Tag: Homosexuality

Juggling the Politics of a Justice: Ginsburg Officiates Same-Sex Wedding

~ Evan Lenow ~ 4 Comments

We rarely see Supreme Court justices wade into the waters of political controversy outside the opinions issued from the hallowed halls of the nation’s highest court. The reason for staying away from controversy is that justices who delve into political issues in the public square but away from the bench may find themselves under fire for politicizing the office that is supposed to be free of politics.

Over the weekend, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the first member of the Supreme Court to officiate a same-sex wedding ceremony. The ceremony took place at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts between Michael Kaiser, President of the Kennedy Center, and John Roberts, an economist with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Ginsburg admitted back in the spring that she had never been asked to officiate a same-sex wedding ceremony, most likely because members of the gay-rights movement did not want to jeopardize potential cases. However, since the historic rulings of June 26 on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8, Ginsburg has already agreed to perform another one.

Ginsburg was in the majority on both of the recent Supreme Court decisions related to same-sex marriage. In those cases, the Court struck down section 3 of DOMA, requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits, and declared the private citizens of California did not have standing to argue their case before the Court, effectively upholding the decision of the California Supreme Court that ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

Should we be surprised that Justice Ginsburg has jumped into the deep political waters of same-sex marriage? Not really.

Ginsburg is the senior liberal justice on the Court, and it came as no surprise that she supported same-sex marriage in the recent decisions. In fact, The Washington Post reported:

Ginsburg said she thought she and her colleagues had not been asked previously to conduct a same-sex ceremony for fear it might compromise their ability to hear the issue when it came before the court. But once the cases had been decided, Ginsburg seemed eager for the opportunity.

Her agreement to perform a second ceremony in September was communicated to the individuals in a letter dated June 26, the date of the Court’s decisions.

Should we be disappointed that Justice Ginsburg has agreed to perform these ceremonies? Certainly.

Ginsburg’s decision to officiate these ceremonies raises questions regarding future cases related to same-sex marriage. One would be naïve to think that no other cases will reach the high court in the coming years. Even though Ginsburg turned 80 this year, she has clearly communicated that she has no plans to retire anytime soon.

When asked about performing the ceremony, Ginsburg stated:

I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship.

In this statement, Ginsburg has offered her personal definition of marriage that most certainly impacts her legal opinions on same-sex marriage. The only two qualifications for marriage, according to Ginsburg, are that people should “love each other” and “want to live together.” Notice that she places no limits on the number, gender, or consanguinity of the people—they simply need love and a desire to live together. As other cases make their way to the Supreme Court, specifically the “Sister Wives” lawsuit still pending in federal court in Utah, this definition of marriage is likely to play a key role in Ginsburg’s decisions.

Ginsburg’s definition is essentially what Girgis, Anderson, and George have called the revisionist definition of marriage in their book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. Ultimately, these authors find that the revisionist definition is incoherent because the state only has an interest in regulating certain relationships that are sexual and monogamous. The revisionist definition requires neither.

At the end of the day, this is another example of the culture’s march toward a redefinition of marriage. This time it came from the actions and words of a justice outside the walls of the Supreme Court. May we continue to be diligent to make the case for God’s design for marriage—one man and one woman for a lifetime.

_________________________

Robert Barnes, “Ginsburg will be first justice to officiate at same-sex wedding,” The Washington Post, August 30, 2013.

Brett Zongker, “Justice Ginsburg to officiate at same-sex wedding,” Associated Press, August 30, 2013.

Jim Dalrymple, II, “After 6 months, no ruling on ‘Sister Wives’ polygamy lawsuit,” The Salt Lake Tribune, July 18, 2013.

Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (New York: Encounter, 2012), 15–21.

The Supreme Court and the Future of Marriage

~ Evan Lenow ~ 9 Comments

June 26, 2013. Mark this day down in history.

I haven’t lived long enough to remember too many historic moments. I remember where I was when the Challenger space shuttle exploded. I have an image burned in my mind of watching the Berlin Wall collapse. I can even recall the visceral pain of watching the World Trade Center crumble in ruins.

I will also remember June 26, 2013, as the day that marriage changed forever in American society.

What exactly happened today? Let me offer a quick summary.

