Gay Marriage: Aftermath

This is a screenshot from Yahoo, taken today. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't wish lice on anybody....

In the eighteen months since my last post on marriage, the Supreme Court ruled, by a 5-4 margin, that "gay marriage" is protected by the US Constitution. That decision, which up-ends 6000 years of traditional marriage, is putting many Christians in the awkward position of exercising their First Amendment rights to disobey the new "law" (court decisions are not really laws, but that's a topic for another day).

Case in point: Unless you've been living under a rock for the past week, you already know that Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, has been jailed for refusing a court order to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples. Asserting her strong Christian belief that marriage was instituted by God to be only between a man and a woman, she has refused any and all offers for a compromise. Guessing that a mere fine would not be enough incentive to comply, the judge chided her for not performing her sworn duties as an elected official and sent her to jail, indefinitely.

The White House, lawyers, politicians, and "gay rights" activists have also said that her civic duty trumps her religious beliefs. They claim that no matter what, she must follow and uphold the law of the land and obey her superiors. But if the "I was just following orders" defense doesn't stand up, when it comes to committing atrocities, there must come a point where even this fallen world expects people to stand up against unjust laws and oppressive authorities. In fact, just last year, our country celebrated the 60th anniversary of the start of the Montgomery bus boycott, which started with a solitary, unassuming black woman, named Rosa Parks, who refused to follow the law and cede her seat to a white person.

The trouble is that as long as God is kept out of the limelight, our society has only popular opinion to base its moral code on. And unfortunately, "gay rights" have really picked up steam, over the past 12 years or so, simply because a very vocal minority had the gall to stand up to the status quo. Christians must now learn from those successful tactics and do the same.

When the decision was announced, "gay marriage" supporters, which had been protesting at the courthouse, shouted, "Love won! Love won!" Really? Did love really win? Does love send someone to jail for standing up for their Constitutionally protected rights? Does love rejoice at the suffering of others? Does love file lawsuits when things don't go their way? Does love go against God and His moral compass? People today have forgotten what love really is. They confuse it with lust. They confuse it with tolerance. They confuse it with greed.

Yahoo, Huffington Post, and most media outlets rejoice as well, unmercifully skewering Mrs. Davis for her "bigoted" stance. My son and I recently started reading the Book of Isaiah, for our nightly devotional. A couple nights ago, we read some very a propo verses:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! ...Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!" - Isaiah 5:20, 21, 23

Isaiah was bewailing Israel's fall from God's good graces. Let us pray that we, as children of God and followers of Christ, can help turn this nation around, or at least point the right way to as many of His lost sheep as we can.

Equal Footing: Not A Leg To Stand On

This is the sixth post in a series on marriage.

Let’s leave God, the Bible, and all religion out of the marriage debate for a minute. Let’s assume marriage is only a legal contract, subject solely to civil laws. Does anyone who still opposes “gay marriage” (or any other sort of non-traditional marriage) have any leg to stand on? Ultimately, the answer is no, because without God, there is no source of absolute morality. But then again, the proponents of “gay marriage” have nothing solid on which to base their argument, either. Any logic they try to apply will always be reduced to a subjective opinion, which has no more validity than the opposing opinion.

Let’s look at some things a “gay rights” advocate may say to a supporter of traditional marriage and how they break apart under scrutiny.

“We just want marriage equality.”
“Gay rights” activists are making great progress under the banner of “equality.” But as I’ve already discussed in a previous post, equality is relative, and many would argue that since traditional marriage laws apply to everyone, equality is a moot point. On the flip-side, there is no limit to how far you can take the concept of equality, to the point where marriage itself, in any form, actually produces inequality. If you really think about it, marriage grants married couples additional protections that singles do not have.

“Two people who love each other should be able to marry.”
I keep hearing how “gay marriage” is about allowing all loving couples the same benefits. But the fact is that, legally speaking, marriage has absolutely nothing to do with love, or any real motive for wanting to get married. Is there a law that says that falling in love has to result in marriage? There are many in this world who get married by arrangement or for financial or political reasons. And conversely, there is an ever-growing number of couples that decide to live together, without getting married at all.

