An article by AdvanceUSA, in which I interviewed for, was published today. I will lift two quotes as something I think speaks to today's decision. The first quote does not address the decision directly but I hope it will speak to how I approach these type of public policy issues. The second quote does not specifically analyze the California decision but it does share my views on marriage.
Exodus has been on record as opposing the redefinition of marriage, the use of hate crimes legislation to suppress freedom of conscience and religious liberty as well as ENDAÂ, the corporate version of hate crimes. ENDA is another example of the state forcing a state sanctioned sexual morality at the expense of religious liberty.
Exodus has only been involved in these public policy battles for the past five years and while we have very strong beliefs, I think it is a mistake for Christians to believe that Joe Solomnese, a gay identified man in charge of the HRC (largest gay lobby in the world) wants to proverbially burn Christians at the stake. While he has been dismissive of my life and testimony, I choose not to be dismissive of his because I once believed as he does. My only desire was to live in a homosexual relationship.
Regardless of morality, emotional and relational investments run deep. As a gay man I paid taxes and was an American citizen. I believed in the HRC and yet I had no desire to hurt or deny Christians their civil liberties. I think most gay identified people donât either. There are some who want Christians to be punished for what they perceive as bigotry and may use this legislation to do so. That is why these policies must be opposed. At the same time, I would remind Christians to not fear. We do not ignore public policy threats and do our best to serve our âopponentsâ with dignity and grace.
Humans like to actually try to assert reason, for the most part. We should take a look at what the HRC is saying and doing. Then we should oppose outright falsehood, address common concerns and all the while assert civility and reasonableness. While many militant gay activists are irreconcilable, the other 98% will recognize true civility and will respect you even if they strongly disagree.
So, back to the context of today's decision. It is not surprising that this is how the court case turned out. While I do not agree with them and will do what I can to help counter efforts (if asked or in other venues.) I have no ill will toward those claiming victory tonight. I oppose bad public policy for public policy and spiritual reasons and have not and will not take it personally or make it into a personal attack.
I have and am learning from my previous attempts at public policy. The one thing I do want to emphasize as a result of today's decision is that there isn't any reason to be swayed by the polarity of what might be presented on TV.
I was talking to a friend yesterday about how I talk about issues like this, with complete strangers, on planes all the time (because I am that talkative person.) Not once have I ever gotten into an awkward or angry argument. Even when someone is completely opposed to my positions … it's always been a great conversation. I know that civil dialog is possible because I see it quite often…. but not usually on cable news or most blogs.
Finally, here is my quote about marriage in the same article as linked above:
We believe that marriage is a unique institution created by God for the benefit of all mankind. Male and female both reflect God perfectly and uniquely in their own right as distinct genders. When a man and woman come together as one in the Holy covenant of marriage, they bear the Image of God as âoneâ in a way that neither can do alone. Often this results in the birth of children who then bear the image of both parents and yet are complete individuals in their own right. To purposefully remove Mom or Dad or intentionally reproduce in order to divorce a child from their biological parents is a disservice to an institution that has been the foundation of our great society and other great societies throughout time.
This is not just a problem within the homosexual community; it is also a much bigger problem within the heterosexual community when the institution of marriage is abused by lightly entering into it, dismissing it altogether, or fleeing toward divorce instead of taking responsibility to uphold their wedding vows.
I think we are shown to be hypocrites when we denounce Rosie¹s gay marriage and say nothing about Christian couples divorcing at embarrassing rates for embarrassing reasons. Only being against something doesn¹t work. We must show the beauty and mystery of biblical marriage. It is an amazing gift to be treasured and people do not understand how awesome it was created and intended to be.
You stated that we do not choose homosexuality and at first...
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
It has been my expectation for some time now that more and more states will legalize gay marriage, so it is something that American society and the church is going to have to get used to and live with. Personally I believe civil unions should be an option for all citizens but for the states to decide, while marriage should be left to the church, but then we have the whole difficult question of federal tax breaks, social security benefits, etc. Christians can’t bury their heads in the sand and expect it to go away, and we can’t live with hatred towards those who marry or who believe differently. but we can continue to be salt and light to the world. Christ will do the work; we are just messengers and ambassadors.
Well, we’ve been working on passing a constitutional amendment to reverse this…the ruling wasn’t exactly a surprise to anyone (remember CA gets the Ninth Circuit with all its wacky rulings, too). When prop 22 passed in the first place it was by over 60% (I think, I was like 12 at the time, but I remember the editors of the Pasadena newspaper combed the San Gabriel Valley and only found one yard w/ a ‘vote no on 22 sign’), so I’m cautiously optimistic about that.
