COGIC article: gay marriage “hijacking civil rights” has poscogic_shieldted an article written by Rev. Eugene Rivers,III  and Kenneth Johnson condemning gay marriage comparisons with civil rights. The language is brutally honest –and true–  but there are some external issues.

Johnson and Rivers, a COGIC minister in Massachusetts,  argues that the casting of gay marriage as a civil right is “utterly cynical and possibly racist, [but] has enormous strategic utility.”

Right they are, particularly on the strategy. If we judged solely on the witness of scripture against homosexuality, homosexual marriage is not about so-called “marriage equality”. Its a strategic effort to sell homosexuality as respectable. Of course, as we have learned recently, when seduction doesnt work, homosexuals unleash the vile nature of their orientation on those of us who refuse to accept this manufactured madness.

The chink in the armor of this massive social deception Rivers says is that homosexuals are devoid of the  “moral equivalence” so central to black civil rights.

“…the partisans of homosexual marriage have a problem.  There is no evidence in the historiographical literature of the Civil Rights Movement and its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support their political and moral argument of equivalence.  As the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese observed over thirty years ago, the Black American experience as a function of slavery is unique and without analogue in the history of the United States.”

Not only does the gay marriage argument have a major flaw, so does the posting of this article. I suspect that it to be old as it presses for support of the Bush proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (2004-2006), which never materialized.

Moreover, in light of the phenomenon of judicially mandated homosexual marriage, we believe that Black leaders need to speak forcefully in favor of President George W. Bush’s proposal for a Federal Marriage Amendment.

So, what’s the real reason COGIC posted this article as “latest news”? While we’re glad someone in COGIC seems to be concerned about homosexual marriage, this isnt the way to address it. If they want this to have weight, COGIC should enlist its best minds (try COGIC Scholars) and produce a current document with a comprehensive policy for dealing with homosexuality.  Then, issue a press release, get their best spokesmen (there are plenty to choose from) and make this a issue worth talking about in the church. Out of that could come real effort to launch real deliverance and discipleship ministry to homosexuals.

Grade: D+


25 thoughts on “COGIC article: gay marriage “hijacking civil rights”

  1. DL Foster Said:
    “Of course, as we have learned recently, when seduction doesnt work, homosexuals unleash the vile nature of their orientation on those of us who refuse to accept this manufactured madness.”

    Sir, can you please explain what you mean by manufactured madness. I didn’t choose my sexuality. If I could, I would *un choose* it. Yet, you spek of manufactured madness. I find this to be staggering intellectual dishonesty. How could I choose to be Gay or better yet. Why would I?

    I frequent your site because your are one of the best conservative debaters I’ve ever encountered. More often than not your argumentation, although I disagreew with it is fair and rational. Yet this time, I since emotion and frustration as opposed to bible. I think when conservatives continue with undisgested slogans born out of emotion, we who are naturally inclined toward the same sex suffer. You the elementary attack of “God made adam and eve not adam and steve. Please consider a return to your rational, methodical non-name calling self.

  2. There are universally recognised natural rights which exist prior to the state and are not created by government or popular consent. Civil rights are the legal recognition of rights which derive from natural rights.

    Same sex marriage was never a right and never will be although the law might try to pretend that it is.

  3. Tony,

    manufactured madness: the insistence that homosexual marriage is an inalienable right.

    vile orientation: the same spirit that inhabited the men of sodom which was pride, violence and inhospitality.

    Im not against emotions, just unnecessary emotionalism. I dont think my post contained that if that your only argument.

    And thanks very much for the compliement on this site. I dont dislike you or any homosexuals and I will save a place here to hear your objections or agreements. I do think think the “hate” arguement is rather cookie cutter, so if that’s the ONLY thing a commenter has to say, I ususally wont approve it.

  4. Everyone doesn’t have the “Right” to be married. Children cannot marry. Siblings, close family members, etc. cannot marry. It is not a civil right . Secular Heretic (I LOVE that name) is right civil rights arise from natural rights.

