Sojourn in a nation under judgment: Anne Kennedy's epic takedown of Rachel Held Evans

Any article critiquing Rachel Held Evans ought to be required reading. This morning, Anne Kennedy scored an epic takedown of the sniveling, neo-Pharisaical, proto-millennial blogger, who never seems to tire of pointing an accusing finger at Christians who actually believe Jesus is who he said he is and the Bible is what the church has always said it was.

First off, I wish she would desist calling me, and others who love the Bible and the Jesus revealed in the bible her “fellow Christians”. We are not fellows together. We believe contradictory opposite gospels. She is not curious enough about the gospel I embrace to know what it says, to understand that love is at the center of this issue, that Christians like me are horrified to find that the culture, and self identified “Christians” like her, have created a new definition of love that lets a person sexually tie himself or herself to a person of the same gender, regardless of God’s clear, explicit hatred of such an act. Love demands, love implores, love does everything it can to warn of the peril right ahead. So yes to fear, this is a perilous place we inhabit, now. But from whence cometh the entitlement? Christians have rightly perceived the rejection of their world view and are retreating in sorrow and grief. As for the charge that we are obscuring the gospel, I think the church has already been complicit in that confusion, and I think now Jesus himself is making the gospel more than abundantly clear. One of the ways (only one way, there are so many) gay “marriage” is so hateful to God is because it obscures the central relationship between Christ and the Church. Marriage isn’t about individuals. Each and every marriage paints a picture of Jesus’ sacrificial love for his bride, who is not the same as him. Gay “marriage” paints a lying idolatrous picture of this reality and is one reason why, I think, the winners are so angry. Because living in a horrible lie is actually not that comfortable and pleasant. Look in the defiant, tragic gaze of a child who is lying and who doesn’t know how to get out, and you have an expression of the anger we are seeing everywhere. Why, pray tell, in this moment of great joy, Rachel Held Evans, do you pause to take a wack at bible loving Christians? I’ll tell you why, because the lie is ugly and hurtful, and so there must be lots of shouting and anger to cover up the great wound that leads to death. But moving on.

Kennedy's concluding observations are most insightful.

God’s judgement is pouring out. His burning anger is already here. If you feel angry, I long for you to look in his face, and not flinch when you see his abiding, perfect wrath. Really, my Christian identity has never been clearer than at this precise moment.

Hardly a day goes by now that I don't see some Facebook post or meme issuing the dire warning that "God is going to judge America" for all of the abominations it is now condoning. But, as Kennedy implies, the judgment is already happening. In Romans 1:18-32, Paul speaks about "men behaving indecently with men," etc. precisely in terms of judgment. The prevalence of such abominable acts is not a sign that God's wrath is about to be poured out but, indeed, that it is already being poured out. It's not the popular caricature of lightning striking, but the more subtle judgment of God giving a rebellious people over to their "dishonorable passions." God may not judge a nation because it celebrates sexual deviancy. Rather, the celebration of deviancy may very well be evidence that God's judgment has already come.

If that is the case, it presents us with a very crucial question. What is the church's responsibility as it sojourns in the midst of a nation under judgment? Most assuredly, it has a more significant role to play than the complacent compromising suggested by the likes of Rachel Held Evans. In his commentary on Revelation (unfortunately, long out of print), M. Robert Mulholland, Jr. offers this sacramentally saturated observation on the church's mission in the midst of a rebellious order.

For the church in John's day, as well as today, the vision reveals the profoundly deep reality of what it means to be a citizen of New Jerusalem. To be part of the eucharistic community of God's people is to become part of God's response to the rebellion. To partake of the Eucharist is to be drawn into the very being and nature of God so as to be shaped in the image and likeness of God. To partake of the Eucharist is to be thrust out into the midst of Fallen Babylon to participate in God's costly, redemptive response to the rebellion. The vision images this in the bowls [Revelation 15:6-16:21], which, on the one hand, are the prayers of the saints that open them to the shaping presence of God and that, on the other hand, being filled with the presence of God, are then poured out into the life of the world.

The outpouring of God's wrath is never an arbitrary act. Its purpose, like all the purposes of God revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is ultimately redemptive. The church, as an active participant in God's response to the fallen order's rebellion, is called to be an agent of what Mulholland calls redemptive wrath.

Janna Darnelle explains the dark side of redefining marriage

Behind the media-generated facade of "marriage equality" is a cesspool of evil, spawning broken families, ruined lives, and a culture of selfishness which exploits and demeans women and children. Janna Darnelle bravely comes forward to point this out.

There is not one gay family that exists in this world that was created naturally.

Every same-sex family can only exist by manipulating nature. Behind the happy façade of many families headed by same-sex couples, we see relationships that are built from brokenness. They represent covenants broken, love abandoned, and responsibilities crushed. They are built on betrayal, lies, and deep wounds.

This is also true of same-sex couples who use assisted reproductive technologies such as surrogacy or sperm donation to have children. Such processes exploit men and women for their reproductive potential, treat children as products to be bought and sold, and purposely deny children a relationship with one or both of their biological parents. Wholeness and balance cannot be found in such families, because something is always missing. I am missing. But I am real, and I represent hundreds upon thousands of spouses who have been betrayed and rejected.

If my husband had chosen to stay, I know that things wouldn’t have been easy. But that is what marriage is about: making a vow and choosing to live it out, day after day. In sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, spouses must choose to put the other person first, loving them even when it’s hard.

A good marriage doesn’t only depend on sexual desire, which can come and go and is often out of our control. It depends on choosing to love, honor, and be faithful to one person, forsaking all others. It is common for spouses to be attracted to other people—usually of the opposite sex, but sometimes of the same sex. Spouses who value their marriage do not act on those impulses. For those who find themselves attracted to people of the same sex, staying faithful to their opposite-sex spouse isn’t a betrayal of their true identity. Rather, it’s a decision not to let themselves be ruled by their passions. It shows depth and strength of character when such people remain true to their vows, consciously striving to remember, honor, and revive the love they had for their spouses when they first married.

Please read the whole article.

No comment department . . .

. . . because commentary would be superfluous.

DETROIT — Ministers in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) can preside at same-sex marriages in states where they are legal following a vote this afternoon at the denomination‘‍s top legislative body.

And in the coming year, the denomination’‍s regional presbyteries will vote on whether to change its marriage definition church-wide to include two people regardless of gender.

Strong applause broke out after the overwhelming votes, which came after debate of more than two hours at the denomination‘‍s General Assembly here at the Detroit Cobo Center. But the decisions also came with plenty of anxious words about the looming possibility that more conservatives will join an exodus of estimated 350 congregations that have left for more conservative denominations in recent years as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shifts to increasingly liberal stances on sexuality. In 2011, the denomination voted to authorize the ordination of gays and lesbians in non-celibate relationships.