Hollingsworth v. Perry (California’s Proposition 8)

The Supreme Court essentially held that those defending California’s Proposition 8 do not have standing to file their appeal. The State of California has refused to defend Prop 8 in court; therefore, other citizens of the state took it up. As part of the ruling, the majority opinion reads, “Neither the California Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit ever described the proponents as agents of the State, and they plainly do not qualify as such.” In conclusion, the majority declared:

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Since the State of California refuses to defend Prop 8 in court, the law will be held as unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. Therefore, same-sex “marriage” will become legal in California once again.

On the positive side, SCOTUS did not rule broadly and make applications to other states. However, there will likely be further legal challenges in California and other states in the near future.

United States v. Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act)

In the decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the law. This means that same-sex couples who are legally married in their respective states qualify for federal marriage benefits. These benefits include filing federal tax returns jointly, transferring property at death as a spouse to avoid inheritance taxes, etc. This would also seem to imply that federal employees with same-sex spouses would be eligible for various employment benefits (e.g., insurance) made available to spouses in heterosexual marriages.

As part of the majority opinion, the justices determined that DOMA treated same-sex couples with marriage licenses from states that approved same-sex marriages as a separate, unequal class. They wrote, “The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law [DOMA] here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”

The decision essentially allows for states to define marriage on their own for the purpose of administering marriage licenses, but it does not allow the federal government to recognize the marriage licenses of some states while not recognizing those of other states (or a particular subset from those states). In their concluding remarks, the majority of justices stated:

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

What Next?

What is next for our society? We can be thankful that the Supreme Court did not offer a new definition of marriage today. However, I still believe it is safe to say that we are heading toward the demise of marriage as the foundational institution of society. The term “marriage” is quickly losing its meaning. President Obama used his Twitter account to claim all love is equal when it comes to marriage. The logical conclusion of such a claim is societal acceptance of not only same-sex “marriage” but also acceptance of polygamy, polyamory, incest, and ultimately pedophilia. We may even live to see the day when the term “marriage” has no significance whatsoever. If marriage collapses as a social institution, we will see more crime and poverty, and we will see less education and children.

Where do we go from here as Christians? The truth of the matter is that God’s design for marriage in Genesis 2 has not changed—one man and one woman for a lifetime. However, we have a long and difficult road ahead of us. We will likely be marginalized in the cultural discussion of marriage. We will be called bigots and homophobes. We may even experience discrimination for our views. In the face of all that, we can find solace in Jesus’ words to his disciples in John 15:18–19 where he says, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.”

And one last reminder to those who call upon the Lord as Savior—it is not our ultimate responsibility to change the hearts of men and women. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. Our task is to proclaim the gospel faithfully knowing that true change in society only comes when hearts are changed by the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the motto of my seminary proclaims: Preach the Word. Reach the world!

_________________________

Hollingsworth v. Perry, Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2013.

United States v. Windsor, Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2013.

President Obama: “Love Is Love” Really?

~ Evan Lenow ~ 10 Comments

Via his Twitter account, President Obama declared the DOMA ruling from the Supreme Court to be a historic step forward for marriage equality. Then he closed his tweet with the hashtag #LoveIsLove.

Really? Is all love equal? Is love for a pet the same as love for a husband? Is love for pizza the same as love for a wife?

In this tweet, President Obama has subtly declared that marriage is nothing more than love. By his logic, not only should same-sex couples be allowed to get married, but other groups as well. As long as they love each other, this logic would allow for polygamous, polyamorous, and incestuous marriage.

Is all love really love, Mr. President?

Gay in the NBA: Jason Collins and Chris Broussard

~ Evan Lenow ~ 9 Comments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_SHBMn3ODU

The biggest news in professional basketball this week has nothing to do with the NBA playoffs. Instead, the basketball world is talking about Jason Collins’ first-person essay for Sports Illustrated in which announces he is gay. Within a sports-saturated culture, this is big news. Collins opens his article with the following declaration:

I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay.

I didn’t set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport. But since I am, I’m happy to start the conversation.

Collins has played in the NBA for six different teams over twelve seasons. He is certainly not well-known like LeBron James, Shaquille O’Neal, or Michael Jordan. However, to last for twelve years in professional basketball is still an accomplishment.