  5. Elder Jimmy,

    To compare honmosexuals to polygamist, and predatory child molestors certainy doesn’t do anything to bolster or add credibility to the gay debate. It is also staggering intellectual dishonesty. I’m not even going to differentiate between consensual sexuality between to adults and forced sex (rape) on kids, or having multiple wives /husbands. Your argument Instead, reflects your deep seated bias and/or hatred for us.

    The constitution does categorize inalienable rights:
    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fact that human beings, who have a historical predisposition to getting moral issues WRONG,would even be ALLOWED to vote on this is rediculous. Case in point. Slavery was legal for a long time because the MAJORITY decided negros were inherently inferior and whats more, held fallacious positions that God wanted negros to be slaves. See the parrallel?

    You are in the majority side on the gay debate, thus you see your position as just. But like it or not, there is an immediate parralell to societal votes legalizing slavery and societal votes legalizing discrimination against gays. Why do I call it discrimination? Because the majority has forced its will on the minority producing a culture that would DENY same sex couples the right to consumate their love in the eyes of the SECULAR LAW and be afforded hundreds of benefits afforded to ‘married’ couples.

  6. I did not compare homosexuality to child molesters. Where in my very brief comment do you see me say that? Where do I reference polygamy? I urge you to re-read my post devoid of your emotion and assumptions about what I may have meant. I said children, i.e.; two 12 year olds who swear they are in love cannot be married. Rights are limited based on the common good. The question before us is whjether ro not is is a right for SGL people to call their unions marriage.
    Regarding my “hate” for gay people: Again you have made an uninformed assumption. I am really kinda shocked that you derived your opinion based on my post. I will repeat. please re-read with understanding.
    As far as the pursuit of happiness is concerned; That must be balanced with the common good of the majority.
    Where you do have a point is the fact that the courts did decide that the laws that discriminated against Blacks were unconstutional. It wasd not decided by popular vote. This was based on the basic right of a “human being” which in the historical ideology and practice of this country Blacks were not affordable. That belief was also supported by religious ideas originally; the Jewish Rabbis taught that the curse of Ham’s son for his sin against Noaf was black skin, That is a lie. It can be disproved by imperical evidence.

  7. You write: “Its a strategic effort to sell homosexuality as respectable. Of course, as we have learned recently, when seduction doesnt work, homosexuals unleash the vile nature of their orientation on those of us who refuse to accept this manufactured madness.”

    And you further define, “vile orientation: the same spirit that inhabited the men of sodom which was pride, violence and inhospitality.”

    Are you saying that we (lesbian, gay, bisexual people) react with violence when others disrespect us?

    If so, I assume you are claiming that the isolated incidences of violence following the passage of Proposition 8 represent the intentions and behavior of the majority of LGBT citizens and our heterosexual allies. Is that correct?


    Mark Worthen

  8. Mark, you used the word “disrespect” . Thats an interesting word to use in connection with what happened with Prop 8 and beyond.

    You seem to be implying that a vote against gay marriage is disrepectful to all LGBT people. I hope thats not what youre saying when only a fraction of the gay community (mostly white affluent gays) even consider gay marriage a priority.

    Im not sure what you would expect Americans opposed to homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general to do when voting our beliefs is an inherent constitutional right. Just because you dont like it, doesnt change the fact that its my legal right to do so. And doing so doesnt imply disrespect, just that I do not agree with your ideology/worldview and want my voice heard and recognized.

    Regarding the open displays of violence by the gay community in the wake of Prop 8 surely you are intelligent enough to know that not all gay people were involved. That’s beside the point and an factual impossiblity. The point in that there was a concerted effort of the part of homosexual activists to intimidate people after their anti-gay marriage vote. They werent “isolated” as you claim. Isolated means one, perhaps two insignificant events unconnected to any larger event. This WAS NOT the case in the aftermath of Prop 8. It was widespread and connected directly to Prop 8. And many gay rights leaders condoned/sanctioned it if not directly, indirectly.

    Further, I associated it with the spirit of sodom. If you read the passsage in Gen 19, you will see the same violent sentiment expressed against Lot, his family and guests when the sodomite were denied what the asserted were their “rights” in a city where they were the majority.

