"Sheep in the Midst of Wolves" Part 1

I didn’t want to be seen as a “crazy person who believes in conspiracies”. Yet, here I am having read the agenda of gay activists Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill, “The Overhauling of Straight America” and find myself in shock of the tactics they choose to use to “desensitize the American public concerning gays and gay rights.” I find myself relating to Lehi from The Book of Mormon, who preached truth and was persecuted for it. That despite my efforts to choose my words carefully, they will be taken in offense. That despite the evidence, it is taken lightly and passed over with little thought.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I, personally, have come a long way in how I view the LGBT community from a complete lack of understanding and confusion, to being able to honestly feel sympathy and love towards them. I sympathize with the desire to be understood and eager to be accepted as I am while not feeling pressure of changing myself to fit another’s mold. I recognize as well, that members of a choir, singing their different parts, still unite their many voices as one. We are all part of the same choir.

What I don’t agree with is the tactics of deceit they openly planned to use (and have used) in this article that later became a book. Referring to the classic camel in the tent idiom they said, “First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere!” They well know and intentionally manipulate the American public through their sly tactics, playing on the public’s humanity and good-willed emotions. They manipulate and make the public come off as bigots and haters, well knowing there are truly only a few in our nation with those ideas.

I don’t like feeling like a pawn in someone else’s hands. I don’t approve of manipulation for personal gain. There are honest and upstanding ways to persuade others. The tactics and purpose of this agenda are those that Jesus Christ warned about, “wolves in sheep clothing” (Matt 7:15) and “being blown about by every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:14).

It’s not just the agenda of the National Gay Task Force (Kirk and Pill, 1987) that use cunning craftiness to push forward their personal plans, it was also used by the five consenting Supreme Court Justices in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 to change the definition of marriage.

The remaining four Supreme Court Justices thoroughly bring to light in their dissensions how these five judges ignored law and the Constitution, and used philosophy and personal opinion in their decision. In essence, they misused their judicial power. They stole away the government of the people, democracy, and replaced it with their own power and sovereignty. Five singular people deciding for the entire nation. (Obergefell v. Hodges, dissenting decision 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 4 ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting).

             “…a Justice’s commission does not confer any special moral, philosophical, or social insight sufficient to justify imposing those perceptions on fellow citizens under the pretense of “due process.” There is indeed a process due the people on issues of this sort—the democratic process. Respecting that understanding requires the Court to be guided by law, not any particular school of social thought.” (pg 22 dissenting)

Are we to just give up our rights? Are we to have them stripped from us?

And just as the camel’s nose has made its way in to mainstream America’s tent, we see the camel chewing away at our rights, neglecting the order and laws of the judicial system, and demean the very contract our nation was founded upon, the Constitution. No wonder! The law and contracts have no meaning to them. They have put themselves above them. They neglect the greatest contract of our nation (the Constitution) and destroy the contract of nature, of marriage.

             “Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history—and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” (pg4-5 of the dissenting decision). To those who drafted and ratified the Constitution, this conception of marriage and family “was a given: its structure, its stability, roles, and values accepted by all.”

          “…the marriage laws at issue here involve no government intrusion. They create no crime and impose no punishment. Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is “condemned to live in loneliness” by the laws challenged in these cases—no one.” (pg 17-18 dissenting)

             "Neither petitioners nor the majority cites a single case or other legal source providing any basis for such a constitutional right. None exists, and that is enough to foreclose their claim." (pg 16-17 dissenting)

See "Sheep in the Midst of Wolves" Part 2 for my conclusion