Citizenship Confusion: The U.S. Funding of International LGBT Rights

Every Monday in Citizenship Confusion, Alan Noble discusses how we confuse our heavenly citizenship with citizenship to the state, culture, and the world.

If we accept, as I do, that practicing homosexuality is sin, then surely we do not want our country actively promoting sin around the world, right?

Let’s look at some of the language of Obama’s memorandum and Clinton’s speech:

Obama: “I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world. . . . Whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations, or killing men, women, and children for their perceived sexual orientation” (CP).

Clinton: “In many ways, they are an invisible minority. . . . They are arrested, beaten, terrorized — even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or join in the abuse. Too often, they are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm” (CP).

Here’s how some Christians and Conservatives described the memorandum and speech:

Rick Perry: “Just when you thought Barack Obama couldn’t get any more out of touch with America’s values, AP reports his administration wants to make foreign aid decisions based on gay rights. This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop. . . . Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money” (ABC).

Matt Barber at Liberty Counsel Action: “[It is] frankly offensive [that President Obama] feels compelled to export American culture’s decline in morality, and export that immorality to other nations that are trying to adhere to traditional principles relative to human sexuality” (OneNewsNow).

The Family Research Counsel: “It is startling that President Obama is prepared to throw the full weight and reputation of the United States behind the promotion overseas of the radical ideology of the sexual revolution” (FRC).

Notice that none of these sources admits that the Obama administration focused on violence; instead, they spun the initiative as the promotion of homosexuality. They also complained that Obama is not concerned enough about “real” Human Rights abuses, like religious intolerance. But, according to their logic, protecting religious rights would be imposing U.S. beliefs on sovereign foreign nations.

As Christians, we are called to love and care for our neighbor, which clearly means that we should support efforts to stop violence and discrimination against homosexuals. However, we also must acknowledge that one person’s discrimination is another’s promotion. It seems to me that this new policy could lead to U.S. support for sin. But the language the Obama administration used to describe the purpose of the policy does not suggest so; it seems to be focused on stopping injustice, which we should support.

Although I think we ought to ask for more specific details on how this $3 million will be used and what defines “discrimination,” the overwhelming response to this policy by Christians has been deceptive and presumptuous. If we can spend $3 million to protect sinners from beatings, executions, and other abuses, Praise God, let’s do it.