Liberty Declines as Gay Marriage Train Leaves Station

I’ve not blogged recently, having dealt with a second reopening of my 2004 brain tumor biopsy site since early May. I had successful surgery to clean out infected bone on June 26, the same day the Supreme Court handed down its two 5-4 decisions on gay marriage.

After two nights in the hospital, a PICC line was installed and I was given instructions for administrating six weeks of IV antibiotics at home. The first step in the procedure is to wash hands thoroughly, for as long as it takes to say the Pledge of Allegiance:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Liberty and Justice for All?

America long ago started rejecting God, so “under God” is an empty phrase for some. Until recently, for the most part, all beliefs were tolerated. In recent years, belief in God has increasingly come under attack and religious freedom has declined.

I’m happy for the gay community but sad for the much larger group of people whose religious liberty has been diminished by this decision.

The Great Dissenter

Justice Antonin Scalia’s scathing dissent to both opinions has drawn fire from the Left. This WORLD magazine article includes some excerpts:

Justice Scalia: “But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice … to disparage and to injure same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to ‘demean,’ to ‘impose inequality,’ to … brand gay people as ‘unworthy,’ and to ‘humiliat[e]’ their children.”

 “I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution.”

“In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’ our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”

WORLD editor Marvin Olasky says Christians should remember these words: “enemies of the human race” and then says, “Now that the Supreme Court has blessed the gay lobby’s tendency to declare anyone who does not toe the line is a straight consumed by hate, it will seem perfectly proper to take away the tax exemption of churches and schools that stand by Scripture.”

In another WORLD article, Emily Belz has other quotes from the Supreme Court justices, pro-family advocates and commentary on the California Proposal 8 decisions.

Like Roe v. Wade in 1973, the DOMA ruling is a flawed 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, overturning a valid federal law. SCOTUS’ refusal to hear the Proposal 8 case voids the will of the people of California.

Obamacare was narrowly declared constitutional (again 5-4), but is “bad public policy” according to the lone Republican who voted for the bill (Chief Justice John Roberts, not a single member of Congress). It must be repealed before it cripples America’s economy.

Declaration of Independence Defeat and Living Constitution Victory

For those who do not believe in God, the ruling ignores the Natural Law referenced in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and further stretch America’s “living Constitution” to manufacture new rights out of whole cloth.

This ruling will eventually trample religious freedom for those who follow the Bible’s teaching on marriage. Because the activists want not only to be left alone to live their alternate lifestyle quietly, they want to silence dissent and force society to accept it.

No Religious Exemption

Despite claims that Christians will not be required to honor gay marriages if their churches do not choose to perform the weddings, there have already been lawsuits by state governments against businesses who decline to serve gay “weddings,” just as our own government has brought lawsuits against businesses who refuse to provide abortifacient drugs for their employees.

State of Washington sued Arlene’s Flowers

The Washington State Attorney General sued a Christian-owned flower store for declining to provide flowers for a gay wedding. Here is the owner’s Facebook page response:

"I could not [provide the flowers] because of my relationship with Jesus." She added: "I have hired all walks of people in different circumstances, and had the privilege of working with some very talented people that happen to be gay. I'm sure there are many places you can purchase flowers, if you choose not to purchase them from Arlene's, because of your beliefs, then I certainly understand."

Although gay marriage is legal in Washington, a majority of residents disapprove of the lawsuit.

The Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a supporting brief to two men filing a discrimination complaint against a Christian bakery owner. The gay men wanted to hold a reception to celebrate their Massachusetts marriage in Colorado, which has a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage.

Lawsuits a Hidden Tax

Lawsuits for allowing polygamy and worse will not be far behind, adding costs for everyone as a hidden tax. It’s the further deconstruction of marriage, plain and simple.

Gay Pride at Every Parade?

Every parade in every town in America will have to accept gay activists (see Christmas parade picture for an example). Hopefully they will have the decency to not muscle in where they don’t have a significant population. No one likes carpetbaggers.

In 2010 in Michigan, there were 21,782 households out of 3.8 million headed by same-sex couples, less than 0.6%. Should such a small percent of couples be allowed to redefine marriage? Not all of them even want to be married; many just want to be respected as human beings.

Of course, they should be allowed to march – it’s a free country. But really, are straight men proud of their pornography addiction? And do alcoholics march in support of drunk driving? After all, they haven’t hurt anyone yet.

Do pot smokers walk in support of their vice? (Well, they did the Mackinac Bridge walk, and many fight to legalize it. It’s no worse than alcohol, after all.) Do problem gamblers march in support of casinos?