If this had been the complete substance of the discussion, it is likely that the story would have faded out of the spotlight in a matter of days, if not hours. Having somewhat famous people publicly proclaiming their sexuality is becoming old news.

But the story doesn’t end here. On ESPN’s show, “Outside the Lines,” the host interviewed NBA analysts Chris Broussard and LZ Granderson about Collins. In the midst of that interview, Broussard was asked a question about Collins’ Christianity since he claimed to be a Christian in the article. Broussard’s response was almost unbelievable for a regular analyst on the most influential sports network in the world. Broussard stated:

Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly, like premarital sex between heterosexuals. If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits. It says that, you know, that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I don’t think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.

With that, Broussard put himself in the line of fire. His opinion as an outspoken Christian sports journalist was asked, and he responded with his honest beliefs supported by the Bible. By contrast, LZ Granderson countered Broussard by saying that faith, like love and marriage, is personal and accused Broussard of painting Collins’ faith with a broad brush. He suggested that Broussard was trying to paint a world in which he was comfortable living but not others.

In his article, Collins made the following comments about his faith:

I’m from a close-knit family. My parents instilled Christian values in me. They taught Sunday school, and I enjoyed lending a hand. I take the teachings of Jesus seriously, particularly the ones that touch on tolerance and understanding.

Here we see where Collins has elevated some of the Bible over others. He claims to take the teachings of Jesus seriously. He is especially moved by those teachings on tolerance and understanding (although he does not clarify which ones he has in mind). However, he makes no attempt to reconcile his beliefs about Jesus and the Bible with Scripture’s teaching on homosexuality. Apparently, tolerance and understanding trump the teaching of Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and other passages.

The difference between the responses to Collins’ announcement and Broussard’s comments could not be greater. The entire sports world seems to be applauding Collins for his bravery while ridiculing Broussard for intolerance. However, Broussard simply gave his honest opinion to the question he was asked.

The comments from Broussard generated such a firestorm that ESPN released the following statement on Monday:

We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.

Could ESPN not also welcome honest disagreement on lifestyles and religion? There was no support for Broussard. In fact, it would not be surprising to hear that Broussard’s contract will not be renewed in the future.

The issue of homosexuality has become a dividing line in the culture. To call such a lifestyle sinful will no longer be tolerated. Biblical convictions have long gone out of fashion, but now they are the object of ridicule and deemed intolerant. In light of all this, I applaud Chris Broussard for his stance. I may even watch a little more closely the next time he comes on ESPN just to catch what he has to say.

_________________________

Jason Collins with Franz Lidz, “Why NBA center Jason Collins is coming out now,” Sports Illustrated, April 29, 2013.

Public Education and the Homosexual Agenda

~ Evan Lenow

This past week, a few different news outlets reported about a highly unusual anti-bullying program at Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, NY.  According to Todd Starnes, “Young girls at a New York middle school were instructed to ask one another for a lesbian kiss and boys were given guidance on how to tell if women are sluts during an anti-bullying presentation on gender identity and sexual orientation, angry parents allege.”

How does an anti-bullying program lead to role-playing homosexual behavior? According to Paul Hooks, superintendent of the Red Hook Central School District, the program addressed “improving culture, relationships, communication and self-perceptions.” Specifically, the presentation was intended to draw attention to discrimination against homosexual students.

The scary part of it all is that parents were not informed in advance about the homosexual role-playing and were not given the opportunity to opt the children out of participation.

While bullying is certainly not acceptable in any context, the role-playing forced upon the students creates a bullying of a different type. For those students who had convictions against homosexual behavior, their convictions were implicitly labeled as bullying. Thus, students were bullied into believing their personal, faith-based convictions were discriminatory.  By contrast, the homosexual agenda in the program was to normalize homosexual behavior.

The quest to normalize homosexual behavior is alive and well in the public school system, and this is just the latest example.

_________________________

Todd Starnes, “Middle School Anti-Bullying Lesson Includes Lesbian Role Play,” Fox News, April 18, 2013.

Jessica Chasmar, “Girls instructed to role-play lesbian relationship in workshop at N.Y. middle school,” Washington Times, April 25, 2013.