Gay Marriage, the Supreme Court, and Gross Hypocrisy

Predictably, the Supreme Court split along ideological lines, voting 5 to 4 in favor of gay marriage, making it legal for the entire nation.

President Barack Obama also responded predictably:

• "This ruling is a victory for America. This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free."

Certainly, all Americans must be treated as equals, but this isn’t the point. The law has never treated behaviors as equal; nor should it. In fact, discrimination is the very essence of justice. It is the law’s duty to convict the perpetrator of criminal behavior and to defend the innocent.

I also agree with the President that “When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free." However, the very opposite thing is happening in the wake of pro-gay rulings. The rights and speech of those who believe in traditional marriage are being violated. For example:

• An Iowa Christian couple has lost their livelihood, because they believe in natural marriage. Richard and Betty Odgaard ran Görtz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa -- a beautiful wedding chapel, art gallery, flower shop, and bistro.  They had been serving happy customers in the renovated stone church for 11 years. That is, until homosexuals from Des Moines targeted their Christian business, to use as a tool of the gay agenda.

• A Pentagon spokesman has just said in writing that Christian troops will be punished and court-martialed if they dare to talk about their personal faith in Jesus Christ. 

Such violations of our constitutionally guaranteed rights are escalating along with the gay political agenda. Why doesn’t the President apply this same principle - “When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free" – to others! Would you call it “hypocrisy?” I certainly would!

The Supreme Court’s deciding vote was cast by Justice Kennedy, who argued:

• "Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser."

Is Kennedy truly concerned about the welfare of children? Why then isn’t he concerned about the myriad of studies showing the high price paid by these future parents in terms of abbreviated lives, STDs, mental health issues, domestic violence, and substance abuse? Why does he seem to be dismissive of the overwhelming number of studies showing that children fare far better with their biological parents?

Does he really care about the children? Do any of those who voted in favor of gay marriage?

Hypocrisy, Judgment, and Homosexuality

One Christian blogger noted that the church is confronted with these two recurrent charges:

• “1) The church should stop harping on the sin of homosexuality, treating it as worse than all others.

• 2) Because of rampant divorce in the church, the church has lost its moral authority to speak to the issue of gay marriage, and to continue to do so is the height of hypocrisy.”

The blogger responded:

• First, is the church “harping” on the sin of homosexuality? Maybe some churches are. I’m not aware of them, but it’s possible… when the subject comes up in such churches or synods—say at a national convention or something—those who speak the most are often preaching for the acceptance of homosexuality not the sin of it. Thus, if the church is indeed “harping” on the issue, it’s harping out of both sides of its mouth.

• Even so, is the church driving and framing our national conversation about homosexuality? I don’t believe it is… At best the church is attempting to be responsive. But make no mistake, the driving and framing forces of our societal obsession with homosexuality are the institutions of media… government… and education. The church isn’t controlling the conversation.

This blogger’s observations match my own. The Bible-believing church, for the most part, has been reduced to silence on the critical issue of sexuality, while our teens are left to glean the “wisdom” of the media, schools, and universities. In the absence of a prophetic word from the church, there is nothing to counteract what they are being fed elsewhere.

In regards to his faithfulness to biblical teaching, the Apostle Paul declared his innocence:

• I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you.  For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. (Acts 20:26-27)

Had he not taught the “whole will of God,” he would not have been able to declare himself innocent. I don’t think that many churches today would be able to declare their innocence. Studiously, so as not to give offense and to lose attendees, churches are avoiding certain unpopular teachings. Has it now become better to please man than to please God!

Instead, God warned Ezekiel that he should not place God’s warnings in a padlocked drawer:

• “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me.  When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood.  But if you do warn the wicked person to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sin, though you yourself will be saved.” (Ezek. 33:7-9)

And what about the second charge? Is it hypocritical to judge if we too commit sins? Indeed, we have no right to call others to repent of their sins if we are unwilling to repent of ours. That’s hypocrisy! Well, what if we do the hard work of self-examination and confess and repent of all our known sins? Jesus addressed this issue:

• “Do not judge, or you too will be judged… Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5; Gal. 6:1-3; James 5:19-20)

The blind cannot perform surgery. However, if we first embrace the light by confronting our own sins, we then can shed light for others.

