Misinformed and Misled: How a Distorted Perspective of Rights Is Leading America into Tyranny, Part 7

Eight Reasons Obergefell Has Derailed America
The Importance of Rediscovering the Authentic American Way

[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy…the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments.
Gouverneur Morris, signer of the US Constitution, author of large sections of the Constitution—


Founding Father Gouverneur Morris

Part 6 is available here.

As I write these words on Friday, June 24, 2016, this coming weekend is sandwiched between two all-American holidays—Father’s Day and Independence Day. Let’s consider each one briefly.

Father’s Day

In the United States, the genesis of Father’s Day as a national holiday can be traced to several events taking place in the early 20th century. One of these was a heartbreaking tragedy. On Friday, December 6, 1907, an accident occurred Monongah, West Virginia that has been called “the worst mining disaster in American history.” At 10:28 a.m. an explosion tore through two mines owned by the Fairmont Coal Company. Inside were 367 men, most of whom perished instantly. Unfortunately, those who survived the initial blast had little chance of being rescued because the support timbers and ventilation systems in the mines also were severely damaged or destroyed. Moreover, in those days, rescuers did not have life-preserving oxygen masks, so they were exposed to toxic fumes as they labored to free trapped workers. Each rescue trip had a time limit of 15 minutes. Lacking the means to sufficiently clear the mines of toxic gasses, the town lost 362 men. Only one miner was rescued while four managed to escape.


Of those who died in the Monongah Mining disaster, 250 were fathers. Their children numbered at around 1,000. Mrs Grace Golden Clayton, daughter of a Methodist pastor, had lost her own father in 1896. Mrs. Clayton was deeply touched by these losses and the struggles their families were having in the weeks and months that followed. She suggested to her pastor, Dr. Robert T. Webb, that their church, located in nearby Fairmont, hold a service to honor fathers. Later recalling the request, Mrs. Clayton said, “It was partly the explosion that set me to think how important and loved most fathers are. All those lonely children and those heart-broken wives and mothers, made orphans and widows in a matter of a few minutes. Oh, how sad and frightening to have no father, no husband, to turn to at such an awful time.”

The service was held on July 5, 1908, just three days before Rev. Golden’s July 8th birthday. Many years later, in 1962, an effort was gathering steam to place a day honoring fathers on the national calendar. West Virginia Congressman Arch Moore received a letter from a gentleman named Ward Downs. Mr. Downs wrote,

It has recently come to my attention of a movement establishing a Father’s Day by an act of Congress to be observed the same as Mother’s Day. It was my privilege to have attended the first Father’s Day Service July 5, 1908 at the Williams Memorial M.E. Church, South, now the Central United Methodist Church, Fairmont, WV. The sermon was preached by Dr. R. T. Webb at the request of Mrs. Charles Clayton, a member of that congregation, and daughter of a Methodist minister. I recall the occasion very distinctly as the pulpit was decorated by having ripened sheaves of wheat placed about it. Many favorable comments by the individuals and the press were made concerning the service at that time. Any assistance you can give this movement will be very much appreciated by me and all the Methodists in this part of the country.

Despite Mr. Downs’s fond memory of the service, other events in the area, including a 4th of July celebration and the death of a young woman, overshadowed it. City and state proclamations establishing a day to honor fathers, therefore, weren’t a top priority at the time.

Another effort to honor fathers was spearheaded by Sonora Smart Dodd in Spokane, Washington. Dodd’s father, William Jackson Smart, was a Civil War veteran. As a single dad he had raised six children. Having heard in 1909 about Anna Jarvis’s efforts to establish a special day honoring mothers, Dodd told her pastor she believed fathers should be similarly recognized. Because her father’s birthday was June 5, Dodd suggested that date. More time was needed for preparation of sermons, however, so the recognition was held on June 19, 1910. The Spokane YMCA hosted the event. Making it official, the mayor of Spokane and the Governor of Washington State issued proclamations.

Additional efforts were made at various times and places to set aside a day to honor fathers, but it wasn’t until 1966 that a presidential proclamation was issued establishing a national holiday called Father’s Day. President Lyndon B. Johnson issued that proclamation.


Six years later, on May 1 of 1972, President Nixon issued a proclamation echoing an April, 1972 joint resolution of Congress that from that point forward, Father’s Day would be commemorated nationwide every year on the third Sunday in June.


Consider these statements in Nixon’s proclamation.

To have a father—to be a father—is to come very near the heart of life itself.

In fatherhood we know the elemental magic and joy of humanity. In fatherhood we even sense the divine, as the Scriptural writers did who told of all good gifts coming “down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning”—symbolism so challenging to each man who would give his own son or daughter a life of light without shadow.

Our identity in name and nature, our roots in home and family, our very standard of manhood—all this and more is the heritage our fathers share with us. It is a rich patrimony, one for which adequate thanks can hardly be offered in a lifetime, let alone a single day. Still it has long been our national custom to observe each year one special Sunday in honor of America’s fathers; and from this year forward, by a joint resolution of the Congress approved April 24, 1972, that custom carries the weight of law.

