My Most Recent Books
- Making a Bumper-Sticker Out of the People’s House June 28, 2015
- First Reflections on Today’s SCOTUS Marriage Decision June 27, 2015
- To Join the Trans-Jenner Caitlyn….Or Not? June 3, 2015
- Does the Church Focus on “Hot-Button” Issues over Poverty? May 18, 2015
- Once Same-Sex Attracted Always Same-Sex Attracted? May 10, 2015
- Dylan Nails It Again… March 6, 2015
- 50 Shades of What the… February 26, 2015
- The Gay Wedding – To Go or Not? February 24, 2015
- God’s Pink Slip… February 18, 2015
- Agreement or Understanding? February 6, 2015
I write this post not as a partisan, but as an American.
The White House being lit up in rainbow colors by this Administration was wrong and in very bad taste. It is not at all about what those colors represent, if you can believe me on that. It is that the White House should not nor never be used as an icon or celebration for any particular political or even social cause or purpose, regardless of our personal belief on the rightness of that cause. It just shouldn’t.
There are many reasons.
First is who’s house it is. It’s the people’s House which we happily and proudly present to every President to conduct his solemn business of leading our nation and for the protection, enjoyment and relaxation of his family. It is not one person, Administration or a particular group of people’s house to proclaim his or their particular views on any topic of social or public policy. To do so is to misuse it’s purpose.
Second is the nature of that great House itself. It is in itself – with no need for help or added flourish – an powerful icon of our nation and ALL it stands for. If you are proud of what happened on Friday, the White House itself, as well as the dignity of the Court’s building, represents that simply because of the kind of government system each stands for. It’s physicality and nobility should not be enlisted and used for other purposes. It is not a bumper sticker, banner, billboard, placard or t-shirt and should not be used as one. This House is not our governmental equivalent of a google doodle.
This is not only true of the physical structure at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave itself, but its representation as well such as in the current icon on the White House’s twitter account, seen here.
Indeed, the White House is not to be used in such a way even when that purpose can be celebrated by all citizens.
- It would not be proper to light up the White House in the colors of our nation’s flag when we celebrate our nation’s birthday later this week. (It inherently represents what is great about our country and nearly everyone who see it for the first time feels that very reality.)
- It would be improper to flood it in pink hues to call us all to Breast Cancer Awareness.
- It would be improper to use the nobility of the White House to celebrate if Congress passed a law that would wipe out our nation’s hunger problem without adding a cent to our national debt.
- It would be wrong to illuminate it to remind us all of Missing Children Day (May 25th btw).
- It would not be proper to celebrate a cure for cancer.
You get my drift. Sending messages about such things is just not what the People’s House is for. But those are each issues of good taste and propriety.
Last, it should certainly not be used to praise and celebrate any public policy issue that is so clearly divisive to our nation’s populace, regardless of what that issue is and how righteous its celebrants believe its virtue. There will always be serious Americans who oppose any public policy change for serious and well-intentioned reasons. To treat their small bit of ownership of that house in that way is at best un-neighborly and insensitive and at worst, to rub their face in it. I will not make any judgement about this Administration and their motivation here.
Celebrate Friday’s decision and do so wildly if you are inclined. But don’t enlist the White House itself in that celebration. It’s simply not what it’s for. I would hope that all our nation’s citizens of good will could agree on that.
It’s been a VERY long day, but wanted to post some quick personal reflections on today’s monumental Supreme Court decision. I will do so under a few quick headings.
Does This Settle the Marriage Issue?
- Today’s ruling settles and puts this issue to bed no more than Roe v. Wade settled the abortion issue in 1973. Issues having to do with such basic issues of human life, sexuality and marriage cannot really be settled in such a way. That is demonstrably clear.
- Particularly, Roe benefited from a clear and strong 7-2 majority, but did nothing to settle question in hearts of Americans since that day. It undeniably inflamed the issue and that fire still burns white hot today.
- Anyone who reads the entirety of today’s decision clearly sees that this question is not even settled among the Court itself evidenced by the narrow tilt toward a “yea” vote via the tie-breaking opinion of Justice Kennedy. The dissenting four justices did not only disagree, but categorically rejected the slight majority’s conclusion and entire rationale.
Some Basic Problems with the Majority’s Rationale
Of course, enough will be written on the perceived problems with the decision over the coming days to wipe out whole forests, or at least employ countless terabytes. I offer just a few curious observations from my reading.
- The majority dismissed the historically monolithic understanding that marriage is between men and women as obviously wrong, but held tight to the assumption – as if self-evident and universally agreed upon – that marriage must only involve two people. Who will wager real money that the majority’s sure assumption of the distinct virtue of couplehood will not be deemed discriminatory by their own peers in the less than twenty years?
