| I am
sending this out primarily to Christians in the Milwaukee area; but if
anyone else is short of reading material, be my guest. The media is
gearing up to derail the Wisconsin marriage amendment, which is currently
approved by 70% of all Wisconsinites. Some of the media's propaganda
efforts will be blatant. Some media personalities, such as the
"conservative" Charlie Sykes, will take the subtle approach as
modeled in the Sykes article following my comments on it.
WTMJ Milwaukee talk show host Charles Sykes
seems to be consumed of late with a need to lash out at me, both on the
air and on his blog. Actually, Charlie has had that fetish for a number of
years, raking me over on his program for my opposition to the Mazo nude
beach, my biblical stand on homosexuality, and last but not least, my
teaching on the pope and his counterfeit church. This all goes back a
little. For instance, in 1992, in an appearance on Wisconsin Public
Television, Sykes spoke against my campaign for state assembly. Now Mr.
Sykes has written an article for the liberal Madison rag, the Isthmus,
titled "Gay Marriage Amendment: I'm Undecided." The article is a
veiled propaganda piece against our state's proposed constitutional
amendment which will take the definition of marriage out of the hands of
activist judges and in the process also guard against the creation of
state-recognized civil unions.
In this article, Sykes adds to the
list of pejoratives which he is using to describe me even as he warns
"gays" not to use similar terms against, you know, real
"Christians" who think that the man of sin, the son of perdition
is in heaven with the One whom he spent his life blaspheming. So now, in
addition to being a bigot, hate monger, etc., I am a wingnut, a fringe
dweller, and—this is my favorite—an anti-gay mouth-frother. Actually,
some of you are also wingnuts because we work together in ministry. That
makes you and, of course, all the members of Pilgrims Covenant Church my
"followers" and therefore my fellow wingnuts. In his article,
Sykes urges the supporters of the marriage amendment to "take some of
their wingnuts to the side. And leave them there. . . . like the Rev.
Ralph Ovadal . . ." Apparently, Charlie doesn't know that I am not
exactly a card-carrying member of the evangelical/conservative
establishment. My fundamentalist stand on ecumenism and the Roman
Catholic Church has ensured that. At any rate, I have no intention of
being docilely led to the side and left there anyway.
Mr. Sykes goes on to authoritatively state,
"But Ovadal and his supporters are fringe dwellers, who will have
little effect on the vote's outcome." That is sort of funny in light
of the fact that "No on the Amendment," a front group for this
state's largest sodomite political/educational organization, Action
Wisconsin, recently wrote about our efforts: "This makes Ovadal and
Pilgrims Covenant Church a significant grassroots force on the side of the
amendment." Maybe the reason that Charlie S. is working so hard to
whip up animosity toward yours truly is because "Ovadal and his
supporters" are having a profound impact on this state's attitude
toward sodomite activity and the sodomite agenda. Over the years, my
fellow wingnuts and I have conducted a grassroots campaign to get the
truth out about homosexuality, including by distributing well over one
million pieces of literature dealing with that subject. That's called
laying a foundation of truth. In recent years, we have also done numerous
postcard mailings in support of protecting the citizens of our state from
the outrage of "same-sex marriage." Currently, every piece of
literature dealing with homosexuality which we distribute contains a flyer
on the marriage amendment. Between the lit dropping and some mailings we
have been sending out, 78,000 Wisconsin homes have received that flyer in
the last fourteen months. We praise God for His grace and help in all
of this. We are also grateful that, due to the help of so many from
outside our church, we are able to maintain that aspect of our ministry as
just that—only one aspect of our ministry work.
In addition to his anger for my stand on
the pope, there is a reason why Charlie Sykes is spending so much time
attacking this wingnut. Charlie is a supporter of sodomite
"marriage." In 1997, he wrote an editorial for the Isthmus
which was titled "Some Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage." The piece
also ran in the May 22, 1997 issue of the now defunct sodomite newspaper,
the Wisconsin Light. We can provide copies of the article to
those who request them. Here are some excerpted comments on "gay
marriage" as shared by Charles J. Sykes in the Isthmus and
the Wisconsin Light:
The desire to make a lifelong
commitment is a profoundly conservative step. . . . Gays wish to have
monogamous, stable and committed relationships, and they wish to have
those relationships recognized. . . . Despite the rhetoric, it is hard
to see how their desire to be married poses a threat to the institution
of marriage. . . . the desire on the part of Gays and Lesbians to make
lifelong commitments is profoundly conservative. . . . Society has a
vested interest in the stability of Gay and Lesbian relationships . . .
the absence of officially recognized Gay marriages does involve genuine
hardships . . . conservatives need to recognize that their principles
need not be sacrificed to recognize basic human needs and aspirations. .