    I hope that clarifies for you the context of my statements.

  9. What I observe is a concerted effort on the part of social conservatives to label LGBT civil rights supporters as engaging in “intimidation” on a large scale, without providing any convincing evidence. For example, which “gay rights leaders condoned/sanctioned” intimidation? What exactly did they say? To what extent do they represent Americans who support civil rights for LGBT citizens?

    Your attempt to label the LGBT civil rights movement as a campaign of intimidation is a sign that you have given up logical argument and are instead resorting to ad hominem attacks. It’s a desperate attempt to distract and discredit at a time when more and more Americans have grown weary of your “pick and choose” Biblical arguments and younger generations look at you with bewilderment and dismay.



  10. P.S. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender is just as respectable as being heterosexual and, yes, I regard attempts to demonize and dehumanize us as a sign of disrespect.

    With regard to your Biblical arguments, I will find them convincing only when you articulate precisely how you choose which passages in the Bible you believe and which you regard as outdated.

    I have yet to read or hear any Christianist provide a cogent answer to our argument that you “pick and choose” Scripture to support your prejudiced views.



  11. Mark your objections have been duly noted. Sorry you have me confused with a “social conservative”. I’m a gospel preacher.

    Having said that:

    Judging by your degree status, you seem to be intelligent enough to read, research, google, check out youtube and see the same things I have seen. Its all public information, thus Im not bound to provide you any “evidence”. I sincerely doubt any such required evidence would change your mind about the obvious since its filtered through your own desire to justify your homosexuality.

    So that argument is a dead end street with me. Mayhap someone else would be interested to banter with you about it.

    In addition, dont stay up late waiting for me to rehash old, tired accusations about “cherry picking”. My best suggestion is to use the search portal provided at the top right of the page and read what has already been written and discussed extensively on the issue. Perhaps executing those simple steps will aleviate your problem of not having yet “read or heard”. Again, I sincerely doubt that much of any biblical response will be cogent to you considering you dont believe it to begin with. Why even raise such a ridiculous request?

    What’s more Mark, to be 100% honest with you, how younger generations, you, the gay community, your liberal religious cohorts, or anyone else views me is a moot issue. Since the aforementioned hold no authority over me and possess no ability to bless me, I can only hope that they find Jesus Christ as Savior. I am much more concerned with how God views me.

    I hope this clarifies my position and resolve.

  12. For the Christian, do civil rights exist? That is, apart from our rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and in the context of Romans 13’s enlargement of that point. But apart from our generally obeying state laws and that which is required for us to exist in and contribute to a peaceful and orderly society (note that I did not say “a just society” as such will only be realized upon the return of Jesus Christ!), should Christians be concerned with civil rights? I know that it is off topic, but still …

  13. I don’t need to justify my sexuality any more than you need to justify your Christianity.

    In civil discourse, when one makes a pronouncement it is generally believed that he or she has a responsibility to provide evidence for his or her opinion. If I were to claim that “all anti-gay Christians are cold-hearted, cruel people” I would need to provide evidence for such a sweeping claim (one that I don’t believe, by the way).

    Having made that point, you’re right, I’ve probably reviewed many of the same news reports and I do not see a widespread campaign of violence or intimidation on the part of LGBT civil rights supporters.

    I can live with you not wanting to provide evidence for your “intimidation” claim but I really have a hard time with your unwillingness to personally defend your “pick and choose” Biblical approach. Your unwillingness to articulate how *you* decide which Biblical passages to believe suggests to me that you either let someone else make the decisions for you or that you don’t have a logical, coherent method for deciding what to believe.

    And if you don’t have a method for deciding what to believe, then I assume, again, that you let someone else do your thinking for you, i.e., they tell you what to believe in the Bible and what to consider outdated.

    Allow me to refer to specific passages and ask why you (presumably) no longer believe them but you do believe passages which promote contempt toward homosexuals.

