Tag Archives: DOMA

Religion and Politics

By Whose Authority?

2 Comments

The Supreme Court knew that a furor would surround its decisions about the definition of marriage, and it is reasonable to assume that a desire to avoid being engulfed in that furor led the court to delay releasing those decisions as long as possible. There has been a great deal of furor already, and Justice Kennedy was even sucked into some of that excitement when California chose to jump the gun on the implementation of the Prop 8 decision.

The Supreme Court’s choice of cases that dealt with the subject of the definition of marriage was obviously intended to settle some things in the nationwide debate on the subject. One thing the Supreme Court did not say was that the federal government would require all states to authorize and recognize homosexual unions as “marriages.” The Prop 8 decision affected the marriage definition only in California, and the DOMA decision only required the federal government to recognize, for purposes of benefits administration, homosexual marriages authorized by any state.

Troubling as these decisions are, an announcement by the President soon after the court decision was released is even more troubling. The headline read “Obama promises not to force churches to perform gay marriages.” The President said. “How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.” This statement is troubling, because the Constitution specifically protects churches in their right to exercise the teachings of their faith. The president has no constitutional power to interfere with churches on the subject of marriage or any other teaching. Obama’s statement is unnecessary, unless he himself believes it is necessary. He could only believe it is necessary if he also believes he has the power and the right to tell churches that they must perform gay “marriages.”

Christians who read the news attentively will see immediately the broad implications of the statement.

The most contentious issue between Christians and the federal government in recent months has been the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act. In the lawsuits centered on this mandate, the federal government has said that individuals lose their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religion the minute they engage in commerce, whether as a sole owner or in a corporation. The only conscience exemption allowed is for the business operations of a house of worship. That definition is almost certainly the definition the president had in mind when he made his announcement about weddings.

However, the fact that he feels he must say such a thing makes it clear that he can conceive of such an order. What’s more, the statement makes it clear that he thinks he has the authority to make such an order and that he is showing admirable restraint by not issuing it.

What happens when he changes his mind? President Obama has changed his mind on any number of things during his presidency. His views are always evolving. What happens when he decides that he cannot tolerate the unwillingness of some churches to consecrate gay marriages? What happens when the LGBT activists wear down his reluctance to exercise what he clearly believes is his rightful power to compel churches to consecrate gay “marriages?”

The question of authority has been a very real question with this president. The Constitution as written does not empower the president to do use executive orders to accomplish objectives that the Congress refused to enact as law, yet this president does it almost every day. It is much more difficult to claim and defend the protection of the First Amendment against a government which has abandoned all pretense of operating according to the Constitution. The obvious first act is to pray for the protection of all religions from the federal juggernaut. However, Christians need to put feet on these prayers and stay alert to the news. They must let their elected officials, and especially their Representatives and Senators, know that religious liberty must be preserved. Advocacy for religious liberty must include not only the right of churches to consecrate weddings according to their teachings, but also the right of every individual to refuse to participate in weddings that violate their religious convictions.

It isn’t a mystical experience to write a letter to your Congressman, but it is an act of Christian discipleship. If this government were a dictatorship, there would be nobody to whom citizens could appeal for protection from the dictator. Until such time as the government completely abandons the façade of a republic, we must assume that some constitutional rights and powers are still vested in the people. Pray. Write. Live faithful to the truth. Reject autocratic assumption of power outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Pray like your church depended on it. It does.

 

Religion and Politics

What the Supreme Court Decision on DOMA Actually Means

4 Comments

The homosexual couples who are celebrating that DOMA is ruled unconstitutional should take a little time later today to think about what it means when a federal law can be ruled unconstitutional by revising the definition of a word which has had a single meaning since the first humans appeared on earth. If the meaning of the word “marriage” changes, because five justices want it to change, because they have a social agenda, and if the social agenda of Supreme Court justices agenda trumps the Constitution, then we do not live in a constitutional republic any longer.

It is not a first principle of Christian faith that people must live in a constitutional republic. The first principle of Christian faith is Christ — crucified, buried, risen and ascended to heaven. Christians have lived as Christians under all sorts of governments. Christians gratefully receive forgiveness from their sins through Christ and serve him faithfully. Our first allegiance in all choices is Christ, but our allegiance to him does not require us to overthrow governments that are not constitutional republics.

