Gay Marriage

This summer the Supreme Court issued one of the least thoughtful rulings in history when they ruled that all states must recognize same sex marriage.  The ruling effectively struck down legally passed amendments to state constitutions (do you know how hard it is to pass an amendment?) and laws passed by state legislatures banning same sex marriage.  The ruling was poorly made and leaves a multitude of unanswered questions that will require litigation for the foreseeable future.

The case of the Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis, who sat in jail for several days, held in contempt for not signing same sex marriage licenses, is but the first of many to come.  Davis holds that she cannot do what is against her religious beliefs.  The Supreme Court did not provide exception for religious belief, but did cowardly acknowledge there would be challenges based on deeply held convictions.  How this case plays out will largely determine if religious liberty will continue in America.  Will Davis become an example intended to keep other public servants in line?  If so, wouldn't that be the same as excluding Christians from certain public offices? Isn't that in itself discriminatory?

I am somewhat torn by the Kim Davis case.  I acknowledge her bravery to go to jail for her beliefs.  I also acknowledge that she is not doing the lawful work required by her elected position.  There has to be an accommodation made.  Accommodations are made by business and government organizations every day.  Ergonomic chairs are purchased for those with back trouble.  Work hours are adjusted to accommodate child care needs.  The list goes on and on.  There has to be an accommodation for someone who, due to religious conviction, will not perform new work that was not part of the original job description.  Anything less is a direct attack on religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court ruling was a great win for the LGBT activists.  To their credit, they worked long and hard to bring the case to the highest court and to sway public opinion to their side.  Public opinions shouldn't sway the justices, but it did.  The cowardice of the high court should have been, and could have been avoided.

Marriage has historically been an institution defined by religion.  The Bible defines marriage as between one man and one women, and uses marriage as an example of the relationship between Christ and his church.  Marriages have traditionally been performed in a church and led by a pastor.  Only recently has government played a role in marriage by establishing licensing standards and providing preferential treatment for married individuals.  Ironically, state government became involved in marriage licensing to restrict inter-racial marriage, not to expand the marriage definition. The net take away is that marriage was defined and administered by religion long before the American government existed.

The high court could have taken a more reasoned approach that deferred to religion by establishing a government definition of same sex union that offered the rights and preferential treatment provided by government laws.  This would have effectively created a firewall between the Biblical and government definition of marriage.  The benefit would be that religious freedom would be protected while societal trends of acceptance could be accommodated.  But that solution assumes the LGBT community would be satisfied with equal treatment by government.  Their activist wouldn't.  They want something much larger than the "rights" they appear to fight for.  They want complete and unequivocal acceptance of their lifestyle.

They use the courts and the media to fight for thought control.  Every public official or merchant who attempts to use a religious exception will be sued and shamed.  This is the fight that will continue until they feel completely accepted as a normal lifestyle. Every challenge, public or private, will be shamed.  Those who do not accept same sex marriages will automatically be labeled as haters and homophobes.  This is already happening. How organized religion reacts to this new persecution will be interesting.

Already many Christians have taken a live and let live position. Same sex marriage is driven by the homosexual agenda.  Homosexuality is sin, jut like lying, cheating and stealing are sin.  Homosexuals need forgiveness just like liars, cheaters and thieves do.  Should Christians be accepting of unrepentant liars, cheaters and thieves?

Christians must not hate.  Regardless, we will be called haters. Thank you Supreme Court justices.