Source: _Life_Advocate_, April 1994, Commentary: Blind-sided by Cathy
Ramey (pg. 30)

Under enormous pressure to be part of the political and social
mainstream -- to be at peace with all men as far as possible --
sometimes we find ourselves with a dilemma that seems too cumbersome
to untangle.  Take for example the presence of homosexual activists
who joined a pro-life march in January.

Immediately one's mind brings up old images of ACT-UP (sic) or Young
Anarchist activists whose effort has only the purpose of disrupting
those who are sincere in their desire to stand against abortion.
Memory focuses on outrageous and vulgar chanting surrounding sexual
preferences and that all of us of a pro-life persuasion "ought to have
been aborted." Pictures that we have seen of angry -- shouting --
earrings piercing unusual areas of the body -- demonstrators flash
before our eyes.

But this is not a fair description of the homosexual activists, twelve
in all, at this particular march.  At this gathering, Nellie Gray's
March for Life, the activists are conservative in appearance, quiet
and almost lost in the crowd of fifty-thousand.  They carry a large
banner with their movements symbol -- a pink triangle -- and they are
pro-life.

So, one is tempted to say, "What's the problem?  Let them march."  But
there really is much more that needs to be said in light of the fact
that their willful, continual, and intentional sin is a natural
barrier that if abridged makes for nothing more than an unholy
alliance.

First though, we need a reference point.  Paul's second letter to the
Corinthians (6:14) says "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers."
The next several lines emphasize a contrast between those who
habitually indulge in sin and those who reject it; those who walk in
the light and those who reject it, and those who stumble along in the
dark.  "Be separate, says the Lord."

In Ephesians (5:5-7) he writes again about unholy alliances and says,
"Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things
God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.  Therefore, do not be
partners with them."  Like the Israelites of old, we are warned not to
ally ourselves with the ungodly; not to increase our numbers, not to
improve our image with the world, and not to express a version of
"love" that embraces the sinner but never calls them toward
accountability over their sin.

All of this, you might think, has little to do with the March for
Life.  After all, are we to refuse to let them join in a public
protest gathering such as the annual event in question?  The answer is
"No."

The problem is not that they joined a march.  The problem is that when
they joined the march, in the words of a Concerned Women of America
(CWA) spokeswoman, we welcomed them "with open arms," choosing to
believe that their "singular cause is pro-life."  She proceeded to
say, "We'd march anytime, anywhere with them."

Would we "welcome with open arms" members of NAMBLA (National (sic)
Man/Boy Love Association) who espouse pediphilia?  How about serial
murderers of a sort other than abortionists  -- men and women who are
more discriminating in their choice of victim and find killing the
unborn an affront; people willing to step out and condemn abortion
with us as long as we agree to make them too uncomfortable over their
own ritualized and significant perversions.  Would we subtly put our
imprimatur upon a group of people who willfully promote their sin
while joining our cause?

Admittedly, not all at the March for Life were so easily convinced
that Homosexuals on Parade are to be embraced as confederates (even if
the cause is pro-life).  But some of us were blind-sided.  For those
of us who felt an uncertain conflict, it is worth examining their
presence with more depth.

A spokesman for PLAGAL, Charles Volz, was quoted in Life Advocate
(March '94) as having said about abortion that "Basically, it's a
human rights issue.  The value of all life is sacred."

We concur.  Offering unborn children equal protection under the law is
a "human rights issue," because all human life has an intrinsic,
God-given value.  We depart only by saying that all life (innocent and
guilty) are not to be afforded the same defense.  God affords a higher
level of protection be given to innocent persons than He does to the
unjust aggressor, the willfully sinful, and those who stubbornly rebel
against Him.

Volz goes on to say, "It's an ethical issue to qualify the value of
life; gay, lesbian or unborn.  They are all just different fronts of
the same issue."

Wrong, Charles!

It is here that he exposes the agenda that we ought to be wary of.
The tiny group have (sic) a dual agenda that is not compatible with
ours.  Marching under a huge pink triangle, they are feeding off the
sympathy that is rightfully due an innocent child who has been
murdered by abortion.  Their hope is to get us all to see them as we
see the unborn -- persons struggling on a 'different front of the same
issue' -- in need of our sympathy and protection.

As we continue on in the fight to liberate the unborn, let us not
compromise our ranks by gleefully embracing just any ally.  Yes, let
them march in our public events, but let us be wary not to let them
promote their sin-cause among us under the guise of having found
common ground.  In the end, it is an effort to gain respectability for
the sodomite cause that is repeatedly condemned along with the killing
the innocent in Scripture.