The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.
-Chief Justice John Roberts on the historical development of the definition of marriage during Supreme Court hearings yesterday.
If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, ‘This is my friend.’ But it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.
-Chief Justice Roberts responding to the argument that marriage means something and should be used to apply to same-sex couples.
Chief Justice John Roberts
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry (California’s Proposition 8 case) on Tuesday, March 27. Today the Supreme Court hears argument in United States v. Windsor regarding the Defense of Marriage Act.
Last week the Associated Press (AP) notified its constituents of a new entry in the AP Stylebook. This new entry addresses the appropriate use of the terms husband and wife. The text of the entry is:
husband, wife Regardless of sexual orientation, husband or wife is acceptable in all references to individuals in any legally recognized marriage. Spouse or partner may be used if requested.
This entry has been officially added to the online version of the AP Stylebook and will appear in the print edition later this spring.
The Associated Press is perhaps the most influential news organization in the world. Their stories and photos have run in news outlets since 1846. The AP Stylebook (first published in 1953 and updated annually) serves as the standard style guide for journalists. As a result, the choices the Stylebook makes in the use of language impact how readers and listeners of news media will view issues.
In a press release on the new Stylebook entry, Mike Oreskes, AP Senior Managing Editor for U.S. News, stated,
The AP has never had a Stylebook entry on the question of the usage of husband and wife. All the previous conversation was in the absence of such a formal entry. This lays down clear and simple usage. After reviewing existing practice, we are formalizing ‘husband, wife’ as an entry.
I find the comment by Mr. Oreskes to be quite interesting. For 50 years, the Associated Press had never seen a reason to post an entry regarding the usage of husband and wife. However, now they determine there is a need for such an entry, and it reflects a change to the long held understanding of marriage in our society. I would argue that the reason no entry was needed previously is that society at large clearly understood the meaning and usage of husband and wife. A husband and wife are the two individuals in a marriage. The husband is male, and the wife is female. It was understood that a husband would have a wife and a wife would have a husband.
However, in this age of attempts to redefine marriage, the AP has determined it will weigh in on the matter. Notice the language of the entry. It reads, “Regardless of sexual orientation, husband or wife is acceptable in all references to individuals in any legally recognized marriage.” Thus, journalists can use AP-approved style to refer to two husbands or two wives. They could, perhaps, even refer to the two individuals in a same-sex marriage as husband and wife with the approval of the couple if that is how the individuals view their roles in that “marriage.”
The AP has jumped into the fray with an agenda to normalize same-sex marriage in society through the use of language in journalism. What I find ironic in all of this is the tag at the end of the press release describing the AP. It reads:
The Associated Press is the essential global news network, delivering fast, unbiased news from every corner of the world to all media platforms and formats. Founded in 1846, AP today is the most trusted source of independent news and information. On any given day, more than half the world’s population sees news from AP. On the Web: www.ap.org.
There are a few adjectives that the AP uses to describe itself that are violated in their latest addition to the Stylebook. They claim to be a “global news network,” to deliver “unbiased news,” and to be a “trusted source of independent news and information.”
As a “global news network,” surely the AP is aware that same-sex marriage is not a global norm. In fact, most of the world does not recognize same-sex marriage as legitimate. Delivering “unbiased news” means that it is free of political agendas, yet there is hardly a more vocal political group than the homosexual community attempting to normalize their lifestyle. Finally, a “trusted source of independent news and information” will refrain from promoting a particular viewpoint over other valid options. In making this change to the Stylebook, the Associated Press has violated all three of these descriptions for its own mission.
The normalization of same-sex marriage (and homosexuality in general) has been a goal of the homosexual community for decades. They have often found a sympathetic ear among journalists, especially those whose politics lean to the left. However, they have now found support from the “essential global news network” known as the Associated Press. Despite the fact that the AP claims to be unbiased and independent, it has now voiced an opinion in this matter. The opinion was placed in the most subtle of places—a journalistic style manual. I dare say this was not by accident. Why make a public policy statement when you can simply change the use of language?
