US Supreme Court Ruling - Gay Marriage, Part 2

Note...The first was part posted on July 14, 2015.


For various reasons church goers are rip victims for spreading rumors and false stories. One example is a recent thread that emerged immediately after the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriages. The stories revolve around clergy are being sued for refusing to perform gay marriages. Others suggest that hundreds or even thousands of such lawsuits will soon be forthcoming. The “gays” are out to destroy the church so some reactionaries have claimed.


Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling granting gay marriage, any clergy acting as a religious official and place of worship could decline to marry anyone for whatever reason. Since the founding of the nation religious officials have had the right not to conduct a wedding of people who are not of that particular faith. Clergy still have that same right today. They could refuse to marry members who the minister feels one or both parties do not uphold a standard of faith that religious community and minister expect in the lives who that church marries. Clergy have that same right today.


A minister could and still can refuse to marry interfaith marriages. A minister could and still has the right to refuse to marry a couple who have not gone through premarital classes, or who as a result of those classes the minister feels are not compatible, or who in the mind of the minister are getting married for a wrong reason or that they are not “ready” to be married.


A Jewish rabbi has never been required to marry a Christian couple, and still can refuse doing so today. An Amish minister still has the right to refuse to marry the most godly young Methodist couple you know just because they are not Amish. The court ruling has not changed a thing, including a minister refusing to marry a gay couple. No church last year could be forced by law to allow its sanctuary and building a Buddhist wedding. The same holds true today. A church can still only permit weddings in its sanctuary that are conducted, assisted or sanctioned by its clergy conducts.


While rational calm religious leaders recognize the above, conservative political leaders (including church leadership who are highly politically engaged) have proposed “religious exemption” clauses to protect clergy, a protection that already exists. Stories of lawsuits are becoming rampant, and at times promoted by religious and political leaders, does not speak well for the state of the church.  


Some politicians and religious leaders are seeking to apply the argument of “religious liberty” and “freedom of conscience” to include people who are outside church related positions who may have a moral or religious objection to providing in some manner services to any person or couple who is living in a manner to which the service provider has an objection. The various legislations of objection are being drafted to encompass government officials, businesses and private individuals.


I find the “religious liberty” position most perplexing. It seems that these individuals are ultimately arguing against laws that serve to protect the faith community as a whole, including conservative Christians. They are seeking to dismantle safeguards that protect their freedom of worship and belief. The very laws that require a Christian who is to serve all citizens as a county clerk by issuing wedding licenses to all legally eligible applicants is the same law which protects that clerk’s spouse, son or daughter from being refused a position at a business based upon the clerk’s spouse’s or offspring’s religious beliefs.


If the clerk or a retail employee has the “religious right” to decline service to gay couple, or a Muslim, then it stands to reason that a private business owner then has the right to enquire into the religious beliefs of a potential employee during the hiring process (which is not currently permitted by federal and state laws). The employer would want to enquire into the belief system of all applicants so as to ensure that that those who are hired will not withhold services to particular clients.


If a business owner does not want to turn away business from people who are gay or Muslim or Buddhist or atheists will want to ensure that each employee’s views will help ensure that they will provide gracious service to such individuals. Hence, in the years to come a person may well feel uncomfortable in hiring conservative Christians who may well not feel comfortable serving such individuals the business serves.


Would the “religious exemption” create the ground for a school administrator to refuse to hire a Christian teacher whose church is against gay marriage because the teacher will have in the upcoming year a student or two who have two dads or two moms? Is it not possible that under “religious exemption” that the school’s administration could claim that the school could not risk the teacher’s beliefs and feelings about gay marriages and families (or other religions) being reflecting in the teacher’s dealings with the student and the student’s parents.  


The constitutional liberties which allow artists to create nude paintings or sculptures guarantee that Christians can stand on a street corner evangelizing. The same public accommodation laws that ensure service to all without discrimination ensures that I will not be turned away from a place of service because the proprietor’s beliefs conflict with mine.