Homosexuality, Equality, Discrimination, and Free Speech

Should Christians have the right to discriminate against gays? Don’t they have a right to protection under the law, and doesn’t the First Amendment guarantee our free exercise of religion? How do we put these concerns together? Here’s my response to an atheist on this subject:

Thanks for your willingness to try to understand these issues from a Christian perspective.

There are many difficult moral/legal issues involved in these various cases. You raise the issue regarding a public employee needing to follow the law. Recently, my state of New York legalized gay marriage. There was a Christian clerk (and perhaps also a judge) who had been hoping that she could be grandfathered-in based upon her years of faithful service as a civil service employee. However, Gov. Cuomo told her that absolutely no special allowances would be made for her, even if there were others willing to transact the gay marriage in her place.

This is very reflective of the harsh and militant secularism of today. It wasn’t always this way. Prior to this, government had a greater respect for diversity of opinion and belief. Of course, certain religious practices couldn’t be tolerated. If sexing of one’s young children was a part of religion, society understandably has a prevailing interest to not tolerate such a practice.

However, our nation has often shown itself willing to accommodate religious practices that did not serve the common good. For instance, the Supreme Court allowed for conscientious objectors, even though this provision might serve to create discord within the ranks of the military. It ruled that Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t have to say the Pledge of Allegiance, even though it could be argued that this provision would cause an erosion in patriotism. However, the Court rightly deemed that society could tolerate such diversity.

The secularism of yesterday had a high regard for diversity in belief, and consequently, honored the First Amendment, which forbade government from interfering with the practice of religion. This respect maintained a unity in the midst of diversity.

It also maintained professionalism. Within the mental health community, there was a certain degree of respect for differing points of view. If a therapist didn’t feel she could work effectively with a court-mandated rapist, the case was given to someone else. If a Christian couldn’t effectively counsel a gay couple who were trying to resolve their issues, it was usually deemed that these clients should be assigned to a different therapist.

However, this kind of tolerance is no longer valued. Now Christians are loosing their jobs, credentials, and are even being expelled from counseling programs simply because of their views. California just passed a law forbidding a psychotherapist from working with a youth seeking help to resist SSA!

Should Christians have the right to exercise their faith in regards to their own properties, households/businesses? Even here, the law is messy. I think that most of us would uphold certain forms of discrimination in these regards. The law shouldn’t coerce the owner of home-based B&B to employ or murderer or a pedophile. Nor should it coerce the B&B to rent a room to a known thief or to someone who will pose a threat to the welfare of the business or the patrons.

However, I do acknowledge that society has the right to impose certain restrictions. Because of the overriding social concerns, businesses should not have the right to discriminate by virtue of race or nationality.

However, these are not behaviors but morally neutral, unchanging characteristics. However, discrimination according to behavior – criminality – is entirely another matter. Sexual orientation is one thing – we are all oriented to certain types of sins – but sexual behavior is entirely another matter.

Should a B&B owner be compelled by law to rent space in their home for an adulterous fling? Or to someone who insists on smoking in their bedroom? Perhaps they are intolerant, but isn’t such intolerance warranted? Forbidding this type of “intolerance” would represent needless and malicious government encroachment – the very thing that is happening today. Because of this encroachment, many Christians have lost their businesses.

Christian businesses are now targeted by militant gays who want to force them to violate their conscience. One Christian community can no longer host weddings under their private boardwalk pavilion because of a court ruling that it represented discrimination against gays.

Today, I was discriminated against by an atheist Facebook group, which banned me. I didn’t like it, but I respect their right to do so. Christian groups also do this. They have a right to maintain the character of their group. However, universities – both public and private – have now banned Christian student groups from campus because they “discriminate.” Meanwhile, these same universities discriminate in their hiring against Christians and allow other groups that discriminate – the Young Democrats, for example.

There are so many instances of this type of thing. Mentioning individual cases serves to minimize the extent of this pervasive cultural bias.

I am not really against gay marriage. It’s something that gays have always been free to do, albeit without legal sanction. However, with legal sanction, there will be the inevitable push to silence any criticism of the gay lifestyle. In Denmark, churches are now required to marry SS couples.