Very thoughtful response. Thank you Jeff.
That is interesting and I think there is a lot to be optimistic about…but is this going to lead to a constitutional crisis? … on the state level and eventually federal level?
Well, theoretically amending the state constitution shouldn’t cause an intra-state constitutional crisis. Federal, conceivably because of full faith and credit if a couple from Massachusetts (or another state if they legalize gay marriage) comes here and challenges the Constitution. Then it would go to the Federal Supreme Court and who knows what will happen. I think the general hope is the “California is the leading indicator for the rest of the country” theory will hold true and the amendment will have some kind of domino effect.
Did you change the color of the background of your header to black?
Ok, prop 22 passed by 61.4%. And 1.1 million signatures were collected for the petition to place the marriage amendment on the ballot (in 90 days, rather than 150). Currently they are awaiting verification.
This will not stand. The majority of Californians are opposed to this and, thank God, we have the initiative process in California to undo it. Its not something we have to accept or get used to.
Ted
Hi Ted. Good to see you again.
) I”ve wrestled with this ever since being more public about policy. I refuse to be completely silent, there is nothing biblical about being disengaged from the public square in the face of opposition. Prophetic truth, honoring God and redeeming Grace are inseparable. But how do you all of that when it’s so easy to just have yet another policy battle to focus on?
What do you think would be a good thing to do beyond overturning this? My theory is that public policy battles over gay ideological concerns are only manifestations of deeper social/cultural issue. The culture war has always only been about the manifestations and not the source of those manifestations.
As I mentioned in my post, marriage in and of itself is being torn apart in every facet of society. In fact the apathy and abuse by most of the heterosexual community has been and is more of a threat to marriage than the gay community (my personal opinion.)
Now this argument doesn’t take away from my stand against redefining marriage. It co-exists and does not negate.
So Ted, I have no doubt the initiative will make the ballot and succeed but what do you do after that? What do you do when millions of gay identified people look at Christians as aliens who don’t understand? … when the only view they have is us being against a policy move?
That isn’t rhetorical ( for the most part
Anyone… feel free to jump in on that.
What do you think would be a good thing to do beyond overturning this?
Well, first things first. When the boat is sinking plug the hole first, then bail out the water later (Is that a good analogy? Im not sure).
Anyway,you make some good points about the apathy and abuse in the heterosexual community also being a threat to marriage.
As far as gay identified people looking at Christians as aliens who dont understand, Im not sure a whole lot can be done about that. The way I see it
we are supposed to stand up for what is right and not be too concerned about the consequenes, God will take care of that.
As long as gay identifed people refuse to admit that their lifestyle is sinful, they will probably view Christians that way.
People like you are the best hope of getting through to them, but unfortunately
I dont think your message is all that well received in the gay identified community. Is it?
“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” John 3:20
I think the general hope is that the Christian community can start working on the divorce rate, but then a huge part of that battle equals repealing the laws that made getting divorced ‘easy’ in the first place. The problem with marriage and divorce is that they are legal expressions of a social institution: adjust the law, and the social institution is adjusted as well. Even though the changes in divorce law were made to reflect the personal desire of many people to get divorced (this basically goes straight to the WWII generation, which set itself up for huge increases in the divorce rate by getting married [on average] at twenty, with large percentages of the population marrying in high school, and most getting married before they graduated from college. The likelihood of divorce goes way up for people who are under the age of 22 when they marry, and for people who marry but don’t have a college degree [most female co-eds who married dropped out of college after that]. This extended the period of higher divorce rates that usually follows war well into the sixties and seventies, and the following generations are still expriencing the impact of it) they have allowed even more people to feel justified in getting divorced. It’s this complicated cycle that causes the personal to affect the legal, which then affects the personal.
Randy, I like the questions you are asking in these comments (and like your quote on marriage, although I disagree with it).
Ted, to respond to your answer to Randy-
You said, “As far as gay identified people looking at Christians as aliens who dont understand, Im not sure a whole lot can be done about that. The way I see it we are supposed to stand up for what is right and not be too concerned about the consequenes, God will take care of that.
As long as gay identifed people refuse to admit that their lifestyle is sinful, they will probably view Christians that way.”
I guess my issue lies in the kind of us vs. them response. You are asking for gay people to admit they are sinful, but I didn’t see you ask divorcees to admit their sexual ethics are sinful as well. While I certainly don’t see Christians as “aliens,” I can tell you that this is an issue I deal with.