So, in the histories of Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, we see that honoring one’s parents and celebrating one’s family are authentic American traditions. Yet today, these holidays threaten the politically correct message that the Left wishes to promote. The conservative information site conservapedia.com states of Father’s Day,

There has been liberal opposition to Father’s Day, wanting to replace it with “Family Day”. This concept was created in Canada due to the legislation of same-sex “marriage” as it was felt to be unfair to adopted children of same-sex couples. Such a move has been opposed by many normal parents who do not want to see this tradition being overtaken by political correctness. The Liberal opposition do not seem to care about honoring the role of the father, which is highly important for the support and the guidance for children.

Nor do the liberal opposition seem to care that same-sex marriage deprives children adopted by same-sex parents of either a mother or a father—by design! President Herbert Hoover was absolutely right when he observed, “Children are our greatest natural resource.” Walt Disney said something very similar: “Our greatest natural resource is the minds of our children.”

Because they are unnatural, the unions forged by same-sex marriage cannot bring children into the world. Moreover, depriving children of either a mother or a father by design will have severe repercussions for a nation’s future. I am not saying here that parents in same-sex unions cannot love their children; of course they can—and they do! What I am saying is that men and women are different. No man ever can be a mother, nor can any woman truly be a father.

What about single parents? They obviously meet their children’s needs as best they can, and many of them are fabulous parents. We who are not in their shoes may well wonder how they do all they do as well as they do in less-than-ideal situations. Even so, a single-parent home doesn’t eliminate the concept of a mom and dad! Same-sex marriage destroys that concept, to the detriment a nation’s children and that nation’s future. Together, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day affirm the absolute best design for the family. We have departed from it at great cost, and it is imperative that we return.

In the United States, Father’s Day can come as early as June 15 (19 days before Independence Day) or as late as June 21 (13 days prior).

Independence Day

Independence Day, of course, commemorates the ratification of the declaration of the American Colonies’ independence from Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence showcases the date of July 4, 1776, although July 4 actually wasn’t the date signatures were affixed.

In the early days of the republic, Independence Day was not merely a national birthday celebration. It was a sacred day. Hear these words from an oration delivered in Newburyport, Massachusetts on July 4, 1837 by former President John Quincy Adams. At the time, Mr. Adams had already been president (1825-1829) and was representing Massachusetts’s 12th district in the US House of Representatives.


Why is it, Friends and Fellow Citizens, that you are here assembled? Why is it, that, entering upon the sixty-second year of our national existence, you have honored with an invitation to address you from this place, a fellow citizen of a former age, bearing in the records of his memory, the warm and vivid affections which attached him, at the distance of a full half century, to your town, and to your forefathers, then the cherished associates of his youthful days? Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day?…

Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?

Cast your eyes backwards upon the progress of time, sixty-one years from this day; and in the midst of the horrors and desolations of civil war, you behold an assembly of Planters, Shopkeepers and Lawyers, the Representatives of the People of thirteen English Colonies in North America, sitting in the City of Philadelphia. These fifty-five men, on that day, unanimously adopt and publish to the world, a state paper under the simple title of ‘A DECLARATION.’

The object of this Declaration was two-fold.

First, to proclaim the People of the thirteen United Colonies, one People, and in their name, and by their authority, to dissolve the political bands which had connected them with another People, that is, the People of Great Britain.

Secondly, to assume, in the name of this one People, of the thirteen United Colonies, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station, to which the Laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God, entitled them.

You can read former President Adams’s complete speech here. We’ve quoted enough of it, however, to be reminded of the importance of this phrase in the Declaration of Independence: the laws of nature and of nature’s God. This phrase takes on even greater significance today, in 2016, as politically correct voices repudiate these two forces in both words and actions.

The One-Year Anniversary of an Ominous Event

It’s ironic that sandwiched in between Father’s Day and Independence Day—this year almost precisely in the middle—is June 26, the one-year anniversary of perhaps the most egregious overreach of the United States Supreme Court. As you are no doubt aware, on June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges, striking down laws nationwide that limited the definition of marriage to one man and one woman. Perhaps not coincidentally, the ruling came just two days shy of the anniversary of the Stonewall riots in 1969, an event that militant homosexual rights advocates point to as a turning point and an historical coalescing of their movement.

President Obama has designated June as LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] Pride Month in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016—each year he has been in office. As one would expect, his most recent proclamation (2016) speaks of Obergefell in glowing terms.

Last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision guaranteeing marriage equality in all 50 States was a historic victory for LGBT Americans, ensuring dignity for same-sex couples and greater equality across State lines. For every partnership that was not previously recognized under the law and for every American who was denied their basic civil rights, this monumental ruling instilled newfound hope, affirming the belief that we are all more free when we are treated as equals.

During the past several weeks, we have demonstrated that the “right” to same-sex marriage is based on a philosophy of rights that stands in direct opposition to the philosophy of rights embraced by America’s Founders. In summary, we can confidently say that man-woman marriage deprives no one of his or her civil rights, and to suggest that it does is to totally misrepresent the truth about marriage, the family unit, American history, liberty, authentic freedom, cohesiveness in society, and all the rights afforded to individuals by nature and nature’s God.

Man-woman marriage deprives no one of his or her civil rights, and to suggest that it does is to totally misrepresent the truth about marriage, the family unit, American history, liberty, authentic freedom, cohesiveness in society, and all the rights afforded to individuals by nature and nature’s God.