Over the last three decades surveys continually indicate Christians as a whole, as well as practicing conservative Christians, are a diminishing segment in our society. The protections which that will safeguard a Christian minority from discrimination in public accommodation as well as their worship protects Jews, Muslims, atheists, gays and others who are minorities from undue discrimination. 


Christians need to give pause to making legislative changes which ultimately protects their freedoms.

US Supreme Court Ruling - Gay Marriage, Part 1

Since the United States Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage I’ve found the reactions within the Christian community, particularly within the more conservative wing, to be an expected reaction. Yet on another I’ve been perplexed and disappointed by various arguments, statements and suggested plans. I’ve been most troubled how quickly false and misleading “news stories” have popped up and quickly making the rounds within religious communities, being told and retold, posted and reposted as being true.

 

A prime example is a “hate literature” lawsuit against Zondervans being recast on the net and making its way around the churches. One version of the story casts faults the Obama administration for creating the grounds of the lawsuit. The story is false yet is flies around the church community as if it is fact. First, the lawsuit was filed during the Bush administration in 2007.  Second, anyone can file a lawsuit put forth any argument they wish, but that doesn’t mean the suit has any merit, which this one didn’t. Shortly after the suit was filed the court summarily dismissed it as frivolous and having no basis in law on five different counts.

 

Another is the reported occurrences of “clergy” being sued for not conducting gay marriages when approached. A version of this story is that there will soon be hundreds of such lawsuits being filed across the country. Like the Zondervan story, the reports are not only false but they are disturbing examples of reactionaries telling falsehoods in the name of Christ, pushing a political agenda, and demonstrating how many in the church are easily misled, and retell falsehoods and rumors. Such activity does not lift up the name of Christ and the credibility of the Church.          

 

It is understandable that conservative Christians are angry. They see the court widening the definition of marriage. They feel this widening is an attack on their beliefs, and the historic Christian understanding of marriage as being between one man and one woman. They greatly fear the gay marriage ruling by an “unelected activist court” will lead to their government forcing them to conduct gay marriages. It is unfortunate that this strong fear is creating talk about their churches not being involved in conducting any marriages. Suck folks need to take several deep breaths, engage their heads, and not allow their emotions to carry them away…in other words, practice the same principles that they encourage those visiting them in the pastoral counseling office.

 

Let’s not forget that marriage is a civil contract, one that is taken so seriously and is viewed above other types of contract that the dissolving of the contract cannot take place outside a court setting and judicial oversight. The same is said applies to each nation across the globe, with each nation determining the conditions and qualifications for marriage. No church or religious official can issue a license to marry. The license is the state’s permission to enter into a marriage contract and entering into the contract can only be done by licensed officials.  Clergy who have been duly authorized by their religious body and the state, may officiate at these ceremonies. The marriage contract is to be assented to verbally (exceptions granted for those who are mute) before witnesses. While marriage contracts can be entered into before an official and two or three others, most marriage contracts are encompassed around specially designed and elaborate ceremonies before a large gathering of family and friends.

 

For various reasons the majority of marriage ceremonies are done in a religious context. No doubt some have a religious service out of some type of family obligation. Others do so for deeply held spiritual reasons as a means to incorporate their beliefs in their marital vows. Some couples accept their church’s standard religious vows with little or no modification. For others, like Evie and I, they pour through various vows as part of a process of drafting their own vows that reflect their passion, spirituality and convictions. While the vows may differ greatly from couple to couple, at the end of day they all have one thing in common as required by law…that each party freely responds affirmatively to the “do you take” question. If one of the parties does not affirm their willingness, the marriage contract is nullified.

 

For Evie and I, no matter how elaborate or brief, no matter the context or setting in which the vows are uttered, one couple’s marital vows, neither adds to nor diminishes our marital relationship. While our 1979 marriage contract is based upon civil law, it was also for us a deeply spiritual moment of committing each to the other for our lifetime. Another person being married that day in a 5 minute ceremony before the justice of the peace with no religious statements had then, nor now,  no affect upon our marital vows or relationship.

