The Most Influential Essay You’ve Never Heard Of

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

This frequently cited quote is often misattributed to John Maynard Keynes or Winston Churchill. But since no one knows the originator, I’ll claim it as my own. Sometimes when the facts change, I change my mind. Such is the case with this article.

This is not the article I set out to write. The facts – or at least my recollection of the facts – changed and I had to change with them. My original thesis was that several years ago LGBQT activists gave assurances that their agenda did not have to conflict with religious liberty rights and that they rejected any claims that opposing homosexual rights was akin to racial discrimination. I thought they too had once claimed, as law scholar Doug Kmiec said nine years ago, that it was “inconceivable” that “a successful analogy will be drawn in the public mind between irrational, and morally repugnant, racial discrimination and the rational, and at least morally debatable, differentiation of traditional and same-sex marriage.”

I had thought the claims that those who opposed homosexual behavior were “bigots” and “essentially arguing for homosexual Jim Crow laws” was a recent change in radical rhetoric. But I was wrong.

For several weeks I searched to find a single prominent LGBQT activist who supported religious conscience exemptions for individuals. I could not find a single one. The closest I could find was the view expressed by Chai Feldblum, an LGBT rights activist and current Commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 2006, Feldblum said:

Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.

While it is nearly impossible to find a LGBTQ activist who put religious liberty ahead of their agenda, it is possible (at least in theory) to find one or two who will denounce the “inconceivable” connection between homosexual activism and civil rights for African Americans. Though I was not able to find them, I assume they must exist. Yet even if they do, that view is definitely not widely shared amongst supporters of homosexual rights.

Instead, there is a concerted effort to vilify religious believers who oppose homosexual behavior. I used to believe such claims were the overheated rhetoric of misguided Christians. And even until recently, I would have disputed that vilification of religious opponents to homosexuality was a widespread phenomena within the community of LGBTQ rights activists and their supporters. But the indisputable fact is that I was wrong: Vilification has been a primary tactic of the homosexual rights movement for at least thirty years.

One of the most influential documents to support this tactic is an article written in 1987 for Guide Magazine. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote ‘The Overhauling of Straight America,’ which they later expanded it into a book, After the Ball — How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 1990s, that was published by one of the America’s largest publishing houses (Doubleday) and became a national bestseller.

If you read Kirk and Madsen’s brief, eye-opening essay (and I highly recommend you do), you’ll immediately assume it’s a parody of the “gay rights agenda.” If a modern-day Jonathan Swift set out to satirize the most outrageous ideas about gay activism believed by religious believers, he couldn’t have produced anything like this. If it were satire, it would be deemed to outrageous, too demonizing, to be believable. Sadly, the essay wasn’t satire but an actual PR blueprint for efforts to gain acceptance of homosexual behavior over the past 30 years.

The essay opens with a clear statement of its aims:

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full “appreciation” or “understanding” of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America. And any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things.

The first point of the campaign is to “Talk About Gays and Gayness As Loudly and As Often As Possible”:

The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one’s fellows doing it or accepting it. One may be offended by its novelty at first–many, in times past, were momentarily scandalized by “streaking,” eating goldfish, and premarital sex. But as long as Joe Six-pack feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on. The skeptic may still shake his head and think “people arc crazy these days,” but over time his objections are likely to become more reflective, more philosophical, less emotional.

The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as “respectable” gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent–only later his unsightly derriere!

Of course this won’t be enough, so demonization is necessary:

Would a desensitizing campaign of open and sustained talk about gay issues reach every rabid opponent of homosexuality? Of course not. While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed “secular humanism”). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.

This ties in with point #5: Make the Victimizers Look Bad:

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the “fags” they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.

A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching.

Most people who have been influenced by Kirk and Madsen’s agenda have never even heard of these men. But that’s not unusual. As John Maynard Keyes once wrote (a quote that can be attributed to him), “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.” (Anyone who doubts the influence of Kirk and Madsen is welcome to try to find an area of their blueprint that was not adopted and implemented by LGBTQ activists over the past 30 years.)

The people who are demonizing Christians for not supporting homosexual behavior—many of whom are Christians themselves—are doing so largely because of the plan that Kirk and Madsen put in place. Presuming themselves to be independent thinkers “quite exempt from any intellectual influence” they are nevertheless carrying out a rather loathsome plan that was put in place before many of them were even born.