“You Christians need to be more tolerant of gays.”
On the surface, “tolerance” implies that we should all try to get along and respect each other’s differing opinions. However, when it comes to people’s rights, tolerance hits a brick wall. Our nation must tread a fine line, to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected, even if their values are diametrically opposed. As I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, many states have now made it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals, but that trounces upon the rights of devout Christians whose consciences prevent them from conducting certain kinds of business with gays. It is now very evident that “gay rights” groups are quite intolerant of those who dare to oppose them. So who gets to decide which group has to be tolerant of the other?

“Don’t fight progress.”
For the first time in our nation’s history, polls indicate that more than half of Americans now support “gay marriage”. So the argument now becomes that we hard-headed Christians should get with the program and fall in line. But this is a stupid argument, because just a few years ago, the pro-gay activists were in the minority. And long before that, sodomy was illegal in many states. Why didn’t the gays get with the program and fall in line, way back then, even though they were the ones in the minority?

So what’s my point? The liberal media, advertisers, corporations, and Hollywood are doing their best to convince us Christians that we are on the wrong side of the debate. But even if there was no God, they would, at best, be on equal footing with us. But there is a God! And there is an absolute standard for right and wrong, well-established in the Bible, God’s inspired Word. So do not be afraid to speak out against the acceptance of the “gay lifestyle”, and to teach your children God’s opinion on the matter.

Civil Rights vs. Moral Character

This is the fifth post in a series on marriage.

“Gay rights” proponents often liken their plight to the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th century. It is now almost universally accepted that that was a righteous cause, so naturally, if they can draw enough parallels to it, they will further validate their own cause. But are the two movements based on enough similarities, or is there a fundamental difference that cannot be reconciled?

In his famous 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” As a Christian minister, Dr. King was very well versed in the Bible and the moral principles set forth by God. By this quote, he demonstrates a good understanding of the New Testament teaching that skin color is irrelevant to God, but rather that He places very high importance on a person’s deeds, which are a reflection of their character.

In short, while skin color and other external attributes have no moral aspect, homosexual practices (along with most other things that people can choose to do or not do) have inherent moral implications. Pro-gay groups would like us to believe that sodomy is perfectly morally acceptable, homosexual relationships are totally normal, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a “homophobe” who needs to be rebuked and re-educated.

While many anti-gay sentiments are probably based simply on the “grossness factor” of same-sex intimacy, there are many of us who see it more importantly as an immoral practice that has deep implications upon a person’s character, especially if that person not only doesn’t think there is anything wrong with what they’re doing, but are actively encouraging others to “give it a try.”

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (Romans 1:26, 27, 32).

This is why we Christians need to continue to stand up against laws that not only sanction immorality, but aim to silence those of us who believe that God is the ultimate Authority on right and wrong.

Redefining Equality

This is the fourth post in a series on marriage.

Here are some of the latest developments in the fight over marriage:

• A judge put a halt on same-sex “marriages” in Utah, but the U.S. Attorney General has said that the federal government will recognize marriages that have already occurred during the brief time that they were allowed in the state.
• Indiana legislators are pushing a state constitutional amendment to formally define marriage as between one man and one woman.
• A Federal court has ruled Oklahoma’s state amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman as unconstitutional. But at least the judge had the sense to put a hold on gay “marriages” until the state has a chance to appeal.

The primary weapon the pro-gay alliance has been using to push their distorted version of “marriage” is the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection clause,” which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

At first blush, it may look like “inequality” to allow only heterosexuals to marry. However, the word “equality” is pretty overloaded, and its meaning outside of mathematics is highly subjective.

Consider, for instance, the Declaration of Independence, which begins with the famous phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….” When Thomas Jefferson penned these words, the application of the word “equal” was quite different from ours. Slavery, for instance, was heavily practiced in the New World. If white people really thought that God created them "equal" with black Africans, then how could they live with a practice that left them with no rights and barely a shred of humanity?

Fast-forward a century. Slavery was finally illegal in the entire U.S., and the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution. The main purpose of the “equal protection clause” (found in Section 1) was to guarantee that all former slaves had “the same rights” as all free men. But in practice, it tolerated racial segregation in the South, and the use of the generic term "persons" did nothing for women’s right to vote.

So what about so-called “marriage equality”? Some will say that we already have that: everyone is free to marry whomever they like, as long as they are the opposite gender. But that's not the only typical exclusion. Most states impose restrictions based on age, familial relationship, current marital status, and even genetic incompatibility. The “gay rights movement” wants to expand the definition of marriage by removing only the gender requirement, but that will not result in true “marriage equality?”

