Affirm homosexuality now … or else

Affirm homosexuality now … or else January 11, 2013

Washington Post Book World fiction editor Ron Charles tweeted out this morning:

Changing times: Gay inaugural poet hailed; anti-gay inaugural preacher dismissed:,

And the links go to just that — stories about the hailing of a gay poet and about a Christian pastor who taught traditional Christian doctrine on homosexuality twenty years ago being disinvited from the inauguration.

Yes, changing times.

These are times that have been advocated strenuously for by the mainstream media. Many journalists don’t try to hide that fact and have been candid about this advocacy. We have covered their admissions here before. (See here, here, here, here)

And much of the current situation — where teaching what Christians outside of the Episcopal Church (and other churches that have recently changed their doctrines) teach about human sexuality makes you a pariah to be shunned — could have easily been predicted.

It was predicted, by many cultural observers (albeit the kind who don’t get glowing profiles in the same mainstream media).

As I prepare to look through the various stories (and of those that I’ve read, many are just fine explanations of the situation while some are more like Orwellian defenses of the inaugural committee’s understanding of tolerance), I have a simple question.

How well do you think the mainstream media explained the ramifications of their advocacy on this topic (and the advocacy of other elites on same) on Christians in the public square?

Medieval warrior, staring at you via Shutterstock.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

14 responses to “Affirm homosexuality now … or else”

  1. Of those who have performed advocacy, how many actually care what the ramifications are for those they consider to be bigots?

    • What is “performing advocacy”? Is it stand-up comedy about “advocates”? How is “performing advocacy” different from “advocating for” and just plain “advocating”?

      It turns my stomach to see language constantly tied into knots (by journalists or anyone else.)

  2. Is it possible to disagree here about the ramifications themselves?

    teaching what Christians outside of the Episcopal Church (and other churches that have recently changed their doctrines) teach about human sexuality makes you a pariah to be shunned

    Is (apparently voluntarily) withdrawing from performing a benediction a “shunning”? If Rev. Giglio were to try to attend the ceremony, would he be ‘outcast’?

  3. Is this a trick question? I love the work you do, Mollie, but most days it’s like watching you tilt at windmills.

    You can’t shame a knave.


  4. I have been confused and frustrated by all the article titles that refer to Louie as a “anti-gay pastor.” What does that even mean? As if that is a job title or type of pastor. Maybe this is their attempt to sum up the situation but when you phrase it this way it makes it sound like this is Louie’s job or what he focuses on. As if being an “anti-gay pastor” is the same as a Senior Pastor, or Small Groups Pastor…why not title the article with the focus on LGBT groups advocating for his removal?

    • Replace “anti-gay” with “racist” and you will see what the adjective does to the noun. It really isnt hard to understand.

    • What I found all the more interesting was that phrase “anti-gay” was not put in between “scare quotes” but was printed without them – as more a less a statement of fact (contrasted with the use of “anti-Catholic” which was put in “scare quotes”). The Washington Post even had a link to the “most inflammatory passages” of Giglio’s remarks, which included his description (15 years ago) of homosexuality as a sin (gasp)…….

  5. What leaves me in the dust is the double standard. Chuck Hagel made an anti-gay remark about the same time as that sermon, but evidently it’s been forgiven and forgotten as ‘way in the past.

    • Difference is, Hagel has since apologized. That more or less vindicated him for the liberals. Consider this quote from Jonathan Capehart at WashPost.
      “Don’t even attempt to make a parallel between Giglio and Chuck Hagel’s homophobic remarks from the same time period. Hagel has apologized and has promised to continue the president’s inclusive work. Giglio has not, as his statement announcing his withdrawal from the festivities makes clear. That is his right — as it is our right not to have an unrepentant bigot be given such a high honor on Inauguration Day. ”
      Notice, Giglio withdrew because of the fear that liberals would make that the headline of the inauguration, even before knowing what Giglio might have said. It’s a shame that the topic of human trafficking gets sacrificed to the liberal agenda.

  6. Bill Donohue of The Catholic League made a reasonable (yes, he can be that at times) and insightful comment on this, in which he even calls the NY Times “professional”. The full statement is here:

    A left-wing website, Think Progress, attacked Pastor Giglio for remarks he made in the 1990s affirming Christian teachings on homosexuality. It cited as proof of Giglio’s bigotry passages from the Bible that brand homosexuality as sinful. Now anyone is free to disagree with the Bible, but it is unprofessional of the media to simply adopt the Think Progress agenda. More than that, it shows an egregious bias.

    To be specific, media outlets that tagged Giglio’s orthodox Christian remarks as anti-gay include: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, the Washington Post, Investor’s Business Daily, the Associated Press, and UPI. Those that reported the story professionally by offering a descriptive account include CNN, Fox News, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

    The distinction is critical. To say that Giglio backed out because of his “previous anti-gay comments” is tantamount to saying Christianity is anti-gay because it sees homosexual behavior as sinful. It also sees adultery as sinful. Does that mean Christianity is bigoted against heterosexuals?

  7. A number of comments make the most important point of all::: That much of the mainstream media has adopted the attitude that to consider Gay sexual actions sinful is to be “anti-Gay.” Whereas warning people away from ANY perceived sin has always been considered in the past an act of love to save that person from a harmful activity. Sadly, many in the media either have no idea that their reportorial stance is just part of a propaganda campaign or they willingly make themselves part of that propaganda campaign.

Close Ad