 

Too often the church spends an inordinate amount of its energy fighting battles outside its walls, in the community and in other churches. Each individual church needs to give as much focused attention as possible to the lives and well-being of its congregates, including its marital relationships. We need churches who are preparing people for marriage, helping newly married couples to strengthen their relationships and move positively from the honeymoon stage to the settling down stage, helping the mid-life marriages remain dynamic and vibrant and helping the more senior marriages to weather the storms they encounter that if not successfully navigated leads to two people instead of growing in love and old together, just grow old in the presence of each other.

Part 2 to follow...cleric protections already exist

Gay Marriage Battle in Virginia and Defending of the Virginia Amendment - part 2

In yesterday’s post I noted that the 4^th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard a lower court ruling that Virginia’s constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, civil unions and gay partnerships was unconstitutional. I am troubled after reading several of the arguments put forth by the lawyers defending the amendment, some of which essentially devalue marriage, the very institution the defenders are arguing that they are defending as having high and sacred value.

 

Following are some of their primary arguments, the ones I found alarming. While I am far from being legally educated, I brief note why I found several of the key the arguments defending the amendment to be troubling.

 

Voters by a 57-43 margin approved the amendment to the VA Constitution and their vote should stand: This argument calls for majority rule as the primary rule of the land, that majority rule trumps all including fundamental rights belonging to each person, that a citizen has no preexisting human right to liberty, freedom and happiness. This argument means that any right, even the right to life, can be denied or removed from individuals or a class of people by the state if the majority so decide to do so. The argument means that the claim Americans have proudly proclaimed and boasted about being the nation of fundamental rights is a false assertion. The claim is that a person has a right only if the majority agree to grant the person or class of people a right. The flip side of the coin is that the right can also be taken away at some point in the future if the majority so wills it. The argument means that minorities, whether racial or religious or political or lifestyle, are tolerated only as far as they don’t offend too many outside their group. Hence the only defense against the tyranny of the majority is not the courts, but by either conforming or finding little niches in the nation where your neighbors are tolerant of your kind of minority.  

 

What I find most interesting is that not only does this mean majority rule as the ultimate principal of the land, and contrary to what I’ve understood as the heart of a founding principle of the United States, is that the argument is akin to the arguments King George and the British Parliament used to deny the Colonies representation in Parliament…that the majority of British Parliament, the British citizenry and the King deemed it appropriate to deny the Colonials basic rights that they enjoyed. The Colonies has no right of representation because the majority wished not for them to have such opportunities. Therefore in a way, if this argument holds, this nation has come full circle, that King George and Parliament were right, and the founding fathers wrong.

 

 

Marriage is primarily about procreation, and as gay marriages cannot procreate, such marriages cannot exist:  This argument is simple, that my marriage, and your marriage too, is defined by my wife and my ability to procreate. It means that if marriage is defined primarily by the ability to procreate, there is no reason for the marriage to exist. By extension it means that women who have gone through menopause and men with very low or nonexistent sperm levels should not marry as there is no grounds for such marriages to be allowed. It also means that those who do not have children have marriages of a lesser order than marriages that produce children.

 

Not only am I extremely uncomfortable with any marriage that is defined primarily around having children, I am firmly against any such argument that devalues, and in a sense even negates the companionship and love elements of marriage. When my wife and I stood before the alter of the Paxton United Methodist Church that June morning, not one word in our vows even hinted at procreation. We testified to our love for the other, our commitment to each other, to be mutual companions and comforters for each other, and to cherish and nurture the other through good times and bad times for the rest of our lives. Our marriage was not a contract about having offspring and raising children together. While alarmed by this argument, I am highly offended that Christians are embracing this argument as being solid and proper.