Since gays cannot have their own children, for example, “incest” doesn’t really apply to them. Will states want to allow a gay man to “marry” his son, but not his daughter? Is that “more equality” or “less equality?” And what about the other restrictions? Is it not hypocritical for the gays to demand "equality," while leaving all the others in place? Unless all of those restrictions are lifted, rendering marriage virtually meaningless, certain people still will not be able to marry whomever they want.

The simple fact is that traditional marriage laws are already “equal,” because the same restrictions apply to everyone equally. The fact that a very small percentage of the population doesn’t like them the way they are is a totally separate issue. The use of the "equal protection clause" is merely legal wrangling to achieve an unrelated (and immoral) goal. I just hope there will be enough Supreme Court justices with enough sense to see it.

The Abortion Debate (Part 5)

We wrap up this series with some common arguments you’ll hear in abortion debates and how to totally discredit them.

“If you force women to have their babies, their children will be unloved and abused.”

There are abused and unloved children all over the world; ending abortions would not contribute much to that number. Besides, the decisions to abort are usually emotion-based (whatever the reason, the woman doesn’t WANT the baby), and emotions can greatly change over time. Again, we can trot out the toddler and ask, “If you decide you no longer love your 2-year-old (I can’t imagine why!), is that justification to kill it?”

“If you don’t want me to have an abortion, then adopt my child!”

This is like saying, “If you want me to lose weight, you have to eat my food.” Or, “If you don’t want me to kill my no-good husband, you have to marry him.” This is another tactic to change the venue and shut down the pro-lifers, but it’s only a red herring. The morality of a given action does not depend on outside conditions.

“Of course YOU are against abortion; you’re a MAN and will never have to make that choice!”

This is similar to the “adopt my child” ruse. Even if you’ve never been robbed, you still have the authority to say theft is immoral. There are many insensitive things a man can say to a woman, just because he doesn’t have her feminine insights, but this is not one of them.

“It would be unfair or discrimination for women to not be allowed to have a medical procedure, when men are allowed to have ANY medical procedure!”

I’ve actually read Senator Barbara Boxer say something very close to this, recently. She is reducing the ending of a life to a simple medical procedure. Again, that’s just another attempt to change the venue of the debate, maybe by rolling it into the floundering healthcare reform negotiations. Pregnancy, by its very nature, is a very unique physical process, by which a new life is preparing to enter this world. This puts it in a class by itself, in the medical field. It’s “unfortunate” for Senator “Don’t call me Ma’am” Boxer that (as of yet) only women can suffer from this particular medical condition, but that’s life. No pun intended.

“I’m personally against abortion, but I think it should be legal.”

President Obama and other politicians have used this phrase more times that anybody can count, especially if you count their positions on other ethical issue of the day (same-sex marriage, marihuana, euthanasia, etc…). These kinds of statements confuse a moral dilemma with a personal preference. “I’m personally against going 100 MPH on the interstate, but I think it should be legal.” In fact, the implication to the listener (whether it’s true or not) is that you believe the issue to be objectively morally acceptable. This is what concerned us about most of 2008’s presidential candidates.

“If you outlaw abortion again, there will be an increase in back-alley abortions, which will greatly endanger the health of countless women.”

Now that abortion is legal, there are FAR more fetuses being killed and mothers suffering from the physical and psychological repercussions. For most, the simple illegality of an act will prevent it from being committed, and will encourage alternatives (such as adoption). Besides, there are consequences to every action; we cannot legalize something, just because there are those who refuse to consider the potential effects. If we repeal speed limits, and no longer require motorists to wear seat belts or helmets, would traffic fatalities increase or decrease?

“Abortions should be allowed, in the case where the mother’s life is in danger.”

Mr. Klunsendorf points out that the only case where a mother’s life is truly endangered by a pregnancy is when the fetus implants itself in the fallopian tube. This is called an ectopic pregnancy and, if allowed to continue, results in the death of both mother and baby. In this one case, the only way to prevent two persons from dying is to remove the fetus. Either way, the fetus is doomed (at least with current medical science), and it makes sense to at least save the mother. Most, if not all, other medical complications occur late enough in the pregnancy, that a C-section will give both mother and child terrific chances of survival.

I’m not necessarily promoting open protest, but I hope this series has opened some eyes and/or equipped you to defend your pro-life position. Thank you for reading!