[Updated 2Jul2015]
In the last two days, the Supreme Court of the United States has released two important decisions. The first came out yesterday and affirmed the structure, and therefore the practical existence, of the Affordable Healthcare Act (commonly known as, “Obamacare”). The second was this morning and decided that same-sex “marriage” must be allowed in all 50 states, and any same-sex “marriage” in one state must be recognized in all the others. I'm kind of looking forward to the next SCOTUS business day: something interesting will come!
In the last two days, the Supreme Court of the United States has released two important decisions. The first came out yesterday and affirmed the structure, and therefore the practical existence, of the Affordable Healthcare Act (commonly known as, “Obamacare”). The second was this morning and decided that same-sex “marriage” must be allowed in all 50 states, and any same-sex “marriage” in one state must be recognized in all the others. I'm kind of looking forward to the next SCOTUS business day: something interesting will come!
The
same-sex “marriage” case, “Obergefell v. Hodges,” should not be a surprise to
anyone. Public opinion on the issue has shifted swiftly and dramatically in the
last half-decade, though the notions have been simmering for several decades.
Essentially, when the first state legalized same-sex “marriage”
(Massachusetts), then every state was challenged to recognize those “marriages”
through the ‘Full Faith and Credit’ clause of the U.S. Constitution (U.S.Const.
art. IV, §1).
As an
attorney with a basic understanding of Federal-State relationships, as well as
personal rights, it is tempting to launch into a legal analysis of the case.
But the decision, and its dissents (here’s an initial survey: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2015/06/26/top-10-quotes-from-the-dissenting-justices-on-same-sex-marriage/),
will stand on its own.
I offer a
few thoughts on the decision; shooting from the hip …
·
I was disappointed that the country has chosen
to re-define marriage. There is no debate about what happened. When I hold up a
red ball and ask you what color it is, you would be tempted to say, “red.” But
now I, with the weapons of the government, say: “It is blue. Also red.” That is
re-definition. The court today claims that re-definition of marriage has been a
phenomena during all of the country’s history. For example, marriage was
prohibited between members of different races. But it is one thing to prohibit
marriage between members of a group and another to make gender into merely
another group
·
While the concept of civil unions was promising
for same-sex couples, ultimately structural discrimination still existed and
same-sex couples found little pragmatic help in the Defense Of Marriage Act. It seems to me the failure of DOMA was that it still institutionalized significant discrimination
·
One statement by the court was that any union that was deemed
lesser than full marriage would stigmatize the children of that union. Because
the concept of civil union was clearly less than full marriage (see above), children of a
same-sex union would be stigmatized. I am dismayed by the court’s lack of
common sense: children of a same-sex couple are not going to be stigmatized by
that couples’ standing before the law nearly to the extent of being stigmatized
because the couple is homosexual
·
This leads to another observation: the language of the opinion is
triumphant and uncompromising. That is, if you disagree with this notion, you
are an outdated moral bigot. The SCOTUS has just declared open season on
adherents of traditional marriage. I was personally surprised by this because it does NOT seem to reflect the personality of Justice Kennedy, someone who I have met and chatted with
·
The decision explicitly calls out the protections of the First
Amendment for “… religions, those that adhere to religious doctrines, and
others ….” Well, we saw how well that worked out for bakers of wedding cakes so
I’m not holding my breath
·
Lastly, there is nothing in the opinion that would prevent polygamous
and/or polyandrous marriage. Several folks in Utah may be sharpening their
legal pencils and within a day, several serious editorials were advocating going to that next step
Regardless, the matter is decided and will stand
as law.
Many in the church have been confused about
same-sex “marriage” and it seems to me they have confounded the authority of the government and
strong public opinion with the authority of scripture. Yes, both public opinion
and the law of our nation now affirm the legitimacy of same-sex “marriage.” But
scripture does not.
Again, it seems to me well-interpreted scripture does not leave room
for homosexual legitimacy any more than it leaves room for any other sexual
sin. According to the Bible, homosexual behavior is sin. As such, homosexual
behavior drives a wedge between a person and God just as far as theft, murder,
dishonoring parents, and all other idolatries do. It is a different question
altogether is homosexual behavior is more or less serious than those mentioned.
