Skip to comments.The Separation of LGBT and State: How the Trump Administration should handle [Truncated]
Posted on 01/23/2017 9:38:20 AM PST by fwdude
One of President Trumps first acts in office was to scrub the White House website of references to the LGBT agenda, which had been Barack Obamas top global priority. The euphemistically-named Human Rights Campaign (HRC) condemned the move, but I vigorously applaud it and would like to offer a few suggestions for how the Trump Administration should deal with LGBT issues.
HRC named me its public enemy #1 in a 2014 report titled Exporters of Hate, funded by the Grimer Wormtongue of the GOP, billionaire Paul Singer. As it does with every person who disagrees even in the slightest manner with the notion of gay cultural supremacy, HRC and its ilk cast my reasoned opposition as malicious homophobia and imply that we pro-family advocates want homosexuals to be persecuted and purged from society. However, my true agenda has always been a matter of public record: a balance between the need of society to preserve the primacy of authentic marriage and the natural family as its norm, with the original demand of the LGBT coalition to enjoy a right to privacy behind closed doors.
When I ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2014 my platform was quite similar in several key aspects to that of Mr. Trump, and in fact I sometimes wondered if his campaign manager had read my website. (The biggest difference was I stated openly and often that I didnt run to win, but only to have a platform to promote Biblical values in the political arena.) At the start of my effort in November, 2012, I laid out what was then a unique populist vision for Republicans, in an article titled Time for a New Coalition in the GOP. http://www.scottlively.net/the-run-for-governor/
Later, when I began actively campaigning across Massachusetts, I issued a White Paper regarding gay issues, on the theme of Separation of LGBT and State:
Nearly every legal, social and political battle in American society today pits LGBT activists against Christians, I wrote. In and of itself, the contest between LGBT activists and Christians is not a problem. Questions about the Christian heritage of the United States aside, we are a nation based in substantial part on the theory of a social contract whose terms are set by the people. Vigorous public debate about what our public policy should be is healthy and beneficial.
The problem is that government has put its thumb on the scale favoring the LGBT agenda, while Christians are limited by the so-called Separation of Church and State, a phrase not found in our constitution, but which has nevertheless been determined by activist judges to be the law of the land.
I propose this playing field be leveled by the establishment of a new legal and policy doctrine creating the Separation of LGBT and State. The government should be prohibited from endorsing or promoting LGBT political goals or philosophy in precisely the same way that it is prohibited from promoting religion. Under my policy proposal, individual freedom of speech and association would be preserved, providing a balance between the needs of public health and private rights.
For example, government would no longer be allowed to promote the legitimacy of homosexual, bisexual and transgender conduct in public schools, but students could still form student clubs based on their personal choices. Activists could still hold public parades, but government officials would be restricted from marching in their official capacity. LGBT groups could establish community organizations, but no taxpayer money could be used to create or support them In every way that Christianity is restricted in public life, the LGBT agenda should be restricted. http://www.lively2014runforgov.com/issues.htm#lgbt
I went on to state that in contests between Christian and LGBT activists, the First Amendment must always trump sexual orientation regulations.
President Trump has very publicly aligned himself with two strong leaders whom I also admire.
The first is President Ronald Reagan. Like Mr. Trump, Ronald Reagan rightly had a high level of respect for homosexuals as persons, but as President, Reagan recognized his duty to protect society from the destructive gay agenda, whose goal since the Stonewall Riots of 1969 is not tolerance but absolute cultural supremacy. He fulfilled that duty by appointing the preeminent jurist of the 20th century, Antonin Scalia, to the United States Supreme Court. Justice Scalia then wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v Hardwick (1986), which recognized the clear constitutional authority of all 50 states to regulate harmful sexual conduct, specifically including sodomy. (Mr. Trump should remember this when appointing Justice Scalias replacement.)
The second is President Vladimir Putin, the remarkable Russian strongman who almost single-handedly dragged the Russian Federation out of its post-Glasnost gangsterism into the rule of law, and purged Marxism from the culture by backing a massive revival of the Russian Orthodox Church. The resulting populist revolution produced a National Duma (congress) of patriotic social conservatives that in 2013 banned the promotion of non-traditional sexual lifestyles to children: a bill that was passed unanimously (436 to 0) and signed into law by President Putin.
Importantly, in Putins Russia of today as in Reagans America of the 1980s, an LGBT sub-culture thrives in the shadows outside the mainstream culture but has no power to promote its agenda in public schools or to enrich itself from the public treasury. Adults are free to live their lives as they choose, so long as they do so discretely and dont try to cram it down everybody elses throat. In other words, both of those men achieved the same reasonable balance for their nations that was the norm in many western nations in the 1940s and 50s before the Marxist revolution of the 1960s that spawned leaders like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
I dont have a conduit to the Trump Administration, but someone reading this article probably does. Please ask President Trump to establish a Separation of LGBT and State to take the governments pro-gay thumb off the scale and give the American faith community a fighting chance to restore the natural family to its rightful place as the heart and foundation of our society.