 

For anyone who agrees with the argument put forward in the Court I would point out that if you are a Protestant that this argument contradicts what most Protestant churches have taught about marriage since their founding. Protestant churches have traditionally claimed that their beauty and value in marriage and marital sex. The value of marriage is founded upon mutual companionship and love. For Protestants marital relations is wholesome in itself, a beautiful and enjoyable way to express one’s love for one’s spouse. Marriage they have taught is about the quality of the husband and wife relationship, about the loving couple, not about having children. Children are the by-product of the essence of a marriage, not the ground for the marriage’s existence.

 

If this argument prevails, it does more to undermine the value of my marriage than if the amendment’s defenders lost.  

 

 

The State has the right to determine who can procreate and marry: Wow, reading this one sent chills down my back. The lawyers are claiming that the State has the right to say who can and cannot have children.  Are we going to require people to pass a test or gain permission of some government official in order to have children? Are we going to deny people the right to have children if they lack a certain level of intelligence? Lack a certain amount of annual household income? If to have a child and support the children they are having, the mother would have to work outside the home (after all is it not best for children to have mom at home rather than working in the community?), or the father to work a second or third job?  This rationale sounds too much like a totalitarian state argument.

 

                                                                                                                                      

Marriage is a fundamental right that historically has focused on preserving stable families. As such every child deserves a mother and father: It is the later part that bothers me. If every child deserves to a mother and father, what does that actually mean? Are we saying that children should not be raised in a gay household because a parent of a particular gender is lacking from the home? I’ve heard friends and Christian preachers and talk shows argue this point in the affirmative. Pointing to various studies some conservative Christians argue that children raised without both genders present in the home are at much high risk of socially dysfunctional behavior as children and adults than do children in homes where both a mother and father are found. But is this a result of parental disengagement or the lack of two adults of opposite genders? Are not the at risk rates similar in two adult homes where both parents are disengaged from their children? I can readily agree that when parents disengaged, regardless whether there are one or two parents in the home, and are too busy to nurture and care for their children that children from such homes have a significantly higher at-risk rate than those from loving homes where both parents, or even one parent, is supportive and engaged with the children.

 

While there are studies that support both sides, let’s remember that the body of research into gay households is thin as it has been for the most part lacking. A number of studies are full of unanswered questions, and some are poorly designed, or lack longevity to be reliable. Also we much recognize that some authors of studies have biases, they design studies in a manner and cherry pick data that will help support their desired proof. Further, the general public and politically engaged people tend to pick and choose the studies and data that lend support to their positions while dismissing studies which contradict their position. For me the studies claiming children in gay homes are highly impacted have reliability issues, and at first glance appear to be less scientific than are the climate warming studies those out of my religious tradition so quickly tend to dismiss.

 

Regardless of the quality of the science behind the studies, for the sake of argument let’s say that there is some type correlation. Even if there was some type of harm, if we deny gay marriage based on this argument are we as a nation then going to remove children from all single parent households which have a similar or greater rate of risk? What about homes where one parent is convicted of a felony for children raised in such homes also are at high risk too? What about removing children from homes where wife abuse exists, whether that abuse be physical or emotional? Are we then going to remove children from two parent homes whose household income are near or below the poverty level since numerous studies over the decades have indicated that those homes too have a high risk rate? If we are to be consistent in our arguments our communities should start removing tens of children from their homes, and if we are not going to do so, why not? If the only reason is that I was not to do so because I am talking about a gay couple, then what does that say about me?

 

 

I find myself troubled by the above arguments. Why did the lawyers defending the amendment use such arguments? We did they not craft and put forth more solid and balanced arguments?

Gay Marriage Battle in Virginia and Defending of the Virginia Amendment - part 1

As noted in the prior post of yesterday, Virginia is gay marriage battleground, as well as gay rights in general. Conservative Christians (those who take issue with the use of “conservative Christians” in this context should read the prior post) are staunchly defending the 2006 Virginia Constitutional Amendment that enshrines marriage as being only between a man and woman. The amendment not only prohibits gay marriage but prohibits within Virginia the recognition in any manner of such marriages that occur in other states. If a gay couple is married in another state and move to Virginia, they are not married. Further, the amendment also prohibits “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships”. The message is clear, strong and unapologetic. If you are in a gay relationship, do not come to Virginia for you and your partner will have no recognition in any form.


