves, but symptoms of a much broader problem, which began in America about eighty years ago. The 1930s were a time of trial for the United States, with the Great Depression causing a huge economic crisis. Shortly into the following decade, we were also swept into another World War when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Reversions to past principles occurred in the 1950s, but the radicalism of the 1960s "counterculture" movement would change all of that. So, to understand the core of this issue, we need to examine the words and behaviors of a man from the 1800s, whose values were championed by others during the 1930s. His name was Karl Marx, and he believed very strongly in the idea of perpetual victimhood. In 1848, he published a book called The Communist Manifesto, in which he detailed a struggle between two major groups. Marx's vision involved a corrupt class of wealthy owners known as the bourgeoisie, who prospered by ruthlessly cheating their labor workers called the proletariat. Marx stated the only solution to this "class struggle" was for the proletariat to rise up in revolt, and conquer the bourgeoisie. In other words, he favored minorities conquering majorities, who he saw as corrupt in principle without exception.

By the time of the 1930s, Americans were slowly being fed this ideology, shifting perception of common values from the more conservative to the devoutly Liberal. The massive tragedy of World War II only accelerated this change, resulting in people who described themselves as "anti-establishment" and championed "minority rights". The problem is that, with few exceptions, most people with those views never stopped to consider why different ideas were minor, and how furthering Marx's crusade would only cause more division in the country, not less. It quickly became popular for people to claim they were "for the little guy", regardless of who that person was, or what ideas they held.

A major victory for Liberal ideas came about in 1947, when a Supreme Court justice named Hugo Black helped insert a particular idea into American law - "the separation of church and state". Black was a devout anti-theist, holding adamant views against religion...the Roman Catholic Church in particular. He even served as a member of the racist "white supremacy" organization called the Ku Klux Klan. His actions with the Court in 1947 were inspired by a letter he'd found, written by former President Thomas Jefferson in 1802. Jefferson had been contacted by a religious group from the state of Connecticut called the Danbury Baptist Association, and they were concerned Jefferson might not protect their religious rights as President. In his response, Jefferson wrote the following...

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

To put it in simpler terms, Jefferson was stating that the Federal government had no business interfering with religious matters, unless they involved criminal actions. He even cited the U.S. Constitution, which contains as part of its First Amendment the following principle: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

But this was not in line with Supreme Court justice Hugo Black's vision; he wanted religion and government to be completely separate, regarding both influence and territory. Jefferson, on the other hand, believed otherwise, cutting passages from two of his own Bibles to form condensed versions about Jesus for ministry purposes with Native tribes and American citizens. Modern college professors would have you believe Jefferson's goal was to reject Christianity completely, and divide it permanently from our legal system...but history shows differently. In fact, just three days after writing his now-famous "separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists, President Jefferson attended a church service in a very strange place...the U.S. Capitol Building.

How does this relate to homosexuality? Well, it all started with Hugo Black twisting Jefferson's historical intent, creating an unjust divide between religion and government in American society. From the Constitution's adoption in 1787, to the early 1940s, most U.S. citizens recognized that the "separation" Jefferson spoke of was meant to keep the government from controlling the church, as it had in 18th-century England. The First Amendment's opening lines are now known as the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause...but modern justices often hold the former in higher regard than the other. Like Hugo Black, many of those in our current legal system are atheists, Liberals in the vein of Karl Marx, or both. They view all minorities as being oppressed or persecuted, whether its actually happening or not...and like Marx, they only see one solution: a forced leveling of the playing field, by eliminating absolute truth and morality.

"Wait a minute!", you might now be thinking. "You can't possibly legislate morality, because its subjective in nature." Actually, moral truth is absolute, and it never changes; only our response to it shifts with the passing of time. I can prove it, with the following question: "Has murder always been wrong for everyone?" I want you to really think about that for a moment...because if you throw out absolute truth, there's no objective standard for justifying why any choice is right or wrong. I could walk up to your best friend right now, and shoot them point-blank in the head before your eyes. You'd be horrified by it, and want me either dead myself or in jail...but your emotional reaction wouldn't explain why my actions were morally inferior. Sadly, most in America and around the world don't even think beyond emotion, allowing their entire worldview to be shaped by feelings that change every day. With regard to our current legal system, everyone tries to legislate morality, whether its holding trials for murderers or debating Constitutional issues. The only questions are about whose morality to legislate, how to go about doing it, and whether it should be done.

Government has only three options where any behavior is concerned. They can prohibit it outright, permit it within certain restrictions, or go further and promote it. A popular analogy is the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, which the government actually tried prohibiting in the 1920s. It failed of course, for one simple reason: no law will ever make every citizen obey without fail. A more current example is the issue of gun control; criminals walk into public places armed to the teeth, and slaughter the innocent before being killed by police...or more often, committing suicide first. Do you really think that upon embarking on their killing spree, they cared about the law? Of course not...and the same was true for the alcohol situation in the '20s. Its also true for the redefinition of marital laws, which is how homosexuality's taken "center stage" in our current political climate.

