A Sermon for Five

Introduction

Written decisions of our Supreme Court justices are called opinions. Justices who differ with the majority may write a dissenting opinion. But in contrast to all such opinions, the Scripture requires preachers to declare the very oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11). This is a responsibility that no man should ever take up lightly, and so even the apostle Paul himself cried out, “Who is sufficient for such things?”

Momentous subjects should humble us. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote in his dissent, “Just who do we think we are?” (Roberts, p. 3). This is a question that every mortal ought to ask far more frequently than we do, and yet, despite our objective unworthiness, God has called some men to speak the rising sun of His Word, however much the darkening clouds are gathering, and however much those clouds might think they are here to stay.

Consequently, in light of the Obergefell decision, a message taken from the pages of God’s Word must be declared to five justices of the Supreme Court, the five who voted with the majority in this decision. These were the five who vainly declared that there is a somehow a possibility of a genuine marriage occurring between two members of the same sex.

While this sermon is directed to you as office holders, it is a message declared in the open, in the public square, and so all others are also invited to hear and heed. I am speaking specifically to Justices Kennedy, Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer, but I summon all other Americans to take these things to heart as well. I call upon citizens of other nations to hear these words, and to pray for us. I thank the dissenting justices for their insights and faithfulness, calling upon them to remain faithful. And I call the mountains, rivers, oceans, lakes, and skies—all of which remain securely normal, just as they were created to be—to bear witness to this testimony against our nation’s legal corruption and rationalized descent into abnormal folly and sin.

The Text:

Hear the text of Scripture. These are the words of God.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27).

A Summary of Scriptural Teaching:

As Justice Thomas noted in his dissent, our form of government was established in a recognition that God alone is the source of our rights. The State does not create or bestow our rights, but rather is solemnly charged to defend and protect them. In order to do this, the State must submit to a reality outside itself. As Justice Thomas put it, our nation began with “a vision in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth” (Thomas, p. 17, emphasis mine). That sentiment is fully in accord with Scripture and is a truth that is found in the first pages of Scripture. And, as we see in our text, this imago Dei is inextricably tied in with the fact of our creation as male and female. Just as a violin and bow are one instrument, and a lock and a key are one mechanism, and scissors are one tool, so also mankind created as male and female is one image. And as the Lord Jesus said in His teaching on this longsuffering subject of marriage, what God has joined together, no man should presume to put asunder (Matt. 19:6). What God has engineered may not be re-engineered by us.

Your majority opinion in Obergefell blithely sets that scriptural understanding aside, and does so with a sublime disregard for the profound issues that are at stake. You acknowledge that heterosexual marriage has been the norm in all human societies, right up until the last fifteen years or so. In acknowledgement of this, your majority opinion went so far as to provide exotic quotes from Confucius and Cicero, but you entirely ignored the biblical witness that you were actively engaged in rejecting. Confucius? You are rebels who do not yet dare name the object of your rebellion.

As a result, simultaneously—in dereliction of your solemn responsibilities as justices of the Supreme Court—you ignored the constitutional founding of our nation that was built upon that biblical understanding of the world. But understanding our constitutional founding was the particular focus of the solemn oaths you took when you were first sworn into the nests you have now fouled.

That biblical witness extended over four thousand years of revelation, from the first book of the Bible to the last, and that witness was then accepted and practiced by believing Christians for the last two thousand years. Acceptance of that biblical testimony was the foundation of all marriage laws in the United States. And you set all this aside for the sake of what you acknowledged to be a novelty, a novelty that is a mere fifteen years old.

When our fathers declared their independence from Great Britain, they acknowledged an important reality at the very beginning of their endeavor—they said “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes” of the separation. In attempting a far greater social transformation than what they had in mind, you have fallen far beneath them in your willingness or ability to explain what you have done. Far from showing a decent respect for the views embodied in our cultural tradition over millennia, you have modeled a careless and contemptuous dismissal of realities that are far greater than you. You have set aside millennia for the sake of a fifteen year fad, and it might as well have been a fifteen minute fad.

So here is the biblical witness you unsuccessfully tried to ignore.

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7).

The law of Moses rejects such homosexual practice:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Lev. 18:22).

Jehoshaphat and Asa were two Israelite kings who were commended by the sacred history for how they handled the problem of same sex decadence in their times:

 “And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel” (1 Kings 14:24; cf. 15:12; 22:46).

In the New Testament, the apostle Paul is clear that homosexual desire is the dead end destination of all human ingratitude and pride. It is not a coincidence that all these grotesque parades in our major cities are called “pride” events. I dare say they are, but pride is no virtue, and neither is insolence, arrogance, or conceit. Because men would not honor God as God, and because they would not render thanks to Him, God in His wrath gave them over to their same sex desires. This kind of public frenzy is not just something that invites God’s wrath; rather, it is a sober indication that God’s wrath is being visited upon us already. Your legal reasoning is another example of the wrath of God resting upon our nation.

Here is what the apostle Paul says:

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Rom. 1:26–27, ESV).

Not only are those who commit such perversions under the judgment of God, but so also are those who applaud and approve of them, as we can see just a few verses later (Rom. 1:32). Approval of vice is itself a vice. It is worth noting that the men of your Court voted against this monstrosity by a margin of 2 to 1. You women of the Court, however, were unanimous in your support of it. Or as Paul would say, even you women. Wisdom is vindicated by her children.

Lest anyone miss the point that is repeatedly made, from Genesis to Revelation, the apostle Paul says that those who live in this way are destined for spiritual destruction. This is therefore not a trivial issue—everlasting life and eternal damnation rest upon it.

“Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, 1901 ASV)

In short, there are millions of Americans who believe what they believe on this subject, not because of some quaint customs and hang-ups they learned from their Victorian great-grandmothers, but rather because of their deep moral convictions about the authority of the Bible. We do have a high view of biblical marriage because for us it is emblematic of Christ and the Church. In your words it is “long revered” among us. That is true, but that is not all the truth. That is true, but it is only half the truth. As the citations of Scripture above make plain, we believe that homosexual acts are detestable to God and invite His judgment. Scripture reveals to us what marriage ought to look like, but it also reveals what it must never look like. And your decision has vainly sought to temporarily approve what God has forever condemned.

One of the dissenting opinions (Scalia, p. 6) notes that evangelicals make up a quarter of our nation’s population, and in this judicial rebellion you have welded your capricious version of what constitutes bigotry to our deep religious understanding of what the Lord Jesus requires of us. Nothing whatever that is good can come of this.

The dissenting opinions are not tentative in how they categorize the tyrannical overreach of this decision. It is called:

1. A “judicial Putsch” (Scalia, p. 6);

2. A violation “even more fundamental” than no taxation without representation was—it is social transformation without representation (Scalia, p. 6);

3. An approach that “the Framers would not have recognized” (Thomas, p. 2);

4. It is a decision that will have “inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society” (Thomas, p. 18);

5. It is evidence of “irremediable corruption” in our legal culture’s approach to constitutional interpretation (Alito, p. 8);

6. It is a “naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government” (Scalia, p. 5);

7. The decision is “an act of will, not legal judgment” (Roberts, p. 3);

8. And it is a “threat to American democracy” (Scalia, p. 1).

All of these assessments are quite true, and significantly understated.

You attempted to acknowledge our sincerity in this quaint oppositional conviction of ours, but this patched-up conciliation gesture is belied by a decision that necessarily places us in the legal category of “bigots.” As Chief Justice Roberts noted, “People of faith can take no comfort in the treatment from the majority today” (Roberts, p. 28).

Why is this true? You have said that same sex mirage is “a fundamental right” (Kennedy, p. 22). You say that “democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights” (Kennedy, p. 24). Human history reveals “the transcendent importance of marriage” (Kennedy, p. 3). Marriage is “essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations” (Kennedy, p. 3).

But you also say this:

“Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here” (Kennedy, p. 19).

Later you say this:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions and those who adhere to religious doctrines may continue to advocate with utmost sincere conviction that by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons” (Kennedy, p. 27).

Shall we attempt to put all this together? It is the reasoning of your Court that citizens, motivated by decent and honorable religious principles, may continue to advocate with sincere conviction that the fundamental rights of their fellow citizens must be removed from them. You have written that wanting to rob someone of his fundamental rights is a decent and honorable aspiration. We may advocate for such a change, but must not ever be allowed to accomplish anything, for democracy may not be used to abridge fundamental rights. Nevertheless, religious believers, or those who oppose this decision for any other reason whatever, will have First Amendment protection as we argue for removing something of transcendental value from homosexual couples. Nevertheless, the Court still applauds the fulfilling centrality that we give to this understanding of marriage, as we seek to remove something essential from the hopes and aspirations of our fellows.

What your Court has actually done in settling this farrago of nonsense upon us is to place three options before us. First, either same sex unions will once again be rejected by all fifty states, with homosexuality therefore returning to the closet, or second, your decision will stand in all fifty states, and the faithful church in America will go off grid and underground in various ways, with all that implies, or third, the Union will come apart. From reading your opinion, you plainly do not know what you are doing or what you have done. When Scripture tells us that a throne is established by righteousness, it is the high end of folly to attempt to establish anything on the alternative foundation of wicked unrighteousness. “It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: For the throne is established by righteousness” (Prov. 16:12).