Still, any sin separates us from God: murder and ‘polite’ lies have the same
effect.
Further, scripture knows nothing of legitimate
same-sex “marriage.” In both the Jewish and Christian scriptures, marriage is
described as between genders and homosexual behavior is condemned. There will be lots
of hip, cool, and savvy young evangelical Christians who want to challenge this
conclusion, but it seems to me ultimately they will lose because the text itself doesn’t
yield. To come to their place, they have to weaken, tweak, deconstruct, or flat
out ignore the text. As a summary, there are about three scholarly arguments which attempt to deny the plain meaning of the relevant Biblical texts. Those arguments were demolished by a theological liberal in 2002. A fourth argument has come up, the "Trajectory" argument, but it loses, as well. Chat with me offline for details.
Here’s the deal, Church. We "lost." It shouldn’t
be a surprise to anyone, but we lost this one. Now – let’s be clear: while it
seems like the church is the keeper of ‘civic morality,’ that really has never
been the case. We have been fortunate to have been very influential, but the world
will do its thing. In terms of the influence we seemed to have, we have lost
this one. We will "lose" others in the future.
A few lessons from a talk that Darrel Bock gave
back in November 2014 –
- The church needs to learn how to lose these battles graciously. Alas, I expect to be disappointed in my brothers’ and sisters’ responses. And … here we go: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/25/christian-pastor-promises-to-set-himself-on-fire-if-gay-marriage-is-legalized-nationwide-audio/ There is a difference of expectation for behavior in general society and for followers of Jesus. Believers, calm down, do not over-react, and allow the fruit of the Spirit to bloom in your life; specifically: love, peace, patience, self-control, gentleness, goodness, kindness
- We need to continue to preach and discipline about ALL sexuality. We need to encourage young marriages to get through the rough patches. We need to guide our youth through the hyper-sexualized culture we live in. We need to affirm God’s descriptions of thriving human relationships between genders. As Kevin Miller stated, we need to understand that following Jesus is “a culture of consistent sexual sacrifice.” Additionally, we need to preach and discipline our responses to failure, sin, and rebellion with the grace and mercy of the gospel. Abuse and violence against gays, just as abuse and violence against children of single parents, must be vigorously condemned. In other words, even though we have ‘lost,’ we need to advocate with every breath what God has told us about human thriving
- At the same time, we need to understand and accept homosexuals as people who, very much like ourselves, desperately need Jesus. Just as for me, the best place for gay folk is in the pew hearing the good news about Jesus
- We need to be patient. Abortion is a hideous thing. When Roe v. Wade was decided, in 1973, we were in a similar position and the church ‘lost.’ But a curious thing happened on the way to 2015. Attitudes about abortion have shifted back. Even one of our most populist Presidents, Bill Clinton, once stated, “abortion should be safe, legal, and rare” (emphasis added). That was in 1996 and signaled the turning of the tide about abortion. Yes, abortion is still legal. Yet in the 40 years of our national experience with “safe” and “legal,” we are seeing the true costs. I am going out on a limb here, but suggest a similar experience with same-sex ‘marriage.’ In fifty years, we will see the true nature of this phenomena and the conclusion will not be positive
- Again, it is important to guard our responses. Any believer's position on this matter is NOT a litmus test for their love of Jesus, their sanctification, or the effect of God's atonement in their life. There are a LOT of Jesus-loving, Bible-believing, heaven-going Christians who disagree with me. This does not mean we hate, ridicule, or marginalize each other. I need to heed this as well and (in the last week) have edited my initial post accordingly. This post seemed to hit many of the right notes for me: http://frankewellersblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/heres-why-your-pastor-didnt-say.html?m=1
Last thing: this is
not the end of the world. When we all go to sleep tonight, the sun will come up
in the morning and God will still be on the throne. Yes, the world is going to
Hell in a handbasket – but it has been doing that for a long time. This is why
the gospel of Jesus needs to be proclaimed and lived out. Christian: let’s
concentrate on doing THAT.