    For example, I assume you do not believe that:

    1) Members of other religions who worship pagan totems should be slaughtered (Deuteronomy 13:13-14);

    2) Rape victims who do not cry out for help should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:23-24);

    3) Slaves who don’t follow orders should be whipped (Luke 12:47);

    4) Parents should honor the birth of a child with an animal sacrifice (Luke 2:22-24).

    For purposes of clarity and emphasis, I ask again: Why do *you* no longer believe those Biblical passages but you do believe the passages that promote prejudice and hate toward homosexual people?

    If you do not personally determine what to believe in the Bible, what person or persons do you let answer that question for you?



    P.S. Please don’t tell me that you “pray about it” and the “answer comes to you.” God gave us all a brain and the ability to engage in logical analysis for a reason. If you make such a claim and you refuse to articulate the rationale behind your decisions then I would have to ask: “Why, then, do you rely on verbally-mediated argument throughout this blog?” You either rely on reason or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose on that front either if you want to have any credibility whatsoever.

  14. I live in San Francisco and as a Christian, I can tell first hand how violent, “hateful,” “bigoted,” racist, “intollerant,” and intimidating the gay gestapo is.

    First of all, as an African American, I am sick and tired of them comparing being gay to being black. They can hide their sexuality but I can’t hide my race. I never get a day off from being gay.

    Secondly, what this entire gay marriage is about besides acceptance is that gay white men want to feel equal to straight white men. A gay person of color told me that. He told me how racists the gay community is against Blacks, Latinos and Asians.

    Believe me, I grew up here and I know what’s going on.

    Third, a lot of gay people reject the Bible and Christianity because they feel like God and/or the church has rejected them. Therefore, quite a few of them are atheists.

    Unfortunately, in their quest for acceptance, even though they lie and say it’s about “marriage equality,” when it’s really not.

    Ever notice how angry and upset gays get over a God that they don’t believe in and a Bible that they think is outdated or make believe?

    Look at how upset they are over Rick Warren praying at the Inauguration? Why be upset over a a religion that you don’t believe in and a God you don’t think is real?

    The other thing I’ve noticed about gays is that they will make fun of Christians and post really negative things about us. Just look at the San Francisco section of Craigslists “Rants and Raves” and type in the words “Prop 8” or “gay.”

    Gays will not disrespect the Muslim religion like they do ours because they fear the Muslims. It’s easy to disrespect what you don’t fear. They know if they were to make fun of “Allah” like they do Jesus, they Muslims would strap bombs to themselves and sneak into their Pride Parade.

  15. An examlpe of gay intimidation tactics are on which is the online edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, an ultra progressive, gay leaning newspaper.

    The homosexual community was so upset by the passage of Prop 8 that they listed the database of the donors for and against the proposition so that they could harrass people who voted in favor of the proposition. (To make it look like this is not what they were doing, they also listed a Presidential donor database also but everyone knows that it was really to bring attention to donors in favor of prop 8).

    The City is very corrupt politically here and it is widely known that one CANNOT GET ELECTED IN SAN FRANCISCO politics without the support of the LGBT community. And this is why they are so furious about losing.

    I can tell you that the majority of the gays making a big deal over losing are from the San Francisco /Bay Area.

    See, the gays are so used to controlling everything and getting their way that they were shocked that they lost……….TWICE!

    I know for a fact, two African American ministers who were approached by the gay community and political leaders to come out against Prop 8 during this past election.

    One minister took the money and fought against it. I swear to you that I am not making this up. I have no reason to lie about this.

    They offered to pay the deed to the church in exchange for an endorsement against Prop 8 and this Pastor declined. I swear to you, I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. i HAVE NO REASON TO LIE ABOUT THIS.

  16. I just re-read my comments. I’m sorry. I meant, “I never get a day off from being straight.”

  17. The gay community is very powerful in San Francisco. One cannot get elected into public office without some sort of endorsement from the LGBT community.

    And so when the gays lost Prop 8, they were shocked because they are so using to running things.
    But what they don’t realize is that once they leave the Bay Area, people are conservative on things like that.

    I’ve grown up in San Francisco all my life and I’m 40 years old so I definitely know what I am talking about.

