OC Political

Let’s come right out with the obvious. Scott Peotter expressed his views on same-sex marriage in one of his regular updates as a Newport Beach Councilman. And of course it has caused quite the stir in the Newport Beach Community, to put it mildly. Though sent from a private email account, and sent as a private email, having the City of Newport Beach seal prominently displayed in the email header was probably not the best idea. Recall that we saw the political career of former OCGOP Central Committee member Marilyn Davenport ended over a “racist” depiction of President Obama in a private email sent from a private account, and very few in the Republican Party came to her aid even though all she did was forward a cartoon that had been forwarded thousands of time across the country. Well the climate has only gotten worse and hopefully Scott will not suffer the same fate, because people of good conscience should recognize that while Scott could have made it more clear that his email regarding his view of same-sex marriage was separate and apart from his role as a city councilman, he has every right to express his sincere view without reprisal as there is absolutely no evidence he has discriminated against anyone in functioning as a representative of the city of Newport Beach.

An article in the Daily Pilot by LGBT activist Kevin O’Grady is representative of the view of the LGBT movement, and I think we need to take particular notice with how the “hate” campaign is being waged, which will get a bit philosophical. Specifically, O’Grady makes a moral claim, and in making the moral claim, his logic is that if you don’t believe in his version of morality then you are necessarily, not probably or possibly, but necessarily a bigot, homophobe, or hater. Now O’Grady doesn’t believe, along with his supporters in the comments section, that any religious view has a place in the public square, and certainly not in City Council deliberations. A Christian must check their deeply held beliefs at the door of City Hall, but oddly this doesn’t apply to any other views. O’Grady doesn’t describe, however, why we should accept his particular brand of moral relativism. He simply takes for granted that since he thinks anyone that is against marriage is necessarily a hater, then it is necessarily so based on his own authority. He has no appeal to any objective source. Peotter, on the other hand, appeals to nature’s law, coupled with his belief that it is the God of the Bible that buttresses and supports the natural law providing an objective moral basis, which is entirely in keeping with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the writings of the framers of our founding documents. Peotter can appeal to nature as specifically guiding his view on traditional marriage since only a man and a woman can come together and naturally propagate the species (regardless of intent at any given moment in time), with the nuclear family and complimentarily of man and wife raising children being the centerpiece of society. In a same-sex union, this can only be done by involving a third-party, denying children of their right to a biological mother and father from the very beginning. Promoting any other arrangement, in my view is blatantly selfish towards children.

The tragedy of the same-sex marriage debate as waged by the LGBT activist community is the malicious manner in which it has been executed. Having grown up in the 1960s, I distinctly remember precisely where I was as well as my parents’ reaction to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, I marveled at the love and the graciousness he displayed along with the other civil rights leaders and marchers. In the face of visceral hate, with the threat of death at every turn, Dr. King fought for the civil rights of blacks in America. It was normal leading up to those days for blacks to be beaten and brutally murdered through shootings, beatings, burnings and lynching. We had hoses and dogs turned on us for simply wanting to get a college education. We suffered for almost 400 years. Yet the LGBT activist calls anyone who simply disagrees on same-sex marriage a “hater”? Dr. King never sought to silence anyone. Dr. King never gloated as did the LGBT activist that successfully ended the career of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, and he never tried to destroy any person’s livelihood. Yet the LGBT activist community continually attempts to silence opposing views, demonize their “opponents,” and destroy the livelihoods of those who disagree with them. I don’t see any love or grace in that. So I question any moral arguments they make because they are not made from love, but from vengefulness and spitefulness over a definition that is not discriminatory and never has been. The LGBT community has every right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and there is no hindrance to that whatsoever. Saying that unless everyone agrees with same-sex marriage that this is tantamount to the civil rights struggles of blacks is preposterous. They’re not even gracious in their court-appointed victory. Finally, I don’t know of any Christian or otherwise that believes same-sex couples or any other consenting adults should be denied the rights to legal contractual agreements including matters such as hospital visitation rights, right of survivorship, and estate planning. Christians do believe in love and grace, and thus naturally love homosexuals as fellow human beings knowing that we have all fallen short of the glory of God, but we will not condone or promote behavior that we believe is wrong.

In closing, I think we see that when we hear the term “diversity and inclusion” from the ranks of the LGBT activists and liberal progressives generally, in practice it means something entirely different. Diversity and inclusion, while it sounds positive and forward thinking, is nothing more than code word for the promotion of totalitarian views that seek to not only silence but to also punish dissent. Whereas in the days of old people were silenced through destruction of the physical body, the destruction today is digital, primarily through social media influencing the media and companies led by liberal progressives. By comparison, the old-fashioned way seems almost merciful.