Last week I attended the March for Life in Washington, D.C., for the first time. It has always been on my list of events in which I wanted to participate, but for various reasons I was never able to do so until this year. The March for Life is held every year around the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision handed down on January 22, 1973. The first march was held in January 1974, making this march the 46th annual event.
Joe Cater provides a little history on how the march got started. He notes:
The annual event was started by pro-life activist Nellie Gray. Following the Supreme Court decision in Roe in 1973, Gray retired from her federal career and dedicated the remainder of her life to the protection of the unborn.
In October 1973, a group of 30 pro-life leaders gathered in Gray’s home in Washington, D.C., to discuss how to commemorate the one-year anniversary of Roe. According to the March for Life organization, “There was a fear that January 22 would pass as any other day rather than allow for a moment to reflect upon how legalized abortion had hurt women and taken babies’ lives over the course of the year. That was the day that plans for the first March for Life began.”[1]
After attending the march, here are a few impressions that I want to share regarding the event and the pro-life movement at large.
The March for Life is a symbolic representation of what the pro-life movement seeks to accomplish. The march begins on the National Mall in the midst of the iconic monuments that represent freedom and liberty. From the gathering point for the pre-march rally, one can see the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. For many Americans, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln represent the American ideals embedded in our founding documents. Some of the most famous words of the Declaration of Independence read, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The March for Life begins on the hallowed ground on the Mall among these monuments with reminders of the equality and unalienable rights of all people. Then the march proceeds towards the seats of power following a path along Constitution Avenue, turning in front of the United States Capitol, and stopping in front of the United States Supreme Court. Taking a message of liberty for the unborn from the monuments to the two branches of government most capable of intervening in the atrocities of abortion, the march makes a symbolic statement.
The March for Life is an event for people of all ages. I was struck by the numberImage via Wikimedia Commons of young people at the march. I expected to see adults of all ages who had planned for weeks—even months—to attend the march, but I was not expecting to see the number of youth and college-aged people at the event. While it is difficult to offer statistics or even total numbers of people in attendance, there was definitely a youthful flair to the march. The people holding the sign at the front of the march looked to be college students. There were countless signs declaring, “I am the pro-life generation!” Honestly, I was not prepared for the overwhelming number of young people at the march, but I was extremely grateful. If progress is going to be made in the pro-life movement, it must include each subsequent generation. Involving young people in these types of events is crucial to the success of the movement.
The testimonies of women who regret their abortions are powerful. As the march reached its final destination at the steps of the Supreme Court building, the organizers hosted more than thirty people who gave testimonies about their own abortions or how they had aided someone in getting an abortion. The testimonies that I heard were both powerful and heart-wrenching. The narrative surrounding abortion by pro-choice advocates is that abortion is safe and life will simply return to normal after an abortion. Such was not the case for the people who gave their testimonies at the end of the march. Stories of depression, medical problems, and regret were common. No one’s life simply returned to normal. Many have battled regret and pain for decades. These testimonies need to be heard. The truth about life after abortion needs to be communicated effectively.
The future of the pro-life movement depends on getting the message across that children are a blessing from the Lord, life begins at conception, and the unborn have a right to life. The March for Life is one avenue for communicating this message. Let me encourage you to be a part of this event in the future.
The Supreme Court of the United States released its decision on the highly anticipated Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case on June 4. In a 7-2 decision, the high court sided with Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, noting that his First Amendment right to freedom of religious exercise was violated.
While the split among the justices was a wide margin of 7-2, the opinion of the Court is being described as a narrow due to the scope of the decision. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted:
Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. . . . The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here, however. The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.
In essence, commissioners on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission expressed animus regarding the religious beliefs of Jack Phillips and were unable to adjudicate the merits of his claim due to such animus. Thus, Phillips’ rights were violated because his deeply held religious beliefs were judged unfairly by the commission.
Kennedy also noted that the commission had treated other similar cases differently. On three separate occasions, the commission ruled in favor of bakers who refused to produce cakes with messages that disapproved of same-sex marriage while also bearing religious texts. The commission allowed those bakers to refuse service but still compelled Phillips to produce cakes in support of same-sex marriage.
Kennedy concludes his opinion by emphasizing the narrow scope of the opinion. He writes:
The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided. In this case the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward in the respects noted above. However later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future, for these reasons the ruling of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission’s order must be invalidated.
What does this Supreme Court decision mean for religious liberty? On one hand, it is a victory for Jack Phillips and others whose religious liberty has been violated because government officials disagreed with their religious beliefs. On the other hand, this case does not set a clear precedent moving forward for religious liberty on a wider scale.
Those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds have increasingly found themselves on the outside looking in. The general attitude toward same-sex marriage in the United States has rapidly become more favorable since the Obergefell decision in 2015. As a result, it is likely that many business owners who refuse to promote same-sex marriage with their goods and services will face similar ridicule and animosity on the part of those adjudicating their cases in the courts. In such circumstances, this case sets a helpful precedent because religious beliefs must be considered with neutrality in the courts and commissions. Thus, anyone who faces such animosity can immediately use this Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion to find remedy.