This is the reality that religious believers must recognize. We are not facing a new, unexpected challenge to religious liberty. This campaign of vilification was put in place more than three decades ago in order to normalize and institutionalize a life-destroying, soul-crushing form of sinful behavior. We may be shocked that on this issue some Christians are more influenced by an obscure essay they’ve never read than the book that contains the Word of God. But those are the facts that we must accept.

Fortunately, our blueprint for a counter-response was put in place a couple of thousand years ago.

First, we must not respond to the vilifying of religious believers by vilifying others. Instead, we are to love and pray for them (Matthew 5:44).

Second, we must show love to our neighbor by pleading and encouraging them to oppose engaging in actions that invoke God’s wrath (Psalm 5:4-5; Romans 1:18).

Third, we must make it clear that while we may be required to tolerate ungodly behavior, we cannot endorse it, for then we too have become suppressers of the truth. We must make it clear that we cannot love our neighbor and want to see them excluded from the kingdom of Christ (Eph. 5:5).

Fourth, we must preach the gospel to our own brothers and sisters who are helping to champion and lead the cause of unrighteousness in whatever forms it takes. We must renew the Christian conscience and develop it into a bulwark against sin. We must be careful that we don’t merely focus on those who attempt to excuse and normalize one particular form of sin while we are excusing and normalizing our own preferred forms of sin

We may lose this particular fight against the normalization of homosexual behavior. We may be forced to sacrifice our consciences on an altar of idolatrous sexuality. But if we are forced to do so we should joyfully count it all as loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:8). We know that in the age soon to come Christ will triumph over all sin and death, and that those who belong to him will be the only people on the “right side of history.”

About the Author

Joe Carter serves as Director of Communications for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. You can follow him on Twitter at @joecarter.

44 Comments

  1. george canady Reply

    wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a conservative write an honestly researched piece about the historical fear and hatred within the true church and how the Bible can help us lead out publicly in repentance of our own in house sins first. Perhaps then from a position of humble forgiveness…….

    • Patrick Reply

      Is this an issue (now fight) that we as Christians sought out? Hardly. Your comments are so unclear. How exactly does having sin in the church preclude the church from witnessing to the holiness of God and his atonement though Christ? If it ever did, I would dare say we would never day anything to the outside world.

      • David Reply

        I’m pretty sure that was George’s whole point. He thinks that we should so occupy ourselves with getting our own logs out that we never even get to the point of getting others’ specks (and logs, by the way) out. And he’s wrong, of course.

  2. While the book you reference is certainly illuminating, and I agree with you that many LGBTQ activists are playing a script they don’t know was written for them, I think you must have somehow missed Andrew Sullivan in your search for a prominent LGBTQ rights activist who supports religious conscience exemptions for individuals. At least I am fairly certain he supports this. See his recent writing on the pressured resignation of Mozilla’s Brendan Eich: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/tag/Brendan-Eich/

    • Joe Carter Reply

      Rory,

      Sullivan is an interesting case. He’s not really in favor of providing religious exemptions in the law, though he takes a libertarian position that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against customers if it wants. (See this, for example: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/24/erick-erickson-has-a-point/)

      Sullivan does, however, think that people who oppose gay rights are “bigots” and akin to racists.

      • Thanks for the response. I’m not sure I agree on your read of Sullivan. Read his several recent posts on Eich to see the way he reacts when gay rights folks make analogies to racism & Nazism; I am hard-pressed to read him as agreeing with those comparisons, although perhaps you have read him more regularly over the past several years than I have and there’s a key post or two that I’ve missed.

        Of course the broader and more important question is whether a voice like Sullivan could ever actually have had, or could yet have, a real impact given that he faced not only opposition from conservatives but from a wide swath of the LGBTQ community who played more to the script you’re talking about here.

      • John Lind Reply

        Many of the problems in society could be reduced if property rights and the right to voluntary association on one’s property and in one’s business were the law of the land.

        If a person is free to discriminate in their own business against another based on one’s color, gender, sexual orientation, height, weight, financial status, religion, beliefs, just not liking the other person, ad infinitum, most of the controversy would be eliminated.

        I know a lot of folks get uncomfortable with discrimination based on “race”, so just for the record, I’m a member of an organization that believes that there are no separate races, just the human race and I fully abscribe to that belief.

