Anti-Gay Marriage Group: ‘This is the Beginning of an Epic Battle’

Jonathan Saenz of Texas Values says courts could legalize polygamy next.
by Published on
Jonathan Saenz
Patrick Michels
Jonathan Saenz of Texas Values outside a federal courthouse in San Antonio where the issue of same-sex marriage is being litigated, February 12, 2014.

Just nine years ago, in 2005, Governor Rick Perry told the press that gay people in Texas (gay veterans, at that) should consider moving to other states if they wanted better treatment from their government. He was speaking at a ceremonial signing of legislation that put a same-sex marriage ban on the ballot in November 2005.

How quickly times change—though slower in Texas than elsewhere. Last week, that constitutional amendment was deemed unconstitutional by a federal court in San Antonio, following a number of similar rulings in states as red as Utah and Oklahoma. The matter will be appealed and could be taken up eventually by the U.S. Supreme Court.

To say the gay rights movement in the United States is experiencing a period of success is an understatement—even if the blowback to that success poses risks. Yet here in Texas, where you might expect more conflict about what remains a momentous social issue, you haven’t seen much yet beyond grandstanding. That’s partially a result of the fact that the Texas Legislature won’t meet again for another nine months. Texas groups agitated about the ruling haven’t had any space to float policy proposals or legislation.

But I was curious about what anti-gay marriage activists might have in store. So I called Jonathan Saenz, the president of Texas Values, the group which says it stands “for biblical, Judeo-Christian values by ensuring Texas is a state in which religious liberty flourishes, families prosper, and every human life is valued.”

Saenz, who responded to activists trying to strip anti-sodomy provisions out of Texas law last week by arguing that gay people only want gay rights because they’re gay, flatly denies the “homosexuals” are making any progress at all, and says his movement and Christians in the state won’t give up without a fight. What’s more, he left the door open to pushing for a bill, like the one recently vetoed in Arizona, that makes it legal for businesses to discriminate against gay people if serving them conflicts with a “deeply held religious belief.”

“This is the beginning of an epic battle,” Saenz told me. “There’s a strong likelihood that the Fifth Circuit [Court of Appeals] is going to overturn this decision. If Texas’ gay marriage laws are not constitutional, there’s no guarantee that the court won’t open up marriage to polygamy and polyandry.”

There’s definitely a chance the traditionally conservative Fifth Circuit overturns the Texas decision, but gay rights lawyers in Texas and elsewhere know these cases will be appealed and are laying the groundwork for the Supreme Court to take up the issue. That’s the reason U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia stayed his own ruling, as has happened in many states. It puts the ruling on hold until a higher court can weigh in. But even in that, Saenz sees encouragement.

The fact that Garcia stayed his ruling, Saenz says, “shows some hesitation on his part. I think the homosexual advocates were ready to go on down to the clerk’s office” and get married, he says cheerily, “and he put a stop to that.”

Garcia happens to be the brother-in-law of state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio), who is running for lieutenant governor. I asked Saenz if he perceived judicial bias.

“It wouldn’t surprise me,” he says. “What we have here is the homosexuals being used by the Democrats to gain more political power.” He added: “The homosexuals have more political power than ever before.”

But the most enlightening part of our conversation came when we talked about SB 1062, the recently-vetoed Arizona legislation that attracted national attention. Supporters said the bill protected religious liberty while critics, including a number of Republicans, said it amounted to legalizing anti-gay discrimination. “Religious liberty” has become an increasingly important issue for conservatives ever since a number of bakeries across the nation got in hot water for refusing to make cakes for gay wedding services.

A number of states have considered bills carving out an exemption in non-discrimination laws to allow businesses to deny service to LGBTQ people for religious reasons. Some proposed laws even go so far as to extend that right to venues like hotels and restaurants, and to government workers. Arizona has been the only state to pass such a law so far, but it backfired when, in a surprising reversal, arch-conservative governor Jan Brewer vetoed it after mounting pressure. Nevertheless, it stands to reason we’ll see an attempt to advance a similar measure in Texas in the 2015 session.

Saenz is firmly convinced of the need for such laws.