The General Assembly today voted 371-238 in favor of an official “authoritative interpretation” of its constitution, honoring the freedom of conscience of any pastor who chooses to preside at a legal same-sex wedding and of any church that chooses to host one.

The measure only applies in jurisdictions such as Pennsylvania, 18 other states and the District of Columbia, where gay marriage has been legalized by legislation or court order.

The measure takes effect Saturday upon conclusion of the assembly. Unlike an amendment to the church constitution, it does not require approval from regional presbyteries.

The authoritative interpretation says that a minister’‍s “discernment of the leading of the Holy Spirit is indispensable” and ministers have the freedom of conscience to decide whether to solemnize any legal marriage.

Separately, the assembly also voted 429-175 to change its constitutional definition of marriage from a covenant between “a man and a woman” to that of a “unique commitment between two people.”

The measure goes to the church‘‍s regional presbyteries for ratification in the coming year.

The church has 1.76 million members and is particularly concentrated in Western Pennsylvania. The denomination has lost about 10 percent of its members in the past two years, driven in large part to the exiting congregations.

The assembly overwhelmingly approved a motion directing the top leadership of the Louisville, Ky.-based denomination to “establish a way to bring reconciliation to the church that would involve visiting each presbytery.” The denomination’‍s stated clerk, the Rev. Gradye Parsons, said that while he couldn‘‍t immediately estimate the travel cost of such an effort, “the cost of not doing this is higher.”

Robert Gagnon: Jesus, Scripture, and the Myth of New Knowledge Arguments about Homosexual Unions

San Francisco Archbishop stands firm against Nancy Pelosi, will participate in marriage march

Despite having to endure the intimidating whines of Nancy Pelosi and other malcontents, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone is not backing down from his commitment to the upcoming March for Marriage in Washington.

San Francisco’s Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has responded to appeals from politicians and religious leaders that he back out of an appearance at a pro-marriage event in Washington, DC later this week, stating that the event “is not ‘anti-LGBT’”.

In a letter dated June 10, nearly 80 leaders, including California’s Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee as well as representatives from various churches and religious organizations, called upon Archbishop Cordileone to reconsider participating in the National Organization for Marriage’s annual rally and march at the nation’s capital on June 19.

“[W]hile not all of us agree with official Catholic teaching on marriage and family,” the letter reads, “we appreciate the many statements from Catholic leaders defending the human dignity of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, especially the recent words of Pope Francis: ‘If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?’ … We respect freedom of religion and understand that you oppose civil marriage for same-sex couples. But the actions and rhetoric of NOM, and those of the event's speakers and co-sponsors, fundamentally contradict Christian belief in the fundamental human dignity of all people.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reported over the weekend that US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a similar letter to Archbishop Cordileone asking him to cancel his appearance at the march. Pelosi also invoked the words of Pope Francis in her appeal.

The archbishop responded to the June 10 letter from Newson et al. with a letter of his own, in which he stated that his duty is “to proclaim the truth—the whole truth—about the human person and God’s will for our flourishing.

I must do that in season and out of season, even when truths that it is my duty to uphold and teach are unpopular, including especially the truth about marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. That is what I will be doing on June 19th.

He also said that the March for Marriage is “not anti-anyone or anti-anything. Rather, it is a pro-marriage March. … Rather, it affirms the great good of bringing the two halves of humanity together so that a man and a woman may bond with each other and with any children who come from their union.”

It gives me assurance that we share a common disdain for harsh and hateful rhetoric. It must be pointed out, though, that there is plenty of offensive rhetoric which flows in the opposite direction. In fact, for those who support the conjugal understanding of marriage, the attacks have not stopped at rhetoric. Simply for taking a stand for marriage as it has been understood in every human society for millennia, people have lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, and have suffered other types of retribution, including physical violence. It is true that historically in our society violence has been perpetrated against persons who experience attraction to members of the same sex, and this is to be deplored and eradicated. Sadly, though, we are now beginning to see examples, although thankfully not widespread, of even physical violence against those who hold to the conjugal view of marriage…

Archbishop Cordileone’s letter concludes:

Please do not make judgments based on stereotypes, media images and comments taken out of context. Rather, get to know us first as fellow human beings. I myself am willing to meet personally with any of you not only to dialogue, but simply so that we can get to know each other. It is the personal encounter that changes the vision of the other and softens the heart. 

In the end, love is the answer, and this can happen even between people with such deep disagreements. That may sound fanciful and far-fetched, but it is true, it is possible. I know it is possible, I know this from personal experience. When we come together seeking to understand the other with good will, miracles can happen. 

When all is said and done, then, there is only one thing that I would ask of you more than anything else: before you judge us, get to know us.

Another gem: N.T. Wright on gay "marriage"

If only N.T. Wright had stayed on as Bishop of Durham for one more year, he might now be holding the office to which his neophyte successor, Justin Welby, was so hastily elevated. This is the kind of theological heft that the See of Canterbury so desperately needs, but certainly does not have with its current occupant.

Brendan O'Neill: Same sex "marriage" is inherently coercive, authoritarian, and illiberal

Brendan O'Neill, editor of the British journal Spiked!, says what has needed to be said for a long time about the rush to embrace gay "marriage." It is not a "civil rights" issue, but a most odious form of coercion masquerading as an effort to expand "liberty."

It’s four weeks since Javascript inventor Brendan Eich was hounded out of his job at Mozilla by a virtual mob of intolerant tweeters and campaigners. His crime? Failing to genuflect at the altar of gay marriage, which is now the closest thing our otherwise godless, belief-lite, morally vacuous societies have to a sacred value. For refusing to bow down before this new sainted institution, and for having the temerity to donate money to a campaign group opposed to it, Eich was found guilty by the mob of sacrilege and was hounded out of public life as a modern-day heretic.

And in those four weeks, some gay-marriage backers, feeling more than a little red-faced, have called for the zealots in their camp to get a grip. The treatment of Eich was an example of what happens when bad-apple activists turn crazily self-righteous, they say. British-American writer Andrew Sullivan says the witch-hunting of Eich speaks to the ‘fanaticism’ of certain campaigners, which apparently runs counter to the gay-marriage movement’s desire to create a more ‘tolerant and diverse society’. This week, prominent American liberals and libertarians published an open letter headlined ‘Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both’, which says the Eich episode showed the ‘eagerness [of] some supporters of same-sex marriage to punish rather than to criticise or to persuade those who disagree’. ‘Enforcing orthodoxy hurts everyone’, the letter says, and gay-marriage campaigners must lobby for the ‘freedom to marry’ in a less hysterical fashion.

