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 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.  

Using Religion as a Cover for Discrimination

This evening the nation is still watching to see if Governor J. Brewer of Arizona will sign or veto a bill that allows for “religious reasons” a business to deny services to anyone they so wish to do so. The rationale is that no business or person should be forced to provide services to a person for whom they view as living a lifestyle, or who has views that are against their religion. While the law is broadly written and makes no mention sexual orientation, gays are its primary target.

 

While Arizona does not have any laws protecting gays from discrimination with regard to housing, services, etc., three cities within the state have such laws. The law before the governor is an effort to override the laws of the three cities and allow businesses and individuals to discriminate with the State’s blessing.  I am disappointed that similar legislation is working through the Georgia legislature, and likewise under consideration in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Missouri.

 

The bill is driven by a cluster of "conservative" Christians who view gays as living an unhealthy and sinful lifestyle, and feel gays should be second class citizens. They are uncomfortable with interacting with gays. Their perspective is akin to John Calvin’s views and his rule of Geneva. The viewpoint holds that the Christian faith should govern the law of the land, and no Christians should be forced to work with or provide services to those who they consider to be offensive to them and their beliefs.

 

Under Calvin’s leadership, Christian values were imposed upon all citizens. Everyone was required to go to church, whether they were part of the elect or not. Swearing, playing cards, playing non-religious music, doing any work on Sunday, even quietly in private were outlawed and could land one in prison. Those whose faith was defined a little more broadly than Calvin, could find themselves in prison for what doing what they viewed as being okay by their understanding of faith, but which Calvin views as sinful.  After seven years, Calvin jettisoned imposing religious laws upon the whole population.

 

I am against the Arizona law on a number of levels and hope Brewer vetoes the bill. I am against imposing Christian views upon the country as a whole. Whose Christian understanding of faith should prevail, conservative Baptists? Conservative Methodists? Roman Catholics? Are we to outlaw the eating of meat on Friday? The religious beliefs of The Salvation Army which views smoking and alcohol as evil? What about those churches that view eating out on Sunday or filling up your car’s gas tank as sinful?    

 

I detest laws which set one group above another, giving one group the ability to use their majority to abuse and discriminate against a minority. The strength of American democracy and its Constitution is that it protects the minority and reminds the majority that they must be mindful of the minority and do not live in land where the tyranny of the majority is enshrined.

 

It infuriates me when people use the Christian faith as the cover for unjust discrimination and prejudice, to grant privileges of one group over another group, and to justify conduct that in other contexts would be criminal and ungodly. Such conduct contrary to the Christian values that I know and value. We have seen religious rationale as justifying the enslaving of other races, as segregating people of different faiths into designated “quarters” with inferior infrastructure, denying people with employment opportunities or advancement or equal pay for the same job, destruction of property, beating and killing, prohibiting people of different ethnicity from socializing and marrying, denying entrance to a college, and turning down bank loans. We are not talking about what has taken place in past centuries for many of these things have taken placed during my lifetime.

 

My belief system should not be imposed upon others, nor should the beliefs of another imposed upon me and my family. That said, if I am working in the world, I should be able to interact civilly those who have different beliefs and values, and I should not deny them services that I can reasonably offer and which they reasonably can expect. My interaction is part of life, and does not pollute my faith and life.

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.

Message: Lets Not Dirty Ourselves

Last Monday, 2 March 2010, the Archdiocese of Washington DC announced that it will no longer be extending medical benefits to the spouses of employees. Those currently covered are grandfathered in but as of the 2nd of March, new enrollments can take place.

This move was taken in response to a new law that is going into effect in Washington that permits same sex couples to marry. The Church does not want to provide medical benefits to gay couples because they argue, it legitimized gay marriage, and the church does not want to recognize gay marriage in any form.