When I came out to my dad, and he told me I was sinning and needed to get out of my sin, I had a hard time listening to it, knowing that he and my mother divorced because they could not get along and both remarried. Biblically, he is living a life that is sinful, but when I asked him about that, he explained it away (as does the church in large part).
Anyway, this is getting long, but I feel like when a community tells another, “you are sinful, and until you admit that, we won’t have common ground,” there just won’t ever be any common ground, especially when the first community isn’t necessarily addressing similar issues among themselves.
I think Randy’s quote does a good job of addressing that.
Very good. I was talking with some friends a few years ago and they laid out a full history of how marriage has been on the decline for decades now. “No Fault” divorce was a huge milestone in undermining marriage.
Well, it’s a good analogy but the thing about analogies is they can easily have holes shot through them …
DOH!
Some would say the ship has already sunk and we are all already in a bunch of different life boats seeking to survive. I completely agree with standing up for what is right but I am also concerned about the consequences. Sure, I am not God and haters will be haters but… I think you can be concerned about the consequences.
Interestingly, when I talk to gay identified people in private or face to face, we always have good conversations. I can count on both hands the number of times, in 16 years, that an offline or private conversation went completely sour and they rejected me outright.
Your statement, “As long as gay identified people refuse to admit that their lifestyle is sinful, they will probably view Christians that way…” to me is talking past the common humanity we share and seems distant…almost dehumanizing.
Plus, I was a Christian who thought Christians were aliens for a very long time. Even today, while I love my Family in God, Christian culture often baffles me.
I was going to write more, but I ran out of time. I think the reason Christians haven’t started in on divorce is because it seems like we need to stop the tide of radical legislation (i.e. gay marriage) before we can go back and start un-doing the old damage. The interesting thing is that the poor state of heterosexual marriage actually is a big part of the reason the whole gay marriage issue has developed the way it has (I think Boundless has written a couple of articles explaining the wherefores, but I’m too lazy to search for them). People don’t have a correct view of marriage anymore, including their own, and so they have a hard time looking at marriage without some moral confusion. I also think that there’s a huge issue with altering divorce laws, in that everybody complains about how high the divorce rate is, but they also either have gotten divorced, or would like to keep that option open. It will be very hard to convince people that these laws need to change. Which is where ‘reaching hearts and minds’ comes in: these policies can’t be altered unless we convince people, on a personal level, that they need to be changed. The problem is that the policy perpetuates the personal, and will continue to unless it is reversed. And this is why I’m somewhat wary of political cures for things (even though I’m giving you all the stats on this political issue right now, I’ve actually pulled back from following politics too closely over the past few years).
There’s actually a really interesting book called “From Front Porch to Back Seat: A History of Courtship in Twentieth Century America,” by Beth L. Bailey (Johns Hopkins: 1984, I think) which details the rise of dating (i.e. the modern way of figuring out who we’re going to marry). It also has a lot in it about modern views of gender roles which is really interesting, although you have to read between the lines a little because it’s not her main subject. Boundless published the first chapter or so a couple of years ago. If you search for her name you can find it.
Good, I am glad you like the conversation. The one thing about your comment that I would like to speak to is your paraphrase of Ted wrapped in quotes “…is the you are sinful, and until you admit that, we won’t have common ground…”
I don’t think that is exactly what Ted said. Close but not quite. Regardless, gay identified people, especially some activists, are quick to point out my sins. They use different verbiage but basically they spend their whole time blogging about how if I were truly a good ex-gay then I should do this and do that, or speak to this or not speak to that. Until I do …there is no common ground.
That’s fine, I don’t have to talk to everyone and they don’t have to talk to me.
Those demanding absolute terms on one or ten issues aren’t the only arbiters of discussion. Plus, I hold to the truth that people are far more complex than what they usually limit themselves too. Seriously… and I am talking to me just as much as anyone in general. If a person wants to find some sort of “ground” to have common discussions on (in agreement or no) … they can find it.
Plus, I am getting tired of the “common ground” metaphor too. It’s nice to be of like mind but people who aren’t can still get a LOT accomplished when it comes to civility and a common pursuit of truth.
That said, personality conflicts, personal history… sometimes dialog just doesn’t work and you need to move on. It’s all very complicated but worth it. At least it has been so far in my experience.
Thanks for adding these thoughts. I agree with all of them and thank you for the references as well.
[...] already made my views about marriage known and right now I don’t really have a desire to reiterate them again. I am posting this [...]