The second event falls very close to the third and will take me away from you this Sunday. Our son, John, the second of our three children, will be crossing that milestone of college graduate this weekend! I really do wonder where the four years have gone, but this weekend will be a great marker, as a time to reflect and remember. For John, however, this will be in actuality transitioning from classes to more classes, as he begins this fall at UNC Law School. I praise God for how He has worked and moved in the lives of our children. In fact, that leads me to the third major event of the week, Mother’s Day!

This Sunday marks that special day across America as we honor the mothers of our nation. When I see how God has worked in the lives of our children, I cannot help but give praise to God, and thanks to their mother and my wife, Beth. Whatever our children do with their lives, it will have to be said, they had a loving and nurturing Mom that shaped their lives. For me as well, it is the day that I celebrate my own Mom, grateful to see her smile, hold her hand, and just spend time with her to express my love and devotion to her. It hurts in many ways, because she can’t really carry on a conversation, not too sure what she understands, but in all reality, that is not important! What’s important is...she is my Mother. So, in many ways the reflections of the weekend will have many different emotions, as my Mom and Dad are unable to see their 11th grandchild graduate from college. But, I will describe it to them in detail, and in some small way help them to know that none of this week’s big events would have been “events” in my life at all, if it were not for them.

This Sunday, on Mother’s Day, you will be so blessed to hear Rev. Colin Pinkney, Executive Director of Urban Restoration. Colin has surrendered his life to seeing families restored and given priority in the city of Charlotte. Colin, the eighth of nine children, will be celebrating his own mother’s 75th birthday this weekend. His family is coming in from all over the country to celebrate, and will be here at FBC as Colin delivers a tremendous Mother’s Day message. If you have not heard this man deliver God’s Word, I promise you will leave inspired and encouraged on this special day!!!

May the Lord bless you and keep you this week!

In Him,

Pastor Mark

Will the Marriage Amendment Harm Children?

“Amendment One Harms Children.” By now most people reading this have either seen the sign carrying this slogan or seen one of the television commercials centered on this theme. The Charlotte Observer carried a story this week in its state and local section questioning what will happen regarding children, insurance, etc. if Amendment One, or the Marriage Protection Amendment, passes. I long ago made up my mind that I will vote for Amendment One, but I did want to understand the status of children living in same-sex households just to know the facts. What I discovered surprised me, and may surprise you as well.

I was operating under the belief that since there are same-sex households raising children, North Carolina must have legalized the adoption of children by same-sex parents at some point. I could not remember this occurring during any time in recent memory, however, and so I turned to my trusty laptop to get some answers. These are the facts I uncovered.

North Carolina has many households with children. Some of those households contain married parents, some contain two unmarried parents, and some are headed by single parents. According to the website of NC’s official vital health statistics, www.schs.state.nc.us, out-of-wedlock live births are rising and are about 42% of all NC births. None of this has anything to do with legal adoption. Just as a single woman may become pregnant and give birth to a child without marrying its father, a lesbian woman could become pregnant through artificial insemination without contact with the biological father of her child. She is legally the child’s mother in North Carolina. Any lesbian partners she has are not legally recognized as parents under current North Carolina law. Amendment One does nothing to change this. North Carolina’s adoption statutes and our 1996 statute regarding the definition of marriage prevent two same-sex partners from adopting children in North Carolina. A single gay man or a single lesbian woman may petition to adopt a child in NC, but the same statutes apply regarding any partners he or she may have. In summation, current law, regardless of what happens with the Marriage Protection Amendment, does not allow a same-sex couple to adopt a child together and furthermore does not allow what is called a “second-party adoption” in which the unmarried partner of a parent can adopt his/her child.

Now for the shock. North Carolina’s adoption laws were thrown into court in 2010 by the sordid Boseman V. Jarrell custody lawsuit. Google “Boseman V. Jarrell” and several sites will pop up that will allow you to read the entire NC Supreme Court majority opinion, written by Justice Paul M. Newby. Boseman and Jarrell are two lesbians who met (one was from Rhode Island, the other Wilmington), entered into a relationship living together in Wilmington, and then began raising a son born after Jarrell was artificially inseminated. Note that under current NC statutes, only Jarrell, the birth mother, would be recognized as the parent no matter the financial or living arrangements between she and Boseman. The two lesbian partners, residing in Wilmington, heard that the courts in Durham were friendly to “second-party adoption” (illegal) and petitioned in Durham to have Boseman adopt the boy.

What should have happened legally and what actually happened at this point in the story are very different. Under NC adoption statutes, because Boseman and Jarrell could not legally become marriage partners, in order for Boseman to adopt the child Jarrell would have been required to give up her parental rights. In other words, there was no legal way to recognize the relationship between Boseman and Jarrell, and from the court’s viewpoint Boseman had to be seen as an entirely different person seeking custody of the boy. Keep in mind that there was nothing preventing the couple from continuing as they were, living together and raising the child. No law changed; everything legally was exactly the same in terms of North Carolina law as it had been before Jarrell was artificially inseminated. Obviously Jarrell did not want to terminate her parental rights. What she and Boseman were seeking was an illegal adoption granted by an NC Court. The court, if it had been following the law enacted by the people’s representatives, should have refused to grant the adoption unless Jarrell was willing to surrender her own parental rights.

What the court actually did is mind-boggling even in these days when we are used to activist courts and judges. The court granted the adoption of the boy by Boseman, even though it was illegal under North Carolina’s statutes since Jarrell did not surrender her parental rights. In fact, Jarrell basically asked the court to refuse to enforce NC law in her petition, which the court agreed to do by granting the adoption to Jarrell’s lesbian partner Boseman. When the clerk of court in Durham County District Court, where the adoption decree was granted, was subsequently told by the North Carolina Division of Social Services that this adoption decree could not be legally filed in North Carolina, the Durham County District Court ordered the clerk to break NC law by not filing the decree with the Division of Social Services but instead keep this particular file securely in the clerk’s office! The only record of the court’s action in the case was illegally stashed in an office in Durham.

The story continues and becomes more sordid. Boseman and Jarrell broke up. Jarrell, the biological mother, attempted to then use NC law to say that the adoption she asked for on behalf of Boseman was illegal and thus she should be granted sole custody of the boy she had borne through artificial insemination. Boseman in turn filed a lawsuit seeking custody. The case made it all the way to the NC Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, with Paul Newby writing the majority opinion, ruled that the adoption was illegal, but that it was in the best interest of the child to uphold the lower court ruling that the two women be awarded joint custody, since the child viewed both women as parents.
The morals of this mess:

1. Activist courts are the authors of confusion, not laws or even constitutional amendments duly enacted by the representatives of the people or the people themselves. If the Durham court had not been trying to by-pass NC law, it would never have granted adoptions like Boseman’s. One website I looked at stated that the court had granted about 250 such adoptions, all of which technically became null when the NC Supreme Court issued its ruling.
2. When in doubt, the “best interest of the child” rules in NC. The NC Supreme Court was handed an incredibly difficult web to unravel. The irresponsible actions of a district court and the bitter break-up between two lesbians were the threads tightly wrapped around the life of an innocent minor child. At the end of the day, the court realized that it was the boy’s life and well-being that mattered most. Finding both women to be fit for parental responsibilities, finding that the boy had a relationship with both women as his parents, and finding that despite the improper actions of the Durham court time could not be turned back to undo the decision, joint custody would be awarded.

The claim that Amendment One harms children is a smokescreen. Children of unmarried couples and women will be no more or less in harm’s way than they are now. Amendment One does not change NC law in terms of adoption or marriage; it simply places the traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution. Conversely, defeat of Amendment One does nothing to improve the lives of children brought into the world out of wedlock.

To get back to where we started, and since we are a church that supports the authority of Scripture, it is clearly stated in the Bible that God’s design for the family is husband, wife, and children all bound together with a love and respect that reflects His own character. In fact, the Bible even states that God hates divorce, because He desires that children should be in the best environment for their spiritual well-being. Whatever happens May 8, we can renew our personal commitments to our own families and try to continue to develop a community in which we hold one another accountable to stay faithful in our marriages and raise our children in two-parent households. We can continue to minister to the divorced and hurting, and be the extra hands for those single moms in our congregation who are often not single by choice.