It is always refreshing to see people stand up for the freedom to dissent, especially on an issue like gay marriage, on which there’s an astounding amount of nodding-dog conformity. But there is nonetheless something off, something problematic, something wrong about the past month’s burgeoning critical response to the Eich affair. And it’s this: it treats the illiberalism and intolerance hurled Eich’s way as a one-off, an extreme case, an instance of ‘some activists’ going too far, when in truth what happened to Eich is entirely in keeping with the coercive culture of the politics of gay marriage more broadly. To view the hounding of Eich as an aberration, as a veering off the alleged path of diversity mapped out by the gay-marriage campaign, is utterly to miss the point – Eich’s treatment is better seen as the logical conclusion to what has been a strikingly illiberal movement from the get-go.

This is the thing no one in the gay-marriage lobby, or in political and media circles more broadly, seems to want to talk about - the fact that in every jurisdiction in which it has been introduced, gay marriage has been heavily attended by authoritarianism and coercion.

Sometimes the coercion is soft, taking the form of what John Stuart Mill called ‘the tyranny of custom’, where those who refuse to embrace gay marriage - the most speedily formed custom of modern times - will be branded phobic and hateful and perhaps boycotted by agitators, pressured to choose between their moral opposition to same-sex marriage and their place in polite society; you absolutely cannot have both. And sometimes the coercion is hard, involving, in the case of France most obviously, actual state violence against opponents of gay marriage. But whatever form it has taken, coercion has been the order of the day in every campaign to legalise gay marriage, meaning Eich’s fate wasn’t some abnormality - it was part of a pretty scary ‘new normal’, of a sweeping culture of intolerance that has been fostered by the political set pushing gay marriage.

The push for gay "marriage" is inherently coercive and authoritarian, O'Neill says, and its bitter fruit is having devastating consequences throughout the Western world.

Anyone who over the past few years has paid attention to the moral delegitimation of critics of gay marriage, to the state attacks on anti-gay marriage protesters, to the social ostracism of those who favour traditional marriage, to the attempt to force religious schools to teach about gay marriage, and to the Orwellian airbrushing from history of the words and identities cleaved to by the already married, cannot have been surprised by what happened to Eich. His fate wasn’t the product of a handful of zealous campaigners going too far on Twitter - it was the end result of an intolerant culture, sometimes mob-like, sometimes state-enforced, that has been gaining ground for years, and which showed long before the elbowing aside of Eich that it was more than happy to ostracise, punish, criminalise and censor anyone who dared raise a peep of opposition to gay marriage. Coercion is built into gay marriage. They used to say love and marriage went together - in the gay-marriage movement, it’s authoritarianism and marriage that are bedfellows.

The question is: why? Why has the gay-marriage issue been such a shrill and intolerant affair? It isn’t because some campaigners are overly keen and a bit hotheaded; it’s because gay marriage is not actually a campaign to expand equality, far less freedom, but is better seen as the main mechanism through which modern society now challenges traditional cultural norms, through which society expresses its dislocation from, and its growing disdain for, the old-world values of family life, family sovereignty, long-term commitment, loyalty, and so on.

Gay marriage has emerged as the perfect means through which our post-traditional, relativistic elites can both subtly denigrate older values and also impose a set of whole new values, related to viewing traditional married life and family integrity as problematic, and therefore more individuated, changeable forms of human relationships as good. And because this is fundamentally about eradicating old moral values and enforcing new ones, it constantly verges on being coercive, expressing a hostility towards its opponents that tends to treat them, not simply as wrong or pesky, but as actual blocks, as ‘ideological enemies’, to the elite’s attempted enforcement of a new moral outlook.

One of the most striking developments in Western societies in recent years has been the sacralisation of homosexuality, the transformation of sexuality from a simple matter of who you have sex with into a set of values and behaviours. In a very short period of time, historically speaking, homosexuality has gone from being a crime to being possibly the most celebrated way of life in modern Western nations. Indeed, such has been the sacralisation of homosexuality, everywhere from popular culture to the political sphere, that the criminals are now those who criticise gay sex, not those who have it - as witnessed in such acts of authoritarianism as the imposing of a one-month prison sentence on a Swedish pastor who preached against homosexuality, the arrest of a preacher in Dundee for saying homosexuality was a sin, the banning of an advert in London that offended gays, the sending of American experts to Africa to preach about the virtues of homosexuality (in a similar way that Christian colonialists used to preach to Africans about the virtues of the Bible, including, er, anti-homosexual views), and so on. Gay-friendliness has become probably the key barometer of decency in the modern West; and those who fail the test can expect censorship or some other form of punishment.

Read the whole article.

Same sex marriage dissidents: The always insightful Mollie Hemingway at her always insightful best

Underneath the stale ideological pushing and shoving involved in the recent Brendan Eich/Mozilla debacle is a far more substantive issue that really strikes at the heart of a civilized society. Eich's problem is not that he is, to use the oft repeated cliche, "on the wrong side of history" when it comes to the "evolution" of marriage. Rather, he is, like every normal thinking person before him over the last, say, six thousand years, simply right about an institution at the heart of human civilization. There are some things, like the complementarity of men and women, which simply cannot be changed no matter how strong the winds of cultural relativism blow.

The always insightful Mollie Hemingway is at her always insightful best in her latest article for The Federalist. . .

OK. We probably already understand relationships have value, right? Assuming we’re not sociopaths, we do. So what is the difference between marriage and other relationships? There’s no question marriage has been treated dramatically differently than other relationships by governments and society. Why? Is it that it features a more vibrant or emotional connection? Or is there some feature that is a difference in kind – that marks it out as something that ought to be socially structured? We usually don’t want government in our other relationships, right? So why is marriage singled out throughout all time and human history as a different type of recognized relationship?

Well, what singled it out was that sex was involved. Sex. Knocking boots. The bump and grind. Dancing in the sheets. Making the beast with two backs. Doing the cha-cha. And so on and so forth. And why does that matter? Well, there’s precisely one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system. It’s the one that involves sex between one man and one woman. It’s with respect to that system that the unit is the mated pair. In that system, it’s not just a relationship that is the union of minds, wills or important friendships. It’s the literal union of bodies. In sexual congress, in intercourse between a man and a woman, you are literally coordinated to a single bodily end.

