September 1998 – Christians lamented the removal of prayer from public schools in the 1960s, the legalization of abortion in the 1970s, and the deepening degeneracy of American culture in the 1980s.To some extent Christians were slow in taking stock of the danger until the other side had victory in hand.

Now, in the 1990s,Christians are acting quickly to head off the insurgence of a gay movement which threatens to overthrow the traditional understanding of human sexuality, marriage and the family.

But Christians are also paying the price for taking that stand, feeling the sting of the whip branded by government, media and gay activists.With disdain forChristian beliefs and a “How dare they?” attitude, those in support of homosexual ideals are attempting to silence the voices of dissent under a deluge of denunciations.

Intolerant tolerance
The core of the pro-gay message has been simple: homosexuals want to live their lives without fear of discrimination and violence, just like anyone else. From heterosexual America, all gays ask for is tolerance.

But those Americans who feel differently about homosexuality, who in fact consider it unnatural, immoral, and unhealthy, are finding that the forces of tolerance will not tolerate dissent on this issue.

Tim Wilkins, a sales supervisor for the Raleigh (NorthCarolina) News &Observer, discovered this fact last year, after the newspaper ran a feature story about Wilkins’ conversion to Christianity and abandonment of the gay lifestyle. In that article, Wilkins discussed his belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians can change – like he himself had done.

Less than a month after the article ran, Wilkins was fired. The official reason given by the News & Observer for dismissing Wilkins was “failure to perform job duties at required level.” But Wilkins refutes that, stating that prior to the story, he had never received either an oral or written reprimand, nor had his work performance ever been called into question. Wilkins says the paper fired him simply because of the personal beliefs he had verbalized in the feature story. He has filed a formal complaint with the Equal Opportunity EmploymentCommission charging the News & Observer with discrimination. 

Wilkins’ experience is becoming the rule, rather than the exception. Beyond the experience of individuals, even Christian organizations have felt this heavy-handed suppression of their views. In May, AFA learned that its Internet web site had been “blocked” by CyberPatrol, the most popular Internet filtering software. On the grounds that AFA’s opposition to the gay movement was proof of “intolerance,” AFA was thrown into a category previously reserved for neo-Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan.

Sadly, this means CyberPatrol will be preventing children in public schools and public libraries from being able to access AFA’s web page. Meanwhile, CyberPatrol has left readily available to those same children the Internet sites of various gay rights groups –which regularly call AFA an organization of hate-mongers, religious extremists, and bigots.

Crazy, misguided, and backward
While many politicians and celebrities have proudly proclaimed their support for the gay movement, few public figures have dared raise their voice in opposition. When they do,they are verbally scourged in public as an example to others. The message: Only pro-gay speech is allowed.

Pro football’s Reggie White discovered this fact when he had the audacity to state before the Wisconsin legislature that homosexuality was a sin. White was immediately blistered from all points on the pro-gay compass. Wisconsin legislators publicly rebuked him. Sports Illustrated for Kids reprimanded White for his “dumb comments.” Cynthia Tucker, a columnist for The Atlanta Constitution, called his statement vicious and ignorant.

According to the Green Bay Packer star, CBS immediately withdrew an offer to hire him as an on-air football commentator.

Nike, which kept White on as a spokesman for its product even after his comments, still made it clear how the company officially felt about his views. Nike CEO Thomas Clarke said, “Reggie is entitled to his opinions, regardless how misguided and insensitive we believe they are.”

Nike chairman Philip Knight put it more bluntly: “Reggie White is in simplest terms not evil – he’s just crazy.”

Moreover, said White, he was personally vilified by the same ones who cry out for “tolerance” of their homosexual lifestyle. “I’ve been called homophobic, I’ve been called stupid, I’ve been called unintelligent, and I’ve been called a nigger by so-called gay activists,” White said.

Even being a U.S. congressman does not give a person the freedom to speak out against the gay agenda without risking retaliation. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), asked on a radio talk show if he personally thought homosexuality was a sin, answered affirmatively. Attacked in the press afterwards, representatives Dick Armey (R-TX) and Don Nickles (R-OK) stood with Lott and agreed with his views.

The Clinton administration, which has aggressively defended gay rights and promoted it within the federal government, quickly lashed out. WhiteHouse spokesman Mike McCurry called Sen. Lott and those who agreed with him “backward in their thinking” and “extreme.” McCurry also called such biblical views incorrect.

Rather than be intimidated, however, Christian organizations, including AFA, upped the ante in July by placing full-page newspaper ads presenting a Christian message to homosexuals. Running in papers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today, some of the ads used real-life examples of former gays who had been changed by faith in Christ.