The veto of the Arizona bill, he says, provides incontrovertible proof that “homosexuals do want to force people of faith to be part of their gay marriage ceremonies. They want to use government power to force people of faith to be part of their homosexual lifestyle and ceremonies,” he said.

That’s something of a new tack for Saenz’s crowd. The rhetoric has always been there: Anti-gay marriage activists have long held out the prospect of a dark future in which Baptist ministers are frog-marched to Southern Decadence to preside over Village People-themed weddings. But new developments make that future seem, to some, like an immediate threat, to be confronted in the near future—and that’s been feeding blowback in red states.

“Arizona made it real clear to people of faith what homosexual advocates want,” Saenz says. “They seem to not be satisfied unless they can force people of faith to celebrate their lifestyle. I think you’re going to see a growing concern in Texas, as you are across the country.”

I ask him if Texas Values would support legislation for the 2015 session, or is working to lay the groundwork for it. “That’s all I’m going to say on that subject,” he says.

Texas Values has been active in mobilizing against the gay rights movement in Texas for some time. The group organized in opposition to San Antonio’s LGBTQ non-discrimination ordinance last year, unsuccessfully. In the 2013 legislative session, Texas Values also supported bills that would punish school districts across the state, like the Austin and Pflugerville ISDs, which extend partner benefits to gay couples.

For much of the country, it might feel like the argument over gay marriage is reaching a tipping point. But the fight over the issue could easily become prolonged in Texas. After all, 2014 is an election cycle when Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has argued in court that the state has a need to discourage “prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation” is running for governor while defending the state’s marriage laws.

The possibility of same-sex marriage ceremonies in Beaumont and Lubbock is edging closer as a crop of even-more conservative candidates are primed to win state offices. As the issue continues to get litigated, expect to see an organized fightback from Texas conservatives.

Christopher Hooks joined the Observer in 2014. Previously, he was a freelance journalist in Austin, where he grew up. His work has appeared in Politico Magazine, Slate, and Texas Monthly, among others. He graduated from The New School in 2012 with a bachelor's degree in history.

  • DCSwede

    I love to watch the so-called conservatives twist themselves in knots arguing that they are for small government, but that they still want to impose themselves in people’s private lives. This was a great issue for President Bush in 2004, but the world has changed, and Texas is changing, too.

  • jk

    “This is the beginning of an epic battle.” Delusions of grandeur much?

    As for a Texas variation on SB 1062, it would behoove these wingnuts to read the seminal 1964 Supreme Court case, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., which states flat-out that it’s a violation of both federal law and the Constitution to refuse service to federally recognized minorities simply because they *are* minorities. While at the time gay people were essentially invisible in the public eye, in a modern context the holding indisputably applies to them as well. As for the rationalization of “deeply held religious views,” it holds less water than a toddler’s bladder.

    I had no idea Sen. Van de Putte had such a cretinous brother-in-law. I can only imagine what their Thanksgivings must be like…

    • sbuent

      jk, I think you misread the part about Van de Putte. The judge who ruled that the gay marriage ban was unconstitutional, Orlando Garcia, is her brother-in-law, not the cretin.

    • Victor Edwards

      That whole notion that homosexuals/sodomites are a “federally recognized minority” is the fatal flaw of the homosexual lobby’s agenda. They are only “minority” in the same sense as murderers, rapists, thieves, and violent offenders are “minorities.” It is this issue that will be litigated when the people finally get a chance to oppose this perverted movement. There is a biblical principle which says, “The first to present his case seems right until another comes forward and cross-examines him.”

      Thus far, the people of this country have not had their chance to register their view, as it has been the expressed purpose of the homosexual lobby to avoid any kind of public participation. Rather, they have pursued the privacy of the courts and to intimidate and defraud particularly gullible legislators at both state and federal levels. But when the case is allowed to be cross-examined, the “epic battle” will be launched.

      Blacks are rightly designated a minority, for both in numbers and in genetic traits they are an identifiable minority. Same with females. Same with Asians. Each are identifiable groups with specific genetic traits that are not in any way connected with morality.

