Moral Side

The Moral Side of the News - Topic for Sunday, May 13, 2012 - President Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage

TOPIC: President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.  In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters.  "I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday. Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer.”

The President stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.  “It’s interesting, some of this is also generational,” the president continued. “You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation that they believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

Roberts asked the president if First Lady Michelle Obama was involved in this decision. Obama said she was, and he talked specifically about his own faith in responding.  “This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.”

Previously, Obama has moved in the direction of supporting same-sex marriage but has consistently stopped short of outright backing it.  Instead, he’s voiced support for civil unions for gay and lesbian couples that provide the rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples, though not defined as “marriage.” At the same time, the president has opposed efforts to ban gay marriage at the state level, saying that he did not favor attempts to strip rights away from gay and lesbian couples.

CONTINUE READING: http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-obama-affirms-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html

QUESTION: What are your thoughts on the President’s announcement?

Shellfish Logic and the Defense of Homosexual Marriage

by Gary DeMar

I was asked the following question by a Facebook friend: “How do you argue against gay marriage when pro-gay marriage activists say that gay [sic] marriage is forbidden in the Old Testament, but so is [eating] shellfish. They try to say that along with gay marriage that other stuff like shellfish is also forbidden. How do we as Christians respond?

Arguments like the “shellfish game” fill the internet, and many people are duped by them. Even Christians. In an interview published in Christianity Today magazine, Christian music artist and self-avowed lesbian Jennifer Knapp used the shellfish argument. (The interviewer did not challenge her on it.) There are several ways to argue against this false analogy. First, sexual relationships are defined in the earliest chapters of Genesis. Adam’s solitude was remedied with the creation of Eve, a female, someone designed specifically for him (Gen. 2:18–25). God didn’t create another man and also a woman so Adam could choose. He created a woman, a human complement designed sexually literally to fit with Adam. This is why Paul described homosexuality as “unnatural” (Rom. 1:26–27). The physical side of homosexual is unnatural, like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. The shellfish argument has no validity since sexual identity (male and female) and the definition of marriage (man and woman) are creation ordinances. There is no prohibition in Genesis regarding shellfish (Gen. 1:28–31).

Second, the New Testament follows the Old Testament creation ordinance of marriage defining it as between a man and a woman. Jesus confirms this in Matthew 19:4–6: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined 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 no man separate’” (also see Eph. 5:25–33; cf. 1 Cor. 7:2–3, 10–16; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12). There is no homosexual option. Jesus does not go to Leviticus to make His case; He goes back to Genesis.

Third, Leviticus, in addition to prohibiting homosexual relationships (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), also prohibits eating certain foods (Lev. 11:2–31). Unlike homosexuality, there are no civil penalties attached to eating from the prohibited food list. It’s obvious, in terms of the sanctions, that eating shellfish is not the same as engaging in homosexual relationships. With the coming of Jesus, the Second Adam, we are back to the creation ordinances where all foods are once again “clean” because the gospel is for the world (John 4:42; Acts 1:8):

And He said to them, “Are you also as lacking in understanding? Don’t you realize that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated.” (As a result, He made all foods clean.) Then He said, “What comes out of a person—that defiles him. For from within, out of people’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, evil actions, deceit, promiscuity, stinginess, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a person.” (Mark 7:18–23)

Other passages address the same issue (Rom. 14:2-3, 6, 14-23 and Col. 2:16-23). Why are once prohibited foods now considered “clean”? We learn from Peter’s encounter with the “unclean foods” that he was told by God to eat that they represented the nations (Acts 10:9–48; 11:5–9): “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” (10:15; 11:9). To eat foods that were set aside as unclean is an acknowledgment that the gospel is not just for Jews: “‘Therefore if God gave to them [Gentiles] the same gift as He gave to us [Jews] also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?’ When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, ‘Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life’” (11:17–18).

Fourth, from Jesus’ comments in Mark 7 and God’s instructions to Peter in Acts 10, there is direct special revelation given that changes a number of laws from the Old Testament. In addition to unclean foods, there is no longer any use for the temple, animal sacrifices, and circumcision. How do we know this? Because we are told that these ordinances and laws no longer apply or are fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ. We’re even told that there needed to be a change in the law, but in this case only as regarding who can be a priest (Heb. 7). Anyone familiar with the Bible knows these things.

Fifth, like the laws prohibiting homosexuality found in Leviticus, the New Testament prohibits homosexuality (Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; 1 Tim. 1:8–11), and if it prohibits homosexuality, then it prohibits homosexual marriage. Notice what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:9: “And such were some of you.” Some might claim that the Bible does not use the word “homosexual.” The definition is inherent in the Leviticus passages (18:22; 20:13): “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.” That is, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with someone of the same (Latin: homo) sex. Paul uses similar language: “woman . . . burned in their desire toward one another, men with men [same sex with same sex]. . .” (Rom. 1:26–27).