This week the 4^th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard an appeal of a lower court ruling permitting gay marriage.  No matter the ruling of the 4^th Court, the case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court and force that Court to deal with the heart of the matter, whether it is unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage.


Conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, are livid that the current Virginia Attorney General, Mark Herring, is not defending the ban and Constitutional Amendment, leaving the legal team for the two clerks who denied the gay couples wedding licenses to argue the case before the 4^th Circuit rather than the Attorney General. It is argued regardless of his reading of the US Constitution and view of the legality of Virginia’s amendment that the AG is duty bound to defend it, and not to do so is commonly described as a betrayal of his oath, a betrayal the demands his immediate removal from office.


At first sight it would appear that not having the AG office arguing in defense of the amendment means a less skilled team has to take over and that the arguments will be less forceful than would be the AG’s arguments. The implication is that lawyers for the clerks are second string or minor leaguers. I not only disagree but argue for the contrary for the team headed by David Oakley is highly skilled, arguing by conviction and are driven as to the rightness of their cause and the amendment, and lastly, they are being well supported by the religious right with funds, research.


The second team headed by Austin Nimocks is equally strong and are part of highly conservative traditional marriage defense group, a strongly funded group that is well skilled in crafting its message, and have long had their key arguments well formed. As such neither Nimocks nor Oakley are well skilled and positioned for handling this type of case.


Further, who would you rather have argue your case, a lawyer who does not believe in the strength of the case and lacks an enthusiasm for it, or a lawyer who has deep passion, skill and the depth of resources to put forth your sound argument? I would take the latter any day, as would you.


Regardless of what the attackers of AG Herring may say, I doubt that the defenders of the amendment truly want the AG’s office arguing the case. Though he may not defend the amendment, it should be noted that the AG has not sent out instructions to county clerks to start issuing wedding license to gay couples. Rather, he is allowing existing cases to move through the courts being argued by some of its strongest advocates, and awaiting the results. That I can respect. Advocates defending the amendment and the leading voices attacking the AG know full well that if the AG defended the amendment, he could more readily bring about results in keeping with his views by not using the strongest arguments or poorly phrasing the strongest arguments for the amendment. That would be a travesty. Hence, the statements by the AG’s attackers are more about political posturing, stirring the base, raising funds and bullying than about the righteousness of their case against the AG not defending the amendment.

Gay Marriage Battle in Virginia and Conservative Christians

For conservative Christians Virginia is the latest battleground over the acceptance of gay relationships and legalization of gay marriage. The issue is a heated one, and for many conservative Christians it is a battle to be strongly waged as if the future of the Christian faith and the church depended on the result. To say that for some it is a highly emotional issue would be an understatement.

This author recognizes many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians take issue with using of the phrase “conservative Christian” to describe them and their stance against gay marriage. They argue with fervent passion that there is nothing “conservative” about them, particularly on this matter. No descriptive term is necessary for they are Christians period, Christians defending their faith against an ungodly dangerous lifestyle and to prevent such relationships from being viewed by the American culture, laws and the church as a whole, as an acceptable relationship equal to the traditional marriage between a man and a woman that has existed from the beginning of time across diverse cultures.

 

Given that evangelicalism is my faith heritage and education, I understand why many of my friends take issue with my use of “conservative Christians”. The term is used intentionally to distinguish my personal faith background against Christians from faith backgrounds in which there is are higher levels of openness to gay marriages.  I acknowledge that for some of my friends the use of the term “conservative Christian” as related to gay marriage would imply that it is possible for a true Christian, lead and sensitive to God's Spirit, and accept gay marriages at the same time. Such friends would dismiss such openness as being possible, that if these individuals Christians, then they are either deceived by Satan, or they are not being obedient to the Christ.