What this case does not do is set a precedent for all business owners to refuse service in matters of same-sex marriage. Kennedy notes this limitation in his opinion, and Justice Thomas makes it even clearer. Thomas writes:
In Obergefell, I warned that the Court’s decision would “inevitabl[y] . . . come into conflict” with religious liberty, “as individuals . . . are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.” This case proves that the conflict has already emerged. Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ right to free exercise, it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day. But, in future cases, the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing Obergefell from being used to “stamp out every vestige of dissent” and “vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.” If that freedom is to maintain its vitality, reasoning like the Colorado Court of Appeals’ must be rejected.
This case gives a temporary and limited victory to proponents of traditional marriage. For the time being, the “new orthodoxy” of same-sex marriage has not overrun those who believe that God created marriage to be a union between one man and one woman. However, this case does not give blanket protection in the future. It is a first step in the protection of our first freedom in the United States, but further steps are still necessary.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 5 in the highest profile case of this term. Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is an important First Amendment case with significant implications for both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in the Denver area. In 2012 Phillips was asked to bake a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins to celebrate their same-sex wedding ceremony. Phillips refused to bake the cake, and he was subsequently found in violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination statute. Amy Howe reports, “The Colorado agencies responsible for enforcing the state’s anti-discrimination laws ruled that Phillips’ refusal to provide the custom cake violated those laws and that he had ‘no free speech right’ to turn down Craig and Mullins’ request. They told Phillips that, if he decided to create cakes for opposite-sex weddings, he would also have to create them for same-sex weddings.”[1]
Based on his convictions as a Christian, Phillips believes that only a man and a woman can enter into marriage. Therefore, he refuses to design wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies. Phillips also refuses to design cakes to celebrate Halloween, divorce, or any message he considers to be lewd.
What is at stake in this case? There are a few points of particular interest to free speech and conscience protections involved in this case.
First, can the government compel speech? When we think of free speech, we generally think about the prohibition against government restricting speech. In this case, Jack Phillips wants to restrict his own artistic expression, which he argues is a form of speech, but the state of Colorado is attempting to compel him to make artistic expression that violates his conscience. Compulsion of speech is a direct violation of the First Amendment. The question is whether artistic expression through custom-designed wedding cakes is protected speech.
Second, does religious freedom extend beyond the walls of a place of worship? Phillips argues that he has the right to express his religious convictions through the bakery that he owns. He closes the store on Sundays, and he refuses to bake items celebrating various activities that violate his religious convictions. There has been a trend in recent years to see religious freedom only in the context of formal worship; however, religious freedom has not always been interpreted in such a way. Phillips claims that his religious freedom extends beyond the church and into the public square where he operates his business. The decision in this case has the potential to set a significant precedent for how freedom of religion and freedom of conscience will be applied for generations.
Third, does protection against “dignitary harm” supersede other constitutional rights? In his amicus brief for this case, Sherif Girgis defines dignitary harm as “the harm of being told (even by polite refusals) that decisions central to your identity are wrong.”[2] Andrew Walker notes, “The rise of ‘dignitary harm’ arguments aims to achieve desired legal outcomes on the basis of a perceived slight or personal offense.”[3] In essence, dignitary harm arguments are built on the idea that a person has the right not to be offended. If one is offended he can then sue the person who offended him. The responsibility is then upon the prospective offender not to offend even though there is no way for him to know for certain whether or not what he might do or say could offend someone else. Recent cases, especially related to same-sex marriage, have raised the profile of dignitary harm. The most substantial problem with this line of argumentation is that the opinions of the majority tend to be protected and the minority is most likely to commit dignitary harm. In contrast, most of the rights protected in the First Amendment are designed to protect the minority opinion from discrimination, not the reverse. The Court would be right to see Phillips as the one whose opinions and decisions should be protected.
What can we expect as the outcome of this case? It is difficult to say. Numerous reports suggest that the majority of justices are leaning toward support of Jack Phillips, but Howe warns us that “making predictions based on oral arguments is always dangerous.” In the coming months we should hear a decision from the Court, and it will likely prove to be the most significant religious liberty decision in generations.
Students who have taken my Christian Home class are familiar with a diagram I draw on the board each semester. In this diagram, I visually depict the difference between polygamy and polyamory—two marriage arrangements that contrast monogamy. I then tell my students that such arrangements will most likely be legal in the United States in just a matter of years and that the church will need to be prepared to address them.
The timeframe for normalization of these alternative marriages may have accelerated in recent months as a series of articles have been published touting the advantages of various forms of multiple marriage. It is important for us to understand what these are and to critique them from a biblical perspective.
The Marriage Alternatives
Until the last couple of years, laws in the United States only recognized marriage to be between one man and one woman. The 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges opened the door to same-sex marriage. Now we see a push for different types of marriage that infringe upon monogamy.