Another objection some might have by now, is about the concept of fairness. They'll say things like, "Don't all people deserve equal protection under the law?" To that, I would answer, "Protection, yes; endorsement, no." The U.S. Constitution is silent on marital issues in general, which leaves them to the individual states by default according to the Tenth Amendment. Therefore, prior to the recent Supreme Court ruling, each of the fifty states had the right to determine how they would issue marriage licenses...and no one could force any of them to change that decision beyond their own borders. On their own, many states had already decided to be in favor of homosexual unions. Interestingly, the state of California (widely assumed to be vastly pro-Liberal) polled its citizens on this very issue in 2008, with an attempt known as Proposition 8. Of those who voted in the poll, most favored retaining the original legal definition of marriage, as being exclusive to one man and woman. But the "will of the people" didn't matter to the homosexual activists, who petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn it...which they did, arbitrarily deeming the poll "unconstitutional". As I've already explained, the Constitution leaves marital decisions up to the individual states, so the Supreme Court had no authority to override the majority's will in that state...but they did it anyway, because very few stepped forward to challenge their crime. Later, several states tried defeating the issue again, with the Defense of Marriage Act...but those nine justices (over half of them atheists and/or Liberals) again forced their own will on the American people, instead of serving the public and defending the Constitution, as they swore with their oath of office.

All of that aside, however, there's another reason why the "fairness" queston doesn't work. Without an ultimate moral standard in place, to which all people everywhere are held equally accountable...who decides what is fair or just, and how do they know? In the United States, we seek to defend the rights of the individual, and support the vote of the majority. That doesn't make either one automatically right in an objective sense, but neither does favoring minorities across the board, without any kind of prior consideration. Of particular note is something said by John Roberts, the current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: "If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy's going to win in court before me...But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy's going to win." To his credit, Justice Roberts was one of four on the Court, who voted against redefining marriage...but their opinions were overruled by the other five. That's correct, folks: five people were granted arbitrary power, to determine how 320 million others should live their lives.

Our national Pledge of Allegiance includes the words "with liberty and justice for all", but these five justices have decided only those who agree with them deserve that gift. If anything is against the Constitution, that kind of power definitely qualifies; how else do you reconcile it with "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof", regarding religon? The Founders of this country believed everyone had the right, granted by a supernatural Creator, to practice their religion both publicly and privately, without government intrusion. Almost 240 years later, the Supreme Court is demanding the removal of crosses and Nativity scenes from government buildings and public property during Christmas, while remaining mostly silent about Jewish menorahs or the Star of David. Atheist groups even tried getting two steel beams from the now-destroyed World Trade Center removed from the September 11th Memorial...all because they had been welded into the shape of a Christian cross. Why is it okay in this country, to ridicule and oppress those who believe in a supreme Authority beyond the court system, but unjust to peacefully protest a behavior that's been proven to increase sexually-transmitted disease rates, deprive children of a responsible mother and father, and often involve a sexual act that's medically dangerous? I once heard it said this way, and it makes sense: "The organ designed to propagate life was never intended for contact with that which expels death." Religion isn't even needed to understand this, just an honest look at a medical textbook.

In summation, I'm reminded of something once said by civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., which applies not only to homosexuality but every political matter...

"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority. If the church does not participate actively in the struggle for peace and for economic and racial justice, it will forfeit the loyalty of millions and cause men everywhere to say that it has atrophied its will."

This letter was originally written several years ago, but its origin remains in debate. I read it, then add my own comments afterward. Enjoy it, but also take it to heart. Thanks.

Don't You Dare Judge Me!

I could type a whole lecture on this, but author and apologist Frank Turek summed it up very well, in this ten-minute clip...

Conservative vs. Liberal: The Basics

About a year ago, I started getting interested in politics, and how it affects the lives of people living in the United States today. I'm no expert in this at all, but there appears to be lots of confusion about the fundamental differences between the conservative (i.e. "Right") and liberal (i.e. "Left") worldviews. As such, here's a comparatively simple breakdown.

First off, let's analyze the root words for both labels. Conservatism is built around the word "conserve", meaning to reinforce, protect, or defend. As such, most values championed by the Right are closely tied to that strategy. In contrast, liberalism is rooted in the word "liberate", meaning to release, divide, or separate. Most causes championed by the Left use that tactic as well. Both sides of the political arena turn to one resource in their continuing struggle: the laws of the U.S., both civil and criminal. The guideposts for that law are found in two main documents: the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. Each state also has its own separate constitution (note the lowercase "c"), so those are often taken into account.