- As most other Courts favoring SSM have done, this majority bases its decision largely on some very ephemeral characteristics of the plaintiffs. The majority took great care to explain how kind and caring the plaintiffs are. People any of us would admire. That is indeed good to know. But what if the plaintiffs were in fact surly and impertinent folks? Would it be just to claim that should weaken their case? The majority assures us they have the best intentions toward marriage. Excellent, but what if they possessed only a negligible estimation of marriage? Does their supposed Constitutional right rest contingent on the strength or weakness of their personal qualities? What court would consider such a subjective and prejudicial rationale? Uhm.
Bigotry and Loving v. Virginia
As most know, Loving was an important and necessary 1967 Supreme Court decision that struck down state laws that prevented White and Black citizens from marrying each other. The declared motivation of such laws (Literally entitled the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 in Virginia) was to use marriage for purposes of protecting “racial purity”; thus enlisting marriage into the service of a vile ideology. The Court unanimously struck down these obscene laws, declaring marriage was all about bringing male and female together, not keeping the races apart.
The Majority today made hearty use of references to Loving. It was a smart move but only for the lowest of rhetorical reasons. Loving was discriminatory and that Court did God’s work in fixing it. Of course, only the nastiest brand of bigots would say the the Court’s decision in Loving was wrong. Today, the Majority has told us they are only following the example of those good Justices in righting another great injustice. And yes, the comparison itself communicates that only the nastiest brand of bigot would oppose today’s Court in doing God’s work. It is a clever but despicably manipulative chess move.
As such, consider which justice gave the most ink and passion to rebutting the Loving comparison and did so for this very reason. That would be the only justice on the Court who is Black and in an inter-racial marriage.
Justice Thomas, who one would assume would have the deepest personal interest in extending to others the protections Loving provided to him, described the comparison crisply as “both offensive and inaccurate” because “laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman do not share the sordid past” that antimiscegenation laws do. Not by any comparison.
That is why the enlistment of Loving into this debate is not only wrong, but inexcusable and leads to the next point.
Will Disagreement Be Tolerated?
If same-sex marriage is indeed a fundamental Constitutional right, where does that leave citizens and organizations who cannot go along with it in good conscience? This no small or purely academic question. The Court asked the question in Oral Arguments and got no clear answers from those arguing for the change.
- Will Focus on the Family and other such groups be in violation of basic human rights when we contend that children have a basic right to be raised by their own mother and father? Will that be deemed discriminatory at best and hate speech at worst?
- What about a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Mormon college that provides special housing for married students, but only for husbands and wives? Will they have they hammer of discrimination come down on them?
- What about marriage retreats that churches and organizations like Focus hold that are based around a particular teaching on marriage? Must we make adjustments in our lessons and include same-sex couples?
- Will faith-based adoption agencies be driven out because they only place children with mothers and fathers? A number already have and the punishment such agencies will face will only get more sharp and punitive.
- What about the individual business owners who are asked to participate in same-sex weddings by virtue of their artistic skills? The incredible pressure and great legal challenges they are already facing will only get more blunt.
I predict it will get worse than most of us imagine and more quickly.
Justice Alito, in his dissent laments,
“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
Is there even one person celebrating today’s decision who can honestly say people who have serious religious, moral or intellectual reasons for opposing same-sex marriage have nothing to worry about? The answer to that question should be chilling to all classically liberal and free-thinking people.
The Banner of This Movement
The push for redefining marriage into an androgynous institution has made great use of allusion and reference to the long battle for the civil rights of Black Americans. Like appealing to Loving, this has been a smart rhetorical move for the very same reasons. But it’s apparent by simply looking at the demonstrations we have seen today in comparison to the demonstrations of the Civil Rights marchers of the 1960s that these two efforts and rationales are indeed very different in important ways. It is seen in the very different cases each has made for why their call for basic rights is unquestionable.
Consider the dramatic difference in the two iconic images that have come to represent each struggle.
- One movement argued from its commonality with all others – I AM A MAN
- The other celebrates its uniqueness from others – I AM A GAY MAN
The first refused to qualify their membership in humanity. The other is fully centered in qualification. A basic human right cannot itself be based upon one’s distinction, but rather one’s commonality. The first asserts the moral argument that “I must be treated just like you because I am just like you.” Appealing to exceptional ism fundamentally diminishes one’s inherent dignity in the long-run by declaring “I am not like you.”
This brings me to the final point.
What Must Be Front of Mind For Us As We Move Forward?
I’ve been thinking quite a bit today about how someone with my convictions and beliefs conducts himself in a proper manner in the weeks, months, and years ahead. How do I be a good neighbor to those who have a different take on today’s news than I do? Here are some thoughts.
