Why the SCOTUS Decision on Same-Sex Marriage Concerns Me....And It's Not Because Homosexuals Can Marry

I am deeply disturbed by Friday’s SCOTUS decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states, but not for the reasons you may think.. I am not an advocate of some form of Christian Sharia where Judeo-Christian morality should be codified into the laws of the cities, states, and our nation. I am not concerned that homosexual couples who wish to pledge their lives to each other may now do so and receive all of the civil benefits offered to married couples. While I am a devout, evangelical Christian, I do not expect people who do not share my faith to act in accordance with my faith. A man convinced against his will remains unconvinced still. There must be a change of heart before we see a change of behavior. The job of the Church is the preaching of the Gospel, not enforcing a code of morality on unbelievers.

            What DOES concern me is that the SCOTUS decision is the opening salvo of an attack by the radical left on the religious liberties of devout Christians. Clothing themselves in the rhetoric and trappings of tolerance and diversity, the radical left has proven themselves to be quite intolerant and monolithic. They have infested the academy, and by extension, our culture, with political correctness reminiscent of Orwellian Newspeak. Their agenda is not diversity and tolerance, but rather conformity. The Early Church was persecuted by the Roman Empire, not because they worshiped Christ, but because their worship was exclusive to Christ. They refused to bow before the altar of Caesar and offer worship to the emperor. So too the radical left has demanded that Christians abandon their deeply held principles when they come into conflict with their secular values. They demand that Christians bow before their god of diversity at the altar of tolerance.

            The radical left has often chastised Christians who want to “impose” their morality on others. They rightly objected to efforts by the religious right to change the laws to correspond to Judeo-Christian moral standards. But now, they want to impose their secular morality on Christians,; a morality not based upon a centuries old tradition of religious teaching, but a morality that corresponds with the faddish whims of changing times. With feet planted firmly in midair, they feign outrage at the “antiquated” values of an ancient faith. President Obama himself chided people of faith. “And it’s not surprising they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anit-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

            The radical left has two primary tools at their disposal. The first is to force their own morality and values down the throats of others using the coercive power of the state. If you do not agree with them or conform to their ideas, they want to tax, fine, or imprison you. They seek to accomplish this by legislation, executive order, and if those fail, they turn to the courts. The second tool is through intimidation. They redefine right and wrong, good and evil, acceptable and unacceptable. Then when one does not agree, they will attempt to intimidate by public shaming. If you are a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin and stand for traditional marriage, then you are labeled a hater, bigot, and homophobe.

            For years the left has told us to stay out of their bedrooms. Now they want to kidnap us, drag us into their bedrooms, and won’t let us leave. It is not enough that homosexuals have the freedom to marry. They now want to force everyone to watch, participate, and celebrate their freedom. Jack Philips, a Christian baker in Lakewood, CO, was ordered by a Colorado court to change his policies and undergo sensitivity training because he refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Melissa and Aaron Klein of Oregon lost their business and face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and legal bills because they too refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple based upon their religious beliefs. Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin of Albuquerque, NM were also ordered to employ their services as photographers at a gay wedding, despite their religious objections. A Walkerton, IN pizza parlor, when asked hypothetically if they would cater a gay wedding, indicated that they would not because of their deeply held religious beliefs. They were publically shamed and intimidated to the point of having to close their shop. This is just small sample of how the radical left is COMPELLING people to violate their conscience and religion in order to participate in a practice they find morally wrong and offensive to their deeply held religious beliefs. Contrary to popular belief, to a Christian, a wedding IS a religious ceremony. It becomes an intrusion of the state into the Church.

            Liberties are not lost overnight, but gradually. Looking at other nations, we can see what we have to look forward to if we do not stop this in its tracks right now. In Denmark, homosexual couples have won the right to get married in any church they choose. While priests may opt out, the local bishop is required to find a replacement minister to perform the ceremony. In Canada, despite having free speech and freedom of religion or conscience written into their constitution, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution  by the government. Dawn Stefanowicz, a child of homosexual parents in Canada who filed an amicus brief to the SCOTUS on the gay marriage case, wrote an article in Aleteia where she stated:

            “Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under ‘sexual orientation.’ It only takes one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

               The plaintiff has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought the complaint….

               The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home…

               Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power- and the end of First Amendment freedoms.”