Sometimes fiction is created and even promoted to society at large. Social experiments are undertaken in which traditional institutions are abandoned, man usurps the place of God, and then the world is surprised at the disastrous results. The most stunning example of this is the rise of Nazism in Germany and the accompanying genocide of more than 6 million people based primarily on race. In Hitler’s totalitarian state, traditional religion and traditional education were no longer promoted. Hitler was free to perform his horrendous social experimentation, costing not only the lives of the six million murdered by his regime, but millions more civilians in war and almost one half million Americans in combat during World War II.

In the old days, the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party was attributed to economic conditions in Germany. Scholars in more recent years have realized that economic conditions alone could never explain the tolerance of the rank and file German citizenry for Hitler’s rhetoric and policies. These scholars have turned their attention to ideologies that gained prominence in the early 20th century and have concluded that the influence of these ideologies played a definite part in certain movements, including Nazism. Darwinian evolution, its application to society known as Social Darwinism, and the ultimate expression of Social Darwinism, eugenics, played an important role in preparing the minds of the populace to accept Hitler and his evil ideas. To read one of many articles on eugenics and Nazi Germany, go to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s website and read “The Biological State: Nazi Racial Hygiene, 1933-1939.”

Eugenics replaces the belief that all life is created by God and therefore sacred with the belief that man is a bundle of chromosomes and nothing more. As such, “good” bundles of chromosomes should be encouraged to reproduce with other “good” bundles and “bad” chromosomes should be weeded out in some fashion. Genocide is the most extreme example of this weeding out, but even here in North Carolina the belief in eugenics led to the sterilization of people whom state or county officials determined to be inferior through the Eugenics Board of NC, which operated from 1933 to 1977. It is worth noting that sterilization was also viewed as a money-saving device to prevent increased welfare costs. Sometimes these sterilizations were done against the will of the individual being sterilized. Mecklenburg County had the largest sterilization program in the state, sterilizing 485 people of the 7,000 sterilized in NC. Today North Carolina is ashamed of its eugenics program and a task force has recommended paying reparations to the victims of the program. At the time, however, the eugenics program was the pride and joy of the intellectual elite. Hanes Hosiery and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco got together with other powerful business interests and formed a group called the Human Betterment League. The League published glossy brochures touting the eugenics program as a way to rid society of “morons.”[1]

Why do I cite this example? I want to illustrate the point that the conservative, traditional position is not always the wrong position. As eugenics rose to philosophical prominence in the early 20th century, creationists were ridiculed and the intellectual elite abandoned the church and traditional morality. Without a foundation of traditional morality, anything man could engineer for the supposed betterment of society was game, including the practices associated with eugenics and ultimately Nazi Germany. Because the social movement foremost in most Americans’ minds is civil rights, a struggle in which the radicals were the ones who got it right going all the way back to the abolition of slavery, many Americans cannot conceive that the more liberal or radical position can also sometimes be wrong. It can be, and has been, wrong.

Many times society jumps on ideological bandwagons without anticipating the logical results. Anyone 50 and under has lived with changing sexual mores and corresponding changes in our legal code. As attitudes toward sex became more casual and self was exalted to godhood in the 1970’s, divorce became easier and abortion was legalized. I remember the 1970’s summer that many sets of parents in my neighborhood got divorced. I felt a growing sense of terror that my parents might be next. (They weren’t.) These were people in their thirties and forties, born just after the “Greatest Generation” or right at the beginning of the boomers. Certainly most of them grew up in two-parent homes. Those at the younger end of the spectrum were perhaps spoiled a bit by parents who remembered the difficulties of the Depression and the WWII years. I don’t think much serious thought was given to the effects of their decisions on their children. There was no research because this was a new phenomenon. The old-time preachers talked a lot about the fall of the Roman Empire, but that was not considered particularly relevant in 1975. Today we know the results, and they are not pretty. Higher poverty rates, higher incarceration rates, higher rates of suicide and depression have been the price children have paid for higher divorce rates.

With the legalization of abortion came the need to address the abortion question in school. I shudder when I think about how glibly we debated the pros and cons of abortion in my 9th grade health class. As anyone who has been a 9th grader knows, under the best of circumstances mature discussion does not come easily, nor does mature understanding. Did adults in the culture honestly think we were mature enough to drink at 18, have sex at 16, abort the result and come out unscathed? Even we teenagers had sense enough to realize that wasn’t the case, but often that understanding came only after the price had been paid through painful personal experience.

Today society as a whole has jumped on the ideological bandwagon that every social institution needs to be re-framed in terms of individual rights, and that homosexuals are an oppressed minority. The difference between those of us who will support the Marriage Protection Amendment and those who oppose it comes down to whether or not we will jump on that bandwagon. In other words, what we believe about the inherent nature of sexual orientation and what we believe about the sanctity of marriage as it has been traditionally defined should be the determining factors in whether we vote for or against Amendment One. Rabbi Judy Schindler, a leader of the opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment, is a good example of a person whom I can respect due to her consistent position, even though I disagree with it. She has publicly stated the same thing. If one has come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is an inborn characteristic, he or she will fight to have every social institution re-engineered to be gay-friendly. Rabbi Schindler has actively protested and even accompanied gay couples out of state to do their weddings. At least this is logical, unlike the op-eds I am sick to death of reading that scream in one sentence, “THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST GAYS!!!” followed by the whispery-sounding “and besides we already have a law against gay marriage.” If being gay is the same as being black or being female shouldn’t you fight to overturn the existing law that denies marriage to homosexuals? Shouldn’t these op-ed pieces scream “THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST GAYS AND WHILE WE’RE AT IT, LET’S DO IT AWAY WITH THE 1996 LAW BANNING GAY MARRIAGE!!”?

Actually, that is exactly what will happen if the Marriage Protection Amendment, or Amendment One, fails. There has already been an organized protest in Asheville called “We-Do” in which gay couples were called upon to flood the Buncombe County registrar with requests for marriage licenses, which then would have to be denied. This sets the stage for the filing of a lawsuit, making the 1996 NC law banning same sex marriage vulnerable to be overturned by the judicial branch of the state government. In states where this pattern has been followed and the state law overturned, state supreme courts almost always find something in the state constitution that guarantees equal protection, and if the justices operate from the position that being gay is an inherent quality, they will rule for equal protection every time.

And it is this idea--that being gay is an inherent quality-- that I beg anyone reading this to deeply, deeply consider. The millennial generation has been so exposed in so many ways to the idea that people are born gay that it is difficult to get even the most conservative among them to consider an alternative. Oprah-watchers have heard a parade of folks come and go who chant the “born-this-way” mantra. I watched one day as Oprah interviewed a victim of sexual molestation who had been told by the secular psychiatrist treating him that he was NOT gay, but had an attraction to gay sex as part of the aftermath of the same-sex molestation. She seemed determined to make the man admit that he was in fact gay! This is a good example of how an idea can powerfully take hold against all reason. Who is Oprah to disagree with a professional psychiatrist who had a patient in treatment for many years? Do we have adequate proof that anyone is actually born gay? Conversely, are there any signs that pushing a gay agenda to the broader culture will warp the thinking of the culture and its young people and do more harm than good?

I believe the answer to this last question is “yes,” and I would like to explain why. I would like the other side of this debate to at least afford me the respect that I am thinking about this and have agonized over trying to get to the truth. For the last 24 years I have been raising children and for 15 years I taught middle school. My husband is in ministry and so I have had the opportunity to hear from many people and know their personal stories. I have been around all types of people and probably have known more people in the underclass personally than most of the affluent people in Charlotte. I’m not afraid of people who are different than I am, and I am not afraid to hear and think about ideas that are different from my own. I’m not a Rush-Limbaugh rabid conservative and I hate the kind of political/entertainment media in which people just scream over each other constantly. But I have serious, serious concerns about advancing the “gay agenda” for the following reasons based on my personal observations over the past twenty years.

First, any Christian of any age needs call the belief that people are born gay what it is: the belief that God created people gay. You cannot believe in a Creator God and claim to believe in the authority of Scripture and also believe that being gay is a state into which one is born. These are incompatible positions. The only position set forth in the Bible is that homosexual behavior, like all forms of sexual behavior, is a choice. People are born with a gender, male or female. What they do with their sexuality is up to them. There is a strong New Testament correlation between the inflammation of lust in individuals and society and an increase in all forms of what the Bible calls “sexual immorality.” I refer you to Romans and 1 Corinthians for further study.

