In Part 2 the theme was continued of the actual Stonewall Jackson and his life and times in the literal Civil War. It was thought that Jackson had been "handled roughly" when he was removed from the battlefield which was the explanation for his soreness. Alas, this was not so for Jackson:

Lee wrote to Jackson after learning of his injuries, stating: "Could I have directed events, I would have chosen for the good of the country to be disabled in your stead." Jackson died of complications from pneumonia on May 10, 1863, eight days after he was shot. On his deathbed, though he became weaker, he remained spiritually strong, saying towards the end: "It is the Lord's Day; my wish is fulfilled. I have always desired to die on Sunday."

Dr. McGuire wrote an account of Jackson's final hours and last words:

A few moments before he died he cried out in his delirium, 'Order A.P. Hill to prepare for action! Pass the infantry to the front rapidly! Tell Major Hawks—' then stopped, leaving the sentence unfinished. Presently a smile of ineffable sweetness spread itself over his pale face, and he said quietly, and with an expression, as if of relief, 'Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.' [1]

Thus Stonewall Jackson left the world and was taken to Richmond at the Governor's mansion for the public to mourn.

Quite clearly, Jackson experienced some state change before he died. When we explore the orign of the word "Hebrew" we find an interesting parallel. Though the origin of the word is "uncertain" it is thought that it comes from the idea or phrase of "passing over" or "crossing over". Some also believe this is derived from Eber, one of the sons of Noah. It is often pointed out that before the Hebrews were established in the land of Cannan, they were referred to as Hebrews and thereafter as Israelis.[2]

So, does Hebrew mean "crossing over to Cannan"? Perhaps so. What did it mean before that? Those who cross? Perhaps. Cross what? Perhaps it was a Prophetic utterance--a name that foreshadowed the cross born by a Most Famous Hebrew. It is interesting to note, though, that Jackson utters it before he dies. Is it then possible that the Civil War was, in no small way, a battle of exiled Hebrew tribes trying to find their footing within themselves and with YHVH? If so, the LITERAL civil war becomes a Biblical Hebrew matter. Though it may have been mixed up and sideways since Jackson believes Sunday is the Day of the Lord, it was still, nonetheless, Hebrew in origin. The outcome of the war was that slavery of African Americans was finished.

So, it is evident that for both Lincoln and Stonewall Jackson, there is certainly a Biblical dimension. Lincoln's name was Abraham, after all. The slaves saw Lincoln as a Messiah-type figure. The same story was played in an topsy-turvy way. Indeed, Lincoln was even married to a Mary and at the end he was sacrificed for the "greater unity of the country". Though the sacrifice to end all sacrifices has been offered, a delayed Hebrew response or recognition appears to have re-played the same story. Hence, the Civil Rights struggle born of the civil war can be seen as a Biblical narrative.

So, if we wish to speak of civil rights, and the theory fits the facts here purported, when we speak of civil rights we are speaking of the Bible first and foremost as defined by the Civil War wherein the literal Stonewall Jackson, motivated by religious conviction, fought and died.

Let us now then, begin to examine the movement for gay "civil rights" in light of the above conflict.

To start with, the basis for "Gay Marriage" does not exist in the Bible whatsoever. In fact, there are plenty of prohibitions on the issue. The relevant scriptures are well known, but some commentary which I have written about at the church website states:

Some context: Leviticus 18 records the forbidden sexual relationships, including homosexual intercourse (v. 22). The list is prefaced with the statement, “Do not perform the practice of the land of Egypt in which you dwelled; and do not perform the practice of the land of Canaan to which I bring you, and do not follow their decrees” (18:3).

Sifra explains there about those “decrees”: “And what did they do? A man would marry a man, and a woman would marry a woman.”
The end of the chapter in the Bible warns, “(t)he inhabitants of the land who are before you committed all these abominations, and the land became contaminated. Let not the land disgorge you for having contaminated it, as it disgorged the nation that was before you” (v. 27-28).[3]

In other words, a people can literally be kicked out of the Land they Occupy by YHVH for doing the activities that are forbidden. Whereas in the Bible it does suggest that slavery has an end point, it outright says that homosexual unions are forbidden as a pre-condition of having a home. This then, is a far different situation from a Biblical standpoint.

If one wishes to argue, however, that the matter is secular, then the obvious example of the Civil War not having secular roots is readily apparent. One cannot have the fruit of the struggle and then ignore the pieces and beliefs that framed the struggle. If a homosexual union is tolerated AT ALL under this way of thinking, it is done so as a MERCY to those who are so engaged so that they can learn something about the laws and statutes of YHVH. Far from being a right or a source of "Pride" they are expressly forbidden. They are not born at all of love, but by disobedience to YHVH and concurrently the principles on which the nature of the Civl War rest. In other words, though slavery exists in the Bible slaves are, in point of fact, freed and can gain rights which are civil. A homosexual union has no such rights and is, in point of fact, forbidden.

Let us then examine the "Stonewall" of "gay rights" fame:

The Stonewall riots (also referred to as the Stonewall uprising or the Stonewall rebellion) were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations by members of the gay (LGBT) community against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City. They are widely considered to constitute the most important event leading to the gay liberation movement and the modern fight for LGBT rights in the United States.