As you may recall, on the evening of June 26, 2015, the day the Supreme Court announced its decision in Obergefell, the Obama administration went out of its way to express support for the decision by lighting the White House in rainbow colors.

As we observed in a post from April of last year,

We can be assured that God is keenly aware of divine signs and images that are being misrepresented today. Thousands of years ago, God placed the first rainbow in the sky as a reminder of His faithfulness after the flood of Noah (see Gen. 9:8-17), but in 2015 many people see rainbow colors and celebrate evil in the name of the politically correct principles of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusiveness.’ Then there’s marriage—a sacred institution ordained and instituted by God (see Gen. 2:18-25) as well as a picture of Christ’s relationship with His church (see Eph. 5:22-32). Needless to say, that picture is being muddied and distorted everywhere people look. If marriage is redefined in America, how can it possibly continue to represent in society anything close to the relationship God ordained it to represent? If we lose marriage, we lose an image that helps people understand why Christ died. While we cannot expect non-Christians to act as Christians, neither can we ignore the fact that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and for many years upheld these ideals. Yet in recent decades in this country, we have, as a nation, kicked God out of public life. Given all the opportunities we as Americans have had to hear and respond to God’s truth, we must understand that God will hold us accountable.

“Gay Pride” celebrations occur frequently in June, and many will be held this coming weekend, including those in New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Houston, St. Petersburg, and Nashville. Please pray about these events and for those who participate in them, that they will come to see the truth and that they’ll recognize the perilous risk thrust upon America and America’s children by same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

Pray for another event as well. Thankfully, homosexual rights advocates aren’t the only ones expressing their point of view—but you’d never know this by listening to the mainstream press. On Saturday, June 25, from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., the annual March for Marriage will take place at the National Mall in Washington, DC. No amount of maneuvering on the part of government can change the reality that marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman, but pretending marriage is anything else will cause great harm, and we need to be unafraid to articulate this truth.


On this weekend marking the one year anniversary of Obergefell—a foreboding anniversary situated between the authentic American holidays of Father’s Day and Independence Day—I’d like to demonstrate that same-sex marriage and the positive rights flowing from it are wholly un-American. They’re even anti-American. Consider these eight realities. 

First, the real American way embraces free speech and open debate in the marketplace of ideas. In fact, at the founding of the country, free speech and personal integrity were so cherished that no one thought of trying to adjust his or her position so as to attract a greater number.

Modern Americans are assaulted by misguided calls for “bipartisanship,” a code word for one side ceding its ideas to the party favored by the media. In fact, however, [Founding Father James] Madison detested compromise that involved abandoning principles, and, in any event, thought the Republic was best served when factions [groups with opposing viewpoints, especially political parties] presented extreme differences to the voters, rather than shading their positions toward the middle. The modern moderate voters—so highly praised in the media—would have been anathema to Madison, who wanted people to take sides as a means of creating checks and balances. 1

Thus, while at the time of the founding rigorous debate was considered healthy, with Obergefell, the Supreme Court effectively choked it off! As Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent (citations have been omitted to enhance readability),

The majority [of this court making this decision] apparently disregards the political process as a protection for liberty. Although men, in forming a civil society, “give up all the power necessary to the ends for which they unite into society, to the majority of the community,” they reserve the authority to exercise natural liberty within the bounds of laws established by that society. To protect that liberty from arbitrary interference, they establish a process by which that society can adopt and enforce its laws. In our country, that process is primarily representative government at the state level, with the Federal Constitution serving as a backstop for that process. As a general matter, when the States act through their representative governments or by popular vote, the liberty of their residents is fully vindicated. This is no less true when some residents disagree with the result; indeed, it seems difficult to imagine any law on which all residents of a State would agree. What matters is that the process established by those who created the society has been honored.

That process has been honored here. The definition of marriage has been the subject of heated debate in the States. Legislatures have repeatedly taken up the matter on behalf of the People, and 35 States have put the question to the People themselves. In 32 of those 35 States, the People have opted to retain the traditional definition of marriage. That petitioners disagree with the result of that process does not make it any less legitimate. Their civil liberty has been vindicated.

Second, the debate over conscience rights isn’t a debate over whether or not same-sex couples will be allowed to “marry.” No same-sex couple wanting a ceremony has been or will be unable to arrange it; every gay and lesbian couple has complete freedom to orchestrate the outcome they want. Yet if they honor the conscience rights of religious vendors, they may not be able to have a particular vendor for one job or another. Is it truly the American way to single people out and force them to act against their most deeply held convictions? Of course not! As we noted last week, and as Founding Father James Madison declared, “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…. Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” 

Third, generally speaking, those who have objected to hosting or otherwise participating in same-sex weddings or civil unions have not hesitated to do business with homosexuals in a wide variety of other contexts. Nevertheless, they believe it wrong to lend their talent and other resources for a “marriage” ceremony—or any ceremony, for that matter—solemnizing a same-sex union. Therefore, the debate isn’t about discrimination against a group of individuals, but about whether or not what one believes about marriage will prevent him or her from acting peacefully on that belief.