As sexuality has been forced upon children who are not even into puberty, I fear confusion has resulted. A friend of my children’s has just “come out” on a blog. He states that he knew he liked boys in third grade. This makes me want to cry! All boys “like boys” in third grade. All girls “like girls” in third grade. It is the stage of their child development in which same-sex, non-sexual friendships are the norm. Opposite-sex sexual attraction should develop at some point through the changes associated with puberty. But our culture tries to make ten year old girls into sirens and consequently we have them so messed up that they go on you-tube asking “Am I ugly?” and letting a sick public vote and comment. I fear that many awkward tweens and teens who in days gone by would have been late-bloomers but would have developed heterosexual preferences are being led into experimentation with the same sex at younger ages due to the obsession with sex that dominates our culture. This creates the illusion that they are “gay.”

Along the same lines, when emotionally immature individuals are inundated with sexual ideas and content, they stereotype, leading to bullying. This same young man blogs about being exposed to pornography and also being called names in high school because he was artsy. When I have pressed members of the millennial generation (born after 1985) about gay friends they often back down from the path of least resistance, which is “born that way,” and admit that their “gay” friend used to like the opposite sex, but experienced so much rejection and bullying for being artsy, gentle, you name it, that when the gay community accepted him he became gay. I fear the promotion of the gay agenda and the legitimate attempt to help those who are being bullied has perhaps had the unintentional effect of causing more rigid stereotyping among emotionally immature teens, leading some to believe that they are gay when they are not.

As sexual activity has become more explicit and graphic in the media, along with a blurring of the boundaries between heterosexuality and homosexuality in sexual expression, lust has been fueled, warping the sexuality of young people. If you want to see the most terrifying movie of recent years, forget “Paranormal Activity” and watch “The Social Network,” set at Harvard University and in California and telling the story of Facebook’s founders. The ruthlessness of the younger generation with one another, their love of status and money, and the generally pathetic state of the women in the movie will make you want to lock your daughters in a closet. In one scene two girls have to make out with each other as part of losing a game of poker at some kind of fraternity party. I don’t know how accurate that scene was to life at Harvard, but it was inserted into a critically-acclaimed movie. How many teenagers watch such scenes, hear songs like Katy Perry’s “I Kissed a Girl and I Liked It” or see music videos that simply fuel lust for sex with the same or the opposite sex?

As homosexuality has moved into the mainstream of education, well-meaning teachers and counselors have jumped on the “gay” bandwagon. Mary Forrester, whose late husband was a leader in the NC legislature’s fight to get Amendment One on the ballot for the people to decide, told a story recently as she spoke at a Concerned Women of America conference. Her grandson, who lives in California, came home and told his mother that he “might be gay.” When she asked why he thought so, he told her that his teacher had said that “we all might be gay” and that each of them should think about it. I have heard many and much more heart-breaking stories along these lines that I am not at liberty to share publicly, including cases in which counselors have convinced young people that they are gay, despite their dislike of gay sex.

Lastly, I have come to the conclusion that sexual abuse is far more pervasive in American society than anyone is willing to think or talk about. Having criticized Oprah earlier, I will give her, along with Tyler Perry, credit for trying to make us think about the issue of sexual molestation and its life-altering effects. Virtually every woman I have ever known in what we would call the underclass has been sexually abused. The only lesbian that I have really spent a lot of time with was sexually abused by a man. An NC pastor told my husband that every lesbian he knew had been molested. How many gay men think that they are gay because their first sexual experience was with a man who reached out to them with unwanted advances?

Marriage, as the rare institution society promotes, legitimizes relationships and sends a powerful public and legal message to the culture at large. Legalizing gay marriage specifically sends the message that people are born gay, that they are an oppressed minority that deserves special civil rights protection, and that homosexual relationships are the norm just as heterosexual relationships are the norm. Passage of Amendment One, or the Marriage Protection Amendment, places the sanctity of marriage in our state constitution where it can only be un-done by another vote of the people. I believe this is a necessary step, not because I hate or want to discriminate, but because I have grave concerns that, like earlier ideologies, the untested waters of redefining marriage will prove perilous in ways we never expected.

[1] Rose, Julie, “A Brutal Chapter in North Carolina’s Eugenics Past” NPR.

Please take the opportunity to invite any friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. that may have questions about this issue. I am so much in prayer for folks to understand these days we face, and the responsibility as believers we bear in this year of 2012. Please make plans to make being here this Sunday a top priority, and especially pray for me to preach empowered by the Holy Spirit, and with wisdom and grace as truth is proclaimed!

In His Love,
Mark

1. The Marriage Protection Amendment is poorly worded and as such would invite the intervention of federal courts.

Response: The regulation of marriage falls to the states, and the real threat is not federal intervention, but overturn of the current state statute prohibiting same-gender marriage by state courts. It is not the wording of laws that make them vulnerable, but rather the beliefs of those who sit on the courts as to the nature of homosexuality itself. If a state court finds that NC’s constitution guarantees homosexuals equal rights when it comes to marriage, it will be difficult if not impossible to appeal the ruling to a federal court.

Federal intervention cannot happen in a vacuum in which a federal judge wakes up one day and decides to look at a case because of its wording. The current state law banning same-gender marriage can, however, be overturned by state courts. If the state constitution is found as the basis for overturning the current law, the question will be decided without using federal precedent and likely without the possibility of appeal to the federal court system. The difference in the outcomes of court cases around the USA has been the view of the judges sitting on state supreme courts in regard to homosexuality as worthy of equal protection under the constitutions of their own states, not the wording of the amendments. I cite the examples below:

Hawaii 1993: Three same-sex couples sued to get marriage licenses denied them under Hawaii’s then-current marriage laws. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples is unconstitutional (per the state constitution) unless the state could show a compelling reason to do so.

Massachusetts 2003: GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) sued the Massachusetts Dept. of Health on behalf of seven gay couples after they were denied marriage licenses. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution guaranteed liberty and equality and that there was no compelling state interest in banning gay marriage.

California 2008: The California Supreme Court struck down a state law banning same-sex marriage stating that the ban discriminated on “the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion — a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment…”. In re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court, S147999

Iowa 2009: Six same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued. This case also went to the state supreme court. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals were a “historically disfavored class of persons” and that there was no constitutional (Iowa’s constitution) justification to deny them equal access to marriage.

Because none of these states had constitutional amendments at the time, their state laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples were easily overturned by activists who challenged them in lawsuits. A constitutional amendment writes marriage protection into the state constitution and overrules the power of state judges to make law /

2. North Carolina’s law has “forever” defined marriage traditionally, and the current statute is crystal clear and has “no chance” of ever being overturned by a state court because this is “settled law” in NC.

Response: While it is true that laws regarding marriage were some of North Carolina’s earliest laws, the law prohibiting same-sex marriage was not passed until 1996. It was hotly debated then and it is being challenged right now.

In Asheville, as part of an organized protest called “We Do,” gay couples were called on to flood the register of deeds office with requests for marriage licenses, which would then have to be denied. (This lays the groundwork for future lawsuits, as in the lawsuits cited above in Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Iowa)

A complaint filed in Guilford County Civil Superior Court on Dec. 8, 2011 by three Greensboro ministers and seven residents of the triad names state Attorney General Roy Cooper as the defendant. The complaint argues that state statute requiring a marriage license violates the U. S. Constitution and the principle of separation of church and state.

I feel a bit like the little pigs sitting in the straw house thinking the wolf couldn’t possibly blow it down when I read Robinson’s assertion that there is “no chance” of NC’s 1996 law prohibiting same-gender marriage from being overturned, knowing NC is already the target of activist groups looking for lawsuits and also knowing that both Duke and UNC law schools have scholarships created by benefactors that are awarded to law students who promote the interests of the gay community.

3. Federal intervention is exactly what happened in California and the wording of NC’s proposed amendment is so similar it invites the same thing (federal intervention and overturn.) The end result would be a greater likelihood of gay marriage becoming legal in NC.

Response: California’s process of enacting laws through propositions is different from North Carolina’s, and the history of the California case actually supports the strength of a constitutional amendment over a state law.

Propositions in California can be either laws or constitutional amendments and can be proposed by the California legislature or by an initiative of the people with petition signatures. By definition a proposition is voted on by the people. The California case, while containing some aspects that are unique to California, actually demonstrates the increased strength of a constitutional amendment at the state level. According to Tami Fitzgerald, Raleigh lawyer and co-chair of Vote for Marriage NC, whom I consulted with to be sure I correctly understood the California case, the fact that California’s constitutional amendment could be challenged in court was somewhat a fluke due to the process used to put it on the ballot. The California history is outlined below.