      But homosexuality is nothing one can detect outwardly. There is but one way: their behavior. Homosexuality is not a genetic trait. It is a chosen BEHAVIOR, which bring it into the moral realm and thus is a matter to be decided from a morality standpoint. Homosexuality is immoral and has rightly been categorized as such for the history of mankind. The modern homosexual/sodomite agenda cannot re-write history.

      When the 97 percent who are not homosexual/sodomite get opportunity to litigate this travesty, all this will be the “epic battle” mentioned.

      • jk

        “Homosexuality is not a genetic trait. It is a chosen BEHAVIOR”

        Bzzzzt, thanks for playing! Although there is still disagreement as to the exact cause of homosexuality, the one thing that has been absolutely RULED OUT is the idea that it’s a choice. That dog just won’t hunt.

        “Homosexuality is immoral and has rightly been categorized as such for the history of mankind.”

        Um, actually it was commonplace in ancient Greece, ancient Rome *and* ancient Egypt, but I guess unlike me you didn’t major in World History in college. (Okay, I’m being too nice; I shouldn’t assume you’re college-educated…)

        “When the 97 percent who are not homosexual/sodomite get opportunity to litigate this travesty”

        See, that’s the thing: it’s BEEN litigated! And you bigots lost!

        “That whole notion that homosexuals/sodomites are a ‘federally recognized minority’ is the fatal flaw of the homosexual lobby’s agenda.”

        I have a bit of news that you may find shocking, so perhaps you should sit down first:

        1) I can only assume you were trapped at sea last June, but the Supreme Court issued a rather major ruling that pertains to, yes, federally recognizing “homosexuals/sodomites” as a minority. Worse still, the Court said they have a right under federal law to marry! If you need to grab some smelling salts before reading further, go right ahead.

        2) There is no “homosexual lobby.” Ergo, there is also no “homosexual agenda.” Shocking, I know!

        “They are only ‘minority’ in the same sense as murderers, rapists, thieves, and violent offenders are ‘minorities.’”

        1) In case you’re unaware of the definition of “hyperbole,” you might wanna look it up, because you’re doing a darn good job of engaging in it here.

        2) Being gay is not, nor has it ever been, a crime. (Well, outside of Islamic countries, but surely you’re not suggesting we should adopt Sharia law!)

        3) You might want to sit down again, but … it’s also perfectly legal for gay people to engage in consensual intimate relations, a.k.a. “sex.” See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas.

        “There is a biblical principle which says, ‘The first to present his case seems right until another comes forward and cross-examines him.’”

        Well, since you brought the Bible up, here are a few more quotes from it:

        “God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in Him.” John 4:16

        “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” John 1:9

        And here are a few quotes many Christians “conveniently forget” while they’re busy condemning “sodomites”:

        “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” Timothy 2:11

        “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” Luke 16:18 (Translation: hope you don’t know any divorced people, because they’re ADULTERERS!)

        “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head…” 1 Corinthians 11:5 (Wait, women have to cover their heads in church? I thought only MUSLIM TERRORISTS had to do that!)

        and my favorite:

        “When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (Yep: if, heaven forbid, your wife defends you, chop off her hand post-haste!)

        • Victor Edwards

          It always amuses me that you godless homosexual [or those who support them, qualifying for the same penalty] think you can use Holy Scripture to support you perverted case.

          Homosexuality, as I said, is a chosen BEHAVIOR. Many of them have chosen to disguise themselves as hetero and have indeed held heterosexual relationship for some time. But they then CHOSE to go homosexuality. This, dipstick, proves that choice is involved. I could choose to be homosexual if I chose, but every hormone in my body and every thought tells me that would be wrong and perverted. Homosexuality is a chosen BEHAVIOR. You have not one iota of evidence that it is not.

          Homosexuals are NOT a valid minority. That is the issue that will be litigated. That the stupid Supreme Court made some ruling means nothing in reference to truth. They approved of Jim Crow laws too, until reasonable minds prevailed and reversed that nonsense. So it will be when the stupid court rules that homosexuality is a minority. That perverse ruling ranks up there with Jim Crow and Citizens United, and is proof that the SCOTUS is messed up beyond redemption.