In every other respect we as humans act as individual organisms except when it comes to intercourse between men and women — then we work together as one flesh. Coordination toward that end — even when procreation is not achieved — makes the unity here. This is what marriage law was about. Not two friends building a house together. Or two people doing other sexual activities together. It was about the sexual union of men and women and a refusal to lie about what that union and that union alone produces: the propagation of humanity. This is the only way to make sense of marriage laws throughout all time and human history. Believing in this truth is not something that is wrong, and should be a firing offense. It’s not something that’s wrong, but should be protected speech. It’s actually something that’s right. It’s right regardless of how many people say otherwise. If you doubt the truth of this reality, consider your own existence, which we know is due to one man and one woman getting together. Consider the significance of what this means for all of humanity, that we all share this.

Now if one wants to change marriage laws to reflect something else, that’s obviously something that one can aim to do. We’ve seen the rapid, frequently unthinking embrace of that change in recent years, described one year ago in the humanist and libertarian magazine Spiked as “a case study in conformism” that should terrify “anyone who values diversity of thought and tolerance of dissent.”

Perhaps there should have been a bit of a burden of proof on those who wanted to change the institution — something beyond crying “Bigot!” in a crowded theater. Perhaps advocates of the change should have explained at some point, I don’t know, what singles out marriage as unique from other relationships under this new definition. What is marriage? That’s a good question to answer, particularly if you want to radically alter the one limiting factor that is present throughout all history. Once we get an answer for what this new marriage definition is, perhaps our media and other elites could spend some time thinking about the consequences of that change. Does it in any way affect the right of children to be raised by their own mother and father? Have we forgotten why that’s an important norm? Either way, does it change the likelihood that children will be raised by their own mother and father? Does it by definition make that an impossibility for whatever children are raised by same-sex couples? Do we no longer believe that children should be raised by their own mother and father? Did we forget to think about children in this debate, pretending that it’s only about adults? In any case, is this something that doesn’t matter if males and females are interchangeable? Is it really true that there are no significant differences between mothers and fathers? Really? Are we sure we need to accept that lie? Are we sure we want to?

. . . and it only gets better, so please keep reading.

NRLC sacrifices principle for political expediency

This makes no sense whatsoever. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation's oldest and largest pro-life organization, has severed ties with its affiliate in Cleveland, Ohio. What happened? Did a few rogue zealots bomb a Cleveland abortion clinic? Hardly. The mortal sin committed by Cleveland Right to Life (CRTL) was, horror of horrors, adding "support for traditional marriage and the family to its Mission Statement."

So as to foster a culture of life we promote and defend the right to life of all innocent human beings and reject such practices as abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and same-sex marriage that are contrary to 'the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.'

To make matters worse, the CRTL made statements critical of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who recently came out in support of same sex "marriage." Hence, a letter of disaffiliation from the NRLC:

Recently, Cleveland Right to Life announced that it has embraced an advocacy agenda that includes issues beyond the right to life. Moreover, it promptly issued public criticisms of and implicit political threats against a U.S. Senator who has supported the right-to-life position on every vote that has come before the Senate, and who is a sponsor of major NRLC-backed bills—because the chapter disagrees with his position on a non-right-to-life issue. By these actions, Cleveland Right to Life has violated National Right to Life policy, causing the chapter to disaffiliate itself from NRLC.

In defending the decision to disaffiliate, NRLC president Carol Tobias said, "The success the right-to-life movement has experienced over the past 40 years has depended on maintaining our single-issue focus on life."

This is sheer madness on the part of NRLC. Only someone with their head in the sand would fail to see the vital connection between support for the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage and the family. To call Sen. Portman's support for same sex "marriage" a "non-right-to-life issue" is myopic at best, disingenuous at worst.

The devaluing of human life in American culture goes hand in hand with the trivialization of marriage and the disintegration of the family. CRTL's amended Mission Statement reflects this reality and is very much in keeping with what ought to be the overall goal of all pro-life organizations, namely, to promote a holistic, full-orbed culture of life.

Waffling politicians like Sen. Portman cannot have it both ways. They must be held accountable for any position they take which is contrary to a consistent ethic of promoting the sanctity of life. The NRLC, in disassociating with its Cleveland affiliate, is sacrificing principle for political expediency. That is not the way to foster a culture of life.

Leithart: A call to martyrdom

The inimitable Peter Leithart on the recent Supreme Court decision on same sex "marriage."

Sudden as it seems to some, the Supreme Court’s endorsement of gay marriage in Windsor was a long time in coming. In cultural terms, of course, it is the fruit of fifty years of sexual liberation with all its attendant institutional, technological, and psychological shifts.

In terms of Constitutional interpretation, the foundations were laid decades ago in decisions that discovered and developed a Constitutional right to privacy. According to Duke’s H. Jefferson Powell (The Moral Tradition of American Constitutionalism: A Theological Interpretation), the key decision was not Roe but Eisenstadt (1972), which revived a new version of substantive due process. During the nineteenth century, substantive due process arguments had been used in cases involving state regulation of business. That notion of substantive due process was eclipsed by what Powell describes as the “Modern Theory,” under which the Court’s aim was to protect decisions arrived at through democratic processes. In Eisenstadt, the court revived substantive due process, applied now to state restrictions on the distribution of contraceptives.

Justice William Brennan argued in the decision that the “right to privacy” must mean “the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwanted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Powell calls this “an intellectual milestone” since the Court rejected the statute “solely because the Court believed the state’s moral choice was an unreasonable intrusion into individual matters the Court considered ‘fundamental.’” It was a return, Powell says, to the jurisprudence of the common law, which regularly issued “substantive judgment about moral-political matters.”

In the light of Eisenstadt, one has to conclude that the Court’s DOMA decision was not only virtually inevitable but also, given the current state of Constitutional interpretation, correct.

Brennan’s argument adapts perfectly to Windsor: The right to privacy must include the right of an individual “to be free from unwanted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as sexual orientation and the desire to marry.”

And it won’t stay put. Justice Alito was exactly right when he wrote in dissent that Windsor was a decision between two alterative notions of marriage – one a traditional, conjugal definition and the other a consensual, romantic, emotional definition. The latter is, in the Court’s opinion, the Constitutionally-approved definition. Justice Scalia is correct too that the very same reasoning is set up to strike down State statutes and Constitutional provisions defining marriage in traditional terms. Challenges are already coming from several of the thirtysome states that currently do not recognize same-sex unions as marriages. We know what this Court will decide when those cases get to them.

President Obama quickly reassured us that religious liberty will not be infringed. And he’s technically right. Nearly every state that has passed same-sex marriage legislation has made exceptions claiming that no pastor will be required to perform same-sex marriages. But as Robert George has pointed out, the protections are thin indeed. Tax exemption will be challenged, and so will accreditation for Christian colleges and schools that hold to traditional views of marriage. Once opposition to same-sex marriage is judged discriminatory, no institution that opposes it will be unaffected. If you want to see what the future looks like, consider what Paula Deen has been through the past few weeks.