Sixth, the same “Holiness Code” that condemns homosexuality also prohibits adultery (Lev. 18:20), child sacrifice (v. 21), and sex with animals (v. 23) and promotes loving your neighbor as yourself (19:18), a law repeated numerous times in the New Testament (Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; James 2:8). Are the “shellfishers” telling us that adultery, child sacrifice, and sex with animals are now acceptable alternative lifestyle choices that should be protected by law? If his answer is yes, then let them say so. The New Testament promotes the Holiness Code law regarding loving one’s neighbor as well as laws prohibiting homosexual activity (Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; 1 Tim. 1:8–11). It seems that the New Testament writers do not have problems applying the Holiness Code legislation in the New Covenant.

Leviticus 19 (still part of the Holiness Code)—between the anti-homosexual passages of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13—prohibits stealing and lying (v. 11), oppressing neighbors and robbing them (v. 13), withholding wages from a laborer (v. 13), cursing the deaf and tripping the blind (v. 14), showing partiality in judicial matters (v. 15), slandering (v. 16), and taking vengeance (v. 18). Leviticus 20 repeats prohibitions against child sacrifice (vv. 2–5), adultery (v. 10), homosexuality (v. 13), and bestiality (vv. 15–16). Are we to conclude, using shellfish logic, that these laws no longer apply today because they are found in the Holiness Code?

Some Christians will argue against the “shellfishers” on the basis that under the New Covenant we are not “signatories to the Sinaitic Covenant.” On the surface, this might seem like a good approach to take, but in practice it breaks down since the New Testament writers appeal to laws found in the covenant given at Sinai. Jesus quotes Leviticus 19:18 (Matt. 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27) and 20:9 (Mark 7:10). Paul also quotes Leviticus 19:18 (Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14), as does James (James 2:8). Paul took the Old Testament law seriously enough to apply a law that seemingly was only applicable to animals (Deut. 25:4) and applied its principles twice to humans (1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18). If Paul could find contemporary application of a law that applied to oxen, then certainly the rest of the legal corpus has similar applicational force, even if we might not always know how to apply it.

The Pressure on Methodism to Accomodate

The saddest event so far in the history of American Methodism occurred in 1844. In a bitter dispute over slavery, the Methodist Episcopal Church split into Northern (MEC) Southern (MEC, South) branches. In 1860 the Free Methodist Church broke from the Northern branch, in part over compromises that were made with the popular cultural morality of the day - including (but not limited to) a tepid opposition to slavery and an accommodating approach to personal holiness.

Methodism's disunity offered negative leadership to the country.  The slavery dispute catapulted the nation into the bloody and devastating Civil War.  Now, over 150 years later, the nation is still trying to recover from that trauma.

Today the main line of Methodism - the United Methodist Church - faces another divisive issue that has the potential to split the Church.  That issue concerns personal holiness.  How much will and should the United Methodis Church accommodate itself, its message, its witness to the cultural mores - sexual morality in general and the practice of homosexuality and same-sex marriage in particular?

In 1844 the Southern branch of the Methodist Episcopal Church could not have honestly claimed that Scripture was on their side.  While there are a few Pauline references that seem to tolerate slavery (Ephesians6:5, Colossians 3:22), most commentators argue that St. Paul’s tolerance was based on his expectation of an imminent return of Jesus Christ in glory. Therefore, there was no time to transform social institutions. The high and urgent mandate was to spread the Gospel and save souls. Yet, even in that situation, St. Paul sent this message to slaves: “If you can gain your freedom, do so” (I Corinthians 7:21).

Of course, the Gospel itself undercut the very foundation of slavery. Paul declared that in Christ there is “neither slave nor free” (Galatians 3:28). He also wrote: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free…” (Galatians 5:1). “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17). Jesus himself declared that “if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

Why then did the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, forsake Scripture as its guide?  It did so because the economic and social pressures of its culture were intense.

Though Scripture opposes both slavery and homosexuality, it is much more explicit in its denunciation of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27, I Timothy 1:9-10, I Corinthians 6:9). In both the Old and New Testaments there is solid endorsement of the marriage covenant between a man and a woman as the only approved context for sexual relations (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5).

Today strong cultural forces are once again pressing the main line of Methodism to depart from Scriptural standards. Though Methodists claim that Scripture is “the true rule and guide for faith and practice,” loud voices from the culture call such standards outdated, archaic, and unenlightened. It seems that the cultural elites in every age claim that their wisdom is higher than that of Scripture. But every time the Church accommodates itself to culture, both church and culture pay an awful price.

Make no mistake. The current debate over sexual standards is another crucial round in the ongoing struggle between God’s way and the way of the world. All Methodists should pray that God’s way shall prevail.