          But that is an “epic battle” for another time. Now we have to deal with this notion that homosexuals are somehow a valid minority. I have already stated my case why that is not so, but you dismiss any argument by resort to authority. Sorry, but that won’t do. We will reverse that stupid decision later when reasonable and rational minds again prevail.

          Now, as to your vulgar and stupid handling of the Bible text, let me say a few things. One, you don’t have the necessary qualifications to even attempt to interpret the Bible. You are a “natural man,” without the benefit of regeneration to allow you to know the things of God. Here is how the Bible puts that:

          “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he CANNOT understand them, because they are spiritually understood.”

          Such is the case with you. The things of God are foolishness to you, and you cannot understand the things of God at all, for you have not the Spirit of God – nor do you even want it!

          This spiritual inability of yours is illustrated nicely by the things you quote from the Scriptures, all cherry-picked quotes taken out of context to suit your perverse need. For instance, you quote

          “”God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in Him.” John 4:16

          Of course if you were to have included the context, the intent of your cherry-picked text would be obvious to the reader. You want to use the word “love” in a way that is compatible with homosexual “love,” but that is impossible. The very Bible you are trying to pervert to support your case calls homosexual behavior “vile affection,” not love. It is also called “unnatural, filthy, sexual impurity and perversion, unclean, shameful lust, indecent acts, depraved, wickedness, evidence of a darkened mind.

          Then you had the audacity to quote:

          “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” John 1:9

          Did you even read the text before you quoted it? Oh, I know that you have the classic homsexual/antinomian view of that, which allows you to continue on in perverted sin even when the very Bible you claims supports it actually condemns it and pronounces a rather harsh judgement upon those who commit such acts. Try reading another passage:

          “Do you not know that
          the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.
          Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
          nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous,
          nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”

          You will take note of the teaching of the Bible everywhere, that if you do not enter the kingdom of God, you enter the exact opposite; hell. Sorry, guy, but your own mouth has condemned you.

          I respectfully ask that you refrain from now on from citing any Scripture passage due to your appalling ignorance of the same.

          I would correct you on each and every text you cited, but I have already stated why it is that you cannot understand them and always, I say again, always interpret it to your own liking. And you mishandle it every single time. You simply don’t know what you are talking about.

          Just be reminded; there is an epic battle ahead and we are coming for you and your ilk.

          • jk

            “It always amuses me that you godless homosexual [or those who support them, qualifying for the same penalty] think you can use Holy Scripture to support you perverted case.”

            I’m not using it to “support my perverted case.” I’m using it to illustrate your own hypocrisy and cherry-picking of Scripture to rationalize your bigotry.

            “Homosexuality, as I said, is a chosen BEHAVIOR.”

            And as *I* said, you are wrong. Period. And that is fact, not my opinion.

            “You have not one iota of evidence that it is not.”

            You mean aside from the HUNDREDS of peer-reviewed studies indicating that a person’s sexual orientation is decided either genetically prior to birth, or in one’s early childhood years? Lemme guess: you also think manmade global warming is a “hoax,” never mind the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies proving otherwise…

            “Homosexuals are NOT a valid minority. That is the issue that will be litigated.”

            Um, no, it won’t. On the off chance any of the proposed state laws allowing businesses to discriminate against gays because of “religious beliefs” pass, they will almost immediately be shot down in court as a blatant violation of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It’s perfectly legal for a pastor or preacher to refuse to marry gay people on the basis of religious beliefs. It is NOT legal, however, for businesses to refuse to cater to them. Btw just to provide some context here, once upon a time this same excuse was used to rationalize Jim Crow laws … which makes you bringing them up immensely ironic, but I’ll get to that in a sec. Southern racists pointed to sections in the Old Testament stating that slavery was perfectly okay, and other parts arguing against “mixing the races” through miscegenation (mixed-race marriages). The Supreme Court shot down that garbage 50 years ago.

            “They approved of Jim Crow laws too, until reasonable minds prevailed and reversed that nonsense.”