All this means that Windsor presents American Christians with a call to martyrdom. In Greek, martyria means “witness,” specifically witness in a court. At the very least, the decision challenges American Christians to continue to teach Christian sexual ethics without compromise or apology. But Windsor presents a call to martyrdom in a more specific sense. There will be a cost for speaking the truth, a cost in reputation, opportunity, and funds if not in freedoms. Scalia’s reference to the pagan Roman claim that Christians are “enemies of mankind” was probably not fortuitous.

Many churches have already capitulated to the Zeitgeist, and many others will. Some Christians and some churches won’t be up to the challenge. For those who heed Paul’s admonition not to be conformed to the pattern of this world, things are going to get sticky. But we are servants of God. He opens our ears to hear, and he gives us tongues to speak truth. If that means we are insulted and marginalized, if it means we yield our back to the smiters and our face to those who spit on us, so be it.

This will force a major adjustment in conservative Christian stance toward America. We’ve fooled ourselves for decades into believing that Christian America was derailed recently and by a small elite. It’s tough medicine to realize that principles inimical to traditional Christian morals are now deeply embedded in our laws, institutions and culture. The only America that actually exists is one in which “marriage” includes same-sex couples and women have a Constitutional right to kill their babies. To be faithful, Christian witness must be witness against America.

God has his winnowing fork in his hand, and he’s ready to use it. There’s likely to be a lot of chaff, blown away like mist. But there will be a harvest. We’re being sent into an oven, but Jesus will crush the grain of the harvest so that, baked in the fire of the Spirit, it will become bread for the life of the world.

Bishop David Anderson: SCOTUS "in contempt of God"

The followring letter from Bishop David Anderson first appeared in the June 28, 2013 edition of the AAC's weekly email update. Sign up for this free email here.

Dear Friends of the Anglican realignment,

Fifteen or more years ago, I was still busy in pastoral ministry as the rector of a large Episcopal church in California and taking some continuing post graduate level coursework as well. As a part of one course, a few of us arranged an interview with the pastor of the Methodist church that then-President and Mrs. Clinton were attending. The Clintons and that particular Methodist church and pastor were all on the other side of the aisle from me on many social issues, so I was very interested in how this interview would go. The conversation eventually moved to immigration and a Christian response to it, and I had an opportunity to ask a question. Given that I was living on the Pacific Rim where a great many Asian and Middle Eastern immigrants were settling and bringing their cultural values with them, particularly with regard to women, I asked how a Christian should respond to this. Should their values be given a place in society and law just as our values have been? For a liberal, his response surprised me. He said that all people were created equal in the eyes of God, but all values were not equal. Some of their values were not equal to ours! Although I agreed with him, I could see a potential crack in his progressive world view.

All values are not created equal, and in fact some are dehumanizing and abhorrent. Yet even though there is well-founded revulsion toward some imported cultural values, the spiritual and Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our law and culture are rapidly falling away, leaving law and culture open to dramatic change. One such area is marriage, what it is and who may enter into it.

Although the Bible recounts the history of prophets, kings, and nations, and although we are given the narrative of their deeds and often their words, everything mentioned in the Bible is not intended to be a positive example for us. Consider the story of King David's murder of Uriah the Hittite because David had already committed adultery with Bathsheba, Uriah's wife, and she was carrying King David's child. In King David's mind, Uriah being dead simplified everything. This is not intended as a model, and scripture does not say "go and do likewise." Instead, it tells of the prophet Nathan recounting to the king a very sad story, and when the king was properly outraged, announcing to the king, "You are the man!"

King David had several wives and many concubines, but never does scripture say "go and do likewise." The true story of the woe that came to all those participants should warn anyone away from thinking multiple wives and concubines are a good idea. In many other examples where multiple wives were concerned, we see the sadness and tension that proceed from such relationships, with no Biblical injunction to go and do likewise. In fact, in Deuteronomy 17:17 the king of Israel was specifically instructed not to "multiply wives for himself."

The ideal since the example of Adam and Eve has been a man and woman, with love and respect for each other, joining together in a life-long union such that the care of children, if God provides, allows for the roles of masculinity and femininity in the parents to be imparted to the young. My wife and I have been married 46 years, and I can attest that I have grown more spiritually within this relationship than in any other context. God intends marriage to be between a consenting man and woman, who will love and respect one another, and keep working at it till their life's end. Governments have simply taken God's established relationship called marriage and surrounded it with law and protection. Unfortunately, the last several decades have seen a collapse in law and culture based on Judeo-Christian scriptural values and God's opinion on behavior. Pushing God out of the picture has left law and culture grasping for principles to operate on. Fairness and equal opportunity seem to have become the new scale.

Equality in marriage is such a reasonable-sounding concept. But if it allows for gay marriage, what else does it allow for? Why should consenting adults be limited to one partner in marriage? Some breakaway Mormon groups still practice polygamy, and some television programs seem to make it seem, well, so acceptable. Is it fair to tell consenting adults they can't marry several people at once, perhaps even have one or more of each gender? Is it fair to tell consenting adults that a mother and adult son or daughter can't marry if they want to? Or brothers and sisters? Marriage no longer seems to have children as a primary component, so state laws prohibiting marriage within certain degrees of blood relationship will probably be declared unconstitutional. The future seems stormy in so many of these areas, and the likelihood after this week's ruling in the United States Supreme Court is that things will get worse.

I am certain of a few things. Marriage doesn't belong to the government, and government doesn't have the right to say what is morally correct. It does have the ability to grant tax advantages, welfare relief, and other forms of monetary advancement or penalty to relationships it chooses to recognize. We will only have a moral government if there is a large-scale revival of the Christian faith in the United States, because in the long term, a moral electorate brings forth moral government, and moral government eventually brings forth moral courts. Until then, we have to live with a government and a Supreme Court that is in contempt of God.

What can you as an individual do? Actually quite a bit, but it starts in your own home. Begin to converse with God more in private. Read and study his holy word in scripture, and turn to trusted orthodox Christian leaders for help on the difficult parts. Begin to pattern your life after Jesus Christ. Ask for God's help in every situation. Join with like-minded believers to worship God and to reach out to others; there is a reason that Jesus sent people out to witness two by two. Trust that he knew what he was doing. Be as pleasant as you can, and as articulate as you possibly can, and yet stand your ground on the critical issues of faith, and be willing to pay the price that your faithfulness might bring. My greatest hope is that in doing so our heavenly Father will look upon our witness and say, "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Matt. 25:14-30). I find that in times of trouble, Luther's great hymn, Ein Feste Burg, "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God", gives me solace.