 

Some of those in this camp do go as far as to imply, or even state openly, that anyone who supports gay marriage that they are definitely not all Christian but individuals playing with religion. I take a different position. I will not question the depth and nature of another's faith who is not part of my congregation. On a host of issues, whether those issues be about smoking or alcohol consumption, church polity or worship structure, holding that Saturday or Sunday is the proper Sabbath day for Christians, how one dresses at church, going to restaurants or shopping on the Sabbath, views on how and who is saved or the nature of holiness, I will not, and cannot, judge those who are outside my faith tradition. I may not agree with one's beliefs but I have no standing to judge them. 

 

For decades I have held onto a significant and often overlooked teaching by Paul in I Corinthians 5. In that chapter Paul addresses the issue of a man in their church who is having an ongoing affair with his step-mother. The tense of the verb is clear, it is not a accidental lost control type of thing. Rather than a moment in time affair, it is an ongoing one that started well before and which appears will continue long into the future. After Paul condemns the church leadership for not dealing with the man, he then deals with the man. The passage is clear, the man is the member of that  congregation, the woman is not. Paul judges the man and instructs the church leadership to expel the man least his attitude infect and harm others in the congregation. At the same time Paul states this about the woman, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?...God will judge those outside.”

 

For Paul the congregational leadership has the right to judge their congregational members only, and not those outside their congregation. If I take that the entire Bible is God's divine Word then I cannot overlook this instruction and go forth to judge and condemn others who are not part of the congregation to which I belong. I have to resist the temptation to put myself in the roll of God. I cannot overlook or find some way to rationalize in my mind the dismissing of what these two short passages clearly state. I shall not and will not judge those who testify to being Christians but who are of a different tradition, who think, believe and live differently on a host of matters.

Is the Republican Party About to Shift on Gay Marriage?

Evidently there is a growing pressure from local rank and file Republicans for the party and the leadership to stop opposing gay marriage. They argue that the issue distracts the party from dealing with more fundamental issues related to the economy and health care. They continue on to note that for the party to attract younger voters in larger numbers, they Republican party needs to formally change its position.

 

While nearly all of the nationally elected leaders and a large number of state leaders oppose gay marriage, while a growing majority of the upcoming leaders who are being elected to local offices are in favor of the party changing its position. Though the majority of Republicans over the age of 55 are against gay marriage, a majority of Republicans under the age of 30 are supportive of gay marriages.

 

Is a significant shift in the offing in a year or two?  Though some political observers suggest it is at hand within a year or two, I doubt that it will occur, at least not until at least two more presidential election cycles. I cannot foresee it has happening that quickly because of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christian wing of the party dominates the agenda, and Christians of that persuasion provide a significantly large portion of the party’s income.

 

The shift will occur as the dominance of the religious right declines, but it will not be for some time yet. Data going back into the early 80s signaled that the evangelical and fundamentalist churches were likely headed for decline in the first two decades of this century. Studies in the last decade have not only confirmed this but are indicating that the decline may become more rapid that anticipated two decades ago. There is also growing evidence that the more politically active the religious right has become, the more its sway and profile is before the public, the number of young people leaving evangelical and fundamentalist churches has grown. There seems to a correlation between the activism of the religious right and the lack of attraction for the younger generation.  

 

The power and influence of the religious right will decline over the next decade. Fewer election officials on the national level will feel beholding to the religious right for securing their election. It is then that the shift will occur. There will be much consternation within the religious right when the Republican party changes its position on gay marriage. And when it does, the religious right will face a conundrum, hold their noses while supporting the Republican on the ballet, or run a candidate of their own who is unlikely to win the seat, or not vote. While some will cease voting, running their own candidates in primaries will be first pursued by most. Eventually more and more will become engaged and support a candidate even if the candidate does not align with their views of marriage and the gay lifestyle. It will be a painful process but that is the price of being highly engaged in one party and pushing a narrow agenda.