- First, I must keep center of mind that those I very much disagree with on this issue share my common humanity. I must respect and care for them as people even as I disagree and even tangle with them around these ideas.
- I would respectfully ask the same consideration from them.
- While I cannot morally affirm homosexuality, there are far too many things about my own sexuality that I cannot affirm. Not one of us has it all together, which is the great equalizer. It demands our humility.
- I must contend that my happy acceptance of my gay or lesbian neighbor as my friend cannot be contingent on my acceptance of homosexuality or same-sex marriage any more than I can make their acceptance of and friendship with me contingent on their affirmation of my sexuality, my faith or any other essential part of who I am. True friendship doesn’t make such conditional demands.
- Those mourning today’s decision cannot see this as the end of the world. Nor can those celebrating it see it as the dawning of a wonderful new age. Life is never so clear and absolute either way.
- I would hope we can all call ourselves and our ideological peers to task when we make prejudiced and assumptive statements about the character, motivations and intentions of those we disagree with. Challenge of such behavior with “Have you ever actually asked them why they believe/act/think that way?” This requires us to engage one another as people rather than stereotypes in the midst of our serious disagreements. This is essential and must be pursued by all people of goodwill.
As this issue will no doubt be like the abortion issue has been ever since 1973 and before, we as a people of one nation have a long road of passionate and deeply held disagreement before us in the public square, over the back fence, around the water cooler, over the dinner table and in our places of worship. We must each ask ourselves and seek answers to the question of “How do we as a Americans disagree with substance and passion while still treating each other with care, dignity and respect?”
No court can answer that question for us. It is up to each of us to seek the answers and demonstrate them the best we can.
Can we agree on and commit to that?
In the midst of Caitlyn Mania, here is a good article (save for its thoughts on Jesus and some potty language) regarding the emerging demand that all play along nicely and celebrate Jenner’s or any other trans person’s personal reality. To continue to refer to him as “him” – much less not see him as brave and heroic as expected – is deemed hateful.
This assumption has no place in civil society.
If this comes down to the seriousness of being tagged as a hater or a lover, there are some important questions to be asked.
- At what magic moment did it become wrong to use male pronouns for Jenner or any other trans person? Was it when the VF cover hit the stands or at some point prior? At least in terms of how the general press has referred to Jenner, the cover seemed to be the line of demarcation. But according to the rules, where is it actually?
- If this idea is to really be taken seriously – if Jenner is and always has indeed been a woman as we are being asked to believe – should his medals be revoked because a woman competed in a men’s Olympic event? It is not a petty question.
- If gender identity is merely a social construct – something that society forces upon us as gender theory goes – why is that a trans woman is genuinely, naturally and authentically a woman, the women she was always meant to be?
The rules on this whole thing become quite fuzzy. I choose not to accept the premise.
There is, or at least should be, room for not going along with what Jenner believes about himself. Reasonable people should allow for that. But if one chooses to reject the Bruce-is-now-Caitlyn narrative, I contend it should be done with thoughtfulness and compassion for him and his family’s very real human struggles. Whether male or female, he is a fellow human being who deserves to be treated with dignity.
Now… whether choosing not to agree with him IS to rob him of his dignity is indeed the question. But dignity and affirmation are two very different things. One is unconditional, the other is situational.
And as I argue for space for dissent, of course I welcome it. I will not make accusations and assumptions about why you believe as you do on the matter and I simply ask the same.
Last week, the National Associations of Evangelicals hosted a high-profile conference at Georgetown University on poverty, bringing Evangelical and Catholic leaders together to study the issue. The celebrated Harvard political scientist, Robert Putnam, spoke as well as did President Obama. It was an important event and my boss, Jim Daly, was honored to be asked to participate.
It was a group of really, really smart people, but it was also an example of two very smart people saying something really… well, not smart. Both Professor Putnam and President Obama made comments about how, in their estimation, the church must stop putting all its energy into being busy-bodies about all issues sexual and focus more on what it should be doing: feeding and caring for the poor.
In fact, Professor Putnam remarkably explained,
The obvious fact is that over the last 30 years, most organized religion has focused on issues regarding sexual morality, such as abortion, gay marriage, all of those. I’m not saying if that’s good or bad, but that’s what they’ve been using all their resources for. This is the most obvious point in the world. It’s been entirely focused on issues of homosexuality and contraception and not at all focused on issues of poverty.
President Obama complained that too often, it’s issues like abortion, rather than caring for the poor, that is “the thing that…really [captures] the essence of who we are as Christians…”
Is it really “the most obvious point in the world” as Putnam claims, that the Church is “using all their resources” solely on opposing the pelvic issues and “not at all focused on issues of poverty”?
It is not mean nor is it a cheap shot to say that those who believe such things straight out have no idea what they’re talking about. The truth is exactly the opposite.