            The radical left has no appreciation for religion. To a Christian, their beliefs are based upon the Bible; a sacred book that they believe is the very Word of God. Other religions also believe that their sacred books are divinely inspired. To the radical left, nothing is inalterable, even revelation from God. From President Obama chiding Christians for bitterly clinging to their religion to Hillary Clinton who said at the ­Women in the World Summit, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed”. Yes, centuries of religious tradition and doctrine, based upon divinely inspired texts, must be altered to conform to the opinions of Hillary Clinton and the radical left. Does she now believe that she is God?  Even New York Times columnist Frank Bruni wrote that opposing same-sex marriage based on religious beliefs “elevates unthinking obeisance above intelligent observance” and that we need to be “freeing religion and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to.” His article quoted a gay activist who said “Church leaders must be made to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

            Kirsten Powers, a committed liberal, but also a Christian, responded to Clinton’s comments in a USA Today article where she said, “Let’s free secularists from their unthinking obeisance to a plot line that casts religious believers as intolerant dimwits in need of saving by not-so-benevolent ideological bullies. Let’s stop treating the ignorant stereotyping and smearing of religious believers as a noble, self sanctifying cause.” She went on to say, “The intolerance, condescension and ignorance expressed about religious people is troubling enough in itself. But what sends chills up the spine is the barely veiled advocacy for authoritarianism when religious beliefs clash with secular sacred cows. After all, what entity will make religious leaders ‘take homosexuality off the sin list?’ How exactly will Clinton change religious beliefs at odds with her worldview?”

            Here then lies my concern. Despite the majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy that still affirms religious liberty, the issue will not really be decided without a future hearing by the Supreme Court that codifies it. The aforementioned cases of bakers, photographers, and florists are still in courts or have been settled by state courts unfavorably to the religious liberty of Christians. Now that same-sex marriage has been affirmed and sexual orientation has been granted protected class status, it give more ammunition to those who wish to persecute or punish Christians for holding firm to the tenets of their faith. We will see religious institutions such as colleges required to accommodate homosexuals in their hiring and admissions policies. They could face losing accreditation and funding. Justice Roberts wrote in his dissent:

 “Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that 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 in they opposed same-sex marriage….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.”

            The fact that these cases will appear before the Court is not in doubt. How they will be decided still is. So also is the make up of the Court. It is likely that the next President will appoint at least one, maybe more Supreme Court justices. With Hillary Clinton as a serious candidate for President, it is possible, should she be elected, that she could be appointing those justices. Given what we know about her views on religion and religious liberty, it is unlikely that those appointments would support the cause of religious liberty. While her election is not a foregone conclusion, it is still a possibility, and as such, it gives me cause for concern.

            And so let me conclude with my own views on the solution to the gay marriage debate. The answer is for the states to stop issuing marriage licenses. Homosexuals have been living together as married couples for a very long time, in spirit if not in law. What they really wanted was the rights and benefits that the law grants to married couples. By the state eliminating marriage licenses, it allows all individuals to form whatever “loving” relationships they wish in accordance with their own beliefs and traditions. If they wish to receive certain legal rights and privileges that go with being married, they can file an affidavit of civil union with the court, just like any other legal partnership contract. This removes the state from marriage and keeps it in the Church where it belongs. The institution of marriage long predates the institution of the state. From a Christian perspective, Adam knew his wife, Eve and they became one flesh…long before there was a state. Abraham took a wife and did not register it with any government. Marriage does not need a state sanction to be valid in the eyes of God. What confirms my marriage to my own lovely wife is the vows we made to each other before our family, our friends, and our God in a private religious ceremony. The state marriage license is irrelevant.

            Let me leave this discussion with a Facebook post by Representative Justin Amash (R-MI)…

            “Throughout history, different cultures have defined marriage according to their own customs and practices. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, and atheists do not share identical views on marriage. In fact, significant differences regarding marriage exist even within Christianity.

What makes marriage traditional is not its adherence to a universal definition but rather that it is defined by personal faith, not by government. For thousands of years, marriage flourished without a universal definition and without government intervention. Then came licensing of marriage. In recent decades, we've seen state legislatures and ballot initiatives define marriage, putting government improperly at the helm of this sacred institution.

Those who care about liberty should not be satisfied with the current situation. Government intervention in marriage presents new threats to religious freedom and provides no advantages, for gay or straight couples, over unlicensed (i.e., traditional) marriage. But we shouldn't blame the Supreme Court for where things stand.

To the extent that Americans across the political spectrum view government marriage as authoritative and unlicensed marriage as quaint, our laws must treat marriage—and the corresponding legal benefits that attach—as they would any other government institution. So, while today's Supreme Court opinion rests upon the false premise that government licensure is necessary to validate the intimate relationships of consenting adults, I applaud the important principle enshrined in this opinion: that government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in which it asserts authority.”