XGW readers have already noticed that Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas discontinued his blog on Aug. 28.
Eventually the blog is likely to be purged from the Internet. In the interest of preserving some of his key statements, I will post a few excerpts here.
Here, for example, is his message of December 18, 2002, expressing a mixture of confusion and support for the criminalization of sodomy. This particular blog entry was purged from its original location some time ago, but an archived copy is available courtesy of archive.org’s Wayback Machine.
Feedback at Exodus
This Exodus Spotlights Report caused the most feedback I have gotten so far. Aparently my views on the sodomy laws caused quite a stir.
Hmmm….go figure.
However, this one very nice Christian lady emailed me and said that it was intriguing and will cause her to spend much more time in prayer about the situation. She basically said it challenged her. That’s good. Whether I am right or not at least it moved one lady to seek the Lord more on the matter. I wrote it so I can post the text of that part here.
::: excerpt :::
2) Should Supreme Court repeal the Sodomy laws in Texas?NOTE: the following is written from one who believes sodomy to be sin and is directed to people who share that belief. This note has many references to Christian principles, a New Testament account and lingo that may not be familiar or may mean something different to those of a different mind set concerning sodomy. This ‘Christianese’ is not intended to offend and was left as is because the writer thinks it is important to direct this toward his peers. If you are offended, the writer already asks your forgiveness and welcomes your feedback at rthomas@exodusnorthamerica.org .
After publication of this report some much needed clarification came in and we are adding it here.
“Facts: Sodomy in the law means anal or oral sex, including between heterosexual married couples. In the 1960s, all states had such laws. Of the 15 states that still have sodomy laws, 5 apply the law only to homosexual acts, and 1 applies the law only outside of marriage. The maximum penalty ranges from a felony with life in prison down to a misdemeanor with 60 days in prison. Opinion: Sodomy in the Bible means what men of Sodom did, which is to say homosexual anal sex. Elsewhere in the Bible, all forms of homosexual sex are prohibited. Conclusion: The word “sodomy” is not a synonym for homosexual sex on the legal side because the term is too broad, and not a synonym on the Biblical side because the term is too specific.” We want to thank the reader who sent this in and appreciate this valuable information. Thank you!For the purposes of the following statement, the writer was specifically focusing on issues where sodomy is equated with homosexual sex.
The biggest news for the past week has been the Supreme Courts decision to review a case concerning the sodomy laws of Texas. Having sodomy laws on the books doesn’t appear to have stopped or dissuaded the act of sodomy in the slightest. In the opinion of this writer, sodomy laws applied to consenting adults in the privacy of their own home are not productive. However, the Supreme Court should not repeal them because it will rob people of a chance to make their views known through potential legislative repeals or amendments.
It’s obvious we believe sodomy is sin. We don’t condone sodomy in any form, public or private. It must also be considered that given the example cited in the book of John 8:3-11 of Christ and His treatment of the woman caught in another sexual sin (adultery) it would seem more appropriate to choose mercy over judgment, be mindful of our own frailty and exhort others to “sin no more.” Sodomy laws only reflect judgment and run dangerously close to invasion of privacy when it concerns adults in their own home.
As revealed in scripture it is evident that sodomy brings grief to the heart of God. It is a grief born out of the love He has for these souls engaging in this sensuality. So much so He, through Jesus, would die in order to forgive them of this sin if they would turn to Him and believe. We as Christians are often all to willing to engage this argument with judgment of the behavior but are we willing to stand back and watch God have mercy for the soul? Are we willing to realize that what we see as sinful is deeply personal and intimate for those involved? Do we believe that God understands where they are at and wants to help them find His freedom? This requires those of us who believe sodomy to be sin to not be dismissive and hurtful of a soul God is deeply interested in redeeming. Just like Christ was not dismissive or hurtful toward a humiliated and embarrassed lady caught in adultery we need to evaluate whether sodomy laws are counterproductive to our overall Christian witness.
If the Supreme Court does repeal these laws, it will rob citizens, of all beliefs, the opportunity to enter their voice into the public record over this issue. Yet on the same hand it is this writers conviction that sodomy laws work against our redemptive witness.
The writer also wishes to quote a very wise man, “I reserve the right to be wrong.”
In other words, as of December 2002, Mr. Thomas supported the criminalization of sodomy even though he viewed sodomy laws as un-Christian in their impact.
Aren’t Justice Thomas’ views on the sodomy laws the same as those of Mr. Thomas? That is, that they are bad laws which, nonetheless, should be left on the books by the courts so that state legislatures may remove them if they wish.
Perhaps the good Justice read Randy Thomas before framing his opinions.
I have never understood the logic of waiting for the legislature to change a law. If the people had to wait on the legislature to change bad laws, they could be waiting for a very long time indeed. Also given the control the legislature usually has over judges (confirmation, impeachment, judicial budget, and structure of the judicial system) why is a court any less the will of the people than they? If a court truly displeased a legislature the legislature could do quite a lot to change it.
Justice Thomas defended states’ rights.
In December 2002, it seems to me, Randy Thomas was more opposed to sodomy laws than in favor, but unwilling to say clearly that individual state legislatures should repeal sodomy laws or reduce the sentencing.
So I agree, DW: My concluding statement should have said that, as of December 2002, Mr. Thomas affirmed the right of states to criminalize, regardless of how those laws trashed the constitutional rights of their targets and the moral integrity of the enforcers.
Next, we’ll explore how Mr. Thomas subsequently altered his position.