One of my good friends, Pat Fagan, wrote a very strong and well-documented op/ed for the Washington Post explaining just how ridiculously wrong Putnam and Obama – as well as most cultural elites – truly are on this point. The proportion of money and personal effort given everyday by the church to the poor dramatically dwarfs the most gracious estimation of what it spends on fighting these “hot-button” issues. Like a marble compared to a basketball.
Consider the ministry where I labor. Focus on the Family is “known” to be neck-deep in the culture war over homosexuality and such. Many assume its the central thing we do because it is all they ever hear about FOF when we’re mentioned in the news.
We keep very precise budget numbers and we spend far less than 5% of our overall budget on any hot-button or political issues. The other 97%-plus part goes to our general ministry to families offering help with things like healthy communications in marriage, kids wetting their beds and what to do with sassy teenagers.
Look at the inner-city in any decent size town. Find the soup kitchens, the hospitals, the substance recovery efforts, housing the homeless and so forth in any city. More than ninety percent of the time, you will find these being founded and run by some arm of the Christian Church. The Catholic church in most major cities have dedicated facilities that feed and clothe the poor EVERYDAY.
It’s sad when really smart people say really dumb things. And to say that the Church should start caring for the poor and stop obsessing over sexual issues is really dumb.
If the Church stopped doing all it does for the “least of these” tomorrow morning, the remarkable substance of that work would become tragically obvious within 24 hours and the State would crumble under the weight of needing to fill the void.
Anyone paying any attention to the public debate today knows how wrong it is to suggest that one who is same-sex attracted can overcome that attraction. In fact, the Obama White House has actively joined the effort to make it illegal for anyone to assist another – adult or adolescent – who seeks to overcome unwanted ssa. So much for one’s self-determination.
While it is often a difficult road, there are many, many people who have indeed overcome their same-sex attraction. One of these folks has become a good friend of mine. Her name is Patti Height and her’s is a remarkable story. While Patti did not go through a clinical process, nor was she looking to leave homosexuality, it was becoming a Christian that created a remarkable – but not always easy – change in her life. Here is a nice short video her church just created last week, telling her story
And here is Patti sharing the full story of her struggle with her gender identity, her childhood, past relationships and how Christ broke through into her life and brought her unbounded peace and hope. He did the same for her cherished girlfriend who Patti loved very much and is still friends with today.
Both of them found a greater, truer love and have followed with joy since that day. And you will not meet Patti without also meeting Jesus, for she cannot contain or keep quiet about becoming a beloved daughter of God. She is infectious.
Change is possible. And there are real people for whom this is true. And no amount of ideological denial can make them go away.
Patti is just one of them.
Let’s get this straight. I don’t really care what you think about Dylan… unless you have a sober and proper view of how he’s as creatively strong as he’s ever been.
And a good argument could be made that since Time Out of Mind – which won Album of the Year in 1997 – each album he’s done since are collectively the strongest consecutive works in his resume… save for maybe the Christmas album, I must say. However the “Must Be Santa” video goes a long way in redeeming that whole project.
Along with these Charles Atlas muscular string of albums, their corresponding videos have all been knock-outs also! Here is his latest to promote his new disc where he croons a load of classic Sinatra tunes.
Straight out, this old man is so stinkin’ cool.
And this is the first Dylan video where he’s packin’ heat, and I think, runs from the law.
So, people are voting for 50 Shades with their feet (and dollars).
If you’ve payed any attention in class, you pretty much know what it’s about:
Young woman submits to generally anything this guy wants do to her sexually.
As a friend remarked, “The movie didn’t seem to have any plot line other than that.” Uh, porn flicks don’t have plot lines. But the run-away success of the film, at least dollar- and publicity-publicity-wise, raises many questions for me:
* Exactly who’s going to see the movie, mostly men or women? Women I suspect.
* Is it because they are truly interested in the topic? To pick tips for the bedroom?
* Or are they simply rubber-necking, not wanting to look at the bad car accident, but you simply can’t help yourself?
* How many women see this woman and think ‘I so wish my guy treated me like that?”
* Do guys really wish their gal would submit to such treatment? Really?
*What does the success of this film say about the state and vitality of feminism today?
*Did the character misunderstand the admonition to “Lean In”? Is the character an “empowered woman”? Are the women who see the movie?
* Did any dads of daughters see the movie?
Here’s how weird this cultural moment is:
We have the potty-mouthed Chelsea Handler (Does she eat with that thing?) inflicting blunt-force trauma on the movie, the book, the author and everything they represent.
And Russell Brand provides an impassioned pulpit-pounding, hell-fire sermon against the movie and porn in general. (Given that it’s RB, there’s a tad bit of language.)
Let me know your thoughts on these questions. I’m curious.