Times have been better and times have been worse, but this game is still very much in play, and you and I are God's chosen and blessed players on the field. Let us not disappoint him.

Blessings and Peace in our Lord and Savior Jesus,

+David

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

The case for excommunicating Anthony Kennedy

Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, lists his religious affiliation as Roman Catholic. Judging from the language of his majority opinion in United States v. Windsor, the High Court ruling which invalidated section 4 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), his Catholicism has about as much influence on his judicial temperament as it had on the political philosophy of a prominent Massachusetts political family which shares his surname. As Matthew J. Franck at On the Square points out, Justice Kennedy seems to think he knows the heart and mind of the authors of so odious a law.

But Justice Kennedy could not be bothered with sorting out just which level of scrutiny should apply, or how the Court’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment precedents on equality bore on the case at hand. He resorted instead to the fallacy of the argumentum ad misericordiam, a fallacy he magically redoubled with a non sequitur. The argument is that for those same-sex couples married under state law but disadvantaged under DOMA’s Section 3 non-recognition of their marital status under federal law, the chief injury they suffer is hurt feelings, a “dignitarian” harm. It follows—for Justice Kennedy, who has his own private logic—that it must have been the motive of the legislators who passed DOMA to hurt their feelings (never mind that such questions of motive are not supposed to dispose of constitutional questions). Therefore—again, if you are Justice Kennedy it’s a “therefore”—DOMA’s Section 3 is based on “animus,” and that alone is sufficient to invalidate it.

In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia (also a Roman Catholic) upbraids his colleague for demeaning the institution of the Court by resorting to such overheated rhetoric.

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

The rebuke is well-deserved, according to Franck.

Justice Kennedy’s Windsor opinion on the merits deserves all the scorn heaped on it by Justice Scalia’s dissent, as well as all of Justice Alito’s penetrating observations in his separate dissent that “what is marriage?” is the key question, which the people and their representatives are entitled to decide for themselves, in Congress and in the states. Kennedy’s opinion is as shabby and question-begging as they say—and then some—but the real danger lies in its contemptible contempt for the millions of Americans who disagree with a “progressive” redefinition of marriage that severs its connection to childbearing, mothering, and fathering.

It is, of course, no secret that the Catholic Church, as well as many orthodox Protestant bodies, has been at the forefront of resisting the "progressive" redefinition of marriage. Thus, Justice Kennedy's "contemptible contempt" would appear to be aimed squarely at the church in which he claims membership. Whether or not he is a regular attender at Mass, I do not know. However, his disdain for the principled teaching of the church which, despite revisionist historical claims to the contrary, has had considerable influence on Western jurisprudence with regard to marriage, is every bit as scandalous as the serial misrepresentations of church teaching on abortion which have resulted in the excommunications of public figures such as Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebellius. It would seem reasonable that similar disciplinary measures be taken against Justice Kennedy. Declaring one's own church an enemy of the human race must certainly be grounds for excommunication.

The Ambrose Precedent seems most appropriate here.

Archbishop Duncan's statement on Supreme Court "marriage" decisions

Statement by Archbishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Chirch of North America on the Supreme Court's 26 June 2013 marriage decisions.

An extremely divided court reflects an extremely divided nation. Equal rights under the law is a bedrock commitment of the United States of America and can often be accomplished by creative legislation. Nevertheless, the definition of marriage long pre-dates the United States and is a given of the created order. The motto of the United States is “One Nation under God.” The Christian Church has followed a Lord who meets people where they are, and who loves them regardless of their challenges. The Church has countered the culture throughout most of its history. We find ourselves, both sadly and increasingly, in this position in a nation once seen as a “light upon a hill,” and a “hope of all the earth.”

H/T Anglican Ink

Scalia leaves no doubt about his position on same sex "marriage"

The Supreme Court will wait until tomorrow, the final day of its session, to hand down its much anticipated ruling on same sex "marriage." However, Justice Antonin Scalia has already made his views on the subject, as well as his views on the limited role of the judicial branch, crystal clear.

Let us pray his views represent the majority of the Court.

As the Supreme Court prepares to rule this week on the legality of federal and state bans on same-sex “marriage,” Justice Antonin Scalia has said there is no “right to homosexual conduct” granted by the United States Constitution.

Scalia, 77, told an audience of lawyers and judges at the North Carolina Bar Association Friday that matters of morality should be decided by the public, not unelected judges who set themselves up as “moral arbiters.”

According to Scalia, moral issues such as gay marriage have no “scientifically demonstrable right answer” and thus have no business being decided by the court. Instead, society must determine as a whole what they deem moral and acceptable and make laws that reflect that.

Scalia made his point with humor, joking that as a judge, “I accept for the sake of argument, for example, that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.” But, he quickly added, “Rather, I am questioning the propriety, the sanity of having a value-laden decision such as this made for the entire society by unelected judges.”

Scalia, a 1986 appointee of President Reagan and now the longest-sitting member of the high court, has long maintained a strictly originalist view of the Constitution, insisting that it must be interpreted through the lens of its authors’ intentions. He once told an audience at Southern Methodist University that far from being a “living document,” the Constitution is, “dead, dead, dead.” On Friday, he told the North Carolina lawyers that judges who find rights to “homosexual conduct” or abortion in the Constitution are in error.

“When the Constitution was adopted, all those acts were criminal throughout the United States and remained so for several centuries,” said Scalia. In particular, he cited “laws against private consensual sodomy … that existed in perfect conformity with the Constitution for over 200 years.”

He slammed the Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion as an egregious example of judicial moralizing he believes was rooted in a flawed vision of the Constitution as a living document.

He expressed a similar sentiment in a 2011 interview with California Lawyer, saying “You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law.”

“That’s what democracy is all about,” added Scalia. “It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”

Manhattan Declaration: No matter what, we won't give up

Today's e-mail updated from the Manhattan Declaration:

Sometime this week, the Supreme Court will issue decisions in two cases involving the meaning and purpose of marriage. As we anticpate the announcements, let us remember one thing: Whatever the results, it will not mean the end of our work to rebuild a culture of marriage and family.

Should the Supreme Court affirm the meaning and purpose of marriage, we will breathe a sigh of relief. But we won’t be satisfied.

If the Supreme Court rejects the time-honored purpose of marriage, it will be because the court—like many of our friends, neighbors and colleagues—has lost the meaning of marriage and its civic importance. We will have no one to blame but ourselves. It will be our fault for failing to nurture and protect marriage, for looking the other way as rampant divorce, infidelity and sexual impurity chipped away at our moral authority.