Excellent strategy suggested by Scott Lively.
To generalize a bit, secular humanism is America’s current Established Church and should be treated like any other religion.
“One of President Trumps first acts in office was to scrub the White House website of references to the LGBT agenda”
Sigh. President Trump scrubbed the ENTIRE obama website in toto, replacing it with an entirely new, unrelated website.
Nothing special about the LGBT part being scrubbed other than the fake stream media pretending like it was special: it simply went lights-out like all the rest.
I’ll agree with you that Trump’s specific intent was not to scrub queer advertising on the WH website, but the fact still stands that it’s now gone.
If he puts it back, we should worry.
I have an idea. Ignore them. The only ones who seem to really care about LBGT’s are other LGBT’s. It’s a lifestyle choice and frankly the majority of Americans couldn’t care any less about this.
But that may be the real problem. The LGBT’s are worried that no one cares so this is their way of gaining attention to their plight. What is it they are looking for? Equality? As far as I know, no one is asking in a job interview whether they identify as man, woman or golden retriever. Their own bathroom? You either pee standing up or sitting down, there is no third option.
I’m just not getting it. Maybe someone can explain this.
Revive the Defense of Marriage Act, leave marriage to the states and reinstate Dont Ask, Dont Tell in the military. End homosexual “marriages” on federal property and move on.
I tried this.
20-30 years ago, the message was "tolerance". Frankly, I couldn't care less about LGBTQXYZ, so that was pretty simple. "Live and let live", more or less, was my motto.
Somewhere in the early 2000's that message morphed into "Acceptance", as in, "We would like you to accept what we do as normal. You don't need to, but we'd like that." Frankly, I tried ignoring them (like you suggested). After all, what they were up to didn't really affect me, so I didn't care much.
Finally, during the Obama years, the message morphed into a "Forced Acceptance / Celebration", as in, "You will accept everything that we do with our lives into your life, even if it conflicts with your core beliefs. You will give us access to your children, so that we can teach them our beliefs and turn them against you. You *will* do all this, or we will ruin you, your careers, your livelihoods, your families. For no other reason, than because we can."
Arrogance such as this led to DJT being elected. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we'll be able to back away from the edge, too far. Prosecutions for "anti-gay" (read: Christian) behavior may stop, and public shaming for someone with an "anti-gay" (read: not celebrating the lifestyle enough) attitude may go away, but the ground has already been gained, and won't be lost easily.
I blame myself, a little, but also realize it would have been similar to trying to stop a tornado - all you can do is wait for it to be over, protect yourself and your loved ones, and help clean up all of the damage afterwards.
if a=b and b=c therefore a=c
If one cannot be discriminated against based on race, religion,sexual orientation, etc.
And if Congress cannot make law establishing a religion or a law abridging the free practice thereof.
Therefore no law can be made establishing sexual orientation or abridging the free practice thereof.
Pitting homosexuals against Christians is doomed to failure for Christians, as long as we continue to accept the false premise that homosexuality is equal to race, i.e. born that way.
Homosexuality is not genetic like ethnicity or skin color. It is not something beyond an indivual’s control.
It is a belief system regarding moral choices, reinforced by certain BEHAVIORAL CHOICES, that one can choose to engage in, or not.
As is Christianity.
On this basis, as a Christian, I must not be forced to participate in, or condone, BEHAVIORS or BELIEFS antithetical to my conscience or belief system. Stop telling me I’m a bigot or criminal because my moral and BEHAVIORAL CHOICES are different than a homosexual’s choices.
If this is true, then the adverse must also be true: homosexuals who refuse to conform to Christian beliefs and behaviors must also be bigots.
A wedding is an ACTIVITY, as is a parade.
I don’t wish to participate in, endorse, sponsor, or provide refreshments for, homosexual activities or behaviors.
I won’t bake the cake, any more than I would agree to march in a Gay Pride Parade.
Homosexuality is a behavior.
Is it a good behavior?
Behaviors can be modified.
Activists’ want to stop discussion on all three of the above.
Now, having said that behaviors are complex. The behavior is related to genetic factors, imprinting and fashion, and other causes. We are not amoebas responding to one single stimulus. It is important to understand the complexity of causes. Imprinting/addition are hard to over come.
BUT THE BIG MESSAGE IS BEHAVIOURS CAN BE MODIFIED AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST.
While you're in the cellar, consider how certain natural facts can be used to obstruct their agenda...
Natural Selection selected Sex, the genetic exchange between MALE and FEMALE, because it increases the fitness of species; and what LGBTQWhateverists have select isn't Sex - but the worship of themselves and the abomination of nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.