In Matthew 10:16, Jesus told his disciples, “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.” As Christians, we tend to do fairly well on being “innocent as doves,” but we often lack the shrewdness of serpents. This is a time when we need to be shrewd and attentive to our culture so that we are prepared to defend the biblical model of marriage as it is being attacked on all sides.
*Special thanks to Benjamin Hawkins, Senior Writer in the Office of Communications at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, for bring this announcement to my attention.
CNN has reported that the British Parliament has taken initial steps to make same-sex marriage legal in the United Kingdom. In spite of strong resistance by Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party, the measure received an initial vote of approval 400-175. According to the report, the measure must still receive another vote in the House of Commons and a vote in the House of Lords.
While the Conservative Party in the UK has opposed the legislation, Prime Minister Cameron has been supportive of the measure. He has considered it to be an issue of equality while still claiming to support marriage.
This should prove interesting since the Church of England officially opposes the legislation, yet it is the state church. CNN notes:
As drafted, the bill would enable religious organizations to choose to conduct same-sex marriages if they wish and includes provisions intended to make sure no religious organization or person is forced to do so.
The Church of England is among the religious bodies opposed to the legislation.
The Church of England also sent a brief to Parliament citing its objection. The news report states:
The Church of England also outlined its objections to the bill in a briefing note sent to lawmakers Friday.
It cannot support the legislation “because of its concern for the uncertain and unforeseen consequences for wider society and the common good when marriage is redefined in gender-neutral terms,” it said.
While the reported objection is probably not the full reasoning, the Church of England brings up a good point. When marriage becomes gender-neutral, it is automatically separated from procreation. Marriage is then defined in terms of emotion. Once intensity of emotional bond becomes the definition of marriage, other forms of marriage must be approved. These include polygamy, polyamory, and ultimately incestuous marriage.
This will be a big defeat for supporters of traditional marriage. It will also prove to be a source of tension for the Church of England as it attempts to serve as the state church while opposing the law. My guess is that the Church of England (in England) will ultimately be forced to comply if this law is enacted.
We will be well-served to see what happens in the UK because it may be the future in the United States.
Photograph of President Truman in the Oval Office receiving a report on the accomplishments of the Boy Scouts from a delegation of Eagle Scouts, who are giving him the Boy Scout salute. (National Archives and Records Administration)
The Boy Scouts of America are scheduled to make a decision this week on their membership policy. This could prove to be a significant shift in policy that has the potential to impact the future of scouting.
Last week, Deron Smith, director of public relations for Boy Scouts of America, announced that “the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation.” Prior to this announcement the Boy Scouts have maintained a policy that prohibits membership for homosexual scouts and troop leaders. As recently as July 2012, the Boy Scouts had affirmed their membership policy as “absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts.”
In place of their national policy prohibiting the membership of homosexuals, the BSA may implement a localized policy where “the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families.” In essence, each local organization that sponsors a Boy Scout troop would have the ability to set its own policy regarding sexual orientation.
The merits (or demerits) of this potential policy shift have been discussed in the media and will continue to be the subject of evaluation in the days to come. However, I want to ask the question: Does this potential policy change by the Boy Scouts represent the face of the “New America”?
What is the New America? The proposed policy of the Boy Scouts gives us a guide for what the New America looks like.
First, in the New America convictional beliefs are discarded for the sake of avoiding cultural pressure. There is no doubt that the Boy Scouts have faced extreme pressure from the homosexual community to change their policy. Even after a decision from the Supreme Court in 2000 that allowed the Boy Scouts to maintain their membership policy, the pressure has grown. At this point, however, at least some of the pressure has been building from the executive board where two prominent members have expressed publicly that they would work towards ending the policy.
Unfortunately, discarding convictional beliefs for the sake of avoiding cultural pressure is a hopeless cause. For the Boy Scouts, many of their sponsoring organizations (churches, schools, and civic groups) will now face pressure to include homosexual scouts and leaders in direct opposition to their own beliefs. Unlike the national organization with the time, resources, and money to fight the challenges, these local groups will either capitulate to the pressure or drop their sponsorship. Effectively, the national organization will suffer because they are unwilling to stand up in the face of pressure.