Do conservative bloggers walk to support their cardinal sin of pride? No, they repent of arrogance whenever it rears its ugly head, asking for forgiveness and victory over it.

My point here is not to compare one thing to another – they’re not completely analogous. But we all have our demons and we’re all entitled to different opinions about things.

Why can’t LGBT activists join with non-activist gays & lesbians, tobacco users, bagpipe and violin players, bicyclists, motorcyclists, car & truck drivers and gun owners, learning to live with each other in freedom, not stepping on others’ toes, enjoying the parade of life?

Dissent Silenced by Intimidation

Churches, mosques and temples, etc. are less likely to speak the truth on the gay marriage issue because of the vocal opposition of the LGBT lobby and its supporters. In general, they do not want constructive dialogue to find middle ground (like civil unions or domestic partner arrangements, which are not as objectionable to many people of faith). Instead, they want to control the conversation and silence dissent, with acceptance of their alternate lifestyle by society.

Many people do not know what the Bible teaches on this topic and others claiming to be Christians (even pastors) imply the Bible is accepting of homosexual sex.  It is not.

The Bible calls it a sin, in many places. The Bible also teaches that God hates sin but loves sinners who repent and turn to Him.

Faith communities like to be positive, so they are naturally reluctant to declare something out of bounds. So they soft-pedal premarital and extra-marital sex, figuring “it’s OK if you really love the person.”

Real marriage is and will remain between one man and one woman, regardless of whether our culture redefines it. Extending it to two men or two women will cheapen it further; already some couples write their own vows, promising to be married “as long as our love shall last.”

This is in the Church’s Sphere

Like pro-life, this is the other great moral issue of our day. Pastors, theologians and lay people should speak out since marriage and family were ordained by God long before any governments were formed.

Houses of worship should weigh in with their opinions, and also with data. In Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam, the data from their holy books clearly classifies gay marriage as out of bounds and unsanctioned by the Creator.

Not only are there many passages that condemn homosexual sex as rebellion against the Creator, the overall clear teaching of the Bible affirms traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Jesus, when asked about divorce, referred back to Adam and Eve in the Garden, not Adam and Steve.

Lifelong friendships between two men or multiple men are affirmed and encouraged, but nowhere is there any affirmation of sexual union between them. The same goes for women.

Science, Logic, Public Policy Ramifications

Many people do not believe in God, so religious arguments do not influence them. They believe in freedom from religion (which is really atheism) rather than freedom of religion or respect for others’ religious beliefs.

For those people, religious freedom arguments have little effect. Of course, their freedom to not believe is also a freedom of conscience issue, so they should value the rights of people of faith.

Like the pro-life issue, my views on this topic are governed more by science (natural law), logic and proper interpretation of the Constitution (I agree with Justice Scalia and the other three in the minority) than by my religious beliefs, which happen to agree with my pro-traditional marriage views.

While this issue is more complex and less clear-cut than pro-life, I’ll be voting against gay marriage and will explain more in other blog posts. This one deals mostly with religious freedom.

Common Ground

I understand the desire for equal treatment and support many of the activists’ desires. This, however, is not a new civil rights movement since the group is identified primarily by behavior and not by skin color or any other inherent characteristic.

The Bible does not condemn interracial or cross-cultural marriages, but has several prominent examples (Moses, Boaz & Ruth). So past misinterpretation by some people is not a valid argument to use against today’s Christians or Jews.

The Bible is crystal clear on the issue of homosexuality; in the past many martyrs have died rather than deny the truth of the Word of God. Don’t expect everyone to fold their cards this time.

I’m OK with visitation in hospitals, transfer of property, guardianship of adopted children and upholding the dignity of the individual. I have no beef with gay people quietly living their lives, being served in restaurants like Chick-Fil-A, etc.

Everyone should enjoy the same protection under the Constitution.

Line in the Sand

However, I draw the line at redefinition of marriage. Many others who are unwilling to speak out have the same red line.

My questions for the LGBT activists are these: what right do you have to redefine marriage after thousands of years? And to teach my children that gay sex is OK? And finally, what right do you have to persecute and try to silence those who disagree with you?

I thought the ethic you subscribe to and preach is tolerance.

Unwinnable War after Thirty Years of Pro-Gay Advertising and Real Progress

Why not sue for peace and be content with same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships?

God is the Author of marriage – one man, one woman.

He defined it, and His Son and co-Creator Jesus affirmed it. No civilization has yet embraced anything else. Some of God’s people will cave to your demands to redefine it, but many will not.

Why try to grind your opponents into the dust when it cannot be done? True followers of Jesus will seek to follow His commands, regardless of the cost. Other people of faith and those who believe in traditional values and religious liberty will support them.