I would like to express my appreciation to Jean Hedley for caring enough to write a letter to the editor on M vs H, the Supreme Court decision granting “spousal” status to homosexual couples (Interim, August 1999). She is correct in stating that justice and democracy is not well served when unelected judges change the law to allow same-sex marriages and adoption.

I would also like to expand on one of Ms. Hedley’s points, that “homosexual persons are worthy of the same rights as any other single person under the law.” I am concerned that some well-meaning Christians have misunderstood this notion over the years, and have as a result been neutralized in resisting the homosexual agenda.

While a person struggling with a homosexual inclination is entitled to basic God-given human rights on the grounds of their humanity, no person is entitled to any rights whatsoever on the grounds of them defining themselves as homosexual. The distinction is very important. Homosexuals who want to become members of the military or Big Brothers argue quite persuasively that they just want to be treated as any other human being. The problem is, however, that they are not just any other human being; they have defined themselves as homosexual, and are therefore predisposed to various practices and behaviours that quite legitimately exclude them from being acceptable role models.

In fact, a sexually active homosexual is viewed by God as a sexual outlaw, in the same category as a serial rapist, child molester, adulterer or someone who commits acts of bestiality. (See Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 regarding prohibited sexual acts.) While all of the above-mentioned acts merited severe criminal penalties up to and including the death penalty, homosexuality is the only abomination to merit the complete destruction of two cities by God Almighty Himself. (See Genesis 19 on Sodom and Gomorrah.) King Asa was considered righteous in the eyes of the Lord because “he removed the sodomites out of the land” (1 Kings 15:11-12).

While one could argue from the New Testament teachings on grace that the death penalty be mitigated, there is nothing in the New Testament or Christian tradition to suggest that sodomite behaviour should be removed from the Criminal Code. To the contrary, St. Paul condemned homosexuality more strenuously than he did theft. (See Rom 1:18-32, 1 Cor 6:9.) Canada was founded on Judeo-Christian principals and sodomy was in our Criminal Code until 1969, when it was removed by Pierre Trudeau.

Natural law quite independently of Scripture testifies against the legalization of sodomy. Trudeau declared in his legalization of the practice that “the state has no business in the nation’s bedrooms.” Now the practice is not only more prevalent in the nation’s bedrooms, it is also being taught as normal and healthy in our children’s classrooms. “Gay pride” parades celebrate the practice, and gay activists are demanding that Trudeau’s declaration be extended to bathhouses, bars, and public parks. Some influential elements of the gay community are lobbying for the “right” to have sex with children. The spiritual and physical casualties from this practice are staggering. Young boys around the world show up in the AIDS wards to die after being sodomized by homosexual pedophiles. The North American Man Boy Love Association offers advice to their members on countries where they can have sex with children at little risk to themselves. Millions of homosexuals die prematurely each year from a variety of afflictions related to their practices. Their souls enslaved to lust, the only hope they have is to cry out to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for deliverance from eternal damnation.

The Christian church must love the repentant homosexual and offer hope and forgiveness to the one struggling to break free from homosexual bondage. However, we must not in our desire to love the sinner confuse ourselves and neglect our biblical mandate to hate the sin, Prov 8:13. The Christian church should love and offer Christ’s forgiveness to thieves, murderers, and pedophiles as well; however we dare not offer them any legitimacy by conferring on them any rights based on their behaviour.