Apparently not having learned his lesson, Reggie White allowed his picture to be used in one ad defending a Christian’s right to speak “the truth” about homosexuality without being verbally bludgeoned.

Gay pressure groups responded with an ad of their own. But some in the media seemed willing to help advocate the gay message by implying that the pro-family groups were out for blood. The USA Today headline, for example, said, “Political attacks on gays heat up.” The Cincinnati Enquirer characterized the campaign this way: “Coalitions unite, condemn gays in ads.” And Newsweek headlined their article on the ad controversy, “The Right: Going to War Over Gays.”

Media complicity
This bias in the media on the subject of the gay movement is not a sudden turn of events. Selective and slanted reporting has been the standard, as the homosexual lifestyle often has been favored in the media.

For example, U.S Catholic bishops released a document last fall that urged parents to accept their children’s sexual orientation. The paper, entitled “Always Our Children,” stated that homosexual orientation in itself  “cannot be considered sinful,” and that youthful experimentation with homosexuality should not alarm parents.

Celebrating what seemed to be a minor break with orthodox Catholic teaching on the subject of homosexuality, newspaper headlines blared out, “Love gay children, bishops say,” and “Bishops to parents: Do not reject gay children.”

But that document was revised by the U.S. Bishop’s Committee on Marriage and Family this summer, clarifying the Catholic position to say that homosexual orientation is “objectively disordered,” and urging parents always to be “vigilant about their children’s behavior and exercise responsible interventions when necessary.”

Needless to say, the more orthodox revised version of  “Always Our Children,” not as pleasing to the gay-is-OK media slant, was ignored by the media (except for the conservative Washington Times.)

This bias was similarly evident when University of Texas at Austin researchers, led by psychology professor Dennis McFadden, reported on a study of women’s hearing. The researchers found some similarities between the inner ears of lesbian women and men.

The media immediately touted the research as evidence of a link between biology and homosexual orientation, a tenet of the gay movement. In its lead paragraph, the Washington Post story on McFadden’s work said, “Scientists…reported the first strong physical evidence that lesbian and bisexual women may be biologically different from heterosexual women.” USA Today chimed in with this: “The discovery adds new support to the theory that sexual orientation may be predisposed before birth.”

But McFadden tried to correct such gleeful conclusions about the research. He said, “The literature on possible biological origins of homosexuality provides virtually no other published data on women and the interpretation of what data exists on men is riddled with opportunities to misinterpret, over interpret, and fabricate meanings. ”Not surprisingly, there were no new articles covering McFadden’s cautionary stance.

New York Post columnist Ray Kerrison complained about what he says is an annual media cover-up of the true nature of New YorkCity’s Gay Pride Parade. Every year local channels fastidiously cover the event, and commentators chirp cheerfully about it, like WABC’s statement, “It was a wild and fun afternoon...a fun affair.” The news anchor for WNBC/Channel 4 gushed that parade participants “kicked off in high style...and remained spectacular to its end.”

But, said Kerrison, “With almost conspiratorial censorship, all six (NewYorkCity) stations automatically delete the lewdness, nudity, profanity, and blasphemy that are the intrinsic ingredients of the parade.” Especially noticeable, he said, was that the media avoided mentioning the prancing, bare-breasted women and the half-dozen men who were completely naked – except for their green condoms.

“Could you imagine if a pro-life parade in New York City had featured naked protesters?” asked AFA vice president Tim Wildmon. “The media would have pounced on that story and made it national news for days. But they won’t ever do anything to upset the pro-gay applecart.

A “fascist” movement?
In June, Wisconsin Christians United (WCU) spoke out against the homosexual lifestyle by plastering the message, “Homosexuality is not a family value. Homosexuality is a sin!” on billboards in four cities. That decision raised a big-league ruckus, resulting in threats against the ministry and vandalism against the signs.

Public officials joined in the angry response. Madison Mayor Sue Bauman called the billboards “extremely hostile.” Alderman Mike Verveer told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “This is just the latest, pathetic example of this group spreading their hate.”

Apparently the Madison City Council wanted to make a more formal statement. In July the council unanimously passed a resolution declaring the billboards to be an “attack” against gays and lesbians as well as “the community as a whole,”and then pronounced Madison a “city of tolerance.”

After the month-long billboard campaign ended, WCU Director Ralph Ovadal said, “This past month has served to remind the citizens of Wisconsin, and even of the nation, that the homosexual movement is a fascist one which tolerates no deviation from its philosophy and political agenda.”