. . Over time, Gay couples will establish themselves . . . Believing in
Gay marriage will not be a tenet of political correctness, it will be a
fact of life.
Pastor Ralph Ovadal
http://www.620wtmj.com/_content/talk/charliesykes/index.asp?id=8&entry=16365
THURSDAY, March 9, 2006, 5:41 p.m.
GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: I'M UNDECIDED
(Note: This column appears in the
Madison weekly Isthmus.)
By Charles Sykes
There's a reason this November's vote
on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage may be defeated:
Conservatives who, like me, are
undecided.
The left seems solidly united in
opposition. But despite what the legislative votes for the amendment might
suggest, support on the right is softer.
By now it is notorious that the
amendment contains two sentences. The first, which bans gay marriage, is
straightforward enough. But the second is a bit murkier:
"A legal status identical or
substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall
not be valid or recognized in this state."
To which thoughtful conservatives
reply: Say what?
The language seems to ban civil
unions, but does it also extend to other benefits, as well? The amendments
proponents insist not, but here we tread into the swamps of irony.
UW Law professor and centrist blogger
Ann
Althouse notes that the second sentence
"goes beyond what is needed to satisfy traditionalists and takes a
gratuitous swipe at benefits currently enjoyed by real families here in
the state." Supporters will argue that they don't mean to do that and
that we should "trust the courts to interpret the language of the
amendment so that it won't mean the bad thing the gay rights groups are
saying it will mean."
But, as Althouse notes, "The
argument for the amendment was that we can't trust the courts not to find
rights for gay people in the unamended state constitution."
And that is precisely the strongest
argument for the amendment: marriage will be redefined one way or another:
either by black-robed activists or by the public. So it's a problem if the
public is unclear what the definition actually means and if it gets thrown
back to the courts anyway.
But there is another, somewhat more
sutble, choice as well: marriage will be redefined either through
evolutionary or revolutionary means. Society will either gradually change
its attitiudes in response to the sorts of relationships that develop in
its midst, or the change will be rammed down its throat by court order or
government dictat.
Does the amendment - which seeks to
avoid a judicial mandate - itself veer too far in the opposite direction,
by freezing both social and legal policy and removing it from the give and
take of legislative compromise and social evolution? Conservatives also
believe that, as a rule, constitutions should limit the powers of
government, not of individuals.
Other questions also nag:
Exactly how does allowing gays to
enter into legal, monogamous relationships undermine the institution of
marriage? Isn't in society's interest to foster and recognize such stable
relationships? And why would that be something that conservatives would
oppose?
Let's be honest: when gays point to
divorce as a greater threat to marriage, they have a point. Yet, so far,
none of the defenders of marriage have proposed banning divorce, or
barring the infertile from the rites of marital bliss.
If the concern is combatting threats
to marriage, why not focus on the "domestic partner" benefits
that extend insurance etc. to members of the opposite sex who merely shack
up with favored employees? The only real justification for such shack-up
benefits is that, short of recognizing gay marriage, they are the only way
to extend such benefits to committed gay couples. But by conferring
marital benefits to boy friends and girl friends alike, they erase the
distinction between marriage and casual sex - a far greater challenge to
the primacy of marriage than gay marriage itself.
Gays who wish to marry don't want to
tear down marriage. They want in on it.
None of this will matter, however, if
overheated rhetoric drowns out the legitimate questions. My advice to both
sides: extremism won't win over any converts and could cost you the
election.
Supporters of the amendment would do
well to take some of their wingnuts to the side. And leave them there.
This includes, anti-gay mouth-frothers like the Rev. Ralph Ovadal, the
sponsor of conferences on what he calls "Homo-Fascism."
Ovadal and his supporters not only
oppose gays, they also have it in for the pope. "What should any true
follower of Jesus say about such a man as Pope John Paul II?" Ovadal
asked on the occasion of the late pope's death. "Plainly and simply
put, they should say that John Paul II was a counterfeit, a minister of
Satan."
Let me suggest that this is not the
way to win friends and influence people. But Ovadal and his supporters are
fringe dwellers, who will have little effect on the vote's outcome.
A bigger problem for the supporters
of gay marriage is their own temptation to assume that all their opponents
are wingnuts like Ovadal.
But calling your opponents bigots or
assuming that supporters of the amendment "hate" gays will not
win any converts. Nor will attacking the traditional teachings of mainline
churches. So it cuts both ways.
If gays want more tolerance and
acceptance, they will have to be more tolerant themselves. And Christians
who want respect and tolerance for their faith need to distance themselves
from extremists who insist the pope is in hell.
That can't be that hard, can it?
Related articles:
3-25-06—A New Pope-Defending Coalition?
3-2-06—Reynolds,
Ovadal, and the Pope
Back to top. |