Fourth, conscience rights aren’t new, but a part of America’s heritage. Conscience rights are negative rights consistent with the Founders’ view of liberty and limited government. As Justice Thomas indicated in his dissent, the “right” of members of the same sex to “marry” involves government intervention inconsistent with Founding principles and with the Constitution. You may recall that Thomas wrote,

Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. 

Fifth, “Anti-discrimination” laws that essentially say any and all vendors must participate in a same-sex ceremony aren’t really anti-discrimination laws at all. As we have noted, in other contexts, those who object to participating in a same-sex ceremony will gladly and cheerfully do business with gays and lesbians. Thus, rather than leveling the playing field, such laws give homosexual activists carte blanche to target specific vendors and to force them to participate in ceremonies they find objectionable. This makes an absolute mockery of the Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The positive “rights” flowing from Obergefell make a mockery of the Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.”

During the years that led up to the Supreme Court’s decision that effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, proponents of same-sex marriage would repeatedly ask this rhetorical question: “Just how is my same-sex marriage going to affect you?” They were making the case that same-sex marriage is a private affair between two consenting adults. The denial of either a father or mother to every child adopted by a same-sex couple is a whole other issue, but activists were appealing to heterosexual adults and making the case that even if they didn’t agree with same-sex marriage, they personally would not be affected by it in any way.

Now we know that a growing number of people are being directly affected. Many are being threatened; some may even lose their livelihoods. Do not be fooled. Forced compliance to the militant gay agenda will not be limited to photographers, bakers, florists, artists, wedding planners, and venue operators. We ought to see this clearly now, especially in light of the push to give biological men who identify as women access to women’s restrooms. Where will it stop? We need to understand that unless we as a nation regain a solid moral footing, it won’t stop! This is blatantly un-American. In fact, it is tyranny.

Sixth, moral objections to homosexuality aren’t new, so homosexual activists can’t claim someone has recently invented a new rationale to discriminate against the gay community. As Eric Metaxas writes,


American freedom is, of course, nothing like pure and unmitigated freedom—which would indeed be anarchy and no freedom at all. True freedom just be an “ordered freedom,” at the center of which is what we call “self-government.” So to be clear: People would not have freedom from government, but would have freedom from tyrannous government, or from government that might easily become tyrannous.”2

Yet today, as we have seen, government has thrown off many of the constitutional restraints that otherwise would prevent it from acting in a tyrannical manner.

Seventh, evidence from the health sciences raises red flags about homosexual activity and, therefore, about legitimizing homosexuality through same-sex marriage. The American way of free and open debate in the marketplace of ideas is not prevailing on this issue today. In our politically correct climate, even professionals with proven track records have hit a brick wall in their efforts to uphold safety and good health by presenting the truth.

Eighth, the belief that marriage should be a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman has been upheld in the civilized world for thousands of years and never was considered a bigoted position until very recently. Furthermore, those who contend this is an unfairly discriminatory point of view can offer no real evidence that gays and lesbians have been harmed by this perspective. Advocates of same-sex marriage make emotional appeals when they claim “discrimination” and call those who disagree with them names. But the evidence is on the side of those who believe marriage to be a lifelong heterosexual union. Also, it is undeniable children do best when they are brought up in homes by their married moms and dads. Listen to this one-minute clip.

The burden of proof for the notion that man-woman marriage is a bigoted position should rest on advocates of same-sex marriage. Simply calling those who disagree with them bigots is no proof. The Supreme Court’s ruling shuts off spirited, healthy, substantive debate and effectively acts to shut up proponents on one side of this issue. Again, this is un-American.

Unfortunately, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to recognize our country as the “land of the free and the home of the brave” (a quotation from the “Star-Spangled Banner”)—and to believe that she even remotely has the capacity to “confirm thy soul in self-control; thy liberty in law” (a quotation from “America the Beautiful”). It is imperative that we rediscover the authentic American way. We must never give up hope that we can return to the ideals embraced by America’s Founders. After all, our God is God of miracles.

Still, we must pray for America, because if God doesn’t act, things are looking pretty desperate.

Next week, in our eighth and final article in this series, we’ll consider ways that, with God’s help, we can lead our country back to the principles on which it was built.

Part 8 is available here.


Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.


Websites in this article have been cited for information purposes only. No citation should be construed as an endorsement.


1Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States: From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror, (New York: Sentinel, 2004), 122.

2Eric Metaxas, If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, (New York, Viking, 2016), 29.





Congress Should Express Outrage Over the Obama Administration’s Bullying to Promote a Radical Agenda

As North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory recently has stated, the fight over privacy rights no longer is confined to North Carolina.

Recent developments in the Tar Heel State and elsewhere show that the Obama administration will do anything to force its radical agenda nationwide. This administration must be stopped.

Members of Congress must speak up loudly and often!

Won’t you contact your members of Congress on this issue?

Read more…

Read an expanded version of this report…


Copyright © 2016 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.

Confronting with Resolve and Tenacity

Resist the Bullies, Part 3

The primary battle is a spiritual battle in the heavenlies. But this does not mean, therefore, that the battle we are in is otherworldly or outside of human history. It is a real spiritual battle, but it is equally a battle here on earth in our own country, our own communities, or places of work and our schools, and even our own homes. The spiritual battle has its counterpart in the visible world, in the minds and hearts of men and women, and in every area of human culture. In the realm of space and time the heavenly battle is fought on the stage of human history.
—Francis Schaeffer1

Part 1 is available here.
Part 2 is available here.