    • Patrick Reply

      You should be more specific. What exactly are you saying?

  3. Tait Reply

    Mr. Carter,

    This was a very interesting article. Your title reads, “The Most Influential Essay….” Do you have evidence of the influence of Kirk and Madison’s essay? Is there a citation trail of some kind? It would appear to have influence, looking at how history has followed its prescription since its publication, but correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. If there is a clear connection, their essay is worth bringing up in discussions; if not, it is merely an interesting coincidence. Another way I could ask the question is: Who specifically has been actively following this script?

    • Joe Carter Reply

      The question of correlation or causation is a tough one to answer when it comes to influence. Because most people don’t cite the exact influences that have shaped their thinking (if they even know), it’s nearly impossible to draw a direct line.

      I’ve wondered myself if it could just be a remarkable coincidence that the exact outline that Kirk and Madsen created has been followed exactly for almost 30 years. It is possible that they were brilliant predictors of the path LGBTQ activists would take rather than instigators of the plan.

      But the one reason I’m fairly certain they were influential is because of Madsen. While Kirk had some impact after the book came out (he’s appeared in the pages of Newsweek, Time, The Washington Post, etc.), Madsen went on to a career in advertising and worked as a consultant for many gay activists groups. Madsen got his PhD from Harvard and worked in marketing for one of the world’s best advertising firms (J. Walter Thompson). It would be very odd if he did not have a huge influence on the LGBTQ movement.

  4. John S Reply

    Excellent article. I would add:
    Fifth – prepare for persecution (endure, rejoice and be glad). And prosecution.

  5. JohnM Reply

    “Fourth, we must preach the gospel to our own brothers and sisters who are helping to champion and lead the cause of unrighteousness in whatever forms it takes.”

    Our…..brothers sisters!? Who are helping to lead the cause of unrighteousness!? I do agree these are among the ones to whom we need to preach the gospel. But that’s our approach to unbelievers.

    “Third, we must make it clear that while we may be required to tolerate ungodly behavior, we cannot endorse it ”

    Which is (taken as that is) a contradiction of what you listed as Second and First. We’re well past having the option of getting to be the nice people about it.

  6. Excellent article.

    The seminal book on the gay agenda in America is Dr. Michael Brown’s “A Queer Thing Happened to America: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been” (http://amzn.to/1hmscIk)

    I would advise anyone interested in the topic to pick a copy of this well-researched, footnoted, scholarly work, and read it.

  7. Phillip A Reply

    What is this, the Protocols of theElders of Sodom?

  8. Don L Reply

    Tait & Dr Carter,

    Perhaps one person who may be able to tell you something of the influence of the essay is Dr Rosaria Butterfield.

    http://rosariabutterfield.com/

  9. Those excerpts sound like they could have been written by Screwtape himself.

  10. JoseRoberto Reply

    Joe,

    Just saw this post. One significant problem with Christian opposition to the gay rights issue is that Christians are not perceived as having any moral high ground from which to argue. Yes, many of us go to church on Sunday, but so what? The rest of the week we’re amazingly tolerant of no-fault divorce, extra-marital sex (as long as it’s straight, not gay), abortion, etc.

    Most of our arguments are perceived as being more about preserving white middle-class values rather than the commands of Christ. Many of us give less to the church than we spend every month on cell phones and cable TV, and much of what passes for sermons is more in the nature of suggestions for a better life than “thus saith the Lord”. In short, our lives are not markedly different from those non-Christians around us, so why should they listen to us on the gay rights issue?

  11. Matt Reply

    Read the article and my response…

    Who cares?

    Gay activists had an agenda and a plan how to get there. Big deal. That’s been how humans have worked since about 6000 BC just before Eve took the first bite of the fruit of knowledge. Nothing discusses in that essay was at all new.

    Now had you, along with the general suggestions you made about Christians at the end of the article, actually articulated specific ways in which conservatives use precisely the same methods as the gay activists, condemned such manipulation, and given specific positive steps we could take instead….

    That would have been an article worth my time to read.

  12. Phil Reply

    This is a very strange article. People today believe in gay rights because of an obscure advertising essay/book written in 1987?

    If you want to make such a claim, you are going to need good evidence.