However, until recently, Christians thought that, as citizens of the USA, they did live in a constitutional republic. They believed that the Constitution meant what the plain language of the document means, and they just naturally assumed that all other language considered against the frame of reference of the Constitution would be considered in accord with the plain meaning of plain language.

No longer. By court fiat, a definition of the word “marriage” which has been the definition since the first humans appeared on earth, a definition that has been consistent in all cultures at all times in all places, has suddenly been revised. For all the time of human history, marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman. By an act of the Supreme Court, that word means something else today. We don’t even know what it means, because in doing away with the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the court leaves the definition empty. The word “marriage” now means nothing, at least in the court of US law.

A lot of homosexuals think that everything in this post is homophobic. That is not the right word. This post is grief. Grief at the death of the late, great USA, and grief at the end of marriage and family as we have known it. Most profoundly, it is grief that there is no longer any basis on which to assume that any right or freedom of human beings is protected by the Constitution, because as of today, the words in the Constitution mean whatever the court decides they mean on any given day.

The real horror that lies ahead is not, therefore, whether gays can “get married” or “be married.” The real horror is what happens next. Christian know that in politics, some people win and some people lose. If it were simply a matter of acceding to a political loss, Christians would be sad, but not crushed. Unfortunately, in states where “gay marriage” has already come to pass, suits are being filed that tell the story. A florist is being sued, because she exercises her faith, which specifies that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, by refusing to participate in something her religion defines as sin. A school is being sued, because they exercise their faith by rejecting the application of a child with two male parent, something considered to be sin in their religion. People with religious convictions who want to live their religious convictions may well be required to go along with the “gay marriage” idea whether or not it conflicts with their faith. Contrary to public statements on the matter, when the definition of “marriage” changes, everything changes.

For now, Christians continue to believe what they believe and to state their beliefs. That may not be true very much longer. Gay couples think this is fine and a well-deserved reproach to Christians. They should be very sure to remember one thing: if the Supreme Court can simply redefine a word as ancient as “marriage” it can certainly redefine other words that specify other social and political issues dear to the hearts of everyday citizens. Speech. Assembly. Search. Due Process. These words can be redefined by declaration. Beware.

Religion and Politics

Defining Our Terms: “Marriage” and “Religious Liberty”

You may or may not have seen this headline somewhere recently:
Tenn Bill would permit student counselors to reject clients based on religious beliefs 

This article discusses a problem which previously made national news in Michigan when a student in a counseling program refused to accept homosexual couples as clients. The bill being proposed in Tennessee will protect the rights of students in counseling programs who reject clients because the goals, outcomes and behaviors of the prospective clients conflict with the religious views of the counselor. 

Or this headline:
Florist refuses gay couple’s wedding due to her ‘relationship with Jesus Christ’ 

This article includes a comment by the state Attorney General for the state where the florist shop is located. The AG says, “If they sell flowers to any other opposite sex couple, they must sell flowers to a same-sex couple.”  

Maybe you saw this headline:
New Mexico Supreme Court hears appeal by photographer in gay bias case 

A photography studio refused to photograph a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple on the grounds that the union conflicted with the religious convictions of the owners and that to be compelled to produce such images would violate their right to express their convictions through their art. 

Perhaps you saw this one:
RI marriage equality bill may hinge on extent of religious exemptions

There is general agreement that the law may not compel clergy or religious leaders to officiate at a ceremony that conflicts with their religious convictions. However, opponents to same-sex marriage are proposing  a religious exemption that would permit private businesses as well as religiously connected organization to decide for themselves if they will recognize gay marriage or not. The inclusion of private employers makes this exemption unacceptable to most supporters of gay marriage. 

These four articles are selected from what is becoming a blizzard of cases and legislation arising because of political activism by the LGBT community. (I normally avoid initials and acronyms with a passion, but this is the way this community identifies itself. If that is their preference, then I will accede to it.) The four articles look at two terms that are at the center of the rising pressure from the LGBT community. The terms are marriage equality and religious liberty.

The LGBT community wants to use the term marriage to mean the union of homosexuals as if it were the normal definition of marriage. According to this community, they have a right to redefine marriage this way because marriage is a civil right, and that is at the root of their activism in the name of marriage equality.