Now, here's the tricky part: which issues should be protected or separated, and why? This opens up a whole proverbial "can of worms", because everything goes back to the Founding Fathers. This is a term used to describe the men whose efforts and ideals originally formed this nation in the 18th century, most of whom also signed the Declaration. When you hear names like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, John Adams, Samuel Adams, John Jay...all of these and more were among the Founding Fathers. There's a more comprehensive list at this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

Now, these men all came from a variety of backgrounds, with different opinions about how a new country should be organized and move forward. Most were Bible-believing Christians, while a select few (like Ben Franklin) were deists. Nevertheless, the majority of them understood that a common, shared moral worldview was essential for any nation to function properly. Leftists often cite a so-called "separation of church and state" in their arguments, but that phrase is found nowhere in the texts of the Declaration or the Constitution. It's paraphrased from an 1802 letter written by Thomas Jefferson, to the Danbury Baptist Association from the state of Connecticut. You can read all about that on these pages...

https://wallbuilders.com/letters-danbury-baptists-thomas-jefferson/
https://wallbuilders.com/separation-church-state/

How does this impact modern politics? Well, you have to ask yourselves one question...and no, its not "Do I feel lucky?" The actual puzzle is, "What do those on the Right wish to protect, while those on the Left simultaneously wish to divide?" In a word, the answer is simple: absolutes.

"What is an absolute?", you might ask. Well, an absolute is something which applies equally, to all people, in all times and places, regardless of personal desire or opinion. For example, current U.S. laws say that if you murder someone, you will be arrested, tried by the courts, and sent to prison if convicted. It doesn't matter whether you are black, white, Christian, Muslim, prefer women as sexual partners to men, or vice versa...you're still guilty of murder. We do allow some exceptions for extremely young perpetrators, and the exact punishments vary depending on the specifics of the crime. However, the absolute standard remains unchanged: you broke the law, and you will be punished for it.

Generally speaking, those on the Left side of the political spectrum despise absolutes. They want every situation to follow their own whims and preferences, in spite of what may be safer or most beneficial for the American people in total. Those on the Right have also been guilty of this at certain times, but their core ideology is still based on "unalienable" rights. The word "lien" involves restriction by a third party, usually with regard to debt...but the Founders believed certain things were granted by a supernatural Creator to all mankind. Since the government did not grant these rights to anyone, they had no authority to take them away. The Declaration of Independence contains the following text, very early on...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

That one simple paragraph sums up a series of ideas very well. First, the Founders recognized that certain truths were "self-evident" (obvious)...so you didn't need a degree to understand them. Second is the notion of all mankind being created equal by a common Creator...who most Founders believed to be the God of the Bible. Thirdly is the already-explained "unalienable" position, followed by three rights in that category: the right to live, to have liberty, and to pursue one's own happiness. All three of these rights are routinely challenged by the Left, most of whom support abortion, euthanasia, arbitrary restrictions on freedom (banning prayer in schools, for example), and government-mandated support for Leftist causes. In contrast, most on the Right support pro-life laws, a smaller Federal government, and a person's happiness being their own responsibility.   

Getting back to absolutes, its true they often divide people, especially in terms of morality. But that fact alone doesn't logically lead to abolishing the absolute. That would lead to removing all laws based on unchanging principles, such as theft, murder, and rape. In my limited experience, not many people truly want to live in a society like that.

So, what's the answer? Well, the simple truth is that there isn't one all-encompassing solution, which will fix all our problems in the blink of an eye. However, the laws of the United States were originally built around the benefit of the majority, and while that doesn't always make the larger group correct in their judgment, a very huge risk is taken when sacrificing that principle. Its like walking on thin ice during the winter, where every step sabotages the durability of the whole surface. The best way we currently have to protect American citizens with the law, is to keep the majority at the forefront of our minds. We may not always like it, but its still the best option by far.

Another solution is to support people who will apply the U.S. Constitution as written, instead of twisting it to suit their own desires. There's far too many judges who "legislate from the bench" by declaring a proposal "unconstitutional", simply because it doesn't match their specific worldview. We need to get rid of corrupt people in the government, and a big way to do that is to vote them out. But that also means paying close attention to politics, which many Americans have sadly been trained to deem irrelevant most of the time. But perhaps the biggest solution is also the most controversial one: re-embracing our largely Christian heritage and demanding our leaders recognize that unalienable rights come from God. That's what the Founders believed, and that's what this great nation was built on. Many educators now train students to think that the Founding Fathers despised religion (particularly Christianity), and wanted a completely secular society. But that's not what they wrote themselves; here's a few samples...

"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." ~George Washington~

"God, who gave us life, gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" ~Thomas Jefferson~

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace." ~Samuel Adams,  Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797~