In the wake of student protests at the University of Missouri and in other places where students have brought unfair accusations of racism and have made various demands of school administrators, Dr. Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, has written an open letter and posted it on the school’s website. Dated November 23, 2015 and titled “This is Not a Day Care. It’s a University!” the letter reads in part,

This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt “victimized” by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.…


I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience.…The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness.…

If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.

If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them.…

Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place”, but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent of everything that’s wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that’s wrong with them. This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up.

This is not a day care. This is a university.

Thank God for Everett Piper and His courage! Certainly his tribe needs to increase, but his is not the only voice crying in the wilderness. Dr. Carol Swain is a conservative law professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. She also is black, but apparently some students can’t respect an articulate, black conservative. Swain has been the target of liberal student protests, but she counters protestors with clarity and resolve, saying they “don’t get to decide whose speech is more valuable than someone else’s.”

Vibrant glow

Drs. Piper and Swain have given us tremendous examples to follow in our quest to combat the bullying we’ve seen on the part of militant homosexual activists. You may recall that previously,2,3 we pulled back the curtain on numerous ways extremists in the homosexual rights movement use bullying to get what they want. We acknowledged that not all homosexuals take this approach, but militant gays do. How can we effectively combat the bullying? In the following list of 14 items, you’ll see some of the qualities evident in Dr. Piper’s and Dr. Swain’s responses to students who bully others to get their way. Other necessary qualities will be highlighted as well. Together, the items on this list hopefully will show us how to respond to unfair and unethical tactics from militant gays.

  1. Be confident. Refuse to be intimidated.
  2. Become informed and stay informed. Pro-family organizations that courageously speak out on homosexuality include Focus on the Family, James Dobson’s Family Talk, and the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. The following organizations also speak with great credibility and authenticity on the subject, although more from professional and in some cases academic perspectives: The American College of Pediatricians, the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (Pfox). From cultural and legal perspectives, Peter LaBarbera’s Americans for Truth About Homosexuality is extremely informative and helpful, as is Linda Harvey’s Mission: America.
  3. Stand up and speak up.
  4. Stand up, but don’t stand alone. Be sure to network! Support and partner with pro-family organizations such as those we’ve cited above.
  5. Be consistent, and have a consistent message.
  6. Don’t just play defense. Take the initiative and get on the offensive. Dr. Everett Piper’s open letter addresses a subject different from the one we’re discussing here, but his approach is a wonderful example of going on the offense. Ben Shapiro provides another example of how to make the case for reality in this clip from HLN’s “Dr. Drew On Call.”4 Notice that Shapiro speaks forthrightly without being hateful—even though other panelists accuse him of hatred. Watch the clip and judge for yourself who really is engaged in hate. In addition, specifically on the issue of same-sex marriage, here’s a tremendous point made by the offense for the team contending for man-woman marriage: Chuck Colson said the argument made by advocates of same-sex marriage “is that to deny homosexuals marriage is manifestly unfair. But it’s not unfair. Gays and lesbians are not unworthy of marriage; they are incapable of marriage.” Marriage, you see, is what it is because of the differences between the sexes!
  7. Speak of reality, not just of the truth. The principles that are absolute and unyielding make up the truth, but reality is the hard consequence that hits when a truth principle kicks in. Here’s an analogy. If you jump off a 7-story building, you’ll hit the ground—that’s a truth. The ground you hit—that’s reality. Reflect on this example. The first item on this list of “Ten Arguments from Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage” is the truth that “Children hunger for their biological parents.” Hear about the corresponding realities from several adult children of same-sex parents in this YouTube video. Learn even more about the cruel realities of counterfeit marriage at marriageisourfuture.org.
  8. Appeal to people’s hearts and emotions. Facts are important, but personal stories often will connect with people in ways that facts cannot.
  9. Remember we are fighting for the rights of innocent individuals who have no voice. Consider, for example, that same-sex marriage isn’t nearly as much about giving an adult the right to “marry” whomever he or she might love as it is about potentially depriving a child of a mother or a father. What about children’s rights?
  10. Show compassion and respect, not only to the victims of homosexual propaganda, but also to its perpetrators. It always should be clear that we deplore bullying of homosexuals, not just bullying by homosexuals. At the same time,
  11. expose their bullying! Kirsten Powers, a liberal, has written a book that does just this. It’s titled The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech. Listen to John Stonestreet of the Colson Center for Biblical Worldview interview Powers. Ben Shapiro makes the same case from the right side of the political spectrum in this video. Bullying exposed is bullying severely weakened.
  12. Be prepared to be accused of hate (see John 3:18-20; 15:18-21).
  13. Pray especially for pastors to take a bold stand on homosexuality and to help their congregations understand the need for Christians to collectively resist bullying by militant gays. To ignore this problem actually is unchristian and unloving, especially to those being bullied. Christians have a responsibility to defend those who are innocent and helpless (see Ps. 82:3).
  14. Never give up.