It took generations to erode marriage and family, with disastrous consequences. Restoration may take just as long. No matter this week’s rulings, we will rededicate ourselves to renewing in American culture the profound beauty, mystery and holiness of faithful marriage. We will be patient in the light of any setbacks. And, in the end, we we will succeed—if we do not give up.

Have you signed the Manhattan Declaration?

Eric Teetsel: Winning the marriage debate in a culture amusing itself to death

A very helpful article, posted at Public Discourse:

Here’s what we must not do: sacrifice our principles. Better to lose a thousand elections than win in sycophantic appeals to the lowest common denominator. Christians, at least, can rely on the long view of God’s redemptive story. We have already read the final page of human history; we know how the story ends. How utterly meaningless is the next election cycle viewed from this perspective?

Until that final chapter comes to pass, the responsibility is ours to be active in the present. And since we aren’t about to gain a slew of celebrity endorsements, we have to make ourselves and our ideas as attractive to the “persuadables” as possible. Forget beating the entrenched opposition. When we debate in the public square and in social media, our goal should be to win those silent observers whose commitments are shallow and subject to change.

This week, the Supreme Court will issue decisions in two cases involving the meaning and purpose of marriage. Whatever the results, our work to rebuild a culture of marriage and family will continue. Restoration will require that we better brand ourselves and make our case more attractive.

In a 1972 article in Philosophy & Rhetoric, Wayne Brockriede describes the art of communication in terms of sexual conduct. Like sex, argument occurs between human beings who bring their whole selves to the conversation, including personal histories and philosophical presuppositions (whether they know it or not). And, as in sex, participants in conversation can be considerate of these facts and lovingly negotiate them as part of the act, or manipulate them to personal advantage, or ignore them completely and carry on without regard for the others’ welfare at all. The first is arguing as a lover; the second as a seducer; the third as a rapist.

Too often, conservatives—including me—fall into the third category with our derision and condemnation. Not only is this unbecoming of people aspiring to virtue, it is ineffective in winning others to our cause.

Arguing as a lover is better. It frees us to acknowledge our personal faults and the faults in our arguments while remaining committed to our position and allowing our interlocutor to save face in the majority of instances in which our case is superior. As we woo the person across from us (and—remember—the audience watching from home) we are funny, self-effacing, merciful, and confident.

Winning the affections of the audience also means using sources of authority that appeal to them. This is not a new idea; it goes back as far as Aristotle. In contemporary culture, the Constitution is not considered authoritative. Though it pains me to say it, few people care about what the founding fathers said. (Those who do are already interning at the Heritage Foundation.)

I know what you’re thinking. “But the Federalist Papers are important!” Indeed, they are, and there’s a time and a place for discussing them. But when we lead with them and rely solely on such works, we fail. The current generation is more interested in doers. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a phenomenal thinker and writer, but if not for his actions he would not be the iconic leader we consider him today. Thanks in part to writers such as Eric Metaxas, the lives of William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer provide us with examples of conservative men of conviction whose values were reflected in their actions.

Each of us ought to be part of the recovery of a marriage and family culture. The work of academics and policy advocates is vital, but artists, musicians, pastors, teachers, and all the rest have a contribution to make. The most compelling source of authority in any argument is your own life. Your conversation partner wants to know how your values have changed the way you live, and whether yours is a life worth emulating. Do I want to be that kind of person? If you can tell your own story, you will win.

No comment department

. . . because commentary would be superfluous.

Via ClashDaily:

A judge on Friday allowed two Glastonbury men, accused two years ago of sexually assaulting two of their nine adopted boys, to withdraw their no-contest pleas and take their cases to trial.

The unusual action came during what was to be a sentencing hearing for George Harasz and Douglas Wirth, who entered pleas in January to one felony count each of risk of injury to a minor. They agreed to suspended prison sentences. The only issue for Friday’s hearing was to be whether each would be required to register as sex offenders.

But a new allegation of sexual assault against Harasz by one of the victims, contained in a pre-sentence investigation of Harasz, helped scrap the plea agreement. The case was further clouded Friday by disclosure in court of new allegations of abuse by three other of the nine children. No new criminal charges have been filed.

The new information gives rise to the possibility of new criminal charges, and therefore continuing with Friday’s planned sentencing would not have been prudent, prosecutor David Zagaja told Judge Joan K. Alexander. Further, Zagaja said, the victim has said he wants to testify against Wirth and Harasz at trial. 

“I think the only proper resolution of this matter is to try it,” Zagaja said.

Initially, Harasz, 49, was charged with two counts of first-degree sexual assault, aggravated first-degree sexual assault, fourth-degree sexual assault, two counts of risk of injury to a minor and cruelty to persons. Wirth, 45, was initially charged with third-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor. Those charges were reduced to a single charge for each man as part of the plea agreement.

View video news report.

Church of England rejects same sex "marriage"

George Conger at Anglican Ink reports on what appears to be a strong affirmation of traditional marriage coming from the Church of England's Faith and Order Commission.

The Church of England has reaffirmed its rejection of gay marriage stating the public blessing of marriage can only take place within the context of a lifelong, monogamous, male-female relationship. Marriage is a gift from God, not a right granted by the state nor cultural construct a paper released today by the church’s Faith and Order Commission entitled “Men and Women in Marriage”

“In calling it a gift of God, we mean that it is not simply a cultural development (though it has undergone much cultural development) nor simply a political or economic institution (though often embedded in political and economic arrangements). It is an expression of the human nature which God has willed for us and which we share. And although marriage may fall short of God’s purposes in many ways and be the scene of many human weaknesses, it receives the blessing of God and is included in his judgment that creation is ‘very good’ (Genesis 1.31). In calling it a gift of God in creation, we view marriage within its wider life-context: as an aspect of human society and as a structure of life that helps us shape our journey from birth to death.”

The report recognizes the existence of same-sex relationships as "forms of human relationships which fall short of marriage in the form God has given us."

Marriage on the other hand is the "faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman, central to the stability and health of human society," the report stated.

The Church of England has taught “historically and more recently,” that the “sexual differentiation of men and women is a gift of God, who ‘created humankind in his image… male and female he created them’. It is on male and female that God gives his blessing, which is to be seen not only in procreation but in human culture, too (Genesis 1.27-8).”

In a note accompanying the release of the report, Dr. Christopher Cocksworth, the Bishop of Coventry, also reaffirmed the church's commitment to provide "care, prayer and compassion" to those who cannot marry -- but this pastoral care could not be extended to the blessing of same-sex unions.

"Whilst it is right that priests and church communities continue to seek to provide and devise pastoral care accommodation for those in such situations, the document is clear that public forms of blessing belong to marriage alone," he said.

He also stated that plans by the government of Prime Minister David Cameron to introduce gay marriage will harm society.

