I have been greatly disturbed by the name-calling and
finger-pointing that has taken place in recent days over the jailing of the
Kentucky county clerk in a contempt citation for failing to issue marriage
licenses to same sex couples desiring to be married. Because she has stood her ground firm in her
convictions she and others who stand with her have been labeled as bigots. For the record, I’ve not been too pleased
with many who side with her as their behavior is equally unbecoming.
(As a side note, I find it interesting how easy it is to
shut down all reasonable and civil discourse by the introduction of
name-calling. It seems nowadays that the
first person to sling out the word “bigot” or “racist” at another person is the
winner. It has a chilling effect and is
poised simply at putting a person on the defensive and stirring deep personal
integrity responses instead of stimulating thoughtful dialogue.)
I.
Issues
of Faith
Those who point to Old Testament scriptures in their
sanctimonious smugness as an argument against those who rely on the word of God
as their confidence on their faith that gay marriage is contrary to the Lord’s
will neither understand the context of the Old Testament nor hold to the truths
of the New Testament. I speak directly to those who point to "The West
Wing" dialogue recently showing up on Facebook and to various scriptures
in Leviticus that condemn those who touch the skin of a pig and Old Testament
prohibitions. Talk about cherry-picking! I also speak to those who rely solely on
the Old Testament as their justification to abhor same sex marriage! Neither one of you (proponents/opponents)
have a grasp of the scriptures. Shame on both of you for relying only on the
Old Testament as your "authority".
It is clear from reading both the Old and New Testaments
that marriage was intended by God to be between a man and a woman and that
among other things they were commanded to bear children. Re-interpretation and selective revision of
ancient texts may convince a person otherwise.
That’s what happens when you rewrite scripture to fit your circumstances
and to help you feel better about yourself.
This happens a lot these days and it applies to many topics. People seem to forget that God is the One who
sets the rules, not us.
The Old Testament, specifically the Law of Moses, was given
as a "schoolmaster" to the children of Israel to prepare them for the
coming of the Messiah. It was given to
them because they could not, or at least would not, obey a higher law which the
Savior brought with Him in His mortal ministry. These strict commands were also
given to them as a means of self-preservation. In some instances commandments
were given as health codes and in other cases commandments were given to them
as a means of identifying the covenant people.
They were recognized by the way they lived.
The Law of Moses was not done away with upon the advent of
the Savior's mortal ministry. To the contrary, the Savior brought a more
restrictive law. For example, under the Law of Moses it was forbidden to commit
adultery. Under the Law of the Gospel of Jesus Christ a person was forbidden to
even look upon a woman (or a man) with an adulterous heart. To be perfectly clear, the Ten Commandments
have not been rescinded neither have they gone through a name change. They are
NOT the ten suggestions.
Those who would point only to the Old Testament and say that
it was a harsh way to guide a people overlook the various commands in that Holy
Writ to love one another. The Christ of
the New Testament did not give that as a new command during His earthly
ministry, but He first gave it as the God of the Old Testament. To those who
believe, it really is possible to "love thy neighbor" while abhorring
the sin at the same time. That was the intent of the God of the Old Testament
and it was the same intent of the God of the New Testament.
If you think it is impossible to hate the sin but love the
sinner, then ask yourself this question, especially if you are a parent. Have
you ever loved your child in spite of the bad things, perhaps even the terrible
things that he or she has done?
II. Constitutional
Issues
Many who are cheering the incarceration of County Clerk
Davis for refusal to issue marriage licenses to anybody, not just same sex
couples, say that she was jailed for not doing her job. Her backers say that she was jailed because
of her deeply held Christian belief. The
issue is really quite moot. The reality
is that she was jailed because of her deeply held religious beliefs prevented
her from doing what was never a part of her job when she initially took office
and by what became the law of the land, not through the constitutionally
provided way (i.e., a legislative action), but through five unelected people
sitting on the nation’s highest court who are accountable to no one but
themselves. However, a much larger issue
looms before the courts and it is one that Chief Justice John Roberts spelled
out in his minority opinion. Rather than
reprint the full 29-page dissent, I am including his concluding remarks that
now (and frankly at the time) seemed prophetic.