March 7, 2000: Proposition 22 (a state law) passed a vote of California’s citizens.
Proposition 22 was a state law, not a constitutional amendment. In that sense it was the same as NC’s 1996 statute banning same-gender marriage. It passed by a
61% to 39% vote of the people. Proposition 22 was fourteen words long and simply stated that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

May 15, 2008: Proposition 22 overturned by the California Supreme Court.
The state Supreme Court, not a federal court, ruled 4-3 that Proposition 22 was inconsistent with the state constitution, finding that marriage is indeed a civil right and that sexual orientation was a legitimate innate characteristic and therefore protected from discrimination.

November 4, 2008: Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment with exactly the same words as Proposition 22, the original state law, passed a vote of California’s citizens.
Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot by 1,121,801 citizen signatures. Proposition 8 contained exactly the same wording as the previous state law (Proposition 22): "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Proposition 8 passed by a vote of 52.24% to 47.76% of the people.

May 26, 2009: Proposition 8 upheld by the California Supreme Court.
The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 with five judges holding the majority opinion, one concurring and one dissenting. Note that this was the same court with exactly the same seven judges on the bench that ruled 4-3 in 2008 that sexual orientation was an innate characteristic like skin color. Yet the court upheld the constitutional amendment when it had struck down the state law containing exactly the same wording The court was basically ruling on the constitutional amendment process used, and found that even though a majority of the Supreme Court justices viewed Proposition 8 as discriminatory, they had to uphold the constitutional amendment if they upheld the people’s process in passing it.

August 4, 2010: United States District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8.
This was federal court, the last recourse for the Proposition 8 constitutional amendment lawsuits. Because California’s Supreme Court (the state) struck down the original state law (Proposition 22), Proposition 22 never went to federal court. Whether an amendment to the constitution or a state law, the federal courts can intervene should they find grounds to hear a plaintiff’s lawsuit. Walker’s decision used the same reasoning as the California Supreme Court but applied it at the national level: that being homosexual is an innate characteristic and that marriage is a civil right and therefore same-sex marriage falls under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution.

February 7, 2012: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (a U. S. court) upheld Judge Walker’s overturn of Proposition 8 in a 2-1 decision.

The 9th Circuit voted 2-1 to uphold Judge Walker’s overturn of Proposition 8. Key to this decision was the court’s finding that the initiative (Proposition 8) took away a right that homosexuals had previously possessed under the state constitution. The NY Times found it noteworthy that the 9th Circuit Court, labeled by the Times as “famously liberal,” refused to rule that the United States Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. The most liberal court in the nation had the chance to strike down prohibitions against gay marriage in all 50 states but did not take it. In that sense, the ruling disagreed with Judge Walker, and the 9th Circuit Court decided to keep the battle over same-sex marriage in the states, not throw it into a process that could take it to the U. S. Supreme Court (which many gay activists do not want for fear they would lose.)

Had California’s original Proposition 22 been a constitutional amendment it is possible that this case would never have been argued in federal court, because the history suggests that California’s Supreme Court would have upheld it and there would not have been a period of time in which homosexual couples were deemed to have the right to marry under the state constitution. It was this existing right that the 9th Circuit Court used to justify its decision.

If state courts overturn a state law prohibiting same-gender marriage any constitutional amendment passed later is vulnerable after the ruling on California’s Proposition 8. This is why so many states are rushing to add constitutional amendments before such lawsuits are ruled on in their respective states regarding their existing marriage statutes.

Final Thoughts

The marriage question is a case study on judicial activism. It is staggering to think that two judges brought down the votes of over half of the population of one of the USA’s largest states. What can be done? Citizens need to educate themselves on how their government works. Many do not seem to understand that the constitutional amendment was built into our political process to give the citizenry one last recourse for their will beyond the judicial branch. The California case in which a court could hear and strike down a constitutional amendment is rare. When a similar situation, also through a ballot initiative, happened in Nebraska, the 8th Circuit Court upheld the Nebraska amendment. If you support defining marriage as a heterosexual union, there is no reason NOT to vote for a constitutional amendment doing so.

We also need to educate ourselves about how judges arrive on the bench. In NC, we have the highly-criticized system of non-partisan election of judges. Many are trying to reform this process so that judges are appointed, as they are at the federal level. But while this process still rests with us, the citizens of the state, we should accept the responsibility to research the views of the judges on the ballot. By that I don’t necessarily mean their political party affiliation, but rather their beliefs about the extent of their powers to re-invent law and their personal moral codes. In November, the seats up for election in our state include one North Carolina Supreme Court seat currently held by Justice Paul Newby and three seats on the NC Court of Appeals currently held by Judge Wanda Bryant, Judge Linda McGee, and Judge Cressie Thigpen. Don’t go into the general election in November thinking that these offices are unimportant! Do your homework.

Federal judges are selected by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative branch of the national government. The two judges who voted to overturn California’s constitutional amendment on marriage were appointed by Presidents Carter and Clinton. We get angry about these situations and “activist judges,” yet we often refuse to connect the dots when we elect officials in the other two branches of government. The beliefs of our presidents and legislators are reflected in the beliefs of the judges they appoint.

Lastly, I think we need to look within our society for the big picture, not just scapegoat the courts. The courts exist in part to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. Judges are charged with carrying out justice, even if the people operating through their democratic processes want to deny it. A judge thus acts according to both the letter of the law as well as some type of moral compass as he or she interprets the law. We don’t need to exile the judicial branch, as there never has been nor I doubt ever will be a system of government so brilliantly designed as that of the United States of America. The implication is that as the thinking of the culture goes, so go the laws of the United States. It is the culture’s thinking that must be challenged. At every turn in the California story, there were intelligent, highly-educated individuals serving as judges who were firmly convinced that homosexuality was an innate characteristic and therefore qualified for equal protection under the law. This is not a failure of the system, but a failure of the moral compass of our society. As Christians, at times like these, many of us want to shrink back and strike an anti-intellectual posture, preferring to talk about the Spirit and power and evangelism. I submit that it is not an “either, or” but a “both, and.” Yes we absolutely know our primary business is eternal and relies on more than human reasoning. But when called upon, shouldn’t we be able to give an answer to the questions society is asking? Shouldn’t the truth be easier to defend intellectually than any lie?

1. Amendment One singles out and discriminates against gay couples.
2. Discrimination in any form is wrong because it violates Civil Rights.
   
   

If these first two statements are accepted as true, one then does come to the conclusion that Amendment One would violate the Civil Rights of homosexuals. But are these two statements true? To evaluate the truth or falsehood of a statement, all of its terms must be clearly defined and understood. So we must ask several questions:

1. Does Amendment One “single out” gay couples?
2. Does Amendment One “discriminate against” gay couples?
3. Do homosexuals have or need Civil Rights protection in a different way from heterosexuals?
4. Is marriage even a “Civil Right?”
   
   

Does Amendment One “discriminate against” gay couples? “To discriminate” in the broadest sense of the word simply means “to make a distinction.” Obviously, used in the context of a pro-gay marriage argument, it means much more. The word “discriminate” in a legal sense arose from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act was an extreme national response to the battle for Civil Rights going on in the segregated south. In other words, a population (blacks) was so oppressed and their basic constitutional rights so infringed upon by the states in which they resided that the national government had to take action, perhaps allowing morality to trump strict interpretation of the constitution. Because this legislation was a reach for the national government, Congress was careful to include only five categories of protection under the idea of “Civil Rights” legislation: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Note that sexual preference is not on the list. Therefore there is no basis for homosexuals to claim discrimination about anything.

Furthermore, to believe that homosexuals deserve special protection under the law in a way that differs from heterosexuals is to believe the basic assumption that homosexuality is innate, like skin color or gender at birth. So we come back to the inescapable question at the heart of this issue: is homosexuality an innate sexual orientation that is morally equal to monogamous marriage between a man and a woman? For a thorough discussion of “innate” homosexuality from a scientific viewpoint, readers can download “Homosexuality is not a Civil Right” from the Family Research Council. From a Scriptural standpoint, homosexuality is a behavior not a state of being. From a Scriptural standpoint, all of us have the innate propensity to avoid purity and monogamous heterosexual marriage because our innate state of being is to reject God’s standard and follow our own perverse desires. Marriage is the very line in the sand that promotes a healthy society because the institution aligns with God’s standard even though we as human beings prefer not to. Adultery has consequences under our marriage and divorce laws because of that line in the sand. Marriage should be upheld as one of the pillar institutions of society, which in the words of theologian G. K. Chesterton “get us over the hump” of our temporary feelings of discontentment or lust. It is not just an individual entitlement.