Even now, the New Federal Hate Crimes Bill penalizes any speech that can be construed to lead to a hate crime. Some congressmen tried to write in an exception for responsible religious speech. However, this amendment was voted down.

Many have already lost their jobs or suffered intimidation because they have spoken outside-the-job against gay marriage.

I must conclude with one additional thought. This militant, totalitarian secularism is polarizing the nation in such a way that we will not be able to live together.

“Unconstitutional!” - Striking Down Proposition 8

Proposition 8 was passed by 52% of the California voters to limit marriage to one male and one female. The 9th Circuit Court just declared it “unconstitutional,” demonstrating that the highly debatable interpretation of a couple of judges carries more weight than the democratic vote. The Court concluded:

• “Proposition 8 serves no purpose … other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

If this was the case, as a Christian I would have to agree with the 9^th Circuit Court. Scripture informs me that we are all precious – created in the image of God – and have inestimable worth. In addition to this, we have all been perverted by the effects of sin. I must admit that I am humbled daily by the ongoing reality of sin in my own life. This leaves me little room – no room – to look down on others. When we truly understand that every good thing that we have is a product of the undeserved grace of God (James 1:17), the option of arrogance must be soundly rejected.

However, this doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t vote in favor of limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Likewise, I would vote against polygamy – not because I want to “lessen the status and human dignity” of polygamists but because I don’t think that this institution has a salutary effect on society.

Instead, is it not the Court’s demeaning language which “lessen[s our] status and human dignity,” merely because we vote against same-sex mariage? It is troubling to read that the 9^th Circuit Court pejoratively labels us as “bigoted”:

• Denying marriage to gay people is obviously bigoted because “under California statutory law [governing civil unions], same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples.” http://committeeforjustice.blogspot.com/2012/02/9th-circuits-gay-marriage-decision.html?utm_source=Gay+Marriage%3A+What+9th+Circuit+was+Really+Thinking&utm_campaign=CFJ+on+Prop+8+decision&utm_medium=email

However, the laws of this land also deny marriage of fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, brothers and sisters. Is this also bigoted? If not, why not? Why isn’t our nation bigoted for denying the right of marriage to these adults? Are we also bigoted for imposing an “age of consent,” thereby denying adult rights to juveniles?

Perhaps it is the 9^th Circuit Court which is bigoted against those who would vote for a Proposition 8. It claims:

• “The People may not employ the [ballot] initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment.”

But isn’t this what every law does. It inevitably discriminates against certain behaviors – tax evaders, speeders, thieves and even jaywalkers. Are we bigoted when we pass such laws? Certainly not! Do we “single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment?”  Instead, by extending social sanction to a behavior/institution that has proven detrimental effects on its practitioners, we are morally complicit.

Prop 8 does not discriminate against same-sex attraction (SSA) or the individuals who have it but against same-sex marriage (SSM). We are all orientated to an assortment of sins. Although I might be tempted towards theft, it doesn’t make me a thief. Nor should I be punished or stigmatized as such.  

Sexual orientation should not define the person. We are far more than our orientations. When Governor Jim McGreavey disclosed that he was a “gay American,” I was surprised. Why did he define himself by his SSA? He had many other identifies to choose from. He was a father, a husband, and the governor of the state of New Jersey. Why then did he define himself by SSA at the expense of his other identities? Why did he identify with what our conscience has universally indicted as sin – the homosexual lifestyle - in favor of his family?

Was he living a lie being married to a woman while his prime attraction was men? Certainly not! There is nothing that says that you have to be more attracted to your wife than to others – male or female! The conflict only arises when one equates acting out one’s sexual desire with truth and authenticity. I may feel like insulting someone, but truth and authenticity doesn’t require that I do so. I am not a hypocrite if I decide to identify with my faith and convictions rather than my sinful feelings.

When we vote for a Proposition 8, we are not voting against SSA or the people who struggle with it. We are not demonizing a certain group of people, as the 9^th Circuit Court alleges, but instead the institution of SSM. Rather, it is the courts that have demonized us as “bigots.”