Central Point:

So then. As various insightful warnings in the dissenting opinions made very clear, a narrow majority of your Court, by adopting this approach to constitutional law, was not discrediting the laws and practices it was striking down, but was rather discrediting and jettisoning its own moral authority. “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?” (Psalm 94:20). This frightful abandonment of moral authority by the Court is a reality with which all thoughtful Americans now have to deal. We will deal with it as the circumstances warrant, in numerous situations—whether as states, or cities, whether in families, churches, or individuals—but we must deal with it now. We do not have the option of returning back to normal, as though nothing significant or momentous has happened.

Some Implications:

You imposed a slim majority decision on the entire nation because you have formally rejected the explicit teaching of our text. In other words, with regard to the substance of the case before you, you rejected the doctrine of mankind as created male and female, serving in this way as God’s created image bearer. Your decision is therefore morally outrageous, and is an implicit rejection of the doctrine that we have God-given rights at all. This is why your decision affirming same sex mirage is simultaneously a decision rejecting in principle the very concept of religious liberty. If we have human rights, it is because we are created in God’s image. There is no other possible foundation for them. But if you have functionally denied that this image has any standing in law, then you have implicitly determined that we have no standing in law.

But we need not make this point with inferences. We come to the second point. Not content with an implicit rejection of a solid scriptural foundation for human rights, you offered an explicit idolatrous substitute as the source of our rights, such as they now are. You said:

“The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era” (Kennedy, pp. 18-19).

To which Justice Scalia rightly replied, “Huh?” (Scalia, p. 8). To descend from a sublime recognition that human beings bear the image of God, and are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, to this pitiful and confused collation of hollow platitudes is beyond disorienting. You say that our rights come, not just from the ancient sources that you are (by the way) bluntly rejecting, but you dared to say—in a reasoned legal opinion, no less— that they also come from “a better formed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” The decline of our republic can be marked in this way—from sound Supreme Court decisions, to wrong but meaningful Supreme Court decisions, to meaningless Supreme Court decisions. If that sentence is to be considered now as the source of our rights, then God help us all. Our rights now come, not from Almighty God, but from five Ivy Leaguers drunk on therapeutic feel-good gibberish. Our origami rights are to be folded for us by you five—fashioned delicately out of whatever kind of rice paper you select? In the name of God, no. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, no. In the power and authority of the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of liberty, no.

Objections:

There are many things that some might say against what I am declaring here. We are far gone in our rebellion, and so it should not be surprising to us that the apparent success of the rebellion will be stoutly defended.

We might be charged with inconsistency. It might be argued that this approach to law has been a long time in development, and we might reasonably be asked, “Why now?” We might be asked why we didn’t respond in this way when Roe was decided, for example. This is a reasonable question. We should have responded this way when Roe was decided. When you determined, in your black-robed wisdom, that American babies were not to be protected by American law, and were to be chopped up into small American pieces, our response, state-by-state, should have been to simply refuse to comply. If the lesser magistrates can create sanctuary cities in defiance of federal immigration law, then they certainly have the authority to create sanctuary states for the unborn. So your point is well-taken. We should have acted sooner. But if we are repentant for our earlier and culpable inaction, we have to show our repentance in our deeds, by how we respond now to this newest outrage.

Some might say to us, “Look. You lost. We prevailed. The best thing you Christians can now do is prepare to live in a post-Christian America.”

To this there are two responses. First, as Chesterton once put it in The Everlasting Man, “Christendom has had a series of revolutions and in each one of them Christianity has died. Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a God who knew the way out of the grave.”

Losing does not disturb us, it does not unsettle our faith. This is something the Church generally does really well. Speaking frankly, we frequently lose successfully far more often than we succeed successfully. Losing is our secret weapon. The worst thing the devil ever did was succeed in having Christ crucified, for by that he secured the salvation of the world. If the rulers of that age had known what they were doing, they would not have seized the apparent victory that they seized. A servant is not greater than his master, and so it has always been this way for believers. This is one of the reasons we are called believers. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb. 11:1). What is it that overcomes the world? Is it not our faith (1 Jn. 5:4)? So you think you have won, do you?

And this leads to a second response, obviously related. We do not live in a post-Christian America. We live in a post-resurrection America, and there is nothing whatever that can be done to reverse that. Death no longer has dominion over Him, and so consequently the ways and customs of death have no dominion over us. Wisdom declares that all who hate her love death (Prov. 8:36), and in Christ Jesus we have been delivered from the death wish that drives all sin, including the sin driving this decision.

Third, you might say that the issue is now settled, simply as a matter of constitutional law. There is no legal avenue for us to pursue this any further. Christians believe that we should respect the law, and so we should respect the fact that there is no legal remedy now. That was one of the many examples of judicial arrogance found throughout your decision. Your opinion concluded with the phrase “It is so ordered.”

When we contemplate what it was that you thought you were ordering, we all start back with astonished looks on our faces. This hubris of yours contrasts poorly with the humility of King Canute, who once admonished the flattery of his courtiers and legal interns by having his throne placed right on the sea shore so that he might command the tide not to come in. When it came in regardless, despite his command, the king jumped up and said, “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.”

One of those eternal laws, incidentally, is the law that governs marriage, subject in no way to deep thinks of the Supreme Court. Triangles now have six sides. It is so ordered. Water shall now flow uphill. It is so ordered. Justices of the United States Supreme Court will never have to give an account of themselves before the Maker of Heaven and earth. It is so ordered.

Conclusion:

A day is coming when all the contrivances, devices and rationalizations of men will melt before the presence of the Lord of Heaven. On that day, a day when every man will answer to Christ for his life, all five of you will in fact stand before Him. When you do, there will be no wooden bench in front of you. You will not have your robes on; you will all be entirely naked. There will be no legal tradition to support you. There will be no convoluted exegesis that will impress anyone. There will be no stately Supreme Court building to surround you. There will be nothing to hide behind, and nothing to hide in. And the God who knows and evaluates you will do so perfectly. He knows you better than you know yourselves. He sees straight through you.

Outside of Christ, there is absolutely no hope for anyone in that day . . . and all of us are going to be there. There will be nothing whatever that you will be able to do to fix things in that day. There will be no connections. No networking. No explanations. Just you and your Maker, your history of words and your Maker, your life and your Maker, all your legal opinions and your Maker. Every man and every woman and every child will be present there, and they will either be there in Christ or outside of Christ. There is no other alternative.

You have done your damage here, and it is grievous damage, but that does not mean that the moment of repentance is past. Manasseh was one of the worst kings that Israel ever had—just as you five are among the worst justices that our nation has ever seen. But God is the Lord, and He is the one who can turn the hearts of kings (Prov. 21:1). That being the case, He can do so whenever it pleases Him. As it happened, He turned the heart of Manasseh near the end of his life, after all the damage to the nation was done (2 Chron. 33:10-13). While you are still breathing, you may turn to Him. And so long as the sun came up this morning, so long as it is called today, you are invited, urgently summoned, to come to Him. Do not harden your hearts, as was done in the wilderness.

Christ died and rose so that He might be glorified in the salvation of sinners, just as you are, just as all of us are. That death, and that resurrection, that gospel, is not irrelevant to this tangled mess we are now in. Christ died to save sinners, and you have just demonstrated that if ever any nation qualified for such a salvation, we do. Our business as preachers is to declare the gospel message—repent and believe. Repent of what? The answer is that we are to repent of sin, wickedness, folly, perversion, corruption, and self. Believe what? Believe that Christ died as a vicarious substitute, that He bled on the cross for all such convoluted follies, and that He rose again from the dead for our justification.

This is not an action plan. This is not a technique. This is the gospel of salvation. If you hear and believe, as you are commanded now to hear and believe, then the God of mercy will show mercy.

And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto it.” (Jer. 33:9).

May the day arrive soon when we all will tremble for all the goodness that will rain down upon us. In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, amen.

259
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
24 Comment threads
235 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
48 Comment authors
celtmanDiane CrousedrhillpsychicbloodbrotherAlex in Wonderland Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
freddy
Guest
freddy

Preach it!

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

“What your Court has actually done in settling this farrago of nonsense upon us is to place three options before us. First, either same sex unions will once again be rejected by all fifty states, with homosexuality therefore returning to the closet, or second, your decision will stand in all fifty states, and the faithful church in America will go off grid and underground in various ways, with all that implies, or third, the Union will come apart.” *************** Actually, there’s a fourth option, and it’s by far the most likely – nearly all Christian groups will adapt and accommodate… Read more »

Moor_the_Merrier
Guest
Moor_the_Merrier

Perhaps the news isn’t so bad. Perhaps it’s not that “nearly all Christian groups will adapt and accommodate their beliefs to Obergefell”, but merely that there are a lot fewer Christians in America than was supposed or claimed. I’ve thought for some time now, and certainly not in a way that’s unique to me, that a lighter, leaner, and more battle-ready Church can only be good for the sake of the Gospel.

Diana Davis
Guest
Diana Davis

Christians who fought interracial marriage were wrong because the new testament teaches that we are all one in Christ and mentions nothing about marring people of different races. Just like the corrupt church use to teach that obedience to and works of the church is what saves people and the teaching of being saved by grace through faith in Christ alone was heretical and punishable by death. But when the regular people were able to read the scriptures for themselves, they saw that the scriptures did indeed teach we are saved by grace through faith in Christ and that revelation… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

And what does that have to do with anything?

Diana Davis
Guest
Diana Davis

It has to do with your argument regarding Christians fighting against interracial marriage that today they accept and that Christians who are fighting same-sex marriage today will do the same thing. But scriptures doesn’t teach that interracial marriage is wrong in the meaning of different races marrying. They took old testament scriptures, that they didn’t understand, to say that we shouldn’t marry interracially. But now people do understand the reason God told Isreal not to marry women of pagan nations, which was to preserve His witness to the world and to keep His people from going after the idols of… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Well, that’s your interpretation of the Bible. Obviously, a few hundred million Christians in America’s past interpreted it differently (and a few million today still do). I’m well aware of that. I take no position on the matter of what the Bible teaches about interracial marriage. All I’m saying is that Christians for the last 48 years thought it was fine for the government to revoke the religious liberties of people who are against interracial marriage, so they have no right to complain about the government revoking their own religious liberty for opposing gay marriage. And then ten people come… Read more »

Diana Davis
Guest
Diana Davis

Maybe the court didn’t have the right to rule on both decisions and it should’ve been the people petitioning the govt in each state or congress making it law. Just because people didn’t say anything then, doesn’t mean they can’t say anything now. In contrast the first amendment give us religious liberty and the govt can’t pass a law to interfere with that. Now the court ruling on same-sex marriage will do just that and has already been going on in various states. The first amendment gives you the right to free speech, it doesn’t give you the right to… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

“In contrast the first amendment give us religious liberty and the govt can’t pass a law to interfere with that.”

As I’ve explained repeatedly, and just explained to you above, the government has been doing that very thing for 48 years, with laws that ban racial discrimination on the part of small business owners and others. For 48 years it’s been illegal for a person to refuse to cater or photograph an interracial wedding, etc., on the grounds that interracial marriage violates his religious beliefs.

Diana Davis
Guest
Diana Davis

Even though the scriptures don’t prohibit interracial marriage, forcing people to do something that is against their conscious is just as wrong. Eventually those people would’ve seen the truth or they would’ve went out of business. Racial discrimination is wrong and the people who were against interracial marriage were discriminating based on a person’s race. Same-sex marriage is not about a race of people and is about changing the definition of marriage, an institution that comes from scripture between a man and a women and you want to argue to force people to participate in weddings that the Bible says… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

“For 48 years it’s been illegal for a person to refuse to cater or photograph an interracial wedding, etc., on the grounds that interracial marriage violates his religious beliefs.”

I don’t think that’s an accurate statement of the law after Wooley and Thomas. In fact, Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981) [available at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/450/707.html%5D has a long discussion forbidding courts from inquiring into orthodoxy or consistency of religious opinions. Once sincerity of belief has been established, religion is off the game board.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

You have GOT to be kidding me? You think these three cases provide hope for people like the Kleins? Seriously? Thomas was about a Jehovah’s Witness who worked at a foundry, and then got transferred to another of the company’s plants which made weapons for war. That was against his religion, so he asked for a transfer. The company refused, so he asked to be laid off. They refused, so he quit. He applied for unemployment, and was turned down on the grounds that he had voluntarily quit. He sued, saying he had no choice but to quit, because of… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Gregory, Frankly, I was wondering how you going to react to actual law. I’m not the least bit “flabbergasted” that someone with no legal training could so totally miss the meaning, significance, and applicability of the cases I cited, and their obvious relevance to the problems presented by the wedding cake and the photography assignment. Son, trying to be tactful here, may not succeed, but you’re a poster child for “Don’t try this at home.” I’ll save you the trouble of scrolling through my comments to find the link on the gay pride parade decision won by the t-shirt shop;… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

T-shirts aren’t weddings. Weddings grant dignity to gays and lesbians. I know, because a lawyer named Anthony Kennedy said so. He didn’t say t-shirts bring dignity to gays and lesbians. Only a bad, hateful person would deny two people their dignity by not being absolutely enthralled by their wedding. Refusing to take part in their wedding is HATEFUL DISCRIMINATION that robs two people of their dignity. Refusing to manufacture weapons to kill people is not HATEFUL DISCRIMINATION that robs two people of their dignity. Covering up a phrase on a license plate is not HATEFUL DISCRIMINATION that robs two people… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

That didn’t take long. I agree with you to this extent; further discussion with you actually is pointless. BTW, I’m no longer worried about failing tact while around you.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Hey, that’s cool. And sorry for raining on your happy talk parade.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

No need to apologize. Best wishes.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

You are way, way, way off. I hope no one has gotten their hopes up from the stuff you’ve posted, because the cases you cite are not going to be of any help whatsoever. Thomas was about a Jehovah’s Witness who worked at a foundry, and then got transferred to another of the company’s plants which made weapons for war. That was against his religion, so he asked for a transfer. The company refused, so he asked to be laid off. They refused, so he quit. He applied for unemployment, and was turned down on the grounds that he had… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Gregory,
As to this “48 years” concept, there is no expiration date, no “shelf life,” on a takings claim (5th Ad) according to Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), available at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/606.html. Consequently, I don’t see how there can be an expiration date on either sort of 1st Ad defense (free speech or free exercise). Bonus: Justice Kennedy wrote this 5-4 opinion.
kmh

Tom©
Guest
Tom©

The First Ammendment applies to everyone?
So it DOES apply to those who correctly interpret the Bible.
Thank you.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

You, sir, are a genius.

Tom©
Guest
Tom©

I try.
So the Kleins should be given their $135,000 back?

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Should Lester Maddox’s estate be reimbursed for 60 years of lost income after he shut down one of Atlanta’s most popular restaurants rather than serve black people?

Tom©
Guest
Tom©

How is his decision to close his doors a violation of his rights under the First Ammendment?

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

The exact same way telling the Kleins they have to bake cakes for gay weddings or be fined out of existence is a violation of their rights under the First Amendment. He “decided” to close his business only after the government told him he had to start serving blacks, or shut the place down.

Actually, I guess you’d say that if the Kleins cave, and agree to start baking cakes for gays because they don’t want to be fined out of existence, then they “voluntarily” started serving gay weddings, so their rights weren’t violated.

Tom©
Guest
Tom©

Your quotes around “voluntarily” say it all.
Of course their rights were violated.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Of course they were. So were Lester Maddox’s.

But you won’t admit that. So you have no grounds for protesting the violation of the Kleins’ rights.

carole
Guest
carole

But we are switching it around here a bit, yes? On the one hand we are arguing for religious rights in not preparing the cake, and on the other hand the right to refuse service to anyone the business owner chooses….yes? I would argue for both rights, but they are separate issues in so far as Lester Maddox and the Kleins. Then BJU is also different because it was regarding tax exemption. They are subtle differences but differences none the less. A protected class further complicates these rights, and I don’t know how all of that works. Once homosexuals, minorities,… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

If HandsOn (KY) wins all appeals (as I believe they should), then neither protected nor non-protected will matter against a Thomas or a Wooley defense. However, if it’s only a sale, then I think being in a protected class is required. IN has no state-wide ban and Memories Pizza is outside the trio of IN municipalities with orientation bans. Thus, had Memories refused to sell just-a-pizza-for-lunch to a gay, no law (fed/state/local) would have been violated, hence no claim arose. Of course they had sold pizzas to anybody who came in to eat. The “gay wedding” thing was a hypo… Read more »

carole
Guest
carole

Thank you for explaining this, Kelly.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Glad to be of service. I just posted a new comment on method and tone at the top of the thread. Lights out now in my time zone . . . .

Tom©
Guest
Tom©

I actually will admit that, but the grounds for which The Kleins are right and Maddox wrong are found in the Bible, not the constitution.

carole
Guest
carole

Wait, how is Lester Maddox like BJU or The Kleins? I don’t see that, please explain?

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

I don’t think this is not a correct statement of the law, either. Seems to me that Gregory is mistaking “commerce” for both “conscience” and “speech.” Based on the logic of Heart of Atlanta (1964), just-a-cake for desert – – absent any design, creativity, or artistic feature – – could be enforced over a 1st Ad defense by Lester M. Notice how Hobby Lobby (2014) made that point in rebutting a “bring back Jim Crow” worry of the dissent. However, a gay-wedding-cake-not-just-for-desert ought to trigger Thomas, while photograph-a-gay-wedding ought to trigger Wooley. [See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977),… Read more »

carole
Guest
carole

How was Lester Maddox like the Kleins? What religious right was violated?

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

The Constitution doesn’t guarantee rights only to citizens who are religious, but to all American citizens.

Since it also doesn’t grant Congress, the president, or the courts the power to force citizens to do associate with or contract with people they’d rather not associate with or contract with, then citizens have the right to choose whom to associate with or contract with.