    Specifically, if you want to call it “the most influential essay you’ve never heard of,” you’ve got to provide some evidence of its influence. It is certainly possible that the essay/book had no influence whatsoever on the culture, and the subsequent decades developed independently of it.

    For example, the Human Rights Campaign was already in existence by 1980, and PFLAG was trying to change minds by 1980 as well. The AIDS epidemic created a huge outcry of public support for gays in the 1980s into the 1990s. There was a large number of things changing, and this article fails to provide any support or reasons for why this essay/book was the reason why public support for gays has increased so much over the last 30 years.

    • JohnM Reply

      Well, with regard to the aids – epidemic, I guess? – I remember there was an outcry of sympathy translated to support on the part of a segment of society. I suppose “huge” is a matter of definition. For some reason our culture was and is predisposed to equate victimhood with heroism and that aforementioned segment was a able to capitalize on a crisis I suppose. Whatever happened to aids in the US, by the way? Actually, I don’t know. You don’t hear so much now.

      Anyway, I don’t know if the point is so much that the book drove an agenda as that it, if not demonstrates at least strongly suggests, there has been an agenda.

    • David Reply

      Nadine writing on “trickle down” is exactly right about this. All it takes is for a small handful of people of influence to absorb the agenda and then to inundate every form of media these days. Where do young adults learn how/what to think these days? Media, whether this form or that. Control the media, and you control the minds of the masses.

  13. Julie Reply

    I was just thinking the same thing, Screwtape is alive and well and very good at his job!

  14. For those commenters who are wondering how people could be influenced by something they’ve never read, read up on the “trickle down effect.” It explains how people on the street espouse the ideas of philosophers such as Michel Foucault, Jean-Francois Lyotard and Judith Butler, even though they’ve never even heard their names, nevermind read anything they’ve written.

    And, ironically, speaking of Foucault (who was gay), read up on “cultural hegemony” while you’re at it.

  15. Hmmm…since (conservative) Christians habitually and self-righteously treat ANYONE (even) connected with LGBT+ people with contempt and (sometimes murderous) hostility, and constantly demonize them and lie about them (in “love” of course), then would you expect queer activists to regard Christians as anything but enemies?

    Frankly, I have seen *much more* Christlikeness coming from queer “sinners” than I have seen it from the straight saints. As a serious Christian myself**, I regard this article as yet another example of “crying in one’s beer.” Start loving queer people the way Jesus would, and you will see His kingdom moving forward in this community. (Hint1: the first step to loving someone does not involve denouncing or demonizing them – last Sunday’s sermon notwithstanding. Hint2: look at 1st Corinthians 13 – and don’t assume “rejoicing with the truth” gives us a pass on the kind of behavior we as The Church have been guilty of over the last centuries. Hint3: you don’t have to agree with someone’s choices to love and accept them as fellow human beings {or even as fellow believers}.)

    **Disclosure, I am a married Christian woman of transsexual experience. Jesus captured my heart and life over thirty years ago, and He demonstrates His power through the “scandal” of my gender transition.

    • Roger Reply

      Brettany,
      Your first paragraph proves the entire point of the Joe’s post. I am a conservative Christian who has many gay friends. I am also involved in healing ministry. My LGBT friends know what I believe and they also know that I love them. Perhaps it is God’s paradoxical love that your have yet to comprehend. You seem to be more interested in setting boundaries for others than letting God invade yours.

      • Matt Reply

        One of the biggest flaws in this article is that it overlooks the fact that the LGBT agenda worked because it resonated with people. Whether there is any relationship between racial equality and sexuality was less important than the fact that Christians tended to act like unloving jerks towards gay people (a trend which has only increased in the last two decades). I often get a kick how articles like this one encourage Christians to “share the Gospel” or “be loving” without actually doing either one. instead of giving advice to love LGBT people, maybe some Christian writer, someday, might want to actually put that advice into action and pay more than lip service to the Gospel. In the end articles such as this one which tell us to “preach the Gospel” without actually talking about the cross are weighed in the public mind against incidents such as WV in which 10,000 sponsorships of children were withdrawn in 3 days because Christians wanted to punish an organization for accepting “gay marriage.” Seriously this is a war the conservative Christians lost rather than the LGBT won.

        If Christians want to win this debate it might help to stop just talking about preaching the Gospel and go ahead and actually do so. It might help to actually make suggestions on how to love those you disagree with. I expect, however, that will not happen because it is soooo much more satisfying to play the poor, picked on martyr, helpless before the machinations of those naughty gays than it is to actually practice what we preach.

    • Chuck Reply

      “Disclosure, I am a married Christian woman of transsexual experience.”

      So you are a man pretending to be a woman.

      “you don’t have to agree with someone’s choices to love and accept them as fellow human beings”

      Jesus didn’t tell the adulteress to “Go have a ball! We’re cool.” He told her to “go and sin no more”. We don’t get to redefine sin to excuse our sinful behavior. And we can love our fellow human beings without accepting their sins. In fact, we are commanded not to accept their sins. If we are to be Christ-like we should continue living by Carter’s four points listed at the end of this article.

  16. Chris Lang Reply

    The primary strategy to increase public acceptance of LGBT people was framed in the early 1970s: “coming out.” The logic was that if people actually knew LGBT people — friends, family, coworkers — they would be much more likely to be accepting of LGBT people and their relationships. This strategy has worked beautifully: to this day, people are much more likely to be accepting of gay rights and same-sex marriage if they know friends, family or coworkers who are LGBT. So when conservatives complain that LGBT activists have somehow gotten the 2-5% of the population that is LGBT so much attention and legal accommodation, they miss something very important. It’s not the 2-5% of the population now, it’s the 40-50% who know LGBT people and have become sympathetic to them and their concerns.

    But the truth is that conservatives lost this war 40 years ago, when the medical and scientific professional organizations determined that homosexuality was not a mental illness or character disorder; once that decision was made, same-sex marriage and gay rights were inevitable (as was the clash with traditional religious teachings on this issue). Conservatives claim that this was the result of LGBT political pressure, but more and more, claims that gay people are sinners, unhealthy and so forth sound like arguments against evolution by creationists. This is in large measure to the success of LGBT activists from the 1970s, who conceived of the power of coming out to change people’s hearts on this issue.

    Now people who hold to traditional morality have to deal with a public who are rapidly becoming unsympathetic to those attitudes; it won’t be long before hostility to same-sex marriage and gay rights (based in religion or not) will be in the exact same category as racial segregation is now. It helps to remember that the Loving v. Virginia decision that legalized interracial marriage was made in the same month that the Beatles album Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band appeared.

  17. John Smith Reply

    Look for today’s After the Ball, blazing the way to legalizing pedophilia.

    Ecclesiastes 1:9: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

    Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

    Every single man and youth and, we can presume, woman and girl and child, was systematically sexually abused, in the ancient equivalent of what the Helter Skelter prophet, Charles Manson, called “Getting Scared”, the exercise of systematically breaking down human dignity to prompt people to perform any imaginable barbarity.

    Catholic tradition describes this tendency to conceal sex as “modesty.” It is a certain kind of shame. We would do well to understand what it is and what it is not. In his book, Purity: The Mystery of Christian Sexuality, Dietrich von Hildebrand distinguishes between different kinds of shame. Some kinds of shame are, in fact, a reaction against what is “disgraceful or ugly.” Yet not all shame is so. Some kinds of shame are a form of reverence. For example the French word pudeur is translated into English as “shame”; however, it has the nuance of “holy bashfulness” for which there is no equivalent in English.

    “From a neighbouring shrubbery emerged a nurse, leading by the hand a small boy, who howled as he went. ‘What’s the matter?’ asked the Director. The nurse shrugged her shoulders. ‘Nothing much,’ she answered. ‘It’s just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play. I’d noticed it once or twice before. And now again to-day. He started yelling just now. I’m taking him in to see the Assistant Superintendent of Psychology. Just to see if anything’s at all abnormal.’ “ – Aldous Huxley, “Brave New World”, Chapter 3

    We don’t have to imagine this happening in some dystopian science fiction, this is documented, recent past and continuing-now history. Take progressives at their word. The current Administration is object proof that despite the crazy talk, they mean what they say. The blood they’re now shedding in “the privacy of a ‘Doctor’ s’ office” will run in the streets.

  18. WilliamSimpson Reply

    Have you read this book? The homosexual agenda is spelled out plainly. Homosexuality is demanding that we accept their lifestyle without consequence. Without moral reason… The Christian response is an astounding NO!!!

Leave a Reply