So, We Just Go Along?!?

Here are links to two articles on Utah's recent SB296 Anti discrimination law.

One is by Russell Moore, an evangelical blogger whom we have seen before at the Values Voter Summit. He takes issue with the new law, and the Mormon Church's involvement in its passage.
http://erlc.com/article/is-utahs-lgbt-religious-liberty-bill-good-policy

The other is a response by Utah Senator Stuart Adams to Russell Moore's article. Up until this bill was pushed by the Church, through news conferences and its four lobbyists at the legislature, Adams was a staunch opponent of the very wording he then allowed to be used in the bill that he sponsored and helped write along with an openly gay senator. I find no compelling argument in his justifying article. What I find is a statement of what he hopes is the case, while ignoring all of the downsides of the thing. Read it for yourself and see if you see what I see.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/religious-liberty-in-utah-responding-to-russell-moore-and-finding-a-way-forward-for-our-citizens-including-lgbt-135908/

One interesting passage in Sen. Adams's article is indicative of the equivocating that has been used to justify getting behind the bill. Let me say that I completely disagree with the "Well, it's a huge cultural movement, most people accept it, more than half of the population supports gay marriage, no one should be discriminated against, (and most offensive to me) I just can't see Jesus discriminating against anyone, so we have to recognize, acknowledge, legitimize and protect homosexuals" line of reasoning. So, what's missing in this whole argument? The fact that homosexuality is sin and perversion, and presents a pervasive danger to participants and impressionable people, including not-fully-mature youth; that Jesus was about repentance and becoming a new creature. And, if you say we have to do it because many or most people accept homosexuality, then according to your reasoning we also have to go along with gay marriage. I am completely opposed to gay marriage, but if you're going to use societal acceptance as your justification for homosexual protections, then you're going to have to let gay marriage in, too.

As I say, I am opposed to any support for homosexuality and gay marriage. Here is the passage from Sen. Adams:

[I]t is important that we acknowledge a series of facts. Traditional sexual morality no longer commands majority support in our nation. High rates of divorce and cohabitation, and broad acceptance of both heterosexual and homosexual relationships outside traditional marriage bear this out. Supported by the media and academia, significant majorities view sexuality as a private matter that should be beyond the reach of government regulation and cultural influence. At least half the country supports same-sex marriage. And large majorities, recognizing a real human need and a long history of harsh treatment, believe discrimination against LGBT persons is wrong.

Consequently, the issue in the present environment is not whether supporters of traditional morality can use the law to roll back the sexual revolution, but whether they can find ways to respectfully coexist with LGBT citizens despite profound differences regarding marriage, sexuality, and gender. If churches fail to find a balance that the majority of ordinary people feel is fundamentally fair, they must face losing religious freedoms and being overwhelmed by laws enforcing cultural norms and political correctness that they fundamentally oppose.

What?! See what I mean? "Everybody's for it, so we better get on board too! And, churches better equivocate too, or else."  The everybody-does-it notion has always been preached against in our Church. And now it is being touted by Church leaders and LDS legislators and other people who have been outspokenly dead-set against homosexual-specific recognition and protection for years. It appears they flipped in a matter of days.

We at SoL always say that people formed societies, and gave away some of their freedoms for the sake of an orderly existence. They decided that certain ideas and behaviors were reprehensible and detrimental to not only those involved, but to their society. So, they agreed to shun and forbid those things through laws they passed. So, do we in our communities and state have to abandon our standard because others do? Do we just go along, get on the bandwagon, march in the parade? I say no, and I will never agree with doing so.


--Stephen Graham