Second, in the New America decision-makers refuse to take responsibility for those under their authority. President Harry S. Truman famously had a sign on his desk in the White House which read, “The buck stops here!” Implied in that phrase were the ideas that tough decisions were made here and the blame for those decisions could not be passed along to someone else. It appears that the Boy Scouts have chosen to pass the buck with their new proposed policy. Rather than taking responsibility for the hard decision (either keeping the policy in place or directing the sponsoring organizations to abide by a new policy), the national organization has passed responsibility down the line. This is not the natural line of progression for responsibility. Responsibility increases as one moves up the chain of command. There is no doubt that a scoutmaster would take responsibility for his troop rather than allowing the scouts to do what is right in their own eyes.
This failure to take responsibility is nothing new to the human race. When asked by God if he had eaten fruit from the tree about which God had commanded him not to eat, Adam replied, “The woman who You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate” (Genesis 3:12). Adam failed to take responsibility and blamed Eve, yet he still suffered the consequences of his sin. In the same way, the national BSA may feel that they can dodge the consequences of making a decision by placing the burden upon the local organizations; however, their day will come, either through a plethora of lawsuits or an exodus of sponsoring organizations.
Finally, in the New America disagreement equals hatred and bigotry. On controversial issues, such as homosexuality, disagreement is often equated with intolerance and labeled as hate speech, bigotry, or a danger to society. For example, Richard Ferraro, vice president for communications for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), granted an interview to the New York Times. In part his statement read, “Prohibiting or ejecting gay children or leaders sends a dangerous message to all children, Mr. Ferraro said, adding, ‘It’s policies like this that contribute to bullying in schools.’” The appeal here is not to logic and reason (or even the legal right that BSA has to exclude certain people). Instead, Ferraro has equated the membership policy to bullying. His analogy is replete with fear, danger, and hatred.
The days of civil public discourse appear to be fleeting. Respectful disagreement is no longer tolerated. The Boy Scouts had previously staked their claim on this issue in a respectful, yet clear, manner. However, that policy has fallen out of fashion in American culture. In the face of accusations of being bullies, bigoted, and out-of-touch, the BSA is on the verge of yielding to the loudest voices in our culture. They do not seem to be up to the task of making their case in a reasoned, balanced argument.
We will find out later this week what the Boy Scouts decide. It seems evident that the policy will be changed. Time will tell if the Boy Scouts of America will survive this monumental shift.
One thing is certain, however. We should not be surprised when we encounter the mindset of the New America. We were warned in the Bible. In 2 Timothy 3:1–5, Paul writes:
But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power.
_________________________
Deron Smith, “Media Statement,” Boy Scouts of America, January 28, 2013.
I am excited to announce that I have a new article that was just published in the Fall 2012 issue of the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood addressing the challenges that homosexuality creates for gender roles. I would like to thank Denny Burk and the editors at JBMW for including my article in this issue.
My article deals with the intersection of homosexuality and biblical gender roles. I make the argument that homosexuality is not compatible with gender roles as they appear in Scripture. By application, then, support for homosexuality requires a redefinition of gender roles. Here is a summary of my article from the introduction:
While much of the current debate has centered on gay rights and same-sex marriage, it is imperative to understand how the issue of homosexuality impacts a biblical understanding of gender roles. By its very nature of describing a relationship between two members of the same sex, homosexuality seems to make the question of gender roles irrelevant. Thus, there are vast challenges that homosexuality creates for a biblical discussion of gender roles. If believers are going to address these challenges both within the church and in the culture, they must first understand the impact that homosexuality has on a complementarian view of the sexes. Homosexuality denies the God-ordained nature of gender roles as revealed in Scripture by rejecting the complementary nature of sex, by subverting the complementary nature of marriage, and by distorting the complementary nature of the Christ-church relationship.
You can view and download the entire issue of the journal at the website of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood at www.cbmw.org.
Ethics as Worship 