The modern "Christian" position on "gay marriage"

Russell Moore vs. Roy Moore: Whose law?

"For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us."
- Isaiah 33:22

Ours is no longer a nation of laws. Individual judges long ago assumed the power to impose their will on the public, and that is exactly what Judge Ginny Granade of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama did last month. On January 23, Granade ruled that the Alabama

Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act are "unconstitutional on Equal Protection and Due Process Grounds." She further ordered Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange not to enforce those laws, which simply asserted that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in turn ordered probate judges in the state to ignore Granade's ruling. His reasoning was grounded in the fact that the ruling only applied to Attorney General Strange, and since probate judges are the ones charged with issuing marriage licences, the constitutional ban on same-sex "marriage" remained intact. Besides, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that marriage is a state issue, and since the people of Alabama had already spoken, the issue was settled.

Russell D. Moore disagrees. He thinks Chief Justice Moore should either comply with Judge Granade or resign. In a written statement released to Baptist Press, he said:

As citizens and as Christians, our response should be one of both conviction and of respect for the rule of law (1 Peter 2:13; Romans 13). Our system of government does not allow a state to defy the law of the land.

In a Christian ethic, there is a time for civil disobedience in cases of unjust laws. That's why, for instance, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. went to jail. In the case of judges and state Supreme Court justices, though, civil disobedience, even when necessary, cannot happen in their roles as agents of the state. Religious freedom and conscience objections must be balanced with a state's obligation to discharge the law. We shouldn't have officials breaking the law, but civil servants don't surrender their conscience simply by serving in government. While these details are being worked out, in the absence of any conscience protections, a government employee faced with a decision of violating his conscience or upholding the law, would need to resign and protest against it as a citizen if he could not discharge the duties of his office required by law in good conscience.

While Russell Moore would argue Romans 13 dictates that the chief justice should submit to the governing authority, Roy Moore, as a sitting judge, is also a governing authority. The question then arises: which "law of the land" is to be obeyed?

On one hand, a federal judge has single-handedly nullified Alabama's state constitution on a whim. On the other hand, a State Supreme Court justice has sworn to uphold that same constitution. In addition, nothing in the U.S. Constitution grants federal judges the power to strike down state laws. (I know that kind of talk is considered heresy today, but these United States were once considered "free and independent.") So, which is the more legitimate law?

In regard to Judge Granade's ruling, Russell Moore would like to see Roy Moore "resign and protest against it as a citizen." Well, Judge Moore is already a citizen. As chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he is in a much better position to protest against unlawful judicial decisions, protecting those within his jurisdiction against an overreaching authority who would order others to do what God forbids.

God's law remains in effect. It would seem to me that the more legitimate law in the civil realm, the law to be obeyed, is the one under which "rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad" (Romans 13:3).

Could Gay 'Marriage' Lead to Father's Marrying Their Sons?

On the issue of same-sex "marriage," actor Jeremy Irons admitted to HuffPost Live host Josh Zepps that he doesn't have an opinion one way or another. Irons did, however, raise an issue that is sure to invite criticism from gay "marriage" supporters:


Why couldn't a father marry his son? What would be the moral basis for denying such an arrangement? The lack of answers to questions like this shows just how little reasoning has gone into the issue on the part of the tolerance crowd.

Want to Defend Marriage? Get the Government Out of It

(Cross-posted at Examiner.com)

As the Supreme Court mulls over the issue of "gay marriage", some Christians have long since grown weary of the brouhaha. They are tired of listening to the sanctimonious diatribes of those who preach tolerance without the slightest idea of the meaning of the word. They are sick of the complaints of "conservatives" who think it's actually possible to save marriage through the political process. They are bothered by those who keep reminding people to step back, calm down, and just love everyone.

There was a time when it was enough for a man and woman to simply declare their love and devotion before God and a few witnesses in their local church. Their marriage certificate was a Bible presented to them with their names inscribed inside the front cover. That was it. 'Til death did they part.

Today, marriage is slightly more complicated. Anyone wanting to get hitched must get permission from the state, fork over the appropriate extortion fees, and then brace themselves for the ensuing tax hike. And to think that some people believe the key to preserving the sanctity of marriage is merely preventing homosexuals from going through the same corrupted, state-run process.

Almost everyone involved in this debate misses the real issue. The problem started when the state was first allowed entrance into the marriage covenant. A modern wedding is the joining together of man, woman, and government, but according to the Bible, marriage preceded the existence of the state. In fact, the institution that required man to leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife (Genesis 2:24) even preceded the existence of fathers and mothers. That's worth pointing out. Marriage was, is, and always will be as God defines it in scripture. That remains true no matter what label people want to slap on their respective sexual preferences.

The first step to take toward ending the "gay marriage" debate and defending the sanctity of marriage is the extrication of the state from what God intended to be the union of one man and one woman. After all, it is difficult to keep the marriage bed undefiled (Hebrews 13:4) while making room in it for politicians.

