Replies

More info from the website....

Cleaning out the closet -- Part 2

In Friday's Issues Summary I wrote a segment entitled "Cleaning out the closet." Observing that we live in a sex saturated culture I suggested that the "sexual orientation" of our leaders in the State House is important.

Allow me to offer the following observations about that segment.

1. "Sexual orientation" is obviously important to some people. I don't, however, care about people's sex lives. I care about how the "sexual orientation" -- and thinking about "sexual orientation" -- of leaders relates to public policy. We are, for goodness sakes, preparing to define out of existence (as we have known it for millenia) the institution of marriage. A matter of this significance requires a thorough and thoughtful analysis, a consideration of a public servant's "sexual orientation," no matter what it is. I would argue that this is important, especially in the context of homosexual agenda advocacy.

2. We are not going to print rumours.

3. I wish no harm upon anyone in Maine. Contrary to popular opinion in some quarters, I am not a "hater" or a "homophobe."

4. It is interesting that homosexuality can be the moral good that it obviously is to so many, and at the same time strike terror into their hearts as they push for public acceptance in a private way. I must admit that this one is hard for me to get my mind around. If the "right" to marriage is so important, then take some risks to defend the basis upon which those "rights" are going to be conferred. And if you are afraid of rednecks then deal with the rednecks. Don't claim that honest and courageous Christianity provides a rationale for hate and violence. I, for one, am not going to serve as your straw man. Christianity is worth defending as it relates to sexual sin, the homosexual agenda, social order and civilization. I will defend it and risk being quoted out of context, or misunderstood.

Stay tuned.