 

Christians need to be involved in politics, allowing their faith to guide their thinking while speaking respectfully on a breath of issues, just as those of faith different than theirs should do, put forward their arguments in a cogent manner while recognizing that the government and society is not a branch of the church, or expected to do the bidding of the church. Expecting government to do the bidding of the church, or a theological brand of the church, it is unhealthy for the church, government and the nation.

 

When the distinction between faith and governance becomes enmeshed in politics, particularly so when heavily aligned with one party, the distinction between the secular and the sacred worlds are blurred but at risk of being erased, with candidates rejected on a narrow set of standards for not being “Christian” enough. Also, such political endeavors result in the church supporting government actions that are not only highly questionable but may well be contrary to the church’s proclaimed values and faith…which may partly account for far fewer under 30s attending conservative churches than their parents did in the 70s and early 80s.  

An Underlying Difference Between Portman and Salmon on Gay Marriage

While both Senator Rob Portman and Representative Matt Salmon have a gay son, each takes a different posture on the right of gays to marry. Understanding how each man’s view the issue and their sons differently helps one to understand why they differ.

In listening to his son and observing the son's life, Portman has concluded that his son is not emotionally ill and that the son is not socially dysfunctional or rebellious. He recognizes that as with many out of the closet gays, his son has and will endure ridicule and attacks, be shunned, looked down upon and ostracized, not something an emotionally balanced person one would seek to endure. Hence, he has concluded that his son is gay not by choice but by nature. One can well understand that right of gays to marry is a logical extension for Portman once he concluded that his son is gay by nature, that his son cannot help be attracted to and love with a person of the same gender.  

By contrast Salmon's position is simple and shaped by his religious beliefs. Though he loves his son, he cannot accept or approve of his son having sex with a man. For Solomon, being gay is a deliberate choice. Salmon holds that as God is just and that Scripture views gay sex as evil, a person cannot under any condition be viewed as gay by nature, for it would mean that God unjustly created a person with a nature for which he condemns them. While Salmon loves his son, for him the son’s sexual activity is a chosen yet unacceptable behavior, not part of the son’s nature. Tens of thousands of parents each year are faced with an adult child engaged in unacceptable non-criminal activities, such as, habitual lying, habitual and constant laziness, being irreligious, etc., but they like Salmon continue to love the child without accepting the sin. While not explicitly saying so, one can read between the lines, that for Salmon to embrace his son's lifestyle would be an act of denying what he professes as being his Christian faith.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/01/rep-matt-salmon-gay-son-hasnt-changed-my-views-on-gay-marriage/?wprss=rss_homepage

Failure of Maryland's Same-sex Marriage Legislation

For the three weeks a same-sex marriage bill moved the Maryland legislative process. When it passed the more conservative Maryland Senate many observers expected it to pass by at least eight votes in the House of Delegates. A week ago the bill faltered and last Friday it was functionally killed when it was deferred back to a House of Delegate committee where it will die in a matter of weeks when the current session expires. It was a significant defeat for advocates who hoped Maryland would become the sixth state plus the District of Columbia to approve of same-sex marriage.

Generational replacement, the passing away of the older generation and being replaced by the younger, has brought about a shift in support of same-sex marriage. In the late 90s years ago over 62% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage, but with the passing away of the WWII and post WWII generation being replaced by the Gen Ys a shift is occurring. Only a small minority of Gen Ys are opposed to same-sex marriage and even fewer are against laws that protect sexual orientation as a discrimination class. Even baby-boomers have shifted their views in the last fifteen years, going from 70% against to 55% against. Hence, today, a slight majority of adult Americans, and an even greater majority of citizens of Maryland, support same-sex marriage legislation. Generation replacement will rapidly broaden that gap over the next two presidential election cycles.

The failure of the same-sex legislation is a sign that a highly visible and powerful unconvinced minority retain the upper hand in Maryland. Evidence indicates that claims by evangelical Christians that Christians have little political power is a false claim. Though the number of those who regularly attend church services is in the minority, it is easily argued that the church wields far greater political power today than ever. And most of that political power rests in the hands of the overwhelmingly fundamentalist and evangelic church who were joined in this fight by the overwhelmingly African American Church and the Catholic Church, all of whom hold that any marriage not between a man and woman is an anathema.

