Michael Brown began his Dec. 18 WorldNetDaily column warning that “extreme” things — like, say, not hating LGBTQ people — start off as appearing more moderate:
Think for a moment about the trajectory of LGBTQ+ activism.
Had national leaders said up front, “We look forward to the day when 13-year-old, trans-identified girls can have full mastectomies and young men can compete against young women in sports,” they would have garnered much less support.
Had they said, “We look forward to the day when Christians will be jailed if they refuse to grant gay marriage licenses, and we can’t wait to see drag queens reading to toddlers in libraries,” they would have been rejected outright. And had they been represented primarily by nearly naked men whipping each other at gay pride events, their movement would have fizzled within months.
This was something fully recognized by leading gay strategists. They understood that a change in strategy was needed if they were to change the thinking of the nation. As stated by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their watershed 1989 book, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s,” “The gay revolution has failed.
“Not completely, and not finally, but it’s a failure just the same. The 1969 Stonewall riot – in which a handful of long-suffering New York drag queens, tired of homophobic police harassment, picked up rocks and bottles and fought back – marked the birth of ‘gay liberation.’ As we write these lines, twenty years have passed. In those years, the combined efforts of the gay community have won a handful of concessions in a handful of localities. Some of those concessions have been revoked; others may be. We should have done far better.”
So, rather than go on with the strategy of, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it,” a new advertising strategy would be employed, one in which gay couples would be presented in more conservative, mainstream ways, even if some of that presentation was dishonest.
As to the gay objection that such ads would “Uncle Tommify” gays, since the ads were lies – in Kirk and Madsen’s words, “that is not how all gays actually look” and “gays know it and bigots know it,” the authors replied, “Yes, of course, we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones; not to bigots, because the ads will have their effect on them whether they believe them or not.”
In the end, gay activism succeeded by being for marriage – in a radically new form – rather than against it, as the earliest gay activists were, viewing marriage as an outdated, abusive, patriarchal institution.
I recognize, of course, that many gay couples did want to “marry” and that this was not just a strategic ploy. Even so, had the larger goals of radical gay activists been introduced first, the push for gay “marriage” would never have made it to the Supreme Court, let alone resulted in the redefinition of marriage.
Brown, of course, remains heartened that right-wingers like him still hate LGBTQ people:
The only positive is that, given enough time, the radicals on the left or right overplay their hand, resulting in a cultural pushback (or, cultural collapse, requiring a rebuild). In other words, when their full agenda is unveiled, it is still too extreme (or counterproductive) for most (or too extreme to work at all).
That’s one reason the popularity of BLM has faded, one reason the pushback against LGBTQ+ extremism continues to gain ground, and one reason that the intellectual and moral bankruptcies of our universities are being exposed.
As I commented elsewhere, with specific focus on LGBTQ+ activism, the very success of these radical movements will prove to be their undoing.
Brown didn’t explain why it’s “radical” to not hate LGBTQ people.
In his Dec. 20 column, Brown lectured Pope Francis for not hating LGBTQ people, despite the fact that he’s not Catholic and, therefore, has little standing to criticize the pope:
If you have followed my writing and speaking over the decades, you will know that Catholicism has not been a focus of my ministry, either praising it or criticizing it. At the same time, I recognize the important role of the Catholic Church in standing for the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage. That’s what makes the recent pronouncement of Pope Francis, allowing priests to “bless” same-sex couples, especially distressing. What act of apostasy will be next?
[…]This is not just a step in the wrong direction. It is theological double-talk, spiritual drivel and a mockery of the Word of God. Surely, faithful Catholics around the world will reject this apostate message. It has no support in Scripture, in divine morality, or in historic Church tradition, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.
And so, rather than try to parse the theological nuances of the pope’s statement, which in the end helps no one and harms many, let me be straightforward.
No priest or pope or pastor or spiritual leader can bless something that God Himself does not bless. Their words are empty and void of divine power or authority. They are human utterances and nothing more.
As much as a gay couple may be in love, as much as they may revere the traditions of their church (at least, some of the traditions), and as much as they may be models of kindness and loyalty, the fact is that male + male or female + female represents a fundamental violation of the meaning of marriage, not to mention a fundamental violation of the nature and purpose of humanity.
How then, can a priest bless a couple whose very relationship goes against the order and plan of God? And, speaking in particular of two gay men, how can a priest, representing the Lord, bless them when the Lord Himself deems their sexual relationship to be something detestable in His sight (Leviticus 18:22) and when Paul says that those who practice such things will be excluded from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)?
Yes, Brown had to ignore what the pope actually said about the issue — dismissing it as “theological nuances” — in order to keep his hate alive. Who wants to deal with nuance when there’s hate to peddle? He went on to whine that other churches aren’t hating LGBTQ people to his satisfaction:
Otherwise, no major church leaders are sanctioning adultery or fornication or pornography. But some are sanctioning same-sex unions (or, in more compromised settings, same-sex “marriages”). That is why we respond as we do.
It’s the same thing with LGBTQ+ activism in general.
That activism is affecting children in our nursery schools and young adults on our college campuses. It is everywhere in our society, from social media to the world of sports, and from TV and Hollywood to the business world.
We cannot avoid confronting LGBTQ+ activism and ideology wherever we turn, so we either push back with our own values or we cave in and capitulate.
It’s the same with the pope’s ridiculous pronouncement. There must be a reply.
Then it was back to lecturing the leader of a congregation of which he is not a member:
Really now, is the pope telling us a gay couple can live together, can be emotionally and physically intimate, and can commit to lifelong faithfulness without transmitting a wrong conception of marriage? What is the big difference between the two – other than the obvious fact that two men or two women cannot marry in God’s sight?
In August, I addressed the Church of England’s decision to allow Anglican clergy to “bless” same-sex couples, yet another apostate step made by this rapidly declining faith group.
What will now happen with the Catholic Church?
That is for Catholics to answer, but without question, this could lead to a major rift of sorts, as the strong, conservative elements of the Church will reject this pronouncement outright, whatever the cost. The effects could be seismic. (As I noted in that August article, it is “progressive” Christianity that is dying; the real Gospel is thriving.)
As for the gay Catholic couples who see this as a beacon of hope and a sign of the humanity and compassion of the Church, I don’t pretend to see the world through their eyes, and I don’t claim to understand the pain and the struggle they have endured.
I will just say this, with brokenness, not with triumphalism: I don’t doubt your love for each other. I don’t doubt that part of you really wants to honor the Lord. But I can only tell you the truth. God has a better way, and He never intended you to unite with someone of the same sex.
If you will lay your life before Him, surrendering fully to Jesus as Lord, He will forgive all your sins and give you a fresh new start. Cry out to Him today!
Brown appears to be the broken one who can’t accept there are other kinds of love, so he must spew hate at those people instead. He’s the one who seems to need a “fresh new start” freed of such vicious hate for anyone who’s not exactly like him. If he can’t understand someone else, he should probably just shut up about them.