Gay Americans in the 1950s and 1960s faced an anti-gay legal system. Early homophile groups in the U.S. sought to prove that gay people could be assimilated into society, and they favored non-confrontational education for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. The last years of the 1960s, however, were very contentious, as many social/political movements were active, including the civil rights movement, the counterculture of the 1960s, and the anti-Vietnam War movement. These influences, along with the liberal environment of Greenwich Village, served as catalysts for the Stonewall riots.

Very few establishments welcomed openly gay people in the 1950s and 1960s. Those that did were often bars, although bar owners and managers were rarely gay. At the time, the Stonewall Inn was owned by the Mafia. It catered to an assortment of patrons and was known to be popular among the poorest and most marginalized people in the gay community: drag queens, transgender people, effeminate young men, butch lesbians, male prostitutes, and homeless youth. Police raids on gay bars were routine in the 1960s, but officers quickly lost control of the situation at the Stonewall Inn. Tensions between New York City police and gay residents of Greenwich Village erupted into more protests the next evening, and again several nights later. Within weeks, Village residents quickly organized into activist groups to concentrate efforts on establishing places for gays and lesbians to be open about their sexual orientation without fear of being arrested.[4]


Okay then. So Police Officers were raiding an establishment owned by the Mafia that also contained gay patrons. The officers "lost control" of the situation. Why?

The Stonewall Inn, located at 51 and 53 Christopher Street, along with several other establishments in the city, was owned by the Genovese crime family. In 1966, three members of the Mafia invested $3,500 to turn the Stonewall Inn into a gay bar, after it had been a restaurant and a nightclub for heterosexuals. Once a week a police officer would collect envelopes of cash as a payoff, as the Stonewall Inn had no liquor license. It had no running water behind the bar—used glasses were run through tubs of water and immediately reused. There were no fire exits, and the toilets overran consistently. Though the bar was not used for prostitution, drug sales and other "cash transactions" took place. It was the only bar for gay men in New York City where dancing was allowed; dancing was its main draw since its re-opening as a gay club.

Visitors to the Stonewall Inn in 1969 were greeted by a bouncer who inspected them through a peephole in the door. The legal drinking age was 18, and to avoid unwittingly letting in undercover police (who were called "Lily Law", "Alice Blue Gown", or "Betty Badge"), visitors would have to be known by the doorman, or look gay. The entrance fee on weekends was $3, for which the customer received two tickets that could be exchanged for two drinks. Patrons were required to sign their names in a book to prove that the bar was a private "bottle club", but rarely signed their real names. There were two dance floors in the Stonewall; the interior was painted black, making it very dark inside, with pulsing gel lights or black lights. If police were spotted, regular white lights were turned on, signaling that everyone should stop dancing or touching. In the rear of the bar was a smaller room frequented by "queens"; it was one of two bars where effeminate men who wore makeup and teased their hair (though dressed in men's clothing) could go. Only a few transvestites, or men in full drag, were allowed in by the bouncers. The customers were "98 percent male" but a few lesbians sometimes came to the bar. Younger homeless adolescent males, who slept in nearby Christopher Park, would often try to get in so customers would buy them drinks. The age of the clientele ranged between the upper teens and early thirties, and the racial mix was evenly distributed among white, black, and Hispanic patrons. Because of its even mix of people, its location, and the attraction of dancing, the Stonewall Inn was known by many as "the gay bar in the city".[5]

Genovese Crime FAMILY? What?? Mafia??? The police would have enough grounds on any given day for a raid on that basis alone, straight or gay. The story, however, is that the object was the bust of the gay bar overlooking the other story that the Mafia through a known crime family was using the bar as a place to establish people it could blackmail! The story should read: People who were working with the mafia; the Genovese Crime Family to be exact; fought back against raiding police in an open rebellion.

Let us, however, for the sake of charity, suppose that ALL the people in the bar were there because they were "afraid of being persecuted for their sexual preferences". Okay. The Bible suggests to us we should not "persecute people". However, it also says that a homosexual union can get you kicked out of the land in which you live. How does one make sense of these two seemingly contradictory laws?

The law of mercy suggests that mercy is extended to the extent that a soul is trying to get themselves right with YHVH. Since the world can be a difficult place to do that within, one extends mercy. However, when the decisions of a few begin to take precedence over the decisions and the good of the people who are following the Biblical law, the very self-same law that established the notion of civil rights in the first place, then that mercy is no longer extended since the threat of being kicked out of the land the entire tribe occupies becomes imminent.

We can clearly see that the origins of Stonewall the gay rights movement are many thousands of miles removed from the origins of the Civil War and the Stonewall who fought in that conflict. In fact, the difference is so glaring as to be darkly comedic. One cannot attempt to use a conflict born in no small way from the Bible and then DENY the Biblical basis of that conflict and make an argument for civil rights.

An interesting point is that after the Stonewall riots, gay people began to make establishments for their own selves. How come they had not thought of that before? Was it just easier to buddy up to the mafia? I think it is because Stonewall established that law-enforcement had become inefficient in dealing with crime. Perhaps in part that was because it HAD, in the past, abused its power in persecuting select groups because it could. That, however, is an issue with corruption of law-enforcement and not an issue about the "rights" of so-called gay people. In Part 4 we will examine the ramifications of the so-called Pride movement in connection to this event. Spoilers: Pride, it turns out is a sin.

  1. ↩︎

  2. ↩︎

  3. ↩︎

  4. ↩︎

  5. ibid. ↩︎