If that doesn’t go for Lester Maddox, it also doesn’t go for the Kleins.

carole
Guest
carole

Thanks for explaining. I was under what very well could be the false idea, that because black people are in a protected class, businesses could not appeal to the right not to associate. Even if that isn’t true, aren’t these cases appealing two different constitutional rights. The Kleins are refusing service only for the wedding, based on religious conviction, whereas Maddox would be appealing to the right not to associate? It is my understanding that the Kleins had, and would bake any ol cake for the gay couple, just not a wedding cake. I am sure I am frustrating, and… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

It was stripped. That’s why Christians are in the boat they’re in now. Because they’ve let the government establish a half century precedent of revoking the freedom of association and religious liberties of people who don’t want to associate or contract with people the government thinks they should associate or contract with.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Gregory,

I don’t think you’re correctly stating the law. Palazzolo completely contradicts your “half century of precedent” argument, while Wooley and Thomas contradict your “contract with people the government thinks they should . . . contract with” claim.
So, seems to me to prevail in this argument you need to demonstrate I’m citing the wrong cases, citing them in the wrong way, or they are no longer good law. An attorney has told you that you are incorrect as a matter of law. Just repeating inaccurate statements will not do.
kmh

A. James
Member

I need help here if you have time. When I say there is much “precedence” to overcome–I mean it in the generic sense that there have been a build up of rulings that encroach bit by bit on states’ rights which necessarily affects our input of opinion or living to individual rights. I mean rights “generically” (not just to my “holy text”). Whether it’s the HHS type stuff or ObamaCare Insurance stuff or tax exempt situations or anything that has the Supreme Court speaking more and more while the states and tje people speak less and less…that build up of… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Toughie. No question there has been a sea change in what Americans expect out of their government today as compared to several generations back. Both law and politics are downstream of culture. They reflect and follow prevailing values far, FAR more than they shape it. The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act did not change American hearts and minds. The hearts changed first and the law followed suit. MLK first had to convince the American people that the moral check he was writing ought not bounce; it would not bounce – – we were better than that. Contrast that with Baltimore… Read more »

A. James
Member

That abortion thread up front is bound to get me in trouble in either “circle”, so I thought I’d come back here. Maybe I’ll go with “precedents of values”…”values precedent”…something. “Both law and politics are downstream of culture. They reflect and follow prevailing values far, FAR more than they shape it….The hearts changed first and the law followed suit.” I like this a lot, but I forget this a lot. And I guess I knew this. It just keeps it from all being so neat and tidy when looking at law and politics. Maybe I get the “loss of states’… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

I don’t have time right now to read and respond to stuff on here. I hope to get back into the discussion later tonight.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

I don’t have time to look into this right now. But you seem to be focused on SCOTUS rulings, while I’m talking about the actual text of the Constitution. I’ll read more of your comments later tonight.

Katecho
Member

Gregory McDivitt wrote:

The Constitution doesn’t guarantee rights only to citizens who are religious, but to all American citizens.

We need to be careful with our wording. The things that were called rights were not understood to come from the Constitution as a grant or a gift from government. The Constitution does not guarantee to us what we already possess, but is (was?) the guarantee that the Federal government would not usurp those rights.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

“And when I say “biblically mandatory” stand, I would appreciate it if you didn’t say that this is “just our interpretation.” I am over my quota of postmodern relativism for the month.” Rev. Wilson, I don’t recall ever saying that there’s much room for leeway in interpreting what the Bible says about homosexuality. That the Bible unequivocally prohibits and condemns homosexuality across the board seems undeniable to me. I have said that there is a long history, a few hundred years in fact, of American Christians believing that the Bible prohibits interracial marriage. Although some small clusters of American Christians… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

Gregory, In reference to Doug’s assertion that the idiot segregationalist doesn’t get to complain: Do you see no difference between a man standing up for his right to sin and a man standing up for his right to obey God? I know you are a bit iffy on the sinfulness of interracial marriage… kinda grosses you out. .. on balance of probilities probably ok and all that… Assume for the sake of argument it is an unequivocal sin to prohibit interracial marriage. Then a man who stands up for his legal right to prohibit interracial marriage has the rhetorical effect… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Tim, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you had kept in mind that the job of SCOTUS isn’t to make sure that laws conform to the Bible, but to to make sure they don’t violate the Constitution. It doesn’t matter one bit from a Constitutional perspective that you think your interpretation of the Bible is better than some other people’s interpretations, because, well, your interpretation is right, and theirs is wrong. I understand that many people here think it’s obvious that gay marriage is prohibited by the bible, while interracial marriage is approved, and therefore SCOTUS… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

I am not talking about the job of SCOTUS. They didn’t do their job. We agree.

I speaking from the perspective of one Christian speaking to another.

Your 2nd paragraph is not my perspective. Interact with my last comment with that in mind if you are able.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Well, I wasn’t. Never have been. I’ve always been discussing this from a constitutional perspective. The question of whether the Bible supports or prohibits interracial marriage has nothing to do with the constitutional question. But, no matter how many times someone explains that, half the people on here will come back with some version of “Yeah, but the Bible approves interracial marriage, so those old timers were wrong, so SCOTUS was right to take away their religious liberties.”

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

I do understand your intent.

I am simply trying to explain a way in which a person can agree with everything you have said from a constitutional perspective and from a moral perspective say, “the person beating his dog with the mace doesn’t get to complain.”

The statement simply acknowledges the Godward element in the discussion. We are Christians. We do wish also to confront sin and not just talk politics.

So to the guy fussing about not being able to take chunks out of o’le sparky, we want to tell him shut up.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

I understand you feel that way. But it has zero bearing on the constitutional question. And that’s what I’m focused on.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Sorry, but I have no interest in debating what the Bible says about interracial marriage.

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

I am not actually debating that issue. Read the comment again. I am asking you to assume a position for the sake of argument to address another issue. I am not giving a biblical defense of interracial marriage and asking you to interact with it.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

No, thanks. It’s just a way of trying to get us off the constitutional question and down the rabbit trail of the “exceeding sinfulness of the sin of opposing interracial marriage” question. I got it. You think interracial marriage is fine, and the people who oppose it aren’t. In fact, they’re very bad, and when they use the Bible to justify their belief it angers and embarrasses you, and you wish to God they’d shut up so you don’t get lumped in with them because you also base your marriage views on the Bible. Again, I get that. And, again,… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

Interesting interpretation of my intent :)

To be clear: my intent is to explain the reason why a person can say an immoral man is never justified in defending his immorality while saying the government should not be in the business of punishing all forms of immorality.

The first statement is true because we live before the watchful gaze of a holy God.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

“my intent is to explain the reason why a person can say an immorality man is never justified in defending his immorality” Right. And I understand the principle. But, and it’s a very big but, hardly any Christians in the past who opposed interracial marriage based on their interpretation of the Bible would have considered themselves to be immoral for following the Bible. In fact, I doubt if any of them would have thought it was immoral to “follow what the Bible teaches about marriage.” On the contrary, they would have called *you* the immoral one for messing with “God’s… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

If you get that principle, why does Doug’s comment not make sense? Unless the rules to the discussion are moral relativism, I do not understand your objection to Doug saying, “the idiot segregationalist doesn’t get to complain.”

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

It was moot, because my point has always been that if the Constitution gives SCOTUS or Congress or local govs the power to punish people for opposing interracial marriage, then it also gives them the power to punish people for opposing same sex marriage. And Rev. Wilson claimed that it was because people who oppose interracial marriage are bad people, and therefore can’t complain when the govt. violates their constitutional rights. I do not understand your objection to Doug saying, “the idiot segregationalist doesn’t get to complain.” OK. So you wouldn’t object to Bob Jones, Sr. saying of Rev. Wilson… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

I think you are engaging in a little revisionist history here. You suggest Doug is trying to have it both ways… “Now you’re saying that yes, they were right. But then you say: But the idiot Trojans who brought the horse in (read segregationists) don’t get to complain.” So how is this not trying to have it both ways?” …when he is speaking of having no moral right to complain, not legal right. Then, you say you get the distinction… If you got the distinction to begin with… then he wouldn’t be trying to have it both ways… I wouldn’t… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

“When he is speaking of having no moral right to complain, not legal right.” No, he wasn’t. Because I was talking about the legal constitutional rights of people who oppose IRM. It was crystal clear that’s what i was talking about, as I’ve never even gotten into a discussion of whether opposition to IRM is biblical or not. And Rev. Wilson was responding to my point about the legal/constitutional right. He never said anything like “well, to depart from the legal angle for a moment, let’s talk about moral rights.” A person can’t come into the argument and start talking… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

“Gregory, when a despot makes you quit sinning, he still has his problems, but the one who is getting whacked has no moral authority in resistance.”

If my phone would let me bold the word moral in the above quote I would.

That being said, disregard the revisionist history speculation, you clearly misread him accidentally.

Also, many communication breakdowns are the result of misunderstanding not dishonesty. Like ships in the night and all that…

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

I didn’t misread him at all. I was clearly talking about Lester Maddox’s legal and constitutional rights being violated. We weren’t discussing “moral rights” at all. I’ve always been addressing the legal/constitutional angle. And I think that’s pretty clear. I understand that most of the regulars here disagree with me, and they have no problem claiming with a straight face that Rev. Wilson never said what he clearly said. But many people reading these discussions aren’t regulars, and they see what’s going on. They may not agree with me, but they’re not too impressed with people who claim words words… Read more »

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

Go read through the whole conversation again. Read it with him saying no moral right to complain and it will make better sense. If you wish to double down still. Explain why he used moral in the quote I gave and not legal.

bethyada
Member

Gregory, I have sympathy for your position. Yet I didn’t read Doug like you did.

Some of your comments do lack clarity. And you are more antagonsitic than necessary to people who want to understand you, want to engage you, and some who probably agree with you.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

You’re right about my tone. I’ll try to do better. I’m probably going to be commenting much less, anyway, as I’ve made my main points, and there’s not much else left to say. But on the occasions when I do comment from here on in, I’ll try to be less adversarial.

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

Please explain the use of moral in the quote I mentioned.

He is not saying, in this form of government, has no legal authority… that point has already been established.

carole
Guest
carole

So Gregory, do you think the only worthwhile outcome would be to have all protected class provisions taken away? And if so, do you think it would also be better for Christians to rally with those we find immoral so that we can restore our constitutional rights by removing protected class provisions? In other words we need to stop focusing on the righteousness of our cause in so far of its biblical righteousness and focus solely on its constitutional right. Because in that regard, we are in the exact same spot as BJU was. If we band together now do… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Even Rev. Wilson, after stipulating that people who oppose interracial
marriage have the constitutional right to refuse to participate in one,
then turns around and says that if the government refuses to recognize
that right, they have no right to complain

No right to complain to whom?

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

You’ll need to ask Rev. Wilson. But in context, it could only mean “complain to the political authorities about trampling their rights.”

bethyada
Member

I didn’t read it like that at all.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Well, here’s the discussion. I was clearly talking about Lester Maddox’s legal rights. Someone else had mentioned how bad it was that the Kleins were fined $135,000 after refusing to bake a cake for gay couple. So, I said 60 years ago the government told Lester Maddox he had to start serving black people, or shut his popular restaurant down. So he went out of business. Should the goverment reimburse him for 60 years of lost income from one of the most popular restaurants in Atlanta? Now, that’s clearly a discussion legal and constitutional rights. And that’s when Rev. Wilson… Read more »

A. James
Member

LOL. That was a relief to find. Back to the basics. And yet, not so basic these days.

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

I’m still not clear what individual rights of people were violated by Loving. I understand the point about it being wrongly decided, and don’t dispute that, but when it comes down to it, what right of religious liberty did you lose when my brother married a biracial woman?

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

The right of states to make a law against it, the right of citizens or organizations to discriminate against it.

A. James
Member

Exactly. And didn’t someone ask me that earlier about “what right did I lose with this homosexual ‘marriage’ because they got married”–and my answer was the same as yours here…and that because of that, it necessarily affects our religious liberty. This ruling and it’s threats are sooner and more obvious to more of us than the other because we’re in the here and now after years of the Civil Rights Act, and maybe more than abortion because that’s more of a “secret sin” and more limiting in services provided…affecting doctors, pharmacists, companies. Or maybe I’m confused. These threads are getting… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

I don’t see that the loss of individual rights is in the creation of same sex marriage as such. It’s in the tying of that institution to anti-discrimination laws. Even if same sex marriage becomes a “thing,” I don’t think it necessarily follows that you can’t decide how to relate or do business with the parties to such a union. I’m specifically trying to separate the two concepts.

Katecho
Member

If our present culture lasts long enough to see it, the newly discovered and trumpeted “fundamental right” to a polygamous marriage will clarify the question of “what did I lose because of who my neighbor married?”. That will be the day that the tax and health insurance code changes to discriminate against the later spouses, or, the sudden abuse of tax code and health insurance regarding dependents will ensure that every married couple loses any and all tax and insurance benefits associated with being married. All the homosexuals who fought for such “marriage” privileges will have found that they simply… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

“The right of states to make a law against it” is not an individual right. I get that part of the objection.

How does making it not a crime to form an inter-racial marriage inherently take away the right of citizens or organizations to discriminate against it? It’s not a crime to do a lot of things but most of those things do not receive protected status merely because it is not a crime.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I think I see your point. Loving my be a violation of state’s rights but the violation of individual rights lies elsewhere, The Civil Rights act perhaps.

Ian Miller
Member

Ugh. The whole argument about “miscegenation” (and the term itself) are, as far as I can tell, sort of like, “race presents a stumbling block to communication, which hampers spiritual growth” and flows from the “unequally yoked” Scriptures (totally misapplied).

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

“I’m still not clear what individual rights of people were violated by Loving.” I don’t recall ever saying that the Loving decision violated individual rights. I’ve said that it ignored 300 years of colonial and American history, flouted the will of the 80% of the population who regarded interracial marriage as immoral, and trampled states rights. “what right of religious liberty did you lose when my brother married a biracial woman?” I didn’t lose any. I’m not religious, I’m not in a job that involves interacting with the public, and don’t care who marries who. You should ask Keith Bardwell.… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

None. The specialist didn’t lose liberty because of same sex marriage. He lost it by virtue of prior court decisions that determined that if same sex marriage became legal, his religious rights would be obviated. It’s the underlying assumption that violates his rights in that case, not the establishment of same sex marriage. That’s wrong for other reasons. I understand you better now — you think that states’ rights are a matter of religious liberty as such. I think that’s an odd understanding, since I think those are different categories each with their own significance, but at least I know… Read more »

A. James
Member

As soon as these decisions are made, decisions on matters that are not delegated to it per the Constitution…our liberties are automatically LESSENED. I see it directly rather than indirectly. We are necessarily left with less freedom when others are given more and completely on a federal level. Maybe you see it as indirectly or not related, and I see it directly. The ongoing doing Supreme Court usurping and being involved on levels of issues of commerce, insurance, marriage, civil rights, etc. automatically were affecting individual rights…it couldn’t but come to it, as they took freedom into their own hands,… Read more »

Katecho
Member

McDivitt is certainly not the first one to notice that the Federal government has been usurping State’s rights. Lots of Christians were pointing to this problem about a century before Loving, so I’m not sure what the fixation is over the Loving case. It’s just one obscure example of the principle that McDivitt seems to have arbitrarily grabbed ahold of. McDivitt apparently thinks that the Loving case is the lone watershed of consistency on the entire issue, even for the majority of Christians today who weren’t even around then. It seems that McDivitt is really just trying (and failing) to… Read more »

A. James
Member

Wow.
I think I’m disgusted all over again.
And wondering all over again where the “precedence” of decisions (both generally and specifically) is going to lead. Chaos.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Jane, I think that if individual rights were violated under Loving, it was more or less in the same way as it is today with SSM. Suppose I believe, wrongly but sincerely, that God abominates miscegenation, that it amounts to race treason, and that He intended to keep each race separate and distinct. Imagine that I believe all this but without any element of racial hostility. (1) I teach the need for racial purity to my children, and I object to this lesson being undermined in the public schools–which will now convey to my children that interracial marriage is just… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

Sadly, I’ve run into this type of view on interracial marriage on the internet. Not frequently, but it’s out there, and it’s quite virulent.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Yes, it is. I was shocked to find a “Christian” website spewing this with all apparent seriousness. The pictures of David Duke were a tip-off, but still.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

It’s not my place to tell anyone other than my children who they can and can’t marry but I think that certainly communities have the right to make those decisions. I can think of a lot of arguments against a common practice of interracial marriage that do not involve hatred of any particular race. Just for one, can a society cosmopolitan enough to embrace widespread interracial marriage ever generate loyalties strong enough to compete with a tyrannical government?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VYWnU610pE

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

If you say that people are interchangeable, races and cultures are interchangeable. Wouldn’t the world be a more loving place if we just mixed them all together? If you believe those things don’t be surprised when your children believe the same about sexes or religions. This is another of those ideas that evangelicals think that they believe because it is evident in scripture but they really believe it because some atheist utopian statist dreamed it up and fed it to them through school and Sesame Street.

Ian Miller
Member

I’m obviously quite biased, but my general tendency of thought is that a society that treats interracial marriage as a bad thing is generally not a healthy one.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Catholic laws against cousin marriage in medieval Western Europe suppressed tribalism as well as likely providing some genetic advantage, creating societies that went on the conquer the world and create modern Western civilization. At the same time, cousin marriage continues to sustain a tribalism that holds back much of the Middle East. So far as that I agree with you. That said, I think that the point of diminishing returns probably occurs a few cousins out in the family tree. As the West declines its hard not to see widespread interracial marriage (and really childbearing more often than marriage) as… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

I think that interracial marriage does have tensions in the directions you mention, but I’ve not experienced them having the kind of nihilistic destruction of the past in my own family, or seen them in the many, many interracial couples and families I’ve been blessed to know. And I do not think that interracial marriage or melting pot social structures necessarily lead to this kind of destruction, either – I feel like I see a fair amount of it in singular race communities as well. The health of a society, I think, is measured by innumerable things, but primarily how… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I think most Americans have no concern for destruction of the past because it has already been melting potted away. Re: couples you know 1. People don’t put restrictions on themselves. In the absence of bounds placed by culture or law, couples will pair off based on proximity and simple romantic affinity. In this the prevalence of interracial marriage tells us more about the general culture or lack thereof than it tells us about a particular couple. 2. Nihilism is a funny term to try to apply to individuals but I would say that the signs of such would be… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

Well, almost all the interracial couples I know through the churches I’ve been a member of, and they tend to be middle-upper-middle class. But none of them are strong displayers of any of those traits.

I’m not familiar with “genetically high functioning minorities,” and am deeply suspicious of the term based on the apparent meaning.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

By that I mean a Jewish/Chinese couple is with high IQs and low time preference are likely to exhibit different behaviors than a black/hispanic couple. I would still expect to find some of the more subtle signs of dysfunction such as having fewer children and a generally cosmopolitan outlook. I am speaking in generalizations but they are accurate generalizations. Different races have different genes resulting in differences in IQ and behavioral traits. That’s just science. Understanding that will actually lead to a more humane society. For instance, sending blue collar jobs overseas while encouraging blacks to get degrees and join… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

And this is why I believe I must bow out. The things you are saying have a verneer of reason to them, but I cannot understand how you don’t see the moral horror of what you are saying.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

If the idea that all people are essentially the same is the only thing keeping you from killing people or enslaving them then that is the moral horror. I try to engage the world as it is since all truth is God’s truth. I don’t have any ill will towards anyone. I see beauty in the diversity of humanity and I wish them all fulfilling lives. Ironically, what makes my ideas so odd is that I reject the very white Western ethic of radical egalitarianism.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I’ll also point out that race is far down my list of hobby horses. I didn’t bring up the touchy topic of race and marriage on this forum, I’m just trying to address it in a rational manner. If I have a hobby horse it is the rejection of modernity.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Another way to look at this is from the Jonathan Haidt’s moral matrices, Care/harm, Fairness (equality)/cheating, Liberty/oppression, Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation. A liberal (and even a very conservative 2015 American is pretty liberal by historical and world cultural standards) functions morally based almost solely based on harm and equality. He would see a person that views interracial marriage as disloyal or degrading to be immoral but that is because the liberal has very little sense of loyalty or degradation. He only sees potential for harm and the unfairness of the condemnation. You can argue the benefits and disadvantages of this… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I encourage everyone to read Haidt’s The Righteous Mind. It is an engaging read and it really helps clarify many of the conflicts between people in our society.

Ian Miller
Member

I think the multiple axis of morality is worthwhile, but I think one puts themselves in the wrong when you argue against being open minded on issues of race. Additionally, while there’s definitely mental tendencies to be drawn from one opinion, correlation between two moral issues does not equal moral equivalency. The Bible clearly teaches that in Christ, there are neither Jew nor Greek (which also has cultural connotations, but I’m sticking to race right now), while also clearly teaching that homosexual practice is depravity.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

No Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female. Take your reading of that scripture to its logical conclusions.

Ian Miller
Member

Fair point. To which I would counter Ruth and Rahab.

It’s fairly clear that we’re not going to agree, and I’m fairly angry about the associations you are drawing between interracial marriage and condoning or embracing sin, so I’m going to bow out for now.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I’m sorry to hear that. Hopefully I haven’t been inaccurate or insulting. My intent was not to support any certain law but to point out that someone might have concerns about this issue that do not involve hate, concerns that may even be moral. It looks like I’ve failed there. I look forward to future exchanges.

A. James
Member

Yes, I get quite…concerned at end results of various uses and interps of that scripture. It’s been used to promote all kinds of ideas not elsewhere supported and elsewhere contradicted. Sticking to the context and progression of Galatians 3, it is pointing out our equal standing in Christ through faith, and that all need not the OT law to be a child of God. “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave… Read more »

A. James
Member

which “type of view” specifically? i don’t want to be misunderstood.

Ian Miller
Member

The type of view that likes to throw around the word “miscegenation” and say it’s a bad thing.

A. James
Member

Just saw this, and so I’d like to clarify for myself. I can discuss the topic and discuss or learn WHY some might say it’s a bad thing or a good thing–and maybe understand the reasoning on one side and/or another. For my part, I can do the same with sermons that I’ve read preached for or against interracial marriage. It’s more of a subject I want to understand how it all affects the ebb and flow of history–and yes, watching BJU take the steps as they have. I know some that (not just American whites) are passionate that as… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I’ve never made an argument against interracial marriage before but I couldn’t continue to stand by while people continued to slander our Christian ancestors unchallenged. To the extent I have ever encountered such arguments it has been from the black perspective as in the Ali video I linked. I was generally riffing ideas as they came to me but I can’t say that I wrote anything that I think was untrue or inaccurate. I wouldn’t deem to tell any particular couple not to marry but they should weigh the positives of the union against the negatives I brought up and… Read more »

A. James
Member

“I wouldn’t deem to tell any particular couple not to marry but they should weigh the positives of the union against the negatives I brought up and probably others I never thought of.” Agreed. And in the right tone of concern or encouragement, I’ve never had any one upset with me for doing so. “I wont lie to attack their beliefs but I am through telling lies to support them” :) I’m just recently working on “I won’t be silent from fear of attacking their beliefs, but I am through being silent so as to support them”. “At the same… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

Here’s why I differ: 1. I know this is a common position in opposition to SSM, but I just don’t think it’s sound, much as I hate SSM. I don’t have a right for it to be easy to teach my kids something different from what the world does. I agree that SSM is *objectionable* in part because it makes it harder to undertand what marriage is, but I don’t think that’s a violation of any actual *right.* 2. That’s not so much because SSM is, but because the civil rights laws have come to be interpreted to mean that… Read more »

A. James
Member

It is inevitable that if the Supreme Court takes away states’ rights and chooses to “protect” or “equalize” or in any way put their nose in where it shouldn’t — these mentioned groups and situations have automatic higher ground/advantage…and yes, it all is, early on, even with Loving inextricably bound to Civil Rights laws ever broadening what protected classes and behavior they want to include. I’m not sure they can be separated. It ends up being “no one will be discriminated except those that discriminate” nonsense tweak on how i see that last paragraph: interracial and SS”M” apart from the… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

Right, but it’s because they took away states’ rights generally, not specifically because they took away the states’ right to ban inter-racial marriage or their right to decline to create same-sex marriage. It’s not because same-sex marriage was created or inter-racial marriage was allowed, specifically. It can be the case that same-sex marriage exists or that people are rightly allowed to marry inter-racially, and it not be the case that people are forced to treat the parties to those unions in a particular way. I realize that’s not the case we have, but it is logically possible. Therefore IMO it’s… Read more »

A. James
Member

Good practical progression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Louisiana_interracial_marriage_incident

So, I guess I’m asking, along my other train of thought with Jane, is: was not allowing interracial marriage so evil (biblically, background of truth speaking) as to be something to “praise” or disobey/challenge laws that affect so many others in the future. maybe that’s a whole nutter discussion, though :)

but then again, i’m hoping there will be some “non-Christians” who will look past their bias and beliefs too in order to see what all has been or is at stake in these decisions.

Jack Bradley
Guest
Jack Bradley

Amen and Amen! This sermon needs to be shouted from the housetops (and Facebook)!!

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

Been shouting all afternoon. Thanks be to God!

bethyada
Member

{An urgent search is being made for a cistern to lower Doug into.}

bethyada
Member

you will all be entirely naked

I have thought that a possibility. Those of the kingdom will be clothed in white. This is because they are righteous in Christ but will preclude their shame. Can anyone point me to a passage that implies the wicked will be naked before the judgment throne?

BooneCtyBeek
Guest
BooneCtyBeek

We need some good community organizer to get the word out the Republicans that unless they bring articles of impeachment against The Five, no Republican from the dogcatcher to the President gets an evangelical vote.

Smfrmrinfrisco
Guest
Smfrmrinfrisco

And some folks think that evangelicals don’t want a theocracy….sheesh

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

freddy
Guest
freddy

Jane always with a pithy response

Smfrmrinfrisco
Guest
Smfrmrinfrisco

Oh I’d say that “theocracy” in an American context would pretty much be the idea that unless judges rule in accordance with my particular articles of faith as taught by my pastor they need to be impeached – that would be a theocracy…..

BooneCtyBeek
Guest
BooneCtyBeek

Wah! You stole my thunder. That’s exactly the point I wanted to lead Mr. San Fran, too.

A. James
Member

“unless they bring articles of impeachment against The Five”…why just five :) what about the one rescuing the HHS abortion mandate and defying states’ rights in healthcare? “no Republican…gets an evangelical vote.” but, but…don’t we vote for the lesser of the evils…don’t they know we will…and all those excuses? but I respect your optimism. “Oh I’d say that “theocracy” in an American context would pretty much be the idea that unless judges rule in accordance with my particular articles of faith as taught by my pastor they need to be impeached – that would be a theocracy…..” we ALL ought… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

How about unless they rule in accordance with the document they are sworn to uphold, in which case failure to do so is a direct abuse of their office? Would that be okay?

A. James
Member

Yes, we have 9. Nine out of millions. That step by step have taken it upon themselves to presume and assume the unauthorized authority to override laws… BOTH the laws made by the vote invested in elected representatives AND laws made by the vote invested at a state level. And this should NOT be okay to any one that want freedom as long as we’ve had it. Problem is we have excused this usurping all along the way due to getting caught up in warm and fuzzy biases over the actual result of the rulings along the way rather than… Read more »

BooneCtyBeek
Guest
BooneCtyBeek

Please define how you understand theocracy. And please don’t copy/paste something you’ve searched on the internet.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Kicking around the idea of theocracy leads me to a few thoughts. 1. A nation founded by much a much higher quality of men than us and overwhelmingly majority Christian only managed to last roughly 200 years before degenerating into Sodom. How long would our new theocracy last? Is there any reason to think that we wouldn’t end up right back here and in a fraction of the time? 2. A theocracy of fuzzy headed Evangelicals would be a short lived indeed since many think that the necessary functions of a state are evil. By that I mean since God… Read more »

A. James
Member

1, Nope. No reason to think that it wouldn’t end up right back here. 2. Indeed. 3. I guess I think any form of government is “inherently unstable and morally corrupting to both the government and the populace” or is able to be done well indeterminably simply because it all depends on the wisdom, morality, etc. of the one/ones in charge. Our republic/representative democracy was naturally slowly declining because of the morality of the populace (“mob”?) as well as the dynamics of the key tenet of a republic/representative democracy (our vote) being usurped. Over the years, we’ve morphed into an… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Well, we began as an oligarchy of sorts with only landholding white men voting. Every expansion of the franchise resulted a degradation in governance. Democracy was regarded as a very inferior for of government from the time of Plato and sure to result in looting of the treasury and collapse. Democracy in an age of mass media results in rule by the media. Going through all the ways democracy had weakened the US government and people would be a long comment but one truly astounding result is the ongoing importation of millions of people to consolidate the power of a… Read more »

ashv
Guest
ashv

European feudal monarchy was, overall, fairly stable and prosperous for several centuries (with the obvious exception of England).

RFB
Guest
RFB

Even “fuzzy headed” would be an improvement; I prefer thick-headed and thin-skinned.

Their god is sentimentalism, their doctrine is Marxist Theology lite, their masculinity is effete, and their definition of an offense is getting their feelings hurt.

timothy
Guest
timothy

We do not live in a post-Christian America. We live in a
post-resurrection America, and there is nothing whatever that can be
done to reverse that.

Ergo my optimism.

I applaud you for writing this; it will be read for generations.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

This was a beautiful and inspiring sermon. Thanks.

John F. Kennedy
Guest
John F. Kennedy

Not having read the Loving case, I’ll take your word that the legal reasoning is similar in both. That being the case, it is hypocrisy for a Christian to approve of the legal reasoning in Loving, but oppose it in Obergefell. I am a little puzzled, though, as to why you are so determined to point out that members of the clergy are not making the link: To accommodate the teaching of the church (to a decision of the court) when that decision is in line with scripture, (even though the court had no authority to make the decision), is… Read more »

John F. Kennedy
Guest
John F. Kennedy

This was in reply to Gregory McDivitt…

timothy
Guest
timothy

Christians, like pretty much everyone else, aren’t able to deal with
being thought of as wicked, backward haters by tens of their citizens.

ahem.

John F. Kennedy
Guest
John F. Kennedy

Sorry, that sentence properly quoted goes like this: “Christians, like pretty much everyone else, aren’t able to deal with being thought of as wicked, backward haters by tens of millions of their fellow citizens.”

timothy
Guest
timothy

Well, this christian is. God willing, if I am the last Christian on this Earth, I will stand in Him.

cheers.

Jack Kennedy
Guest
Jack Kennedy

Funny thing is, though, that Christians who are sure of themselves, tend to be the most likely to succumb.

timothy
Guest
timothy

I am not sure of myself. I pray I will stand fast. This self-doubt is no reason to remain silent.

cheers.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

If Christians don’t make a conscious effort to be counter cultural by deliberately avoiding exposure to mass media and government schooling then it is only a matter of time until they absorb all of the ideas put forth by the tastemakers of culture. Sitcoms have gone a long way in destroying the social fabric of the nation. From there the line of reasoning is “I hold these beliefs (feminism, egalitarianism, what have you) and I’m a Christian therefor these are Christian ideas.” They never seem to notice that their Christian ideas look just like non-believers from Thomas Jefferson to Rachel… Read more »

A. James
Member

“avoiding exposure” AND exposing…goes for teaching in the church and families, explaining the WHY — the What does the Bible Say — what is the best choice. Counter-cultural is the word. Retrain ourselves that it’s okay to be a “peculiar people”, to cherish why. We lost that somewhere along the way. And now we have the social media and all of it at the click of a mouse for us and ours to keep getting carried away in these “beliefs” and “sin” that has never been more accessible–rather than counteracting and rejecting. I’m particularly fond (not) of so called conservative… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

We should be the most suspicious of designated Christian media and Christian icons. See Dalrock’s site about all the things wrong with Fireproof and other Christian movies. I don’t watch TV but any family on reality TV is not traditional by definition. The Palins are not role models. We should keep our focus on real life people and reject role models chosen for us by Hollywood.

RFB
Guest
RFB

Barnabas, “…not role models.” None of them are. That phenomenon has happened due to a low view of the church. God on the other hand, declares our role models: “I urge you, then, be imitators of me. That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ,… Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you…Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of… Read more »

A. James
Member

I’ve always been suspicious. And then I was called too suspicious. And I finally stopped being “nicer than Jesus” on it and started being suspicious of those who weren’t suspicious. And now…when I realize how infiltrated their lives and minds are with those philosophies…I can hardly find a point of contact of communication on most levels. A dead end. Serious disconnect or delusion (living in a constant virtual and not wanting to pull out of it and when they do, they imitate it). I do see some of these more alarmed by this SCOTUS ruling…I don’t know if it’s the… Read more »

Blane Thompson
Guest
Blane Thompson

If I could write this is just what I’d like to say the SC Justices and everyone that agrees with them. Thank you Pastor Wilson.

Andrew Lohr
Member

There’s a prayer for these 5: Psalm 58. (Here’s a link to a singing from the A.D. 1959 CRC Psalter Hymnal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hp9YhDoir4.) Or search youtube for Psalm 58.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Rev. Douglas Wilson is straight wrong from the very beginning.

In his dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antionin Scalia has granted ME the power of final arbitration for all questions of love and matrimony in America.

Justice Antonin Scalia memorably wrote: “Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.”

That is me.

IMHO “expanded”

;-)

Bart Favre
Guest
Bart Favre

Spoken like a warrior poet.

Common Sense 101
Guest
Common Sense 101

Good for him for speaking up! Preach it, teach it, spread it, and never be silent again! If only an outcry from American church pastors would have been deafening when the first State attempted to legalize gay marriage, and when Washington State became the first state to legalize gay marriage by the vote of the people which caused traditional marriage to fall nationwide! The Church should have stopped the spread of this cancer early before it metastasized and became malignant throughout the whole land! Now will the Church wake up and start doing Christ’s commission to disciple America? I do… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

All, A few months ago I started to prepare a sort of “1st Ad Law for Dummies” or maybe better phrased as “Pretty Much Everyone Presumes We’re Getting a Kennedy 5-4 Pro-SSM So Now What?” talk for the church I attend (it’s United Methodist). Since virtually everyone (I mean law profs, commentators, columnists) assumed Obergefell would favor SSM, I got to thinking, “OK, what next?” However, the pastor who started our internal forum got promoted to Dist Supt and left us so the series of talks was suspended (and may not resume; new guy hasn’t had a chance to get… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Folks, I believe I’ve posted enough of the correct law – – along with URLs to the supporting cases – – to enable reasonable people of goodwill to properly understand the interplay of the 1st Ad and gay weddings. On the larger question of SSM itself, the Obergefell opinion speaks for itself. As to law, either a fundamental right was affirmed or 5 people abused their official positions to push a personal preference into law. As to religion and morality, each of us must consult his/her own conscience and the text of our faith – – as applicable; if applicable… Read more »

A. James
Member

This was such a relief to read. You just don’t know. Or maybe you do, which is why you helped us out. I’ll probably quote you “forever”. Keep an eye on us.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Truth be told, after I gave a devotion on this topic (fallout from Obergefell) at the last UMM breakfast, and guys told me afterwards it had lifted a burden from their hearts, I sorta knew there was a hunger for truth out there. When a FB guy told me about this thread I decided to drop by for a bit. Glad my little research effort helped someone else. The coming battles to take tax exemptions away from churches who will not perform an SSM will be all over the news. We are nowhere NEAR the end of these problems. But… Read more »

john k
Guest
john k

Is 1st Ad Law for Dummies about advertisement law, or is it a cautionary tale for Assistant Directors?

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Sorry; just my shorthand. “1st Ad” means “first amendment.”

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Folks, Turns out Gregory posted the same reply to three of my comments. However, I only replied to it once. Once he sees my response and if he chooses to double down, I’m thinking we should poll the thread – – do most of want to go through these three cases in detail? Or have you had enough law? Not enough? While I have no concern about facing opposition, neither do I wish to hijack someone else’s blog. So, let’s give the legal dispute a day and then see where Pastor Wilson and the majority want to go with this… Read more »

David R
Guest
David R

My advice is to stop feeding the troll.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

David R,
Based on the “HATEFUL DISCRIMINATION that robs two people of their dignity” of 2 mins ago instead of a response on the legal points and cases I raised, I think that door closed itself. He’s broken off contact with me.
However, if there are genuine concerns of sincere people on this blog, I’ll respond to those.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

David R,
See above two responses on the supposedly “lame” polygamy theme Gregory has started. Trying legal reasoning or research is obviously a lost cause (no pun intended) with him. But others on the thread are interested. So, I’d like a second opinion – answer them, or ignore troll bait?
Thx
kmh

David R
Guest
David R

I am not the thread police, so you can do whatever you want. If you think your post will help others who may be lurking or bring light on a subject, then by all means respond. I have actually enjoyed your posts, but I am not as optimistic as you on the how the SC will adjudicate these issue going forward. If the SC can redefine the meaning of words, then they can do anything. What is legal precedent and reason in the face of that?