"The church has a long track record in conducting and supporting marriage, drawing from the deep wells of wisdom which inform centuries of shared religious and cultural understandings of marriage," he said, noting there was “a danger in the current debate of picking apart the institution of marriage which is part of the social fabric of human society.”

Marriage “like most important undertakings in life, can be lived more successfully or less successfully,” the report said.

“Mistakes are made, by couples, by their friends and relatives, and sometime by pastors and institutions of the church… Lack of clear understanding of marriage can only multiply disappointments and frustrations. Public discussion at this juncture needs a clear view of why Christians believe and act in relation to marriage as they do and this document is offered as a resource for that.”

Read the whole report here.

R.R. Reno critiques the "conservative" case for gay "marriage"

First Things editor R.R. Reno lays out quite clearly the faulty logic behind the arguments for gay "marriage" being embraced by a number of "limited government conservatives."

We’ll hear this argument again and again in the future, so it’s worth taking a close look. The fundamental claim is libertarian: getting the government out of moral questions is a gain for limited government. That seems tautologically true. If the government isn’t telling you whom you can or can’t marry, then the zone of government power contracts and individual freedom expands. But a closer look suggests otherwise.

As Edmund Burke recognized, the form of liberalism that understands liberty as requiring limited government (as opposed to understanding liberty as empowerment, which almost always involves pumping up the power of government as the agent of empowerment) also requires morality, culture, and tradition. That’s a Burkean separation of powers, as it were. Governing power is dispersed rather than concentrated, because morality, culture, and tradition embody independent authorities that shape and order our lives. They’re something the government power must respect rather than superintend, must work around rather than steamroll.

For example, the wrongness of murder and the sanctity of property both limit the scope of government power. The law may specify how to try and punish murder, but government does not invent or define murder. Instead, the law recognizes a moral truth prior to law and politics. That’s why late-term abortions are so scandalous. Nobody is confused about the humanity of the seven-month-old child in the womb, and yet our law refuses to see killing him or her as murder.

Religious truth also limits government, as our Constitution recognizes. Theology is beyond the competence of politics, and for that reason Congress is not to make laws establishing (endorsing) or limiting the free exercise of (condemning) religion. Our religious convictions are practices beyond the purview of politics.

Redefinition of marriage to allow same-sex unions undermines the proper separation of cultural and governmental power that is so important for a liberal regime. Marriage is an institution as fundamental as religion and morality. It is more primitive and ancient than anything resembling organized government. It has varied historically and culturally, of course. But male/female complementarity and its procreative potential is universal, however diverse the forms. Government has always treated marriage like murder—a moral fact recognized rather than a policy formulated, a given truth framed in law rather than something to be fed into the machinery of political debate.

As marriage gets redefined we’ll see an expansion of government. That’s because gay marriage won’t just happen if government “gets out of the way.” It requires creating a new possibility that will not come to pass if traditional institutions and moral traditions are left alone. Government must intervene. Our moral traditions must be subjected to what activists think of as corrective surgery. With gay marriage we’re sure to get legislation redefining what it means to be a parent, and what it means to be a child, as is already the case in California. In the way of these redefinitions will come programs to “reeducate” John Q. Public to the “new realities.”

Here as elsewhere the progressive project is always political. It sees a problem: The pre-political institutions and traditions of society are violating rights and creating inequalities. Then it reaches for the ready tool for redress and correction, which is almost always the power of government—coercive force.

Large government and its threat to freedom aren’t only a matter of size; it’s also a question of the scope of its claim to authority. Gay activists are consistent when they focus on “rights” and “equality,” the first of which must be guaranteed by government coercion, and the second of which must be created by the use of government power. They see that government must intrude. Cultural traditions can’t be allowed to define marriage, because they have done so unjustly. Instead, voters and their representatives must, and failing that, the courts. The political process defines marriage rather than responding to something that can’t be absorbed into the political process.

Tyranny isn’t just a situation in which the government is telling you what to do at every moment. It’s also a society in which government says that, if necessary, it can. In this respect gay marriage reflects a dramatic enlargement of government. If legislatures and courts can redefine marriage, what can’t it intervene to reshape and re-purpose?

Yep, this makes about as much sense as gay "marriage"

We must also be vigilant in defending the rights of our brothers (and sisters) who passionately believe the sky is green against the bigotry and hatred of those who oppressively insist it is blue.



H/T to Mollie Hemingway, who also offers these astute observations:

Believing — by science, religion or otherwise — that all humans are made male and female and that the regeneration of humans requires the joining together of male and female is — as we all know — grounds for being openly derided, called names and generally marginalized. If you think the foundational unit of society is defined in terms of this reality, you’re basically the Ku Klux Klan. You might protest that you have reason, logic, science, tradition, or any number of things to appeal to. But we all know you’re really a bigot.

Mostly the media and other cultural elites know this. And they’re not afraid to point out that believing marriage is an institution based on sexual orientation like they do — as opposed to sexual complementarity — makes you a good person who believes in civil rights and other things on the side of angels. Not like those bad folks whose arguments can be dismissed without even so much as looking them over (do you give bigots the time of day? No you do not! Ignore them already!). Journalists at CNN and the Washington Post and the New York Times and NPR have all agreed — or at least pondered the approach as legitimate — these monsters don’t deserve fair treatment, inclusion in stories, or airing for their warnings.

Error has no rights, you know. The genders are 100% interchangeable and we will make sure you agree! Are we getting tired of this media treatment yet?

Meanwhile, from the newsroom of NBC (Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!) another example of the utter absurdity of this social novelty called gay "marriage."

It’s been a busy week for NBC’s Jenna Wolfe.

The correspondent and weekend anchor for the “Today” show announced during Wednesday’s show that she’s gay, as well as pregnant. Now she’s announcing plans to marry her partner, NBC News correspondent Stephanie Gosk.

And one more news flash: They’re expecting a girl. 

“This is the most exciting thing that has ever happened to us,” Miss Wolfe said, according to People magazine. “But I don’t want to bring my daughter into a world where I’m not comfortable telling everyone who I am and who her mother is.”

Miss Wolfe, 39, and Miss Gosk, 40, have been together for three years, People reports. They wanted to start a family last year, but had difficulty conceiving.

“We were constantly on the road, juggling a thousand balls at once,” Miss Wolfe said. “It’s a miracle we got it all together.”

But late last year, they prioritized family above career and “embarked on Operation Baby,” Miss Wolfe said. She is due to deliver at the end of August.

Anybody care to venture a guess as to how they were finally able to pull off "Operation Baby?" Three guesses, and the first two don't count -- especially if they don't involve the participation of, how shall I say it, a member of the opposite sex.