This well organized religious coalition targeted a dozen or so Delegates saying that if they voted for this legislation, that regardless of their record on other issues, their churches would work to defeat their reelection bids. The coalition was so persuasive that one of the sponsors of the legislation who has long argued that same-sex marriage is about civil rights, and that gay couples do not devalue hers or any other heterosexual marriage announced that she would be voting against her own bill.


We should not fool ourselves in thinking that legislators are highly principled people who take noble stands on issues, stick to them, even if it puts their reelection at risk. Before we fault them for being willing to posture themselves for the next election, it has always been and will remain thus in a democracy because that is what we ask the electorate expect.

Partly due to generation replacement and partly due to the younger baby-boomers rethinking their views and becoming increasingly turned off by the evangelical church, the trend is for a growing number of voters supporting same-sex marriage. While the majority of the electorate will support such legislation, the power of the church as evidenced in these last weeks in Maryland will make it problematic for such legislation to be successful in other states.

While such power may provide comfort for evangelicals, it may be a false comfort in the longer term. Religious surveys by the Pew Research Center and Faith Matters indicate that demographic change, changes in religious activity as well as generational disenfranchisement from the church and the reason why they are disenfranchised, indicate that the evangelical church is on the verge of a significant decline.

Is A Tipping Point At Hand?

In these past weeks the State of Maryland has been moving closer to passing a bill to permit gay marriage. While some Democrats are opposed, the majority of the opposition is coming from Republicans and the right wing of the Christian church. The Republicans are stanchly set against gay marriage with three out of four Republicans against gay marriage and gay rights in general. This is not surprising given that the heart of their base is made up of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians. Hence, the party has pushed for the establishment of and passed the “Defense of Marriage Act.” Only a token few Republicans on Capitol Hill supported the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Being against gay marriage was also a "winning issue" for Republicans. In 1996 27% of American voters were supportive of same-sex marriage and it seemed that gay marriage would not occur for more than fifty years. But any observer looking at demographics trending could readily foresee that gay marriage would be supported by the majority of Americans sometime around 2019-2023. Back then over 85% of those over 60 years of age opposed gay marriage whereas 75% of those under of 25 years of age were supportive of same-sex marriage. Those who were in their 40s and 50s were against it, but only by about ten points. What was evident was that as the oldest cohort of voters passed way and were replaced by a younger cohort, a rapid shift was only be a matter of time and those who supported it would occur sometime around 2020.
By 2009 support had grown to 37%. This 10% increase was primarily due to passing of older cohorts who are against it and being replaced by a younger generation. The results two years still pointed that the 50-50 point would be reached around the end of this decade.

A week ago the Pew Research Center released survey results that indicate that the opinions are undergoing a more rapid change and that the 50-50 point could happen by 2014. The latest survey indicates that 46% of voters are supportive of gay marriage. Going from 37 to 46% is a dramatic shift over a two year period. It indicates that the debates in the public square are causing those in their mid 40s to early 60s to re-evaluate their opinions. More and more middle aged Americans are coming to the conclusion that they do not agree with the rationale put forth from those who are most vigorous in their opposition to gay marriage. An increasing number of people are concluding that gay marriage will not and does not diminish hetero-sexual marriage any more than interracial marriages (same arguments on interracial marriages were used in the 50s and 60s to defend interracial marriage prohibitions).

With the tipping point rapidly approaching it will be only a matter of four to five years after that that states legislatures will come under growing pressure to change their laws. Once the tipping point is reached it will quickly rise to the 60% marck. No longer will anti-gay marriage support be a "winning issue" for Republicans. The rapid approach of the tipping point also indicates that any other group that relies upon the public’s good will for its strength and who is strongly opposed to gay marriage will find themselves part of diminishing minority and with fewer supporters to their party or cause.