(I have placed some parts of Roberts’ dissent in italics and in bold typeface.)
JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL
“Federal courts are blunt instruments
when it comes to creating rights. They
have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they
do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not
before the court
or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of
a new right. Today’s decision, for
example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex
marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike
the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the
Constitution. Amdt. 1.
“Respect
for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State
that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for
religious practice. The majority’s
decision imposing same sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such
accommodations. The majority graciously
suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their
views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the
freedom to “exercise” religion.
Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.
“Hard
questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen
to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a
religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married
couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with
same-sex married couples. Indeed,
the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some
religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex
marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on
Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar
questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith
can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.
“Perhaps the most discouraging
aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled
to sully those on the other side of the debate.
The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to
disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same sex
marriage. Ante, at 19.
That disclaimer is hard to square with the very next sentence, in which
the majority explains that “the necessary consequence” of laws codifying the
traditional definition of marriage is to “demea[n] or stigmatiz[e]” same-sex
couples. Ante, at 19. The majority reiterates such characterizations
over and over. By the majority’s
account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of
marriage that has existed for our entire
history—in particular, the tens
of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition
of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” disparage,” “disrespect and
subordinate,” and inflict
“[d]ignitary wounds” upon their
gay and lesbian neighbors. Ante, at 17, 19, 22, 25. These apparent assaults on the character of
fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. See post, at 6–7 (ALITO, J.,
dissenting). Moreover, they are entirely
gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution
protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone
who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as
bigoted. Ante, at 19.
“In the face of all this, a much
different view of the Court’s role impossible.
That view is more modest and restrained.
It is more skeptical that the legal abilities of judges also reflect
insight into moral and philosophical issues.
It is more sensitive to the fact that judges are unelected and unaccountable, and that the legitimacy of
their power depends on confining it to the exercise of legal judgment. It is
more attuned to the lessons of history, and what it has meant for the country
and Court when Justices have exceeded their proper bounds. And it
is less pretentious than to suppose that while people around the world have viewed
an institution in a particular way for
thousands of years, the present generation and the present Court are the ones
chosen to burst the bonds of that history and tradition.
* *
*
“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who
favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision.
Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal.
Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a
partner. Celebrate the availability of
new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution.
It had nothing to do with it.
“I respectfully dissent. “
ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
I don’t
think anybody wanted to see a constitutional showdown, but we now have one.
II.
Concluding
Comments
One should not think that because Kim Davis has been
released from jail that this matter has been resolved. It will climb and claw its way up to the
Supreme Court again, whether through Mrs. Davis or through some other person or
official. I note that there are judges
across the country who have already committed to not solemnizing same-sex
marriages.
I do not know why some people struggle with same-sex
attraction. While as a matter of
personal faith (if you want to call it religious conscience, that’s fine) I
believe it is wrong to discriminate against those with same-sex partners in
areas of housing, employment, tax status, and so forth. I feel a great sense of empathy for those who
experience same-gender attraction who love and make deep personal commitments
to their partners. To be perfectly
clear, I have a number of friends who are in relationships with same-sex
partners and I value them, respect them, and honor them and their friendship as
much as I do the relationship I have with my heterosexual friends. I am pretty sure that they understand my
position and have been nothing but gracious and respectful of me and my
beliefs.
I recently posted a proclamation published by The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Facebook entitled The Family: A
Proclamation to the World. It was first
published on September 23, 1995. I wish
to quote parts of that proclamation in concluding my comments here.
The Family
A Proclamation to the World
The First Presidency
and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints
We, the First
Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and
a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan
for the eternal destiny of His children.
All human beings—male
and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or
daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny.
Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and
eternal identity and purpose.
***
The first commandment
that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as
husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to
multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God
has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only
between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
***
We declare the
means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the
sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.
Husband and wife
have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their
children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). …
The family is
ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His
eternal plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment