Pastor Jesse's Blog

Last week, a federal judge overturned California’s ban on gay marriage—a measure that was added to the state’s constitution through a 2008 ballot effort called Proposition 8. Federal district judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (page 109). The judge immediately stayed his own decision pending appeals, so gay marriages will not be performed until the issue is resolved in the higher courts. Read the decision here.

The next stop for this case is the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—a court well-known for leaning left on social issues and which will almost certainly rubber-stamp the lower court’s decision. The next stop will then be the Supreme Court. That is where the showdown will be and where there won’t be any rubber-stamps. In fact, I think the Supreme Court could overturn this. But if Justice Anthony Kennedy is the tie-breaking vote (as many expect him to be), who knows how this will end up?

I think the court’s decision last week sets a horrible precedent. The court didn’t merely strike down a law enacted by the state’s legislature. Proposition 8 is an amendment to California’s constitution that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The court ruled that this part of the state’s constitution was a violation of the U.S. constitution.

Just so you understand the implications of this. If the Supreme Court were to uphold this ruling, it would immediately overturn constitutional amendments and laws in 45 states that define marriage as between one man and one woman. If you are reading this in America, chances are you live in a state that has enacted a ban on gay marriage. The law in your state is now on the line. In short if the Supreme Court would uphold this decision, it would be the most egregious overreach of the high court since Roe v. Wade. It would also polarize the nation just as much if not more than the Roe v. Wade decision did.

Another disappointing aspect of this decision is that the judge sided with plaintiffs who brought in witnesses to show how evangelical Christianity in particular leads to abuse of gay people. Throughout the trial, the plaintiff’s subtext has been that Christianity promotes bigotry. This idea is gaining traction not just in this court, but in the culture at large. Christians who prize the Bible’s teaching on marriage will likely find themselves in very uncomfortable territory in the not too distant future. Faithfulness to Christ on this point will earn us the status of a pariah and bigot. And now with the legal situation changing, Christians will also have to deal with a host of unforeseen consequences that will likely result in diminishing religious liberty.

Among the most troubling aspects of this decision are these:

“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether the individual can be a good parent… Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted” (p. 97).

“Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians” (p. 103).

“Gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents” (p. 115).

“That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant” (p. 118).

“Sexual orientation discrimination is thus a phenomenon distinct from, but related to, sex discrimination” (p. 122).

“The court determines that plaintiff’s equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent to a claim of discrimination based on sex” (p. 123).

“The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender” (p. 126).

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples… These interests do not provide a rational basis supporting Proposition 8” (pp. 132-33).

“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians” (p. 137).

Anyone who thinks they don’t have a stake in this case is burying their head in the sand. Massive social change is just around the corner, and the ground is moving beneath our feet. This judge declares that “religious beliefs” are no rational basis for law, that fathers or mothers are expendable in child-rearing, that the elected will of the majority of voters is irrelevant, and that homosexuals are a protected class. These statements represent nothing less than a legal and societal revolution. The implications of this decision—if upheld by the Supreme Court—are far-reaching, and I am concerned that many Americans are not paying attention to what could become the most significant legal decision of their lifetimes.

In the years to come, the issue of homosexuality and marriage will be a touchstone issue for evangelicals. It will be an issue that divides the men from the boys. It will test who will be willing to take a hit for the truth and who will shrink back. In other words, it will ferret out for us who is willing to take their lumps for the Bible and who will not.

Stay tuned.

Sources:

Jesse McKinley and John Schwartz, “Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Ban in California” (NY Times)

Michael Foust, “Landmark: Judge overturns Calif. ‘gay marriage’ ban” (Baptist Press)

Today, the messengers at the 2010 meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention will be debating a resolution on “the scandal of Southern Baptist divorce.” According to Baptist Press, it reads, in part, that “the acceleration in rates of divorce” in SBC churches “has not come through a shift in theological conviction” but rather “through cultural accommodation.” It further says the SBC has been prophetic in confronting assaults “in the outside culture” on God’s design for marriage “while rarely speaking with the same alarm and force to a scandal that has become all too commonplace in our own churches.”