    One of the ways that they try to intimidate people is by “exposing Prop h8trs” in any way that they can.
    If you go to sf gate com which is the San Francisco Chronicle’s website, you will see the section for people who voted for and against Prop 8. This was published to “out” people who donated money in favor of Prop 8. The paper also has a Presidential database to throw readers off but the reality is that the gay marriage donors are what they really want to expose.

    Given that they are now trying to ruin the careers of people they don’t agree with, I’m glad that I know that they will be publishing the names of donors.

    Given that I live in San Francisco, I have to be silent in prayerful. I didn’t give money this last time but the next time around, I will give a family member who is retired, $1000, and they can donate since they has nothing to lose. (I con’t care about declaring a tax deduction as long as I can financially support pro family laws).

    The reality is that the No on Prop 8 had the most financial supporters, $3M from a strapped teachers union that is always asking for more money and large amounts of donations from people in the entertainment industry and it still failed.

    So now, their goals is strip the churches of their tax exempt status for getting involved in politics when they are non-profit.

    But see, this won’t work because a lot of so called prominent gay churches such as Bishop Flunder’s, Glide Memorial’s, Rev Cecil Williams and Amost Brown, from Third Baptist, were against Prop 8.

    So if it’s not right for churches to be involved in politics, then it has to be across the board for churches and any non-profit. But the gay gestapo has double standards. As long as you agree with their agenda, great. If you don’t, you are automatically labeled a ‘bigot,” “hater,” “Nazi” “uneducated,” etc.

    If you ever get a chance, read some of the comments that they write about the “Nazi Christians.”

  18. The gay community here has a sense of entitlement. It’s more than “marriage equality.”

    Their movement is about full acceptance of gays into main stream society, esp the schools, and that is why they have been the biggest adopters of children in the past year. They show you only what one would perceive to be the “good side.”

    But believe me, there is a dark side. I would not make this up. I know this for a fact because I’m friends with them. They know my stance but they respect my believes and I don’t throw Leviticus and Romans at them all day.

    Gays suffer from Depression and thoughts of suicide. The gay life is empty. A lot of them are miserable, even in a City like San Francisco where they rule over the entire City. it’ can be a sad and lonely life.

    I have a friend who is a Psychologist. He has two PhDs and is in private practice. When I attended his graduation a few years back, I noticed that most people who got their PhDs in his graduating class, did their dissertations on something related to being gay. When I asked him why that was and he said that there are a lot of gays in Psychology and that they take Pscyhology classes to try to figure out why they are gay.

    And so now they accuse straights of being gay when we don’t agree with them. That’s like saying white people who don’t like Black people secretly wish they were Black. No, these people don’t want to be Black. They just don’t like us.

    But the tide is turning in the Bay Area. People are sick and tired of gays complaining about the “hatred” “bigotry” and “intolerance” of people who don’t agree with gay marriage.

    Anyway, we have to keep praying for our gay brothers and sisters that God will deliver them from bondage and that they will see the light.

  19. After reading the previous comments from those who were opposed to your article, my only question is “why such anger?” If those who are so against God’s words against homosexuality and other sins are so sure we are wrong, then why such anger? Those who think homosexuality is a God given right need to read further into the Bible and not try to twist words:

    “Leviticus 18:22
    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    No if, ands or buts about that passage.

    Romans 1:24-27

    Same with that passage. Clear as a bell, God does not like it.

    The next passages tells who else God condems:

    “1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (King James Version)

    9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
    10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    1 Timothy 1:9-10 (King James Version)

    9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
    10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

    By God’s grace and mercy we do not still do this next passage:

    “Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)

    13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

    What I see the gay movement trying to do is silence anyone who speaks the truth. They say that God did not mean that being in the gay lifestyle is wrong. I beg to differ:

    Romans 1:18-26 (King James Version)

  20. Mary,

    You obviously did not read my post (above) in which I asked the author of the blog post how he decides which Biblical passages to believe and which are outdated.

    Do you believe in killing non-Christians? Stoning to death rape victims who do not cry out for help? Whipping your slaves when they disobey? Sacrificing animals upon the birth of a child?