            And now it’s time for today’s Irony Alert! You oppose odious Jim Crow laws for racial minorities, but you clearly have no problem with them for gay people … even though you pointed out in your last post that it is impossible to identify many, if not most, homosexuals on sight.

            “I have already stated my case why that is not so, but you dismiss any argument by resort to authority.”

            Oh, I’m sorry, did you forget we live in AMERICA? And Americans are required to FOLLOW LAWS set by authority? Or are you suggesting Americans ignore the laws – which is at best illegal and at worst treasonous?

            “One, you don’t have the necessary qualifications to even attempt to interpret the Bible.”

            Well, that’s quite an assumption, considering you don’t even know me. Here’s what I do know about the Bible and its teachings (with quotes):

            It ain’t your place to judge others (including Sodomites)! “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.” [John 8:7] “Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged. [Matthew 7:1]

            Jesus professes love and community: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” [Matthew 22:39] “So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you.” [Matthew 7:12.] (Note: neither quotation is followed with the phrase “…unless he is a Sodomite.”)

            Jesus doesn’t like it when you make a big public to-do about your beliefs: “And when thou pray, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou pray, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret…” [Matthew 6:6 & 7]

            Jesus was pretty freakin’ liberal, and heartily believed in helping the poor and needy: “But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” [Luke 14:13 &14.]

            Jesus *really* didn’t like greedy rich people: “Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” [Matthew 19:23] “You cannot serve both God and money.” [Matthew 6:24.] (Side note: there are dozens of admonitions against greed and not helping the poor in the Bible, but only a handful of references to anything homosexual-related. Why do you think that’s the case?)

            “I respectfully ask that you refrain from now on from citing any Scripture passage due to your appalling ignorance of the same.”

            Ditto. Clearly your perverted version of the Bible emphasizes every part of it promoting hate. The *actual* teachings of Jesus promoted love, kindness, and consideration — not standing in judgment of others.

            “Just be reminded; there is an epic battle ahead and we are coming for you and your ilk.”

            Okay, seriously? You’re “coming for me and my ilk”? What are you expecting to do, round up all The Gays and cart them off to concentration camps? Um, good luck with that. (Incidentally, if any of you freaks did happen to enter my home without permission, you’d swiftly be introduced to my SIG Sauer P220.)

          • Victor Edwards

            You said: “You mean aside from the HUNDREDS of peer-reviewed studies indicating that a person’s sexual orientation is decided either genetically prior to birth, or in one’s early childhood years? Lemme guess: you also think manmade global warming is a “hoax,” never mind the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies proving otherwise…”

            That simply won’t do. There has been NO recognized studies that have done anything of the notion. There is NO scientific studies that have determined this. You are just blowing steam. You don’t have even a smidgen of evidence, not one thread. Homosexuality is a choice to follow perverse inclinations. Homosexuals could follow their normal hormonal instincts and be heterosexual, but they don’t want to.

            That is exactly the problem. Their “want to” is broken so that they choose not to act in a normal way, and act out unnaturally and abnormally. If you will list for me a few of these “peer-reviewed” studies you claim support your case, I would like to have those. And please, don’t pull my chain about “peers” in “peer-reviewed” somehow means reviewed by other homosexuals! I am weary of that dishonesty.

            Now, on to your misuse of Scriptures, just as I accused you. You would not pass Hermeneutics 101, but would get an F for your strange and clumsy amateurish efforts to manipulate the Scriptures for your own case. It is you who are cherry-picking, not me. In the light of context, your claims for support from Scriptures evaporates like a puff of smoke. They do no say what you say they say – not in the least.

            You also said: “Jesus was pretty freakin’ liberal, and heartily believed in helping the poor and needy: “But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” [Luke 14:13 &14.]

            Vic: That would be funny were it not so pathetic. If the text means what you say [and I think it does!], then I am the liberal! But you notice that it was the “blind, the lame, the poor that He particularly blessed, and not the immoral, though even with the immoral He was ready to forgive on the condition of a turning from their sins, that is, repentance. Such was the case of the woman caught in adultery. But the text you cite only relates to the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, which is to say that they had infirmities and conditions which were not immoral in nature and usually not the fault of the sufferer, though to one person He said, “Go, and sin no more, lest something worse befalls you.”