William Wilberforce (1759-1833) was a British citizen and a Member of Parliament. Against overwhelming odds, he fought against slavery, an institution that was very much a part of the fabric of his country at the time. Wilberforce was ridiculed and mocked, and his efforts were repeatedly rebuffed in the House of Commons. Yet he fought on—and not just in the legislative arena. He worked diligently to change England’s culture as well as its laws. In 1797 he wrote a book that was republished in 2006 under the title Real Christianity. Its original title was A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes in This Country, Contrasted with Real Christianity.5


Eventually, Wilberforce saw the changes he’d work so hard to bring about. In 1807 the slave trade was abolished in Britain—but it wasn’t until Wilberforce was on his deathbed in 1833 that slavery itself was abolished. Three days after the law passed in the House of Commons, Wilberforce died.

Think of the hurt, harm, and heartache that Wilberforce’s work averted! Because William Wilberforce maintained a long-term perspective, he was able to persevere. It may be an oversimplification of Wilberforce’s life’s work, but essentially, he stood strong against the bullies of his day. So must we stand to resist the bullies of our day. As we do, we also will spare our country and individuals within it a great deal of pain, hurt, and heartache. May God give us strength and courage in this noble and worthy cause!

Copyright © 2015 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.


1Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984), 25.




5William Wilberforce, Real Christianity, paraphrased by Bob Beltz, (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2006), title page.



Two Realms of American Life Rife with Gay Activists’ Bullying

Resist the Bullies: Part 2

I have said repeatedly that the unspoken gay activist mantra is “We will intimidate and we will manipulate until you capitulate.”
—Dr. Michael Brown1

Part 1 is available here.

Last time2 we discussed five specific ways militant homosexual activists are bullying the public.

  1. They do not respect the democratic process or the perspectives and will of public majorities.
  2. They disregard the large discrepancy between their miniscule numbers and the large size of the public at large, even promoting lies about their own numbers to gain political and cultural leverage.
  3. They disregard the facts. They make arguments they deem useful for the moment and then “dump” them when they no longer serve their purposes.
  4. They plead for tolerance but refuse to tolerate or respect others who disagree.
  5. Having achieved their interim goal of including same-sex couples in civil marriage, they are moving ahead to promote their primary goal, the total elimination of marriage and the family.

Against this backdrop, let’s consider two specific realms of American life radical gay activists have infiltrated and heavily influenced—the professional realm and the corporate realm. Looking at examples from each, we will see even more bullying on the part of the militant wing of the gay rights movement.

I use the term “professional realm” to refer to the arena of experts that includes doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and others. Certainly not every individual in these professions has become a pawn of the homosexual movement. The first example we will cite illustrates this vividly, but it also reveals in stark terms the results of years of militant gays’ intimidation and political pressure.

Dr. Paul Church is a urologist who served for almost 30 years on the staff of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. In addition, he teaches at the Harvard Medical School. Motivated by what he’d learned and seen as specialist in urology, Dr. Church gathered irrefutable evidence that homosexual behavior poses very serious health risks. In light of the shear weight of this evidence, Church was gravely concerned about his hospital’s unmitigated support of gay pride celebrations.3 The hospital’s own mission statement says that Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center exists to “provide extraordinary care, where the patient comes first, supported by world-class education and research.”4 Elaborating, the statement goes on to say,

The mission of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center is to serve our patients compassionately and effectively, and to create a healthy future for them and their families. Our mission is supported by our commitment to personalized, excellent care for our patients; a workforce committed to individual accountability, [and] mutual respect and collaboration….5

Not only were the hospital’s actions hypocritical, but they also were deceptive and contrary to a high standard of medical ethics. Dr. Church voiced his concerns to hospital administrators and on the hospital’s intranet,6 and was fired for doing so.7

Said Dr. Church, “It is incredible to think they would be able to silence me and revoke my ability to be on the staff as a result of my raising valid health concerns over a risky lifestyle.”8 Even so, according to a pro-family organization’s report on the matter, “the BIDMC Medical Executive Board claimed that Dr. Church’s statements to colleagues about the medical dangers of homosexual behavior, and moral issues surrounding it, were ‘offensive’ and constituted ‘discrimination,’ ‘harassment,’ and ‘unprofessional conduct.’”9

Note carefully—the truth is irrefutably on Paul Church’s side, but that didn’t matter. Dr. Church appealed the decision against him, but to no avail.10

How can it be that the one with the strongest of cases and the one acting with the clearest of professional and ethical motives is deemed the villain? Yet this is where we are in America. Just wait till you see what homosexual activists have in store for you! For years homosexuality had been classified by the American Psychological Association as a mental disorder. According to Wikipedia,

In the early 1970s, activists campaigned against the… [Association’s official] classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year.11

Yet clearly, “the change in the APA designation was not due to new findings, but had everything to do with the lobbying pressure and tactics of the homosexual community.”12 Moreover, at the time, only 25 percent of the APA membership voted on the proposal. What appears at first to be an overwhelming majority actually wasn’t!13

Fast forward to 2015, when considerable pressure is mounting to officially call homophobia a disorder.14,15 That’s right. If you object to homosexual behavior at all, you’re the one with the mental problem. Although this assessment isn’t yet official, this is the direction in which we’re moving.