    If not, why not? How do you decide which Biblical passages to believe?

    I predict that you will not answer because you have never given it much thought. Instead, you rely on someone else to think for you; to tell you what to believe.



  21. Straight in SF,

    I agree with you that the following actions do not contribute to a respectful, civil debate:

    a) Labeling *everyone* who disagrees a “bigot” or “hateful.”

    b) Comparing the LGBT civil rights movement to the Black civil rights movement. While there are parallels, e.g., we are denied some of the same civil rights that were denied to African-American citizens, I agree that there are many important differences, as you mentioned.

    We need to create our own symbols and slogans; embrace our unique history; honor our own heroes; and stop feeling like we have to borrow from another Civil Rights movement to gain legitimacy.

    c) Racism, classism, ageism, and other prejudices exist among LGBT people and as a community we need to work harder to recognize, remain aware, and eliminate them. Of course, we are not unique in this regard as prejudice exists in all groups, including African-Americans (for example, based on skin color), but I think your main point is well-taken: LGBT people need to look within as much as we look without.

    Although I agree with you on the above three points, I encourage you to see how you are engaging in some of the same behaviors you condemn in others.

    Specifically, you rightly criticize LGBT people who label anyone who disagrees with them as “hateful” yet you do exactly the same thing! Re-read your posts. You make sweeping generalizations without once acknowledging the great diversity of opinion that exists in the LGBT community.

    Most of all, I am shocked and saddened at your use of the term “gestapo” given the fact that the real Gestapo persecuted, tortured, enslaved, and viciously murdered thousands of gay men during the Nazi reign.

    To compare gay rights activists to one of the most sadistic and evil organizations ever, is disgraceful.



  22. Mark, you are playing the hypocrite arent you? You claim only a few gays are engaging in this behavior. So far according to your objections, only two people here, perhaps three are not saying what you like. So, what’s the big deal if the numbers are the main issue?

    I really think you should go chill out for a while.

  23. Mark said “To compare gay rights activists to one of the most sadistic and evil organizations ever, is disgraceful.”

    True that. To compare the issue of gay rights with the Black Civil Rights Movement is just as disgraceful.

    Black people had dogs set on them, were forced to sit in the back of the bus, couldn’t walk through the front doors of hotels. Police turned on water-hoses on peaceful protestors. Who or what is Jim Crow?
    Can I stop now?

    The Gay Rights Movement in 2008 is revered, deified
    and backed by some major powerbrokers in the media, commerce and governmental circles. How many leaders in the public arena can dare to even speak a word that hints of disagreement with the homosexual world-view …..and not be villified and labeled as a fundamentalist bigot?

  24. Mark,

    Please allow me to educate about the Black Cvil Rights movement. I’m sue you’ve heard of J. Edgar Hoover. He was the head of the FBI for over 30 years.

    During that time, he did everything in his power, and he was very powerful to stop the civil rights of Americans via wire tapping, cointelpro and many other secret, covert operatives. J. EDGAR HOOVER WAS A KNOWN HOMOSEXUAL.

    I’m not saying you’re a racist but as an African American, living in San Francisco, I’ve found gay white men to be some of the most racist, hateful people in corporate America.

    And to add what Leesha said about how you dare not speak in disagreement with homosexuality, she’s right.

    I’ve read nothing but total hatred for Black people because supposedly 70% of African Americans in California votes “yes on Prop 8.”

    We have been vilified and call every type racist name in the book!

    And even celebrities, (ie Roseanne Barr) feel like it’s okay to call us ignorant and bigoted and hateful).

    Yet, a new study was published this week that those poll numbers were wrong.

    I still haven’t read a public apology from Roseanne or the gay community leaders.

    But see, like I said, I’ve seen gay people as being very racists.

    The fact that they can so easily let the “N” word slip out of their mouths lets me know that they ALWAYS felt that way about us.

    Like I’ve stated before, gays will use the Black Civil Rights struggle to promote their own agenda when the reality is that they hate Black people!

  25. I just re-read my post. Sorry for the typos and grammer. It’s been a long week and I’m super exhausted. 😦

Comments are closed.