            What you are trying to slip in the back door is the putrefying notion that Jesus simply overlooked sexual immorality. He did nothing of the sort, but condemned it and warned of the consequences of it. Homosexuality is sexual immorality, and I can quote that to you again if you like. Please do not try to argue that Jesus saw homosexuality in the same way He saw poverty and blindness! That is patently absurd.

            Let’s see; what else…? You said:

            “Jesus doesn’t like it when you make a big public to-do about your beliefs.” Then you quote a passage of Scripture that was totally out of context. It has nothing to do with public profession of faith, but PRAYER – and only, in this instance, prayer. Elsewhere He himself commanded -not just advised – to go into all the world [about as public as you can get, eh?] and preach the Gospel, teaching them all things whatsoever I have taught you…”

            The Apostle Paul, speaking for Jesus Christ who had appeared to him, said these words about talking/debating the faith with the “public”;

            “For though we live in the world, we do not WAGE WAR as the world does. The weapons we FIGHT with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they [our weapons, the Word of God being the main one] have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God…”

            You have mistaken meekness with weakness. We are nothing of the sort.

            Lest I spend all day on this, I will make just a couple more comments in general.

            You make some suggestive comments about “rich” and “greedy.” Are you assuming that I am such? Au contraire, sire! I am on a fixed income called Social Security and a very small retirement income from my years as an academic. It is small because I had to take early retirement and was thus awarded a small portion of what I would have received had I been able to work out my career. If you meet ten people on the street this evening, you can almost be assured that 8 of them will be more wealthy than I. Despite my financial condition, I still manage to give a healthy portion of my little income back to God. If your intent was to assume that I am some rich guy, you are dead wrong.

            Let me share one text with you before I go:

            “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? … “Therefore come out from them and be separate. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you and you will be be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”

            Vic says: If I am to follow my own Lord’s commandments, I have to make judgments, don’t I? How else will I know the difference between righteousness and wickedness, or light from darkness?”

            Indeed, you have this whole “judgment” thing confused. We actually MUST judge between good and evil, between right and wrong, between natural and unnatural behavior. We are to “expose them,” and “demolish” their arguments.

            We Christians don’t judge people as to their final destination, such as hell. That is Jesus’ business, and be sure, He will carry that out.

          • jk

            “That simply won’t do. There has been NO recognized studies that have done anything of the notion. There is NO scientific studies that have determined this.”

            Wrong-o! Here’s one observing a correlation between the sizes of brain hemispheres and sexual orientation:

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

            And here’s one indicating a strong correlative link between maternally inherited factors favoring male homosexuality:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/

            Here’s one indicating a 99% likelihood that sexual orientation is at least partially genetic in nature:

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321.long

            Here’s one strongly suggesting that homosexuality is genetic, based on its exceptionally strong prevalence in twin brothers:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1845227

            And here’s one about heritable factors influencing homosexuality in women:

            http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/female-twin-lesbian.pdf

            Finally, here’s a brand-new study indicating that homosexuality is 30%-40% influenced by genetic factors, and environmental factors causing the remainder of it:

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/male-homosexuality-influenced-by-genes-us-study-finds-9127683.html

            Note a common thread among these studies: NOT ONE of them argues that homosexuality is a choice!

            “What you are trying to slip in the back door is the putrefying notion that Jesus simply overlooked sexual immorality.”

            Not in the least. The only thing I’m trying to “slip in” is *your* entirely arbitrary opinions about various types of “sexual immorality.” You’re practically frothing at the mouth over gays, even though the Bible focuses a WHOLE lot more on, say, divorce than it does on homosexuality. I don’t see you out picketing for an end to divorce, even though the Bible CLEARLY states it’s a mortal sin. Why is that? Or how about the 99% of modern American women who have sex prior to marriage? Shouldn’t they be as condemned as homosexuals? Or could this all be part of the “cherry-picking” I accused you of, because you have friends and family who are divorced and/or engaged in premarital sex and you don’t want to believe they’re going to hell? Or is it just easier to be a bigot about a topic you know little about?