The second assumption that must be made for one to believe that homosexuals deserve special protection under the law is that there is systemic denial of their basic civil rights. This is simply not true. While there have been tragic cases of gays being targeted for physical abuse and even murder, such behavior is not widely accepted by any state or society in America like lynch mobs were in the Jim Crow south. The perpetrators of these crimes broke existing laws and have been prosecuted under existing laws. Unlike blacks in the south prior to the Civil Rights Movement, homosexuals are not denied the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, or any other of the basic rights of citizens. When I think of Charlotte’s Dorothy Counts, spit covering her home-sewn checkered dress as she attempted to enter Harding High School in 1957, the argument comparing the quest for gay marriage to the Civil Rights movement reminds me a little of the phrase we sometimes use in church, “cheap grace.” But that’s just my opinion, and I’m sure some would disagree.

In summary, can a group who is not defined as the recipient of special protection under the Civil Rights Act claim that they are being discriminated against? Should marriage even be viewed in the same context as employment, accommodations, and the use of public facilities? Is everyone “owed” the right to marry? For me, the answer to all of these questions is no.

“But people of faith have also used the Bible to justify slavery and the repression of women, for instance-injustices that at one time had the imprimatur of society.”

This statement is basically true. The Bible has been used to justify the above-named injustices, although it has also been used to argue against the same injustices. And while slavery in particular enjoyed legal status in some (not all) of the states of the United States for a period of time, there were always people speaking out against it. It did have the “imprimatur,” or formal approval, of society in some places, but slavery never had the blessing of all of society. It was not an established social institution like marriage. A better way to look at slavery is that it became an entrenched economic necessity that was rationalized by its participants, put out of mind by those who indirectly benefitted from it, and opposed by a group of courageous people who wouldn’t look the other way.

So why compare antebellum slavery, an economic system in which thousands of souls were put into bondage and defined as property under the laws of certain states, with marriage, a much older institution one enters into voluntarily, accepting its rights and responsibilities? Isn’t this apples and oranges? Why even bring up the Bible and slavery? There are two answers to these questions. First, linking the Bible to slavery undermines the Bible’s moral authority to speak to the issue of sexual behavior. Second, by linking marriage to slavery and ultimately civil rights, the proponents of gay marriage are “redefining marriage as a civil right” and casting “those who oppose redefinition as bigots and discriminators who merit legal and social obloquy.” [1]

Next week we will examine the redefinition of marriage as a civil right. This week I’d like to tackle the question of the Bible and its moral authority on both slavery and homosexuality. What McSpadden and others are saying is really the same thing Bishop Gene Robinson said, and the argument goes like this. Because the Bible is a product of a different time, it is an inaccurate basis for moral judgments today. Proof is offered for this argument in the fact that the Bible has been used in the past to justify oppressive behavior such as owning slaves. Again, there is nothing false about that statement in isolation. I credit McSpadden with choosing her words carefully. She did not say that the Bible justifies slavery, just that “it has been used” to do so.

As we think about the question of the Bible, slavery, and the Bible’s authority today, it is very important to understand the context of antebellum slavery in the United States. Slavery developed from indentured servitude into lifelong involuntarily servitude, and finally into what we today call “chattel slavery” –the definition of slaves as property- in a relatively short span of time in the colonial period. It was initially viewed as a necessary evil to turn a wilderness into an agriculturally productive place. Large-scale planters were few and far between. By the time of the American Revolution, many were wrestling with the paradox of creating a free republic while allowing slavery, but the question was left up to the states, just as the question of gay marriage has been thus far. Vermont, then only a territory, became the first place in the U. S. to outlaw slavery in 1777. Pennsylvania followed in 1780 and Massachusetts in 1783, although in Massachusetts it was the judiciary who actually outlawed slavery through interpretation of the state constitution. In 1808 the United States government, acting on its constitutional right to control commerce, outlawed the direct importation of slaves from Africa. Most thought slavery would die out.

Unfortunately, economic conditions unforeseen at the time of the American Revolution caused the desire for slaves to increase. As a result, the end of slavery was not a slow march toward ultimate justice. Instead, slaves faced increasingly repressive conditions in the slave states, and the nation found itself in bitter dispute and ultimately war. How did the Bible play into this epic? What does the Bible say about slavery? How does that compare to the issue of gay marriage today? The answers might surprise you.

Often overlooked in secular history classes, two movements of God called the First and Second Great Awakenings took place in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Many people experienced conversion to Christianity, and many social reforms were started. Richard Reddie described the influence of these movements regarding slavery like this:

The main thrust of Christian abolitionism emerged from the evangelical revival of the 18th century, which spawned dynamic Christians with clear-cut beliefs on morality and sin and approached the issue of slavery from this standpoint. [2]

This “Great Awakening” fueled the “common man’s” denominations: Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecostals. The planter class, the economically dominant and ruling political class in parts of the south, belonged typically to more established denominations. The planter class also had the most vested interest in maintaining the status quo in regard to slavery. The Bible was thus distorted to make it conform to the belief that best served the planter class; the belief that Africans were somehow an inferior race condemned from Old Testament times to serve others. Pulpits in the mainline churches were owned by the wealthy in a sense. The new denominations struggled to find properly trained ministers. Many poor southerners were illiterate. Even if literate, few owned books. A Bible was a treasured possession in many families, yet to a large degree they were dependent on the interpretations of others to understand it. If poor whites went to school at all, it was for a few months per year. Superstition and false beliefs still held great sway. These conditions made it possible for some in the planter class to promulgate interpretations of Scripture that would keep slaves in check and keep poor whites, if they had any tendencies toward questioning slavery, in line.

We see, therefore, that it was not so much the lower classes of inferior-minded fundamentalist Christians who put their faith in an outdated book and fought tooth-and-nail to keep slavery. If anything, the religious revivals of the 18th and 19th century helped end slavery faster. Rather, it was the money-minded “beautiful people” who thought it was their civil right to keep their property without interference who tended to use Scripture to uphold slavery. In places where the common man lacked education, he largely bought into their superstition-based arguments. In places where education was more readily available for all, he did not.

While the Bible has been used to justify slavery in the past, the old arguments used to do so are not accurate. They are one part superstition and one part Bible. For example, the “mark of Cain,” thought by the ignorant to refer to black skin, and the cursing of Ham, Noah’s son, have to be completely removed from their textual context to support slavery and racism against people of African descent. Paul’s instructions regarding an escaped slave are not a theological defense of the practice of slave-owning. Paul, who wrote in Colossians that “our citizenship is in heaven” was concerned primarily with spreading the gospel as his life’s calling. In the brevity of this earthly life, he wished for reconciliation for the believing escaped slave and his believing master as Christians and as human beings. This fact alone differs from many large-scale slave owners who justified themselves by the belief that their slaves were not actual human beings like whites. Should Paul have instead advocated civil disobedience? Should Paul have been more concerned with social justice in this world rather than the world to come? Regardless of your belief about the answers to those questions, it is clear that Paul never advocated in any of his mentions of slavery that it was part of God’s plan from the beginning as a curse on a particular ethnicity.

Marriage, on the other hand, is clearly part of God’s plan from the beginning. Both the Old and New Testaments, as we have previously seen, are consistent in regard to the definition and sanctity of marriage. The Bible is crystal clear on this point. But what about the civil rights of gays and lesbians? Shouldn’t marriage be accessible to all? We will look at marriage as a civil right in next week’s posting.

[1] Duncan, William C., “Speaking Up for Marriage,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy V. 32, 2009.

[2] Reddie, Richard, “Atlantic Slave Trade and Abolition” 1-29-2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/slavery_1.shtml

“The idea that governments should define ‘marriage’ or give permission for marriage is inconsistent with the principles of liberty… A person’s union with another is no concern of the state.”

There are two problems with using the Libertarian viewpoint to oppose Amendment One. First, on May 8th we are not voting on whether the state will be removing itself from the arena of marriage. The state has been involved in the act of marriage for some time now and it would take a Libertarian revolution to remove it. From the simple act of getting a marriage license to the complexities of divorce child custody battles and tax laws, the state is inextricably linked to the institution of marriage. The Libertarian argument is in fact a pointless one. The question voters face regarding Amendment One is not whether a “person’s union with another” is a concern of the state. The question voters must answer is what will define “a person’s union with another” within the already-involved state. Nothing about Amendment One’s passage or rejection changes the level of involvement the state has with marriage. Marriage will still be defined by the state. Amendment One’s passage just ensures that marriage will be defined as between “one man and one woman” in the document most difficult for courts or legislators to tamper with, the state constitution.

