Dear Readers:
It is a sad state of affairs when, in this free and independent country, we gaze upon three female musicians kissing each other on stage one day, play the segment a thousand times on television, and cheer the action while rushing to get said musicians’ autographs; while the next day, we rush just as quickly to deny a pair of homosexual men or women the right to even proclaim their love for each other in public. Society has created a poor moral standard where the rich and famous can do whatever they wish at any time of the day or night, while the average citizen has to fight by themselves to earn the rights others take for granted.
There are countless people claiming to protect the ‘sanctity’ of marriage, when in fact, they are only saving it for some and mercilessly denying this rite to others. Because of this, there is no ‘sanctity’ any more regarding the subject. In this case, it has become a battle of words where one side does nothing more than ask for the same rights as everybody else, while the other, praising their God of chosen faith and religion in one breath, utterly condemn their neighbor in their second.
I can speak without hesitation on this subject, simply because I have seen both sides of the issue with all of their good and bad parts. On one half, there is my friend Marjorie, being of an outgoing nature, never ceasing to leave me without happy moments.
In my high school days, Marjorie was the person who could and often would recite lines of monologue from “The Princess Bride,” never missing a word of the famous ‘Land War in Asia’ speech from Vizzini right before he dies of his own poison. Marjorie was the person who, after receiving a present of Harry Potter-oriented jelly beans from myself, delighted herself in running about the cafeteria and offering people random draws from the bag.
We acted together in a Writer’s Caf production, went to a live performance of RENT, and were close friends for a good long time. The only difference was that, while I was attracted to boys and wanted to date them, she was not. I believe therefore, that it is impossible to even think about hating her over this fact, nor is it logical or ethical to suddenly dismiss months of a friendly relationship and good intentions over one of the few things that makes us different.
There are always certain people who do bad things in society, such as murder, assault, and other criminal actions; but it is by no means limited to homosexuals. Who remembers the entire story of Sodom and Gomorrah? The sins involved were much greater than one man loving another. The crowd that came to Lot’s house did not merely wish to pick up a date, but instead gain power over the man’s two guests by assaulting them, equal to any rape by inmates in prison. There was no moral control of all accounts in the city, but when looking at the story in context, Lot doesn’t seem all that different from the mob. Why? Because he denies them the chance to assault his male guests, but at the same time freely offers his two daughters to be raped and beaten as the crowd sees fit.
Is such a situation suddenly acceptable? What precedence do we set when we laugh at the idea of prison rape and encourage female assault victims to be silent, but at the same time denounce a non-heterosexual relationship that might not mean any intimacy between its partners as ‘sodomy,’ ‘criminal,’ and ‘immoral’?
Has our own culture forgotten the heroes whose sexual orientations were mercifully ignored because of the good acts they committed? Who remembers the passenger on that flight to Pennsylvania that helped subdue terrorists, thus preventing a third attack at the White House on September 11th? Who praises the name of the postal worker that rescued crash victims from a freezing river? Are heroic acts suddenly disqualified from all recognition simply because the rescuer or hero wasn’t a man in love with a woman?
Such ideas are equal to forbidding someone to vote because they are a woman, or forbidding a man to sit at a lunch counter because they are African-American. People do not wish to acknowledge that which may discredit them or make them look foolish, but the fact remains.
It is equal to the line of Scripture in which Jesus himself claims, “How easy it is for us to criticize the speck in our neighbor’s eye, while paying no attention to the stake inside our own.” And so also it is with the story of the woman caught in adultery-instead of us standing back and letting “He who is without sin cast the first stone,” we deny this command and rush to do the job ourselves. Which sin is greater? The inability to love a certain way regardless of choice, or the blatant, well-thought out denial to allow God to work things out, jumping in to play God in all accounts on our own?
If we do, then we condemn ourselves. Surely there are many among us who remember the declaration, “As you have done to the least of My people, so also have you done to Me.” If we create such a level of hypocrisy as to allow the famous anything they desire, including baseless, loveless acts on television merely to make more money for themselves; while pairs of men and women that are unable to love anyone else but each other are denied all rights simply because they are different, then we leave the ranks of loving sheep who care for each other and join the solitary goats who care for nothing but themselves.
Like Vizzini, we brag of our knowledge and greatness before dying from the poison we have tried to feed another. Hate is not kind, nor productive, nor beneficial to those around us. If we hurt others because of hate, then we end up damaging ourselves forever. Like the goats, we perish; while the sheep among us live to do greater good.
What way, then, must we take in this world? A way that cannot be decided by bishop, councilman, or Senator. Only we ourselves can decide to take this way, and the time has come for us to decide which way that should be.
Sunday, July 6, 2025