It's a week late, but I figured that I'd weigh in on same-sex marriage and ensure that I never get a job in journalism or other media again. As BuzzFeed's Ben Smith reminds us all, on the gay marriage issue, there aren't two sides.
First, from the standpoint of a Christ-follower, this article by Russell Moore over at The Gospel Coalition and this webcomic at Adam4d pretty much sum up my position on homosexuality and gay marriage pretty well.
Despite what many gay marriage supporters say, people who oppose gay marriage (and homosexuality) do not hate gay people. I also don't hate heterosexual couples who have sex outside of marriage or serial philanderers who cheat on their wives. All are sins.
This is something that I've had an issue with several Christians on my Facebook feed who praised the Supreme Court's ruling last week and added the rainbow flag filter to their avatars. If you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If you believe what Jesus Christ taught about marriage. If you have ever in your life read Romans 1 and believe it, then why would you celebrate this?
I'm reminded of the woman caught in adultery who was brought before Jesus. After the men that would stone her to death left, Christ told her: "Move along, I'm sure you're late for your next trick."
I've said this repeatedly, what homosexual activists want isn't tolerance. It isn't equality. We've even gone past the point where they want acceptance. What they want is enthusiastic agreement, nothing less.
Silence won't be enough. As I've detailed before, if you're a Christian photographer, florist or baker, you will be forced to serve, forced out of business or worse. More recently, a jeweler in Canada was threatened and harassed after he agreed to make custom wedding rings for a couple even though he personally opposes gay marriage. This is the very definition of a thought crime.
A little flashback to 2009 and then solicitor general nominee Kagan's confirmation hearing (questions from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas):
1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.
a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?
Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.
Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.
Five years later and *poof* there it is.
Some wag on the internet noted that in both the gay marriage and the Obamacare cases, there was never any doubt among the chattering classes in the Beltway exactly how the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court would vote on either of the issues. Why? Because they're not voting on how the constitution applies or other legal principles—they're voting on policy.
What's next? Well, churches must be crushed, so Mark Oppenheimer of The New York Times wants to end the tax exemption for churches. That whole "wall of separation" between church and state needs to come down so the state enrich itself and punish Christians for their beliefs.
Also, as I was arguing with a colleague nearly two decades ago: if you say the "man and woman" part of marriage is arbitrary and it should just be any two people that love each other, then the "two" is pretty arbitrary as well. I give it less than 2 years before this is also legal.