Why do generally conservative people support liberal causes like homosexuality? Consider Ted Olson, the 42nd United States Solicitor General under George W. Bush, noted conservative, critic of Bill Clinton, and the attorney who delivered Bush’s oral argument before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore that settled the 2000 election. Olson has joined with David Boies to file a lawsuit in U.S. federal court to force federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Boise is the attorney who had represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore. Homosexuality makes strange bedfellows. (Can I say that?) “This is a federal question,” Olson said. “This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized.” He said that he and Boies “wanted to be a symbol of the fact that this not a conservative or a liberal issue. We want to send a signal that this is an important constitutional issue involving equal rights for all Americans.”
Olson is begging the question, asserting what he must prove. There are all kinds of behaviors that stigmatize people but are not protected by the law. Given Olson’s logic, there is no difference between homosexuality and bestiality. I heard a lawyer who is supporting Olson’s efforts maintain that prohibiting homosexual marriage is identical to when blacks could not marry whites. Nonsense. The physical equipment for sexual activity is the same for all races. Homosexuality is a particular kind of sexual behavior that never can result in the birth of a child. Homosexuality is the attempt to put a square peg in a very dirty round hole.
Why would Olson take this pro-homosexual marriage case after a long and distinguished career in the conservative movement? It’s baffling. But maybe not. I have a theory. If it can be maintained that homosexual behavior is “unjudgeable,” then other sexual practices—adultery, pre-marital sex, womanizing, having babies out of wedlock—become just as “unjudgeable.” The point is to get along so you can get ahead. People matter more than God. Status before men is more important than standing before God. Here’s a story you may have missed. In 1989, Senator John Tower of Texas was nominated to be Secretary of Defense under George H. Bush. The Senator was an admitted boozer and womanizer, but many Republicans dismissed the behavior as unrelated to politics. Paul Weyrich led the opposition to Tower’s nomination. Mr. Republican Barry Goldwater supported Tower:
“Yeah, he drank; I’ve had a few with him,” Goldwater said, according to a press report. “That he chased women? I don’t give a damn whether he did or not. If everyone in this town connected with politics had to leave town because of that, and drinking, you’d have no government.”
Weyrich was right. Goldwater was wrong. These politicians could get away with their immoral behavior as long as they did not snitch on the immoral behavior of their political compatriots. Debased behavior leads to a debasement in government. It’s happening right before our eyes as we see our currency debased and the culture with it (Isa. 1:21–25).
Today’s defenders of homosexual behavior have, in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “defined deviancy down” so that what was morally shocking twenty years ago is acceptable, or at least tolerated, behavior today. Robert Bork, explains the phenomenon:
Emile Durkheim, a founder of sociology, posited that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can “afford to recognize.” As behavior worsens, the community adjusts its standards so that conduct once thought reprehensible is no longer deemed so.”
What’s true in politics is doubly true in the entertainment business that includes its share of homosexuals, serial polygamists, cohabitationists, drug users and addicts, and an assortment of gypsies, tramps, and thieves. To get ahead, like in politics, there is only one commandment to follow: “If you won’t judge me, I won’t judge you.”
In 1922 The Sins of Hollywood was a sensational exposé of the burgeoning film industry that author Ed Roberts, a former editor of Photoplay magazine, claimed “had free play” that “made the scarlet sins of Sodom and Babylon, of Rome and Pompeii fade into a pale, pale yellow.” Consider this from the author:
Not so long ago a certain popular young actress returned from a trip. She had been away for ten days. Her friends felt that there ought to be a special welcome awaiting her. Rostrand [Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle], a famous comedian, decided to stage another of his unusual affairs. He rented ten rooms on the top floor of a large exclusive hotel and only guests who had the proper invitations were admitted.
After all of the guests—male and female—were seated, a female dog was led out into the middle of the largest room. Then a male dog was brought in. A dignified man in clerical garb stepped forward and with all due solemnity performed a marriage ceremony for the dogs.
It was a decided hit. The guests laughed and applauded heartily and the comedian was called a genius. Which fact pleased him immensely. But the “best” was yet to come.
The dogs were unleashed. There before the assembled and unblushing young girls and their male escorts was enacted an unspeakable scene. Even truth cannot justify the publication of such details.
The book was determined by a court to be “too scurrilous” to be sent through the United States Post Office. There were suspicions that the Hollywood studios had something to do with suppressing the book because it revealed too much about the operation of their business. Roberts suggests as much:
Any publication that attempted to reveal the real conditions—to cleanse the festering sores—was quickly pounced upon as an “enemy of the industry”—A subsidized trade press helped in this work! Any attempt to bring about reform was called “hurting the industry.” It was the lapses and laxities of the producer that precipitated the censorship agitation—that led a nauseated nation, determined to cleanse the Augean stables of the screen, into the dangerous notion of censorship—almost fatally imperiling two sacred principles of democracy—freedom of speech and freedom of the press!
What was done behind closed doors and kept hidden by the studios is now done in public for the world to see. Entire magazines are devoted to the sins of Hollywood, except they are now considered to be virtues to be emulated. There are conservatives in Hollywood, but they are few and far between. There are lesser knowns who won’t come out of the conservative closet for fear of being forever blacklisted.
Country singer Reba McEntire was recently interviewed in a homosexual publication about her views of homosexuality. “I just try not to judge,” Reba said. “Don’t judge me, and I won’t judge you. And that’s what it says in the Bible—‘Don’t judge.’”
So if McEntire’s husband ran off with another man or woman, would she be permitted to judge him based on her view of the Bible? If her accountant stole from her, could he be judged? Paul Copan writes in “True For You, But Not True For Me,” “It’s been said that the most frequently quoted Bible verse is no longer John 3:16 but Matthew 7:1: ‘Do not judge, or you too will be judged.’” Actually, it’s the most quoted out-of-context verse in the Bible:
We cannot glibly quote this, though, without understanding what Jesus meant. When Jesus condemned judging, he wasn’t at all implying we should never make judgments about anyone. After all, a few verses later, Jesus himself calls certain people “pigs” and “dogs” (Matt. 7:6) and “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (7:15)! Any act of church discipline (1 Cor. 5:5) and rebuking false prophets (1 John 4:1) requires judgment.
Jesus said “Do not judge lest you be judged” (Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37). But He also said, “Judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24; see Deut. 16:18). These are not contradictory statements since the context of Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:1 tells us what He means by “not judging” and what it means to judge with “righteous judgment.” Jesus was condemning those who judge using two standards of morality, one standard for the judge and another for the accused. You know, like politicians who created a healthcare bill that requires everyone to participate but exempts them. The Bible maintains—in both the Old and New Testaments—that the standard of judgment must be equal for both parties (Num. 15:16). “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it shall be measured to you” (Matt. 7:2). God doesn’t take verses out of context. Our nation is being judged because we have violated His laws. It is beyond comprehension that someone like Ted Olson would defend behavior that is a culture killer (Rom. 1:18–32). It’s one thing for people to sin behind closed doors; it’s something else to use the power and authority of the courts to impose such wickedness on a nation. Reba McEntire should know better. She is more concerned about getting some of the homosexual market than being faithful to the Bible she claims is her guide. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised since she believes in reincarnation. Can’t she just shut up and sing! It’s so embarrassing listening to such nonsense.
 Daniel Patrick Moyniham, “Defining Deviancy Down,” American Scholar (Winter 1993).
 Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline (New York: Regan Books, 1996), 3.
 Paul Copan, “True For You, But Not For Me”: Deflating the Slogans that Leave Christians Speechless (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany, 1998), 32.