Reflect on how far we’ve come in such a short period of time. To dissuade the overseers of the mental and behavioral sciences from officially calling homosexuality a disorder and, just a few decades later, to influence them to consider declaring homophobia a disorder, truly is breathtaking.16 If gay activists can do all this without an official declaration of homophobia as a mental disorder, think what they can do when it becomes one!

Let’s consider another realm in which bullying is taking place—corporate America. Ironically, as in so many other settings, it is by condemning bullying and harassment that radical gay advocates gain the upper hand to practice harassment themselves. Corporate America has long been influenced by the demands of gay activists. We see this in the dramatic increase of “gay-friendly” companies in America in recent years.17 Here, however, I want to focus on the effects of efforts within a corporation to make the workplace “inclusive” and “safe” for LGBT individuals. A common effort will involve distribution of “Safe Space” emblems (or something similar) with an encouragement for employees to display them in their work areas. One website declares,

Display a Safe Space emblem in your office.

EQUAL! has developed this emblem to designate “safe spaces” in the workplace. The emblem bears a pink triangle, an internationally recognized symbol of positive gay identity, surrounded by a green circle, an international symbol of acceptance.

Displaying this emblem will let others know you support full participation of all members of the workplace, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, characteristics, or expression.18

Christians and others who adhere to traditional moral beliefs, however, do not support homosexuals with regard to their way of life. Their lack of support isn’t driven at all by hate, but by genuine concern and a desire for all coworkers to avoid harm and to experience the best life has to offer. Based on this conviction, should a Christian refuse to display a “Safe Space” emblem at work? If he or she refuses, even politely, this decision can and likely will be misinterpreted by the company and by fellow employees as hate and bigotry. One website describes similar scenarios.19 Even if you disagree with how the Christians responded to the diversity training in these situations, they still were made to declare their opposition to homosexuality and were effectively portrayed as adversaries of the company and of fellow employees. The program effectively “outs” Christians and paints them as hatemongers, even by implication. Who, then, is the real bully? The answer is obvious.

Several observations are in order at this point.

  1. Paul Church’s experience highlights that the militant homosexual agenda has no regard whatsoever for the truth or for people’s health and well-being.
  2. Church’s experience shows that militant gay activists and those who have bought into their lies will punish people who raise concerns about the gay agenda, even if those voicing concerns are motivated by professionalism and sound ethics.
  3. The push to call homophobia a mental disorder is a coercive and manipulative effort to silence and even crush those who refuse to affirm and celebrate homosexuality.
  4. Diversity training in the workplace isn’t really about equality, because no effort is made to promote respect for Christians and others with moral convictions. In fact, the opposite occurs.
  5. The stated goals of tolerance and equality are a front for coercion, intimidation, and forced compliance.

We must recognize bullying for what it truly is. When we do, we will be less intimidated and less likely to capitulate to the demands of those who are trying desperately to run roughshod over us and others. Also, we must act in appropriate ways to expose bullying by militant gays, something the mainstream media never will do. We always must be motivated by love, of course; but we must remember that love never acquiesces to lies. Rather, it upholds and declares the truth—just as Dr. Paul Church has done.

We’ll continue this series in two weeks, when we will look at additional things we must do to resist our would-be intimidators. Next week, we’ll reflect the importance of Thanksgiving.

Copyright © 2015 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.

Part 3 is available here.

Related story:
Feds Review Plan to Let Homosexuals Donate Blood: Politics play role as population has much higher incidence of AIDS, Hepatitis C infections

Update on Dr. Paul Church
Doctor Ousted for Talking About Risks of LGBT Behavior












12,13 Richard C. Howe, “Homosexuality in America, Exposing the Myths,” [Tupelo, MS: American Family Association, 1994], 11). Available online: https://www.scribd.com/doc/12829966/Homosexuality-in-America-Exposing-the-Myths







Five Ways Promoters of the Militant Homosexual Agenda Are Bullying the Public

Resist the Bullies: Part 1

Leftists are not about live and let live. They are about wholesale control. Their movers and shakers see society as their project, and they can change everything and everyone through government and their domination of the culture. There is no live and let live in their bones. In view of all this, it is amazing that so many conservatives, traditionalists and Christians are blind to the hostile, aggressive and unquenchable appetite of the leftist movement. It is chilling to me that they don’t realize this trend is going to continue until there is either a cultural or legal confrontation or the left stamps out all dissent. The left is never satisfied even with winning; they must stomp out the opposition.
—David Limbaugh1

The militant homosexual movement has greatly advanced its radical agenda through anti-bullying measures and policies.2,3 Of course, bullying in any form toward any individual or group is abhorrent and must be rejected. No one, including a homosexual, ever should be bullied. That said, we must describe the current situation in real and stark terms. Although evident for quite some time, it has never been clearer that militant gays and lesbians, many of whom have cried out against the bullying of homosexuals, have become the real bullies. While this double-standard has not been espoused by all homosexuals,4,5,6 it remains the posture of those promoting the militant gay agenda. Here are five specific ways that radical gay activists are bullying the American public.