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Sorry for the confusion; wasn’t seeking an order, just a second set of eyes. My experience on other threads has been that there are enough “lukers” who are sincerely interested in hearing from both sides to make posting worthwhile. About a month ago a high teacher from New Jersey chimed in on a newspaper thread with what were obviously talking points. (When folks from England and SC and NJ and CA and VA start chiming in on a purely local news story, what else explains that?) Once I laid out “the rest of the story,” he apologized for jumping in… Read more »

A. James
Member

If I read him rightly, Gregory might have been using dry sarcastic humor. But I’m not sure, so I didn’t respond. Safer that way for me on these topics. And I’m new here, and I’m not totally familiar with people’s moods and personalities yet.

All that to say, I think any legal reasoning is useful…no, not useful, NECESSARY.
It’s where the battles will be, and it would be wise (and cool) to understand it all better. I echo David R’s “thread police” comment.

Whether the polygamy issue or ANY issue you might provide insight into, it’s all intriguing.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

“If I read him rightly, Gregory might have been using dry sarcastic humor.” Yes, I was, Andrew. I was going to expand on it at length later, but I’m spending too much time on this, and I’m going to cut way back. The point was that nearly all anti-SSM evangelicals say that one of the bad things about legalizing gay marriage is that it will lead to legalizing polygamy. Rev. Wilson argued that strongly in his famous debate with Andrew Sullivan – that if we legalize gay marriage, down the road another court will cite that decision as a basis… Read more »

A. James
Member

“Oh, Lord no!” LOL (Enter Bible “holy text” circle) What I’m now contemplating after Kelly’s latest is the sentiment that “Oh, Lord no!” that “polygamy is next”. Well. Is there a problem? We can bake a cake for them if they are in only “disobedience”…so that shouldn’t be a hardship. It’s not perversion. So that’s cool. So. So what that polygamy is next. Now that I think of it, I guess I’m surprised it didn’t become a “protected” marriage sooner than SS”M”. Maybe that Mormon ruling seemed impossible to defeat plus it was repulsive to most (overreaching much but of… Read more »

A. James
Member

I’m not so sure he’s a “troll”. We all have our soapboxes and primary points of vexation and frustration. I am highly interested in this, and it’s the main reason I kept coming back because of McD’s likeminded concerns and thoughts. I haven’t seen it brought up anywhere else and if it is, definitely not in such a koinonia atmosphere, and it’s all been good to me to hear him and everyone elses’ deeper opinions on it. I guess if people don’t want to join the convo they can go talk about infertility, limited atonement, how to divide America, the… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

If he’s the man I suspect him to be from a long-ago series of encounters, he has a history of trolling in the past. But I would not chalk up his current behavior as trolling without that context, so my current stance is one of wariness.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Have you heard about redlining?

A. James
Member

I keep seeing the word around here, but I don’t know what it means. Okay. I’ll go get edumucated.

A. James
Member

Okay. I read it, but I’m not smart enough to figure out how that might work into all of of this…

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

You know the goofiest argument I’ve ever heard for why same sex marriage shouldn’t have been legalized?

That it will lead to polygamy. That one day Obergefell will be cited and used to justify legalizing plural marriages.

You have to admit that’s pretty lame.

Ian Miller
Member

I expect, barring sweeping changes in society and the judicial system, to see exactly that in six months to a year. Not an argument, I know, but something only time will tell.

Ian Miller
Member

Whoops. I got ninja’d by the polygamists. Should have said six days.

Nord357
Guest
Nord357
Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Hmmmm. “Lame” is in the eye of the beholder; yes? OK – – in for a penny; in for a pound. Kelly takes the bait, as follows . . . . There’s nothing new about “polygamy next?” As soon as Goodrich hit the street in 2003, a lot of legal beagle folks began openly wondering how soon that border crossing would be faced. Tooting my own horn here; I alluded to that very question in my law review article a decade ago. See Kelly M. Haggar, A Catalyst in the Cotton: The Proper Allocation of the “Goodwill” of Closely Held… Read more »

A. James
Member

I feel like we owe you a payment for services. And. Wow. Maybe ignorance was bliss. No, I know I shouldn’t say that. Better to have facts to back up our concerns. This is one scary sentence: “The state has a perfect right to prohibit polygamy and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind notwithstanding the pretense of religious conviction by which they may be advocated and practiced.” enlightened sentiment of mankind…pretense of religious conviction… I have questions, but I am not so good with legalese… 1) First, I never knew the history of Mormons/polygamy/religious convictions/1st amendment…… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Andy in Wonderland, Any of this sound familiar . . . “A word means what it says I mean” and “No, the question is ‘Who is to be master?,’ that’s all” ???? One quick observation, then I’ll have to let your Qs perk for a bit, plus I still need to finish that pesky permit. Anyway, even someone who has made the fundamental error of believing that Loving says something – – ANYTHING – – pointing to Obergefell, IMHO, that person still cannot get the rest of the way to gay marriage via either “due process” or “equal protection” without… Read more »

A. James
Member

But of course. Those words were heavily influential in my username. Though I should have changed Andrew to Alex while I was at it. Fits better. http://www.authorama.com/files/humpty-dumpty.gif So…these news articles bragging about “the straight couple that helped the gay couple”…you mean. even as they use it, they shouldn’t be, but they think they should because the Powers the Be say so…and it looks all good and believable…I’m almost thinking I’m misunderstanding you… (still…Loving was also an abuse of position in a case for marriage–there is that general comparison–one of many perhaps …or no?) it’s all good, anything is good, whether… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Andy of Dumpty, Far and away, the two best things I’ve read on the Big Picture of gay marriage are listed below. Never forget that “Both law and politics are downstream of culture” (wish I had said that first). I’ll get back to you on “law” in depth when I can. Until I do, consider Fn 11 from Loving START Appellants [means the Lovings, not VA] point out that the State’s concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act’s title, “An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity,” extends only to the integrity of the white race.… Read more »

A. James
Member

Ha! “Never forget that “Both law and politics are downstream of culture” (wish I had said that first).” Last night, I had scrolled UP to see where you actually had already said it, and I had forgotten. I’ll try to do better. It’s just such an irritating thought. One can only do (as you described above) so much for the culture, so then one thinks “law” and it is so affected by the other “heart issues”…it’s frustrating. Maybe that’s why it seems so defeating, even tough intriguing. There is so much to contemplate and let settle just in this one… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Andrew (Alex?) of W
Instead of you digging out the “cheap grace” thing from 1937, would you rather I just posted it here?
kmh

A. James
Member

Gotta change the username, for sure! I spent most of last night reading through your links and such. I think I read your 1924 Act paragraph 10 times to make sure I had the details straight enough. MY fault, not yours. And the two articles are superior. (And still laughing at this, “We will continue diminishing the bravery of Rosa Parks by claiming a seat beside her as our reward for the one time we boycotted Chick-Fil-A for a month.” We do need to keep our sense of humor about it all, most assuredly :) As you can tell, I… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Andy/Alex in Wonderland, OK, now we exiting ALL secular law and going into pure theology. This is essential, plain vanilla, standard issue Christianity, although a reasonable person of goodwill of any faith – – or no faith at all – – ought to be able (IMHO) to follow the argument. Excepted from a Kelly devotional given 13 Jan 2015. START The other uniting, binding, organizing thread is from 1937, with some added commentary by Craig S. Keener in “Matthew,” published by The InterVarsity Press in their “New Testament Commentary Series,” ISBN 0-8308-1801-4 (1997). [BibleGateway has a copy on-line; URL below.]… Read more »

A. James
Member

“OK, now we exiting ALL secular law and going into pure theology.” I like it when I am forewarned. And I’m glad to have learned I should forewarn others. “This is essential, plain vanilla, standard issue Christianity, although a reasonable person of goodwill of any faith – – or no faith at all – – ought to be able (IMHO) to follow the argument.” I can see some starting up a “Lordship Salvation” debate…but okayyyyyy…maybe “reasonable” is the key word in your sentence… So this, combined with the concepts of what “cheap grace” looks like in practical action in the… Read more »

BC
Guest
BC

Amen

lawngren
Guest
lawngren

Amen. Amen. Amen.

mathis1689
Guest
mathis1689

Perfectly said!

rhondareichel
Guest
rhondareichel

501C has made cowards out of so many pastors….glad to see there is still one with courage besides Chuck Baldwin

BrotherWatch
Guest
BrotherWatch

For centuries, Americans looked to God for guidance and revered Him as the giver of life and liberty. For several decades, the Left has eroded our theological foundation until, today, the world has been turned upside down. May we, as a nation and a People, repent.

See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.

BrotherWatch
Guest
BrotherWatch

The Gay Gospel is a false gospel which actually subverts the true gospel of Christ. God-ordained marriage is symbolic of and points to the marriage of the Lamb of God and the Church (believers). That is why marriage is a holy institution, one which has been so ceremoniously and unabashedly defaced. No wonder God is filled with wrath for those who so despise Him. Yet, godly repentance will lead to forgiveness.

See “Vicky Beeching and the Lesbian Gospel” at http://t.co/CpHQtj5sGN.

drhill
Guest
drhill

This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it. GKC I would guess given DWilsons influences, this quote is somewhere on this blog… I am a first time visitor, and want to thank you for this excellent post! There are several moments on this “sermon” where I said YES! I have been marinating several of these thoughts in different ways… there are so many good moments here I will be rereading and linking on my blog and elsewhere. I LOVE the “It is so ordered” bit – arrogant… Read more »