The city of Charleston in my state of South Carolina will be hosting its first Gay Pride parade.
Conservative columnist John Rackliffe isn't happy about that. Nor is Rackliffe happy that North Charleston's mayor Keith Summey has agreed to be the Grand Marshall of this event:
How should a Christian and former North Charleston resident react to such a gesture? Knowing what I know about how God feels about homosexuality, should I be supportive of the Mayor's decision? After all, like Summey suggested, he is mayor for all of North Charleston's residents no matter what their sexual preference. Perhaps, as an elected official, Mayor Summey cannot exercise his stated belief that he "is not supportive of their lifestyle." Perhaps, he has no choice but to cater to the whims of his citizenry.Mayor Summey has a choice. What if NAMBLA (look it up), wanted to hold a rally on the steps of North Charleston High School? Should the citizens of North Charleston tolerate it? How about the American Nazi Party? What if the wanted to celebrate Adolf Hitler's birthday in Park Circle, should the people of North Charleston be accomodating because they have the right to express themselves too?
That sort of hyperbole is par for the course for Rackliffe, who has written other very interesting pieces on the gay community such as The homosexual agenda, 'out of the closet' and after your children.
Rackliffe's biography calls him a "born again Christian" who "desires to share his love of Jesus Christ with others through writing and civil discussion." Comparing gays and lesbians to Nazis and pedophiles doesn't strike me as Christian and it certainly doesn't strike me as civil.
But I find his candor refreshing in its honesty.
There are some on Rackliffe's side of the spectrum who imply that gays are too pushy, too volatile, and therefore are causing problems with their attempts to "change" the view of supposedly what's normal. Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage seems to have cornered the market on phony piety, continuously wringing her hands in abject misery over being "unfairly labeled as a bigot simply because she wants to defend traditional values."
But however nauseatingly untrue Rackliffe's words are, it is nice for someone on his side of the spectrum to drop the mask and show what the push against gay equality is really all about.
It's about spreading ignorance and fear based on presumptions of religious superiority.
And in this case, it's about being extremely presumptuous regarding the role of public servants (i.e. elected officials).
Why else would Rackliffe criticize Mayor Summey for agreeing to show support to an event put on by law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and compound the verbal error by comparing these same citizens to Nazis and pedophiles?
Despite what some folks may believe, homosexuality is not against the law (although some people clearly wish that it would be) and there is no "gay lifestyle" (at least I haven't gotten the newsletter from "National Headquarters" detailing one).
But gays and lesbians are contributing very much to society, living normal lives, and raising families.
Why should Mayor Summey treat them any differently than any other group of constituents?
By agreeing to be Grand Marshall, maybe he wanted to assure them that as an elected public official, he represents their interests also. After all, isn't that his job?