 

 

 

Military Chaplains in Difficult Position

A new Pentagon policy issued on September 30, 2011, allows military chaplains to perform same-sex weddings on military bases, as long as such unions are not prohibited by state law. But Chaplain (Colonel, retired) Ron Crews said this latest Defense Department memo "flies in the face" of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). "I am just stunned by the brazenness of this apparent permission for chaplains to violate federal law," said Crews.

Crews said all military bases are federal property and should respect federal laws such as DOMA, which states that the federal government can only recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Pentagon's new policy does not force a chaplain to perform same-sex ceremonies, but Crews said this changed military landscape might force conservative chaplains into a defensive posture, as some groups are likely to test the limits of the ruling.

 

(From WORLD magazine, Oct. 22, 2011 issue)

County Clerk Quits over Same-Sex Marriage

In July the state of New York began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  But one local official did not go along.  Laura Fotusky decided to resign as town clerk rather than violate her conscience by facilitating same-sex marriages. Laura, a member of a non-denominational church, said that the Bible “clearly teaches that God created marriage between male and female.”

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo responded to Fotusky’s resignation, saying: “The law is the law, and when you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose.”

Fotusky told her supervisors that she had a different mandate: “I had to obey God rather than men.”

 

 

(From WORLD magazine, August 13, 2011 issue, p. 10)

Illinois Excludes Roman Catholic Agency from Providing Adoption Services and Foster Care over Same-Sex Unions

Illinois ended its contracts with Catholic Charities this summer after passing a law recognizing same-sex civil unions. The state had informed the organization, an arm of the Roman Catholic Church, that its policy of limiting foster and adoptive parents to heterosexual married couples violates the new civil unions law. Three major Illinois dioceses sued the state, arguing that religious adoption agencies have specific protection under the civil unions law, which is titled "The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act." On August 18, a county judge in Illinois rejected the lawsuit of Catholic Charities.

In recent years Catholic Charities has handled twenty percent of the state's foster care and adoption caseload. Now Catholic Charities will need to find other organizations to provide for the 2,000 foster children in its care.

Canadian Anglican Congregations Have Facilities Confescated for Opposition to Same-Sex Unions

Four Anglican churches in Vancouver lost their buildings when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear their appeal. Back in November, 2010, a lower court had ruled that their properties - worth $20 million-belong to the Anglican Church of Canada, not to the local congregations. The four churches, one of which is the largest Anglican church in Canada, left the denomination in 2008 over the blessing of same-sex unions. A spokesperson for the four congregations said, "We've always said from the [beginning] that we might have to choose between our faith and our buildings, and we choose our faith."

United Methodist Clergy and Same Sex Unions

In early September, 59 United Methodist pastors, representing some of the largest churches in the denomination, published online a letter of concern to the Council of Bishops. It was triggered by a report in the United Methodist Reporter that "at least 900 United Methodist clergy have pledged to officiate at same-sex weddings and other services celebrating homosexual unions."

The letter expresses alarm that those 900 clergy are not respecting the decisions of General Conference of the United Methodist Church and are violating the covenant that holds the denomination together. The letter calls on the Council of Bishops to issue a public statement acknowledging the proposed disobedience of the 900 clergy "to be a grave threat to the unity and life of the United Methodist Church."  The letter further calls the bishops to "stand together in your commitment to defend and enforce the Book of Discipline."

Thousands of United Methodist clergy and laity have gone online to sign the letter. To read and to sign the letter, go to Faithful UMC.

A United Methodist Annual Conference Recommends a "Wrist-Slap" for Clergy Who Officiate at Same-Sex Civil Unions

(From the Confessing Movement September 2011 ENewsletter)

The clergy of the Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church knew that they could not legally contradict the Book of Discipline. Therefore, because they wanted to defend clergy who officiate at civil unions, they passed a resolution in the clergy session of the annual conference suggesting that the penalty be minor.

Paragraph 2702.lb of The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church lists as a chargeable offense for clergy "conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions."/Here is the resolution approved by the Board of Ordained Ministry and the clergy session of the Northern Illinois Conference:

Be it resolved that any Northern Illinois Clergy member who, in his/her best judgment feels called to officiate at a Civil Union and then subsequently faces charges, and after due Disciplinary process is tried and convicted for such offense, that a suggested maximum penalty to assign would be the suspension of said convicted minister from the exercise of pastoral office for a period of 24 consecutive hours.

One could even debate whether a 24-hour suspension would be a penalty or [a reward]. Furthermore, one could interpret this action as a form of nullification. Whether this threatens the covenant that United Methodist clergy share must be confronted by the General Conference of 2012.

Bishop Hee -Soo Jung is leader of the Northern Illinois Conference.

Editor's Note:  Does a 24 hour suspension of the exercise of the pastoral office include a 24 hour suspension of the pastoral salary?

The Moral Side of the News (May 2, 2011) - The Royal Wedding