Polygamy is a marriage arrangement where one individual is married to multiple partners. Historically this is primarily a man married to multiple women. This form of marriage is the one most clearly set up for legalization through the Obergefell decision.
Polyamory literally means “many loves” and describes “consensually non-monogamous relationships [where] there is an open agreement that one, both, or all individuals involved in a romantic relationship may also have other sexual and/or romantic partners.”[1] Polyamory differs from polygamy because all partners can be in multiple marriage-like relationships. While a recent Christian blogger has stated that polyamory is not about sex,[2] the basic premise of this type of relationship is that the various partners are in multiple intimate, romantic, sexual relationships.
Open marriage is the third alternative in the marriage battleground. This arrangement involves couples in the marriage being open to romantic, sexual relationships outside the context of their own marriage. In some respects this is similar to polyamory, although the outside relationships may not be formalized as marriage. Proponents of open marriage argue that as long as both spouses are in agreement with the arrangement then it does not break the fidelity of the marriage bond.
The Battle Ahead
Are these marriage alternatives really going to become mainstream? Numerous articles have appeared over the last year promoting these different marriage arrangements. New York published an article promoting consensual nonmonogamy.[3]The Chronicle of Higher Education interviewed philosopher Carrie Jenkins about her new book What Love Is and What It Could Be in which she promotes polyamory.[4]NPR even ran a story about the cultural moment for polyamory stating, “Lately, I’m seeing ‘polyamory’ everywhere. It’s not a new word or concept of course, but it seems to be having a cultural moment.”[5] Polygamy is popularized on the television shows Sister Wives and Polygamy USA.
From a Christian perspective, progressive Christian blogger Chuck McKnight is currently publishing a series of blog posts promoting polyamory and open marriage based on a “love-based ethic” in which our ethical actions are judged by only the question of whether they are loving. McKnight believes that polyamory can be loving and therefore not biblically prohibited.
The Christian Response
In response to the cultural push for acceptance of these marriage alternatives, Scripture gives us a couple of clear ideas about marriage.
Scripture communicates a consistent message about the monogamous nature of marriage. Beginning in Genesis, we see that God’s design for marriage is a comprehensive, covenantal relationship between one man and one woman. Genesis 2:24 provides this divine commentary on the nature of marriage:
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
God designed that the man (singular) would be joined to his wife (singular) in marriage. All subsequent descriptions of marriage relate the ideal of monogamy. While there are examples of polygamists in the Old Testament (for example, Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon), their polygamy is not depicted as ideal. In fact, their polygamy is the source of great strife and conflict in their homes. Despite the presence of such polygamy, the overwhelming testimony of Scripture points to monogamy as the standard. Both Jesus and Paul affirm the monogamous standard. In Matthew 19 and Mark 10, Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24 and then describes two becoming one flesh. He never inserts a third or fourth individual into the marriage. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul states, “But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2). Paul clearly communicates the idea of monogamous marriage here. The message is consistent throughout Scripture.
Any departure from monogamous marriage is a form of sexual immorality. Scripture consistently condemns adultery, but two specific passages come to mind in response to the current challenges to marriage. In Romans 7:3 we read, “So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. . . .” Paul describes a standard monogamous marriage (a wife with one husband) and equates any union with another man as adultery. In addition the author of Hebrews tells us, “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).
If Scripture depicts God’s design for marriage to be monogamous, and if any departure from monogamous marriage is equated with adultery, then the various alternative marriage arrangements—polygamy, polyamory, and open marriage—are all forms of adultery that are subject to the judgment of God. Therefore, Christians should not endorse these forms of “marriage,” nor should they tolerate them within their midst. Just as Paul rebuked the church at Corinth for tolerating the man who had married his father’s wife, we too should rebuke those who promote and tolerate such distortions of God’s design for marriage.
*My recent post at Theological Matters addresses this week’s Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The full post is available here.
This weekend I plan to attend a patriotic concert with fireworks, food and friends. It has become an annual tradition for my wife and me that we would not miss for anything. We will sing along to the national anthem and probably tear up as they honor military veterans. In fact, one of our friends who organizes a group of us to attend each year will have just returned from a war zone on a brief leave from his military duties. It should be a great evening full of emotions and patriotic pride.
Unfortunately, there is another cause for tears heading into Independence Day. These are not tears of joy, but tears of sorrow. As was the case last year, the week before Independence Day celebrations, the Supreme Court issued a decision that will alter the course of our great nation. This time the decision struck down abortion regulations in Texas and has made it almost impossible for states to enact commonsense medical regulations on the abortion industry.
In the days ahead, we must not lose hope. Independence Day gives us a good reminder of what we should work to attain for the unborn. Let us give them an opportunity to celebrate their own independence rather than having their lives snuffed out in their mothers’ wombs.
The Supreme Court of the United States released its decision on the highly anticipated Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case on June 4. In a 7-2 decision, the high court sided with Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, noting that his First Amendment right to freedom of religious exercise was violated.
*This post originally appeared on the Land Center blog at 
This post originally appeared on Theological Matters at 
Ethics as Worship 