Linda Harvey Fears Tolerance
November 6th, 2009
When it comes time for the annual Day of Silence, anti-gay activist Linda Harvey will be once again be calling for children to stay home from school. And Christian media will present her as a mild smiling pro-family advocate.
But don’t be deceived. Linda Harvey is one of the most strident opponents to equality, decency, and civil rights that our community faces.
Some of those who oppose equality do so out of a sense of religious obligation, yet also feel some remorse and can be persuaded to find some measure of accommodation for the difficulties that the put us through. Polls show that many conservative Christians who do not favor marriage equality will still find hospital visitation or inheritance issues to be matters of compassion and mercy. They oppose employment discrimination and favor open military service.
But not Linda.
In an article for WorldNetDaily, Harvey rages about a tactic employed by the organizers of the anti-gay marriage campaign in Maine. She is furious that an ad was run which expressed a message of tolerance.
Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.
Tolerant? Is Linda among those who wish to be tolerant? No, she most certainly is not! And as for “civil rights”, she thinks you should have none.
Are there indeed “rights” that need to be accorded to the behavior of homosexuality? No self-respecting Christian would take this position.
Linda goes on to delight in the lies that the campaign told about schoolchildren and the threat that gay people are to them. And she lists the sad tired (distorted and false) tales of the woe in Massachusetts and California. And then her venom spews:
But the student endangerment message made no sense paired with the last-minute, “We’re really tolerant” positioning of the campaign as cited above. Opponents would easily be able to see through the apparent hypocrisy: Why should parents
worry about their children being indoctrinated into homosexual acceptance, if “gays” ought to be tolerated? If we ought to respect their “rights”? This sudden shift had a desperation tinge to it and leaves pro-family forces vulnerable in the future to accusations of lying through our teeth. Christians do not do well with hypocrisy. We need to tell the truth.
The Catholic Church in Maine made similar foolish accommodations. In reacting to the victory, Bishop Richard Malone said that the church upholds marriage yet “respects and accepts gays.” Really? The Catholic Church accepts homosexual behavior? Two men having sex with one another? Women excluding men from their lives and shacking up as lesbians? This is respectable and acceptable in Catholic teachings? This seems to say there might be truth to the claim of “gay” identity, something homosexualists would love for Christians to embrace.
But amidst Linda’s hateful rantings (and yes, they are hateful), she sees something that we have long noted. The position of much of our opposition in inherently contradictory.
One cannot both tolerate and accept gay people and simultaneously exclude and segregate them. One cannot value the worth of the gay person and also relegate him to second class citizenship. If you “respect and accept” gay people as children of God worthy of His love, then you can’t call for sanctions, penalties, and punishments for the existence of those children.
And I believe that in time, perhaps a very short time, this delusion of “I love you but I want to treat you badly” will fall under its own weight. Ultimately, those who seek our civil exclusion will have to choose to either truly accept us as an equal member of the family of man, or stop pretending that they feel for us anything but contempt.
And I suspect that Linda sees the writing on the wall. I think she fears that she will in time be among but a small minority who selects the latter choice.