This situation goes to the heart of a fundamental flaw with the health system in the United States. Medical coverage is employer based. Employers at a whim can and make dramatic changes to what they will cover, the extent of the coverage, who they will cover, or even if they will provide coverage at all. Good performing employees who have given long service can suddenly find themselves forced out because the employer drops medical coverage or even worse, lays them off or finds a way to fire them to help reduce healthcare premiums the firm is paying.

Healthcare is the greatest social justice issue facing the majority of the nation. The Washington Archdiocese has demonstrated that the Roman Catholic Church is not that significant issue. It cries that it is not willing to fight for significant healthcare reform.

The Archdiocese in San Francisco took a different approach. It allows employees to pay for the medical premiums and add any adult in their home to their medical plan. Employees can add parents, adult children, grandparents, a friend as long as they reside in the home of the employee. They broadened who will be added at the employee’s cost.

As for legitimizing gay marriages by providing coverage, providing coverage does not legitimize gay marriage any more than providing treatment and care to alcoholics legitimizes alcoholism, or supporting and ministering to a sex offender legitimizes sexual abuse.

The Roman Catholic Church has the right to do what it has done but in my eyes it is contrary to the Jesus’ message of loving one’s neighbor. Like the self-righteous conservative Pharisees who criticized Jesus for visiting and sharing a meal with a publican, the Roman Catholic Church has left the banquet table rather than be “tarnished” by sharing a meal with the publican.

Love the Sinner Does Not Apply to Gays

“Love the sinner but hate the sin” as been an evangelical mantra for generations. Preachers point to Jesus as an example of living this out. Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, both of whom were the lowest of sinners in his culture.

When it comes to the issue of homosexuality I question if this is true. One senior Salvation Army officer said to me back in 2002 that in many ways the evangelical church, including many Salvationists (officers and soldiers) treat homosexuals as the modern lepers. I agreed then and still do so. Jerry Falwell blaming homosexuals for the 9-11 attacks is an example of how homosexuals are viewed as the escape goats for society’s problems. Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in tossing his evangelical rage far and wide has proclaimed homosexuality to be “abhorrent, immoral, detestable…and a crime against nature.”

Dr. James Kennedy, another major evangelical leader, has stated about gays in the military, “would you want your son, daughter, or grandchild sharing a shower, foxhole, or blood with a homosexual?” Dr. Kennedy’s statement along with Moore, Falwell’s and hundreds of other evangelical leaders are similar to the racist statements made about Jews, African Americans, Latinos, Italians, etc. Such fear mongering statements were unacceptable back in the past about ethnic groups, they are unacceptable today.

Loving the sinner but not the sin is not practiced by the evangelical church when it comes to gays. Family Research Council’s posture and admonition against church-gay community dialogue is outrageous and shameful. The Family Research Council has more to do with resisting dialogue and acceptance of gays in society than with building of strong families. Their definition of family is narrow, a married man and woman with children who all go to church every Sunday.

Gays are all around us. We marginalize them and those within the church live in fear of being discovered. While at Asbury College four guys I knew were gay, three of whom were Salvationists. One of the four was in the elementary education program and when it became known to the administration he was gay he was not allowed to do his student-teacher practicum. He was thereby shamefully forced to transfer to a secular school.

The evangelical church by enlarge talk of gays as if they have some sort of contagious disease that can be cured once and for all with the conversation prescription. Such a view is naive and is out of keeping with research that indicates for many gay men and women there may be a genetic and a biochemical basis. Regardless of what Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council claims, such research and evidence is not questionable science. Dobson and his friends at the Family Research Council are like the Church during the 1400s in denying that the world was round. They clung to their understanding of the Bible rather than wondering if their interpretation of various passages was sound. Eventually when ships traveled around the world the evidence was so solid that they changed their interpretation.

According to the Barna group 91% of non-Christians between the ages of 16-30 believe that Christians are “anti-homosexuals” and are confused as their meanness towards homosexuals is out of keeping what non-Christians understand about the teachings of Jesus. I agree with these young non-Christians. Fortunately for the church a rapidly growing number of the Christians in the same age group are coming to the same conclusion.