The second problem with using the Libertarian viewpoint is that people tend to apply it only when it is convenient, omitting the definition of “liberty” that rides alongside the label “Libertarian”. This is misleading and unfair to the public. Few people actually accept the Libertarian definition of “liberty” with all of its implications because most people embrace the idea that certain institutions are crucial in a civilized society and deserve the support of the society. With support there comes a certain degree of regulation precisely because traditional social institutions like the family do not revolve primarily around individual rights, but rather are concerned with the complex social interactions that form the basis for a healthy civilization.

For an in-depth look at Libertarianism, you can check out Harvard University’s Justice Project, Episode Three at www.justiceharvard.org. Harvard Professor Mike Sandel, a wonderful teacher just to watch in action, points out that Libertarians oppose all “paternalistic” and “morals” legislation. Seatbelt laws are cited by Dr. Sandel as an example of paternalistic legislation. From the Libertarian Party’s 2010 party platform, found at www.lp.org/platform, we see an example of “morals” legislation Libertarians oppose. In the section labeled “Personal Privacy” the party clearly states its belief that drug use for recreational purposes is a “victimless” action and should therefore no longer be a crime. On the environment, Libertarians respect property rights as crucial to individual liberty, believing that the government should not intervene but let the market drive innovations that protect the environment. On education, the platform states that parents are the ultimate authority in their children’s lives and seem to suggest that if the state wants to provide money for education it should do so by giving funds straight to parents rather than by running public school systems. So while some are keen on the Libertarian position in regard to removing the state from involvement in marriage, would these same individuals also be willing to overturn North Carolina’s seat belt laws and drug laws, end mandatory recycling by law of aluminum cans and plastic bottles, and dismantle our public school system? Although I am an avid recycler, I find it almost laughable that few (true Libertarians notwithstanding) question government intrusion into our handling of household rubbish yet many see no problem with re-inventing marriage, society’s most enduring institution, to legitimize behavior that until 1973 was deemed a psychological abnormality by a non-religious association of medical professionals.

When the traditional definition of marriage is thrown out and marriage is “reengineered from a social institution into an individual entitlement,” to use William C. Duncan’s words, writing in the Whittier Journal of Child and Family Advocacy, the doors are thrown wide open for all types of “unions.” This sounds ridiculous, but it is true. While researching this post I accidentally ran across a headline from the Brussels (Belgium) Journal, September 26, 2005: “First Trio Married in the Netherlands.” Some of you are going to need to stop reading and google it right now because you just don’t believe me! It’s okay, go ahead. I would probably need to do it too; this headline just sounds too outlandish.

A few more mouse clicks took me to the date that the Netherlands legalized same-sex marriage, which was 2001. Four years after opting to look at individual rights instead of upholding long-held social constructs, the same government could not deny Victor de Bruijn his right to express his sexuality within a love commitment to both Bianca and Mirjam. I guess the libraries will have to order “My Two Mommies and One Daddy” picture books and Modern Family will need to put out a casting call. Where does it end?

The government has been involved with marriage in various ways for much of western civilization. The family has been viewed as the most important of all social units, its needs outweighing even the beloved American concept of “individual liberty.” Attacks on the sanctity of marriage such as no-fault divorce have harmed, rather than helped, society. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to remove government from the institution of marriage for many practical reasons. But what about the times government gets it wrong? What about the prohibitions against interracial marriage in the Jim Crow era? How do we know we’re not getting it wrong about gay marriage? Are we racist if we support Amendment One? We’ll look at these questions next time.

Even among those who place themselves in this latter group, a question often arises. Why do evangelicals today seem to “pick on” this one sin of homosexuality? What about grace? Aren’t we to live under grace and not the Law?

I have a fond and funny memory from one of those “vigorous” family conversations I wrote about last week. I was a new believer about 18 or 19 years old and I guess I must have been home from college on a weekend or a break. I came out of my bedroom after having my “Quiet Time,” our back-in-the-day expression for reading your Bible and praying in the morning. My parents were in the kitchen preparing our slightly unusual Saturday morning “big breakfast” of eggs, bacon, and white rice. I announced to them with joy that I was so glad the Law was over!! All I had to worry about was the Spirit! (Picture an overly enthusiastic and slightly arrogant blond teenage girl here.) I suppose I had been reading a verse such as Romans 7:6: “But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”

Immediately my dad shot back with one of his Dreaded Questions. “If that’s true then why did Jesus say He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it?” Now, my dad never asked one of his Questions unless he was about to prove you wrong about something. You knew at the outset that you would not be able to give a good answer to The Question. . Normally he had a merry light behind his eyes, but on this particular day dad’s expression was slightly stern, which mystified me. I suppose he was worried that I was about to join a cult or else throw all restraint to the winds and go wild on my college campus without the Law.

As usual, I had no answer for the Question. For the next fifteen or so minutes, my father--layman, Sunday School teacher, former football coach, educator, --took me on a little tour of the “whole counsel of God” regarding the relationship between Law and Grace. I will refer you to the books of Romans and Galatians for your own in-depth study, but below is a brief summary.

1. What is the Law?
   The Law is a comprehensive set of rules governing human behavior given to Moses at the time the Israelites were traveling from Egypt toward Canaan. It contained a huge ritualistic component regarding Jewish worship practices. The Ten Commandments are the basic overview of the moral law, summarized further by Jesus when he said “Therefore whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)


2. How does the Law relate to marriage?
   The Law allowed marriage between men and women, and also allowed divorce under certain circumstances. Almost all sex outside marriage was punishable by death, including homosexuality and adultery. Jesus invoked a higher standard than the written Law when he affirmed marriage between one man and one woman for life, but he showed mercy regarding the death penalty when he stopped the stoning of the woman caught in adultery.
   
   
3. What is grace?
   Grace is equated with the “free gift” of God that comes by Jesus Christ. (See Romans 5.) We are told that the “gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.” (Romans 5:15.) Grace is linked with the concept of justification (Romans 5: 5) and grace is also linked with salvation. (Ephesians 2:8-9) Grace is usually defined as “getting what we do not deserve” from God, as in we deserve punishment for our sins, but instead Jesus took our punishment and we receive salvation and all of its benefits simply by accepting the gift of salvation by faith.
   
   
4. How does grace relate to marriage?
   No basic standards of morality were rewritten for the “age of grace.” The intent of marriage at the time of creation remains the same for Christians under grace as it was for Jews under the Law.
   
   
5. What is the relationship between law and grace?
   The New Testament is clear that the purpose of the Law is to show us that we are sinners. Romans 5:20 states, “The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more.” Galatians 5:24 tells us that “the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. “ According to Romans 7:7, we would not know what sin was except through the law. The New Testament is also clear that our sin nature weakens and destroys our ability to obey the law, even if we want to, and therefore “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23.) Grace is thus the only agent that can save us Grace empowers us to live according to God’s standard through His Spirit dwelling in us after we have repented of sin and placed our faith in Christ. Grace is never a license to any form of immorality, or an excuse for it, as the following verses demonstrate.

• Romans 3:31: Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
• Romans 6:14: For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
• Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!
• Romans 10:4: Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Christ is the culmination, or fulfillment, of the law in that He is sinless (He kept the moral law perfectly ;) He is the sacrifice (He fulfilled the punishment due us as lawbreakers ;) and He has fulfilled literally what was performed under the Law as symbolic ritual, ending the need for such ritual in the future. The veil was torn and Jesus is the new High Priest sitting at the right hand of God, the work of salvation completed.

To be “under grace” is to accept by faith this work that Christ has performed. If we declare those things that God has called sin acceptable, we cheapen the cross of Christ and the high cost to God of the gift of grace that He gives us freely. This is why the evangelical church seems to “pick on” this particular sin. It is the one sexual behavior that has advocates pushing to redefine it within the church as acceptable behavior, running counter to what the Bible teaches.

To illustrate that point, let me relate a true story.