Here is the last half of the resolution:

RESOLVED, That we express our conviction that a denomination defined theologically by our belief in the authority and inerrancy of Holy Scripture ought to proclaim the whole counsel of God, especially when the Bible confronts our own patters of sin …

RESOLVED, That we express our further conviction that a denomination defined missiologically ought to recognize how damaging Southern Baptist accommodation to the divorce culture is to our global witness for Christ …

RESOLVED, That we express our further conviction that a denomination seeking God’s blessing in revival and reformation ought to address the spiritual wreckage left in our Southern Baptist churches by our own divorce rates and our silence about the same …

RESOLVED, That we call on our churches to proclaim the Word of God on the permanence of marriage, and to provide ongoing marriage enrichment opportunities, in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ and God’s abhorrence of divorce …

RESOLVED, That we call on our churches to unite in marriage only those who are biblically qualified to be married to one another and who demonstrate an understanding of the meaning of lifelong love and fidelity …

RESOLVED, That we call on our churches in our wedding services to maintain the gravity of the vows being undertaken, not simply as a token of a couple’s romance but as a covenant before God, until death do them part …

RESOLVED, That we call on our churches to minister to couples and families in crisis through counseling, mentorship, and, where necessary, through biblical church discipline …

RESOLVED, That we call on our churches to proclaim God’s mercy and grace to all people — including those who have been divorced without biblical grounds — due to the truth that the blood of Jesus can atone for any sin and can cleanse any conscience …

RESOLVED, That we call on our churches to have special compassion for and energetic ministry to those who have been left in the wake of family brokenness …

RESOLVED, That we urge all Southern Baptists in troubled or faltering marriages to seek godly assistance and, where possible, reconciliation; and be if finally

RESOLVED, That we pray that the true peace of our Lord Jesus Christ will reign in us such that the next generation will see the gospel not only in the counter-cultural nature of our verbal witness but also in the counter-cultural love and fidelity of our marriages.

If you don’t think that gay “marriage” is a threat to marriage, then you need to read this. The New York Times reports on a study to be released next month that shows that many “married” homosexuals do not consider monogamy to be a central component of their “marriages.” These couples are open to multiple partners while only being “married” to one. Why is this? According to the report,

“Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.”

What is shocking here is that the report suggests that monogamy is not just a problem for gay “marriages,” but for the institution of marriage itself. In other words, they are saying that heterosexuals should also consider abandoning monogamous marriage. As one “expert” put it, “The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight. If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

The report goes on to interview heterosexuals in open marriages, and they claim as well that having sexual liasons outside of the marital bond has strengthened their marriages. One woman put it this way: “Our relationship got better. I slept better at night. My blood pressure went down.”

As Christians, what are we to make of a report like this? First, it should be no surprise that people are trying to introduce innovations into traditional marriage. Such perversions are not due merely to the rise of gay “marriage.” No-fault divorce, rampant heterosexual immorality, and the deconstruction of gender roles have played their part as well. But we should be careful not to miss the spiritual component in all of this. God intends the union of one man and one woman to be a picture of the Gospel—an enacted parable of Christ’s love for His bride (Genesis 2:24; Ephesians 5:31-32). The world and the Devil hate this message and want to obliterate its picture in marriage. To obliterate the message, one must obliterate marriage. The powers have marriage in their crosshairs, and they aim to do whatever they can to undermine the covenanted union of one man and one woman. One way to destroy something is to redefine it. In this case, the redefinition comes in the form of calling evil good, and good evil (Isaiah 5:20).

Second, Christians must bear witness to the fact that we appeal to a higher authority on marriage. No doubt there are many “married” people who claim open marriages bring them great happiness. Sinners enjoy sin. So it should come as no surprise that this scientific study would indicate as much. But scientific studies reporting the relative happiness of persons in perverted relationships constitute no ground for understanding the nature and purpose of marriage. God created and thus defines marriage. For Christians, therefore, no scientific study can trump God’s word.

Third, our number one task as Christians is not so much to reform marriage, but to share the Gospel and call sinners to repentance. Where the Gospel takes hold, we can be sure that the transformation of marriages is soon to follow. For this reason, our Gospel-preaching must be accompanied by Gospel-living. When unbelievers see Christian marriages in shambles, they encounter a stumbling block to the Gospel. What that means is that individual Christians and churches must commit themselves to healthy marriages (as the Bible defines health). That means one man and one woman in covenanted union for life. Within that union, the world needs to see husbands who love their wives as Christ loved the church and women who follow the leadership of their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-33). And they need to see this kind of union as the happiest kind of union there is.

I don’t think Christians should worry about studies like the one quoted above. God’s kingdom will march on even if our culture goes in another direction. What should concern all of us, however, is when Christians and churches begin to look more like the culture than God’s kingdom. Let’s pray that God will make us a faithful counterculture in the midst of the culture for the sake of the culture.