The LGBT community includes Christians as well as atheists and other religious persuasions, but the community, including its Christian members, uses a completely secular definition of religion in its attitude toward religious liberty. The HHS definition of “religious employer” in the regulations enacting the Affordable Care Act best states where the LGBT activists draw the line for the religious liberty to reject and refuse to participate in the homosexual agenda. In that narrow view, religion is what happens in houses of worship where the acts of worship and the teaching of how to do it take place. This very secular view of religion disallows any notion that a Christian commits to a way of life by virtue of simply being a Christian. The idea that a Christian who runs a store or a doctor’s office is obligated by his faith to act according to Christian values is rejected by secular thinkers.

If someone believes that marriage means whatever we choose to say it means, and if someone believes that marriage is a civil right, then it follows as night follows day that it is okay to say that an agreement by two homosexuals is a marriage and that in the name of marriage equality they should be granted all the same rights, the same benefits, and the same privileges any other married couple has. If someone believes that religion only happens within a church building where one might engage in worshiping a deity or in learning how to worship the deity, then it just makes sense that one would say that a for-profit business such as a flower shop, a photography studio or a corporate board of directors does not engage in religion and does not express religion.

Not one of the men who served in the Continental Congress or who helped to write the Constitution would agree with anything in the paragraph above. When they wrote the First Amendment, they believed that religious principles permeated the lives and work of believers. It certainly permeated the lives of those men. They would be completely dumbfounded to hear that the federal government says that nothing religious happens in a for-profit enterprise. They would be shocked to discover that not only are homosexuals allowed to marry in the chapel at West Point, but that the academy requires that the chapel host homosexual weddings if asked.

On March 26 and 27, the Supreme Court will host oral arguments on two cases that will have immense impact on all these stories. The Supreme Court may or may not take ownership of the definition of marriage. The two cases cover the issue of the constitutionality of a state’s attempt to prevent gay marriage and the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act which attempted to prevent any redefinition of marriage in the federal realm. This case is very important for the definition of marriage, but it will not likely speak to the issue of religious liberty. There are a number of lawsuits in the works relating to the exercise of religious principle relative to the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act and relative to the rights of business owners who reject being any part of a homosexual ceremony or union. The cultural and legal battles will likely continue for years.

Today the Denison Forum reported on the issue of the negative portrayal of Christians in the media, and Jim Denison asked what Christians should do about this. His question applies just as appropriately to the questions about marriage and religious liberty. What are Christians to do? He proposed prayer and even kicked off a prayer campaign among his commenters. This is exactly the right way to think about this problem. First we pray.

Too often Christians wait until they have tried everything else before they pray. They engage in social and political activism, they tell their neighbors, they tweet, they phone, they email, and when the problem continues to escalate and they cannot think of anything to do, then they pray in desperation, “Oh, God, Help us!”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a great little book about Psalms in which he reminded his readers that Psalms was Jesus’ prayerbook. What’s good enough for Jesus is good enough for us. One way to change your perspective on a psalm is to look at a problem in the culture, for example, the assault on marriage and family, and pray the psalm the way Jesus might pray it if faced with the same problem. You can enter into the psalm, pray the psalm and learn from Christ as you pray.

 

Try praying Psalm 53 below as your prayer for guidance in the culture war to save marriage and family from destruction. Substitute your state name and “USA” for the words “Jacob” and “Israel.” Remember that if Jesus prayed this psalm, he was perfect, but we are not. We are made righteous by Christ’s righteousness which we receive because of his death on the cross. Humbly acknowledge where your righteousness in this conflict comes from, and think of all parties to the conflict as Jesus would. Jesus is the one, you remember, who prayed “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” as he was being nailed to the cross. If you are not comfortable with this psalm, find a different one.  

 

1     Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they commit abominable acts;
there is no one who does good.
2     God looks down from heaven on humankind
to see if there are any who are wise,
who seek after God.
3     They have all fallen away, they are all alike perverse;
there is no one who does good,
no, not one.
4     Have they no knowledge, those evildoers,
who eat up my people as they eat bread,
and do not call upon God?
5     There they shall be in great terror,
in terror such as has not been.
For God will scatter the bones of the ungodly;
they will be put to shame, for God has rejected them.
6     O that deliverance for Israel would come from Zion!
When God restores the fortunes of his people,
Jacob will rejoice; Israel will be glad. 

Leave a comment please and let me know what this experience meant for you. Or let me know any other thoughts God gives you about what we can do to participate in God’s work of preserving his plan for marriage and family and for preserving the right he gave every person to live by faith.