Video of the Doug Wilson-Andrew Sullivan Gay Marriage Debate

(via Canon Wired)

Dating Site for Calvinists

A dating site for Calvinists? It was predestined to happen.

Meet & Fellowship With Other Reformed Singles

Sovereign Grace Singles is the only site of its type - designed specifically to help Reformed believers meet like-minded believers and start a God-honoring relationship.

(via Tea Party Economist)

Marriage Hypocrisy

This November, voters in my state will be asked to answer yes or no to the following question:

Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?

So, during the last few months, we have been bombarded with ads like this:


I cannot help but wonder why this supposedly fair and open-minded individual wants to limit marriage to only "two people." What kind of bigoted, hateful person would tell polygamists that they have no right to marry whomever they please?

Jesus Didn't Teach That Homosexuality Is Wrong

We've all heard that tired, old argument: "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality being a sin." The conclusion, then, is that homosexuality is OK. Unfortunately, that kind of logic doesn't hold together when applied to other areas of life.

In math, we learned that 2+2=4. We never had to learn that 2+2=5 is wrong. Once we knew the correct answer, we could therefore assume that any answer other than 4 was incorrect. Just because we weren't taught explicitly that 2+2=5 is wrong didn't mean it was acceptable. We would have certainly had it marked wrong on a test, and no amount of arguing would have changed the teacher's mind.

When approached regarding the issue of marriage, Jesus simply recalled the words of Moses in Genesis 2:24: "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew 19:4-6).

Jesus taught us what marriage is, so there really wasn't any need to teach us what marriage is not. If that's the case, then we can safely assume that whatever doesn't match up with his description of marriage is wrong.

"Poster Couple" for Gay Marriage Divorce

NBC reports:

When gay couples first sought the right to legally wed in California, they argued that they were entitled to all of the benefits of marital bliss.

It was only a matter of time before that benefit extended to the right to split up.

Even as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Tuesday, one of the state's first gay couples to tie the knot was calling it quits.

Robin Tyler filed for divorce from Diane Olson on January 25. The pair were among 14 same-sex couples who originally challenged the ban in 2008.

Is nothing sacred anymore?

You Never Marry the Right Person

Timothy Keller writes:

Any two people who enter into marriage are spiritually broken by sin, which among other things means to be self-centered—living life incurvatus in se. As author Denis de Rougemont said, "Why should neurotic, selfish, immature people suddenly become angels when they fall in love ... ?" That is why a good marriage is more painfully hard to achieve than athletic or artistic prowess. Raw, natural talent does not enable you to play baseball as a pro or write great literature without enduring discipline and enormous work. Why would it be easy to live lovingly and well with another human being in light of what is profoundly wrong within our human nature? Indeed, many people who have mastered athletics and art have failed miserably at marriage. So the biblical doctrine of sin explains why marriage—more than anything else that is good and important in this fallen world—is so painful and hard.

The reason that marriage is so painful and yet wonderful is because it is a reflection of the Gospel, which is painful and wonderful at once. The Gospel is—we are more sinful and flawed in ourselves than we ever dared to believe, and at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope. This is the only kind of relationship that will really transform us. Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it. God's saving love in Christ, however, is marked by both radical truthfulness about who we are and yet also radical, unconditional commitment to us. The merciful commitment strengthens us to see the truth about ourselves and repent. The conviction and repentance moves us to cling to and rest in God's mercy and grace.

The hard times of marriage drive us to experience more of this transforming love of God. But a good marriage will also be a place where we experience more of this kind of transforming love at a human level.

Pat Robertson's Interpretation of "'Til Death Do Us Part"

When most couples get married they vow to remain faithful to each other until parted by death. That's entirely biblical, especially when you consider that marriage was designed to reflect the relationship of Christ and his bride, the church. Divorce is clearly discouraged in scripture (1 Corinthians 7) as its very existence demonstrates the hardness of man's heart (Matthew 19:8).

But are we really expected to be held to those wedding vows when things get burdensome? Isn't there some wiggle room when severe medical problems are involved? Pat Robertson, in a recent airing of The 700 Club, addressed that very issue. A viewer was concerned about a friend whose wife was suffering from Alzheimer's. That friend had begun dating another woman "because his wife as he knows her is gone." Robertson's Solomonic advice:

I hate Alzheimer's. It is one of the most awful things because here is a loved one — this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years. And suddenly that person is gone. They're gone. They are gone. So, what he says basically is correct. But I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something he should divorce her and start all over again. But to make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her.

Forget all that "in sickness and in health" business. Robertson considers Alzheimer's a "kind of death," so leaving one's spouse in that situation is entirely justifiable.

Again, I'm reminded of what marriage is supposed to represent: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). I understand this is a tough issue, but I'm not sure ol' Pat has really thought this one through.