First, militant homosexual activists do not respect the democratic process or the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box. We have seen their disrespect time and time again as homosexual activists used the courts to overrule the will of the people in 32 states7 where constitutional amendments were adopted through due process. Ultimately their quest led them to the Supreme Court of the United States, where by the thinnest of majorities, the court ruled in favor of nationwide same-sex marriage. The ruling sparked some of the harshest dissents in the history of the Supreme Court.8

We see the latest manifestation of this contempt for due process in a call for the Super Bowl, which Houston is scheduled to host 2017,9 to be held elsewhere.10 On November 3, 2015, Houstonians rejected a bill dubbed HERO, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, by a 61 to 39 percent margin.11 The bill would have allowed males who self-identified as females—including sexual predators—to enter and use women’s bathroom and locker facilities.12 Houston’s openly lesbian mayor fought hard for the measure, at one point even violating the civil rights of five pastors by subpoenaing their sermons.13 Activists’ calls for the relocation of the Super Bowl showcase their bullying prowess.

Second, closely related to the issue of elections and the democratic process, gay activists do not care at all about the miniscule size of their numbers in comparison to the population at large. It should not surprise us, then, that they are ready to bulldoze over everyone else to get their way. Certainly the members of all minorities should be respected as persons and treated with dignity—but surely members of majorities ought to be treated respectfully as well. Research places the number LBGT (lesbian, bisexual, gay, and transgendered) individuals at just 3.8 percent of the total population, with only 0.2 percent of the population-at-large being transgendered.14 Other research indicates the number to be even less.15 Knowing larger numbers are necessary to draw greater sympathy and political clout—and to promote an illusion of normalcy—activists have perpetuated the lie that 10 percent of the population are homosexual.16 The lie has worked; most Americans believe the LGBT community is much larger.17 Don’t swallow this lie or its implications. This leads us to the third point.

Third, militant gay activists don’t care about the facts. They promote their agenda using arguments that they deem useful for the moment, but they abandon those points once they have “outlived their usefulness.” Writing in The Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last quotes Brandon Ambrosino, a writer and a dancer who admitted:

[I]t’s time for the LGBT community to start moving beyond genetic predisposition as a tool for gaining mainstream acceptance of gay rights. .  .  . For decades now, it’s been the most powerful argument in the LGBT arsenal: that we were “born this way.”…Still, as compelling as these arguments are, they may have outgrown their usefulness. With most Americans now in favor of gay marriage, it’s time for the argument to shift to one where genetics don’t matter. The genetic argument has boxed us into a corner.18,19

Ambrosino now prefers to embrace the idea that sexual orientation is malleable and even a choice. After all, shouldn’t people be free to live and do as they please?

There’s more. Last quotes another gay activist who acknowledges “some truth to the conservative claim that gay marriage is changing, not just expanding, marriage.”20 Suppose, for example, that the promiscuity practiced by homosexual men in “monogamous” relationships were to spill over into the heterosexual community and be emulated. (A high percentage of homosexual relationships are promiscuous.21) That would change the institution of marriage, after all!22 And what about advocates of natural marriage who contended that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would open a Pandora’s Box, making it impossible to limit marriage to two people? They were ridiculed when they made this point, but now that same-sex marriage is legal, some activists are willing to say that, well, yes, polygamy probably ought to be legalized as well.23,24 Like their playground counterparts, LGBT bullies, ignoring the facts, run roughshod over their victims at every turn.

Fourth, gay activists plead for tolerance but are among the most intolerant people in the world. For brevity’s sake, let’s cite just one example. Perhaps nothing brings out greater vitriol from LGBT activists than an individual’s claim that he or she is ex-gay. Now, certainly homosexuals can have their own opinions about the validity of such a claim, but true tolerance respects those with whom one disagrees. Were gay activists really tolerant, they would respect the rights of others, even those who say they are ex-gays, to live as they see fit and to make their case in the marketplace of ideas. Instead, militant homosexual activists vilify ex-gays, discriminating against them with reckless abandon.25,26 We must not allow same-sex marriage advocates to get away with intolerant behavior simply because it is cloaked in a mantle of tolerance.

Fifth, as the previous four items have indicated, militant gay rights advocates see the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples as a step toward a larger, more important goal. They seek to remake society altogether. Matt Barber, an astute cultural observer, has understood this for years.27 This is a spiritual war! Do not think that appeasement or compromise will ward off further demands. Homosexual militants never will be satisfied.28

What goals are being sought? Marriage, one activist believes, must be totally abolished.29 She is not alone.30,31 Dissenters—advocates of traditional, man-woman marriage—must be coerced into accepting and even celebrating same-sex unions. At the very least, they must be silenced.32,33 This truly will recast American society into a virtual dictatorship: “Celebrate with us or else!”

Just as school kids must never surrender the playground to bullies, so we as Americans must never give in to the militant homosexual activists. Resistance is absolutely essential if we are to remain a free society and avoid living under tyranny.

By the way, the five items we’ve mentioned here do not constitute an exhaustive list. Stay tuned.

Part 2 is available here.
Part 3 is available here.

Copyright © 2015 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.

For further reading:

The Daily Caller: Why the Super Bowl Must Stay in Houston by Scott Greer

RenewAmerica: Unmasking the “gay” agenda by Matt Barber