Every Sunday many of you enter our sanctuary and are greeted by Don and Myrtis Manus. In 1944, when Myrtis was just a baby, she lost her father James McRacken. He was an engineer, landing on the shores of Normandy on D-Day +3 and pushing toward the liberation of Paris from the Nazis with the Allied European forces. About half way between the coast and Paris, McRacken’s unit encountered the Germans in a little town called Mayenne. The town straddles a river with several bridges. The Germans had blown up all but the last and oldest bridge, and the charges were set to blow this bridge as well when the Allies entered the town. Somehow James McRacken, walking near the lead tank, sized up the situation quickly and made a decision that saved the Allies and the town, but cost him his life. He ran into machine-gun fire and cut the wires on the bridge, saving it from destruction. Like a scene from a movie, he cut the last wires as he was falling mortally wounded onto the bridge. His body lay on the bridge three days as the Allies pressed forward in the battle. Grateful townspeople covered McRacken’s remains with a sheet strewn with flowers. That bridge is today named the James McRacken Bridge. He is known as the “Savior of Mayenne” because according to the townspeople, the explosion from the bridge would have blown up half the town. Still, almost seventy years later, ceremonies are held annually to commemorate this event. McRacken was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions. There is a bronze memorial to him in Red Springs, NC, close to his childhood home in rural Hoke County, NC.

What if, a thousand years from now, someone revises long-accepted history by declaring that the Nazis really weren’t out to enslave and rule the world and the whole thing was just one big cultural misunderstanding? Would McRacken’s sacrifice be cheapened? Certainly. His death would be unnecessary. So it is with each and every human being, described in Colossians 1: 21 as being “alienated” from God and “enemies” of God. If sin is not sin, we are not really the enemies of God. Christ’s death, described as the act that “reconciles us” and “makes peace” between us and a holy God, would be unnecessary if we don’t agree with God’s standard of righteousness in the first place.

Homosexuality may appear to be singled out by evangelical churches when in reality these churches do have standards upholding all aspects of marriage. It’s just that no advocacy group is pushing for acceptance of marital infidelity by church leaders. No other group is trying to “rewrite the history” of God’s definition of correct sexual behavior.

But won’t the marriage amendment impose a religious belief on our secular society? We don’t live in a theocracy like ancient Israel. We will look at that issue next time.

My intellectual awareness grew more recently when the headmaster of our Christian school in Augusta brought in an educator several years ago who taught us about the classical model of education. I began to explore some of the aspects of classical education and found a little workbook that could teach middle school students something called “Logic.” Formal logic is pretty intense, but at the 8th grade level it is, well, at the 8th grade level. I have fond memories of cold and rainy January days, Christmas behind us and spring break a distant dream, when my students would give in to the fact that there was nothing else to do that day but school, and consequently little logic light bulbs would go off all over the classroom as we hit the workbook hard.

The fundamental principles of logic are simple. For an argument to be sound, it must be logically ordered as well as true in all of its points. Understanding this is important as we dive into the argument presented by Bishop Gene Robinson regarding a new modern understanding of homosexuality and the Bible. What Bishop Robinson said:

At the time Scripture was written, everyone was presumed to be heterosexual. And therefore to act in a same-sex fashion was to be acting against their nature. It was only in the late 1800s that it was scientifically posited that there may be a small minority of us who are drawn to the same gender. And so you can’t take a modern concept like sexual orientation and plug it back into an ancient scripture.
We interpret Scripture in the light of what we know today, and the trick, I think, is discerning what is culturally bound and what is eternally binding. I would say those proscriptions against same-sex intimacy had to do with that culture and not something so binding as, say, love your neighbor.

I think it is a fair summary of this argument to re-state it like this:

When the Bible was written, everyone was assumed to be heterosexual, therefore the commandment was given to be heterosexual, in keeping with “nature.”
Now we know through the “modern concept of sexual orientation” that everyone is not heterosexual, therefore the commandment prohibiting homosexual intercourse is null and void today.

Looking closely at the first statement of this argument, it seems clear to me that what Robinson is actually saying could be further broken down like this:

• The Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is dependent on an old cultural assumption.
• Old cultural assumptions are subject to change.
• The Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is therefore subject to change.

This argument is indeed logically ordered, but to make an educated decision about whether you agree with it or not you need to think through all of the implications of the first point and decide whether or not it is truth. If any part of an argument is untrue, the whole argument falls apart per the rules of logical thinking. Ask yourself this question: Did the moral code of behavior set forth in the Bible originate from cultural assumptions or from God? Ask yourself a further question: what traditional Christian beliefs about God must be denied in order to accept as truth that some commands given in the Bible were based on cultural assumptions? Can an omniscient Creator God not know His own creation at the outset? Would He need “modern science” to tell Him about the very beings He created? Was the Bible inspired or written purely by men containing some “binding” truths, to use the Bishop’s word? These are serious questions, because they help us understand that what Bishop Robinson has actually called into question is not love or inclusion or tolerance, but the authority of the Bible as the basis for our faith.

Now, some of you, like me, quickly began thinking about and wrestling with the fact that there are certain commandments that we do not obey literally today, and you are asking the question, “How is that different from what the Bishop is talking about?” Let’s examine the differences.

Any of the Old Testament ritual law that we do not keep today (food restrictions, circumcision, etc.) are not because we live in a different culture and a different day. These symbolic “setting apart” laws that were specific for the Jews were changed by God Himself as He revealed His New Covenant under Jesus (Christianity.) Both the institution of and the abandonment of these laws were done by God according to His own pre-determined plan, formed “from the foundation of the world.” We might dub these “covenant changes” rather than “cultural changes.” These changes are revealed in the Bible as we know it today and were revealed to the Apostles and early church fathers. As we saw last week, however, God did not choose to change ANY standard of sexual behavior with the covenant change except to point out through Jesus’ teaching that the spirit of the law was a higher standard than the Mosaic written law in regard to sexual and familial relationships.

In the case of some commandments, cultural or historical context does play a part, but never does it change the spirit of God’s standard on sexual morality and family relationships. For example, Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians that women should cover their heads when they pray is explained in the text (an important point, since the text is the first stop for all interpretation) through three images: a woman with a shaved head, a woman with glorious long hair, and a woman with a symbol of authority on her head. In that culture, we see from the text that to have a shaved head was “shameful.” Also in that culture, we know that to have your glorious long beautiful hair uncovered was a sign of loose morals: the sign of an adulteress. A woman with a “symbol of authority” on her head was a woman in a proper relationship with her husband and her society. The fact that the text itself uses the word “symbol” is important. This is not going to mean that the exact representation of the Corinthian veil (which was likely something simple like a shawl or scarf) has to be copied in every society and in every age. The underlying principle of the order God set up for the home, however, is unchanging regardless of hairstyles or head coverings. There is a subtle difference illustrated here between a specific means of obedience to God’s ordered plan for the family as opposed to the rejection of the command itself due to cultural context.

The conclusion I have drawn is that I cannot accept the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle and also believe that the Bible is inspired. I can logically accept one or the other, but not both. When I must choose, I have to recognize that the rejection of so much of the Bible’s content beginning to end would not leave me with enough confidence in what remains to base my life and faith on, so I find that if I believe God I must believe Him in all things. But why do we “pick on” this one sin? What about grace? Don’t we live in the “Age of Grace?” We will look at those questions next wee.

Leviticus 18: 22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” NKJV

The text is straightforward. We don’t need a historical context to understand the words, as can sometimes be the case with the Bible.

Next we want to look at other works by the same author to shed light on whether the author may have for some reason changed positions, as is the case with certain of the Old Testament requirements which were not placed on the Gentile Christian church. We are pre-supposing that the Bible is inspired. (2 Tim. 3:16) The implication is therefore that only God could change the Law according to His own purposes. It is also important to note that the canon of Scripture (the list of things that get into the Bible) is closed. There are no “new revelations” after the establishment of the New Covenant through the blood of Jesus Christ. So “other works by the same author” would be the rest of the Bible.

A partial listing of Scriptures related to human sexuality is below:

1. Genesis 1:27: So God created man in His own image; in the Image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

There are two distinct genders at creation.

     2.  Gen. 2:24: Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall    
          become one flesh.

Marriage between one man and one woman for life is established by God initially.

     3. Deuteronomy 24: 1-4: When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor
         in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts
         it in her hand, and sends her out of his house…

Divorce is introduced into the Old Testament law.
     4.  Matthew 5:17: “Do not think that I (Jesus) came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to
          destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will
          by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

Jesus affirms the Old Testament Law near the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5: 31-32 Furthermore it has been said (in the Old Testament law), “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” But I (Jesus) say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”

Jesus affirms the original standard of marriage in the Sermon on the Mount. The implication of this is enormous. In the New Testament, which introduces the New Covenant under Jesus, standards for sexual morality will be stricter, not looser. Ironically this teaching appears in the Sermon on the Mount prior to the oft-quoted “Judge not lest ye be judged.” We are not judge and jury, God is. With the arrival of Jesus, God as judge demonstrates His love by taking our punishment for sin upon Himself. The standard, however, if it has moved at all, has moved to a more rigid standard of righteousness than that found in the Old Testament Law. The standard is what God set forth at Creation; one man and one woman for life.

Matthew 19: 3- 9: The Pharisees came to Him (Jesus), testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Jesus is consistent with his earlier teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. In this passage we have one of the most important commentaries on the Old Testament Law regarding sexual morality. Jesus states that Moses (the Law) permitted divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts (emphasis mine.) In other words, it is not true that the Old Testament’s rules of moral behavior are harsher than the heart of God. It is not that God’s standard of righteousness is about to change with the arrival of Jesus on the scene. Indeed, when He references “the hardness of men’s hearts” Jesus tells us that the Old Testament law made allowances for man’s sinful nature and his inability to keep God’s highest standard of marriage for life. Allowances were also made under certain conditions for pre-marital sex. Adultery, incest, and homosexuality, however, receive no such allowance in the Law.

John 8: 11: “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

Jesus, after turning away the accusers preparing to stone the woman caught in adultery, spoke to the woman. He exercised mercy in refusing to stone her, which was the requirement under the Law, but He did not move the standard. Again, Jesus does not renegotiate the Law’s requirement of marital fidelity. He did not say, “Go…your behavior is not really sin.” He is, as God, able to forgive sin. He will accept the punishment for sin, demonstrating God’s love and mercy to the whole world. This incident is a personal, one-to-one encounter and also an archetype of God’s relationship to the world through Jesus. Paul will echo Jesus’ choice of words in Romans 8: “There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus…” Relationship with Jesus is about confession, renunciation, and forgiveness for sin, followed by supernatural empowerment to resist sin in the future. Jesus is not about removing all behavior standards. He consistently upheld a higher standard than even that found in the law.

Acts 16: 28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden that these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."

Peter’s vision of the unclean foods made clean by God revealed that Gentiles could be admitted into the infant Christian Church. The Apostles began to grasp that they were truly ministers of a “New Covenant,” not an add-on to Judaism. The early church, wrestling with expectations for Gentile believers, sought God and determined that certain Jewish ritual laws should not apply to the Gentiles. This would be an example of a text shedding light on an earlier text. God revealed a change in the Law as He was establishing a broader covenant that could encompass people from “every tribe, nation, and language.” Circumcision, a specific sign for descendents of Abraham, would not be required of Gentile believers. There would be no need for priestly rituals because the New Covenant is through the blood of Christ and there is no need for a priesthood to offer sacrifices. Christ “fulfilled the law” in this area. Certain dietary restrictions were removed as well.
Regarding sexual relationships, however, there is no such change from the Old Covenant to the New. The passage above, a letter to Gentile believers from church leaders, affirms that all Christians are to abstain from “sexual immorality.”

This would have been a perfect time for God to reveal that homosexuality was no longer going to be defined as “sexual immorality.” Homosexuality was rampant in the Greco-Roman world of these Gentile believers. Paul, having been in cosmopolitan Athens and Rome, certainly was aware that such a lifestyle existed. Both Peter and Paul were open to new revelation by God regarding the Law and Gentile Christians. Acceptance for homosexuality was never given to either apostle, despite the fact that homosexuality was present and accepted in the broader culture. It is Paul, arguably the most open-minded of all of the Apostles, who delivers the scathing indictment of pagan society found in Romans 1, stating that men “burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful.” Romans 1: 2. Clearly, the definition of sexual morality found in the Law remains for the New Testament Church.

With the canon of Scripture closed, with the clear affirmation by Jesus of the intent of marriage to be one man and one woman for life, and with no change in standards for sexual behavior given to the early church with its newly-accepted Gentile believers, we can only draw one conclusion. The Bible, if you accept it as the inspired Word of God, is clear from beginning to end that God’s standard for marriage is one man and one woman for life. But what about “modern times” and “modern science?” We will look at each point in Bishop Robinson’s argument next time.

Pastor Mark

No matter how fundamentalist we are, the fact of the matter is that we all interpret. It's important to understand that the Old and New Testaments came from a particular culture and period of scientific understanding. At the time Scripture was written, everyone was presumed to be heterosexual. And therefore to act in a same-sex fashion was to be acting against their nature…We interpret Scripture in the light of what we know today, and the trick, I think, is discerning what is culturally bound and what is eternally binding. I would say those proscriptions against same-sex intimacy had to do with that culture and not something so binding as, say, love your neighbor.[1]

Readers across the city sitting down with their coffee and Saturday paper surely had different reactions to the article. Some vehemently agreed with the Bishop’s views, some vehemently disagreed, and some took in his comments and the accompanying photograph of him in his bishop’s robes and wondered. A lot of people are wondering these days…

• Wondering if they are racist if they vote for the marriage amendment.

• Wondering if they will be judged, rather than judged not, if they vote for the marriage amendment.

• Wondering about books of the Bible like Leviticus and their relationship to the New Testament God of love and grace.

A lot of people are wishing, too. Wishing they didn’t have to think, or talk, or face, this issue. Wishing they didn’t have a family member whom they love who is gay. Wishing they didn’t have that “sensitivity” training at work that makes them start wondering again.

As Baptists, we have a long tradition of expecting our church members to think for themselves. Bishop’s robes are not supposed to impress us. We start colleges and run seminary campuses all over the country. We bring our Bibles with us and in Sunday School we discuss what’s in them. We know we can’t wish away issues. We understand that we have to think about them and figure out the truth. For the sake of argument, and since the comments in question were given by someone representing the Episcopal church, let’s agree that we are discussing this as Christians, within the context of a belief system set forth in a book, the Bible.

The argument given by many people today, including Bishop Robinson, is that the Biblical injunction against same-sex relationships is passé. It is part of that Old Testament group of detailed “laws” such as “Thou shalt not eat shrimp” that are no longer relevant under the New Testament. What we believe about this is critical, because this belief determines whether or not we define homosexuality as sin, as unnatural, as a perversion of sexuality or instead as an acceptable means of expressing it.

The premise underlying this argument is revealed by Robinson when he asserts that “we all interpret.” (emphasis mine.) As the child of a devoted literature teacher and as a former teacher myself, the word “interpret” makes me quake in my boots. It is a truly scary word. Like a fool kid pointing daddy’s gun around in jest, people often toss the word about with no sense of responsibility.

Traditionally, interpretation of any written work hinges mainly upon two things: what the words say and what we know about the author. The historical context plays a role, but not the primary role. When poet William Wordsworth asserts that he treasures the memory of a field of daffodils, we can be pretty confident he would feel the same way today even though the English hillside may have changed. He said he loved them (text), and he was a nature-lover in his own personal character (author.)

This is a crucial point. We don’t get to make up interpretation based on our own context. Interpretation always starts with what the text says. This is not as obvious as it sounds. We’ve all probably been asked at some point in some Bible study discussion group, “What do you think this (Scripture) means? The loaded gun just got pointed around the room again. “What does this Scripture mean to you?” is the more appropriate and entirely different question. For example, Psalm 19: 7 means what it clearly states, that “the Law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul.” The text is direct and indisputable. What it means to me today may be that I need to confess my neglect of my Bible study, realizing that I am slowing the transformation of my mind by my laziness. So we have to consider what the whole Bible says, not just Leviticus, and determine how clearly and directly the author’s words speak to the question of homosexuality.

You’ve no doubt just recognized a difficulty. When dealing with the Bible, who is the author? Is it God or the men who actually wrote the words? Again for the sake of argument, let’s accept the Bible’s own statement about itself that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Tim. 3: 16. God, therefore, is the real author of the Bible. Now we know what questions to ask. When we examine sexuality in light of all the words in the Old and New Testament, and in light of the character of God, what truth can we discern regarding homosexuality? Is the truth what the Bishop states, that homosexuality was part of the Old Testament law that has changed with the New Testament and modern times? Or is the truth that the whole of Scripture agrees that same sex relationships are sin? We will examine that question next.

-Beth Harris

[1] http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/04/2980698/the-bishop-of-inclusion.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy---.”