          • Victor Edwards

            First, thanks for the links to the “studies” that you mentioned previously. I have bookmarked each of them and as I did so I quickly took a look. In that cursory look alone, I can tell you that some of these “studies” are as bogus as I had expected, reaching conclusions that are no way indicative of what the data said. So, you can expect some rather still pushback from me on those. This type of bogus “science” is part of the homosexual agenda/lobby. I think that I will discover that the flurry of activity in this research area has been done by those who fully subscribe to the acceptance of homosexuality as a mere lifestyle choice. At least they, unlike you, admit that it is a choice of lifestyle, and one is not driven by their genes to perform behaviors. We are human beings who have been given rational minds to control our urges and lusts, both legitimate and perverted, such as homosexuality. I suspect that you are cherry-picking your homo studies in the same way you pervert scripture [pun intended].

            But I will spend time examining these studies before I push back. Let me now address the other issues that you mention about divorce and unmarried sexual behaviors. I did not respond to those for one reason only; my previous note was already far too long. But I will do it here, now.

            The Bible says, “God hates divorce,” and that God allowed divorce in the Old Testament only because of their sin. It was never intended in God’s creation, but was brought on by the sinfulness of men after the Fall. But when Christ came, He himself restated the divorce issue in person. He said that it was never intended in the original creation, which was “good.” But it became necessary for order in society because of the sinfulness of man. But in light of that sinfulness, and that Christ came to forgive sin, He proscribed divorce altogether except for two legitimate reasons: adultery and abandonment by the partner. [We can argue later about the types of offenses that fit within these two grounds for divorce, arguing from the lessor to the greater, if you like. For instance, I don't think it is necessary for a woman or man to stay married to a person who is trying to kill him or her. But that's another day's argument]. But outside these two guidelines, God hates divorce, and even when it is necessary it is not “good” in the ultimate sense.

            Pre-marital sex in the Bible is called “fornication,” as opposed to “adultery,” which is sex with someone not your marital partner. Both are condemned by the Bible and are sins that must be repented of. Both are immoral and wrong. Just because modern cultures have accepted it does not make it moral or lawful according to the Creator. It continues to be punishable by death if it is not repented, as is all sin, for as the Scriptures says, “If you are guilty on one point [of the law], you are guilty of all,” for all are offenses against God who established [and published] the laws which govern human behaviors.

            I preach against both of these sinful behaviors. Everyone who knows me knows that I am not wishy-washy on these moral matters, but punctilious to condemn both. But I remind you, neither premarital sex between a man and a woman, or adultery in the case of a married couple [man and woman, that is] involves any perverted or immoral sexual behavior such as homosexuality does. Those offenses are violations of God’s proscriptions but not violation of natural laws. Homosexuality is both and is described by the Bible in the strongest of terms: vile affection [vile meaning filthy], unnatural, unclean, sinful desires, sexual impurity, degrading, shameful lusts, indecent, perversion. All this in Romans chapter 1. Read it for yourself.

            “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes or homosexul offenders, nor theives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

            “And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home – these He [God] has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the Great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion ["went after strange flesh", ie, homosexual behavior]. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” Jude 6,7

            Immediately after that passage, these offenders are described this way:

            “In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject [God's] authority and slander celestial beings….these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning brute beasts – these are the very things that destroy them.”

  • https://www.facebook.com/BlowtorchOfReason BlowtorchOfReason

    I find it sad and scary that people don’t know that Texas has ALREADY PASSED SUCH LEGISLATION! It is called the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and it was passed by the Legislature in 1999. Although it is slightly less broad, the TRFRA is very similar to SB 1062 in Arizona. Under the TRFRA, any “person” is free to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity — or against any other class not protected under state or federal civil rights laws — as long as it’s based on the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

    Last year, Republican Texas legislators introduced a resolution aimed at enshrining the TRFRA into the state Constitution, led by this group, Texas Values. That is they are not trying to pass a bill, THEY ARE WANTING TO AMEND THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION.