So Just What Are ‘Gay Rights’?


Recently I had the opportunity to speak at a conference with Dr. Ben Carson, a possible Presidential candidate, and I had a chance to learn more about him and his views.  Dr. Carson was the leading pediatric neurosurgeon in the world – he was not just able to perform brain surgery but was gifted with the skills that earned him international acclaim. He is a powerful and knowledgeable speaker who clearly articulates a strong pro-marriage and sexual ethics stance that I believe are aligned with the principles of our Founders. Recently, Sean Hannity interviewed Dr. Carson and as a result Dr. Carson received a lot of criticism for his pro-family values. During the interview, he stated, “I simply have decided I am not really going to talk about that (homosexual rights) issue any more…”.

Many pro-marriage advocates are criticizing his statement, but I am not one of them.  Many of these faultfinders may feel that I am abandoning traditional marriage but in truth and fact “gay rights” simply do not exist! Therefore, it is logical not to discuss something that does not exist.

Before I begin this exposition, I am going to use the proper term “homosexual”, for what the mainstream media calls “gay”.  Again I want to clearly state, there are no such things as homosexual rights! Now that I have your full attention – let’s begin.

First of all, what is a right?

Where do rights come from?

At what point does one receive rights?

How are rights protected?

And what law is used to protect homosexual acts?

First, what is a right?  Noah Webster defines it as a “Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property.”  It can also be understood as “Authority; legal power”.

The Constitution asserts rights cannot be deprived or disparaged without conviction of a crime or just compensation and only the individual has the authority to relinquish these rights.

Our second question, where do these rights come from? God created man “in His own image” and we are “endowed by our Creator (God) with certain unalienable Rights…”.

Third, at what point does one receive rights? The Declaration of Independence postulates “All men are Created equal…endowed with (these) certain unalienable rights”, which means our rights are innate and universal.

How our rights are protected is answered very succinctly - Law.

Just a couple of examples. God gave us the right to life and protected that right with His Law “Thou shalt not murder”.  He gave us the right to property and protected it by saying “Thou shalt not steal”.

Now the law is only words without force to back it up. So just who did God ordain to enforce that law?  In His design He distributed this authority - for the individual it is each of us; for the family it is the father and mother; for the church it is the elders; and, for collective society it is the civil government.  In the Bible, Romans 13 states “the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Government is God’s minister to you for good and the Declaration of Independence confirms that by saying “That to secure these (God-given) rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”.

So just what Law is used to protect homosexuality?

None. There is no right to homosexuality in English Common Law, which is the basis for our legal system (Amendment VII, U.S. Bill of Rights).

So if there is no Law protecting homosexual acts, then there is no God-given right to commit these acts.  So you see there is no such thing as a “homosexual right”.

On the other hand if homosexual rights can be invented by society, then the force of law will inevitably be used to protect this “imagined right”.

The Force of Law would then be used against the Law and our God-given rights.  Isn’t that what this is really about?

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Jake MacAulay serves as the Chief Operating Officer of the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC), an educational outreach that presents the founders’ “American View” of law and government. The former co-host of the syndicated talk show, The Sons of Liberty, he is an ordained minister and has spoken to audiences nation-wide, and has established the American Club, a constitutional study group in public and private schools.
Jake MacAulay
View all articles by Jake MacAulay
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • DCM7

    To put it more generally: Contrary to what many people apparently believe, there is no such thing as the right to do whatever you want to do (for whatever reason you want to do it) with no consequences and no disagreement.

  • retiredday

    Good article. And contrary to the Facebook comment, this article does not make it sound complicated at all. In fact, it’s quite simple. Rights do come from God, and it is the responsibility of government and law to guarantee those rights. Since rights come from God, they do not violate any of his commands or precepts. God has made it very clear that homosexual behavior is a sin. Therefore no one has the right to practice homosexuality. The whole argument supporting gay rights denies one or more of these facts: 1) God exists; 2) God says homosexuality is sin; and 3) God has authority over our lives.

    • franklinb23

      There are very many evangelicals who sincerely believe that Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Mormon believers are heretics and idolaters who are going to Hell.

      Do you believe that these sects should not have the freedom to practice their faith in America if you believe them to be idolatrous?

      Do you believe that civil marriage law should reflect Biblical laws regarding marriage (e.g., no interfaith marriage, no divorce with the exception of adultery or the abandonment of an unbelieving spouse)?

      We’ve been around this before, I think. To uphold Biblical law in America will result in tyranny, sometimes even for self-professed Christians.

      You may think this doesn’t apply now, but it has in the past. Seventh-Day Adventists, Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses have all been on the receiving end of government and social persecution.

      Our laws overlap with some concepts deriving from Scripture, but that does not mean that Biblical morality can be the litmus test for civil law.

      • retiredday

        You ask questions that are off topic. Are you really seeking an answer to them? I think not. Rather than discussing the issues raised in the article, you are wanting to characterize and lump together evangelicals, on whom you’ve already passed judgement.

        The basic mistake you make is in reducing the argument against so-called “gay rights” to an evangelical position. In fact, many evangelicals are confused on this issue because of the theological inroads made by Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism (MTD). Christians of all stripes, who still hold to Biblical authority, reject the idea of homosexual “rights”. It is not an evangelical or American thing.

        You avoid actually engaging in an honest discussion of the matter as presented by Mr. MacAulay. Your religious opinions as well as mine are irrelevant. What really matters is the authority of Almighty God. If I asked you any question, it would be, “Do you consider yourself accountable to the authority of God?”

        But I don’t need to ask the question because your questions have already exposed your attitude: Based on the sheer variety of religious attitudes, no one can really say for sure what God really wants, what God is really like or how God really wants us to live — not to mention whether or not God really exists.

        Your refusal to learn the Truth does not limit or constrain me. It only limits you. Don’t try to force your unbelief on me. I’ll have none of it. If you are intellectually honest about wanting to discuss the Truth — Truth that is absolute and knowable — you must be genuine in your desire to learn about the Truth. You are not. You don’t think Truth exists. That’s why you are so condescending to those of us who do.

        • franklinb23

          No … my questions are things I’ve had to puzzle over myself. I’m not trying to be snarky, and I didn’t even bring up the topic of gay rights.

          You seemed to be implying that Biblical law should be the foundation of civil law. If I’m wrong, that’s fine, I’m just trying to point out the problems to that approach.

          Also, I never said “truth” doesn’t exist. I just reject the possibility that we are infallibly capable of knowing what the truth to anything is, even if it’s scientific truth. We can be accidentally 100% correct, but it won’t be through the powers of reason or even evidence.

          We have come to scientific conclusions that have turned out to be invalid (after later studies). As such, I don’t see why it’s unlikely that someone, even a “true believer” can come to erroneous conclusions about the intent of the authors of Scripture.

          • retiredday

            “I didn’t even bring up the topic of gay rights”

            In case you hadn’t noticed, that’s what this article (video) is about.

            “You seemed to be implying that Biblical law should be the foundation of civil law.”

            This concept is called “Natural Law”. You seem to be unaware that this philosophy of law is what led to our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Natural Law is the basis and the underpinning of American government and jurisprudence. How you understand the current demand for “gay rights” depends on your grasp of the conflict between Positive Law (the current prevailing philosophy of law) and Natural Law.

            You can read a thorough examination comparing these two philosophies by Ellis Washington at

            “I …reject the possibility that we are infallibly capable of knowing what the truth to anything is…”

            In other words, you believe that truth cannot be known, which is, at a practical matter the same as if there were no truth at all. I, on the other hand, am saying truth can be known…infallibly (without error) and that truth is not dependent upon my ability to understand it.

            I glean from your comments that you are not really open to discover truth. You’ve already made up your mind how you are going to think of these matters and you really don’t intend to examine any challenges to your belief system (something I have been doing for almost 40 years). But if I am wrong, and you really are open to explore a greater reality than your own mind, spend $99 plus shipping and buy The Truth Project, a 12 part video series in a college classroom format

            This series is designed to “challenge your little grey cells” as Hercule Poirot would say. My personal opinion, based on your comments, is that you have much to learn, and until you get beyond the borders of your own thinking your participation in discussions will be more irksome than challenging or informative.

            • franklinb23

              Retired writes: “I, on the other hand, am saying truth can be known…infallibly (without error) and that truth is not dependent upon my ability to understand it.”

              I’d agree with this part: “truth is not dependent upon my ability to understand it”

              Well, of course … what’s factual is factual, regardless of whether I’m aware of it or can understand it. I’m not disputing that.

              On this part, though: “truth can be known…infallibly”

              Are you saying that you’ve never held a belief about what is true that you later discovered to be incorrect, whether it’s regarding Scripture or anything else?

              • retiredday

                There is a fallacy to your reasoning. Just because I, as all human beings, are imperfect and prone to be mistaken from time to time, it does not follow that truth cannot be known. But you are using your conclusion of the fallibility of Man’s knowledge and understanding as an excuse not to seek the truth and find it, and thereby become accountable to it.

                You have freely chosen not to seek the truth. The onus is on you, not on those who speak the truth you refuse to accept.