I’ve written numerous times about this case over the last two years (original report above), but this just in today: “Same-sex marriage decision forces Christian bakers’ bankruptcy.” Continue Reading →
There’s a measles outbreak in California, and some GOP politicians are sounding an uncertain note on vaccinations. This is obviously a contentious issue today as so many parents are opting out of mandatory vaccinations. Michael Gerson enters the fray with a column titled “Vaccines and what we owe to our neighbors.” He writes:
Yesterday, Mormon leaders announced a kind of via media on gay rights. In a public statement, leaders agreed to
…support legislation where it is being sought to provide protections in housing, employment and some other areas where LGBT people do not have protections, while ensuring that religious freedom is not compromised.
In other words, the church proposes to give a little in order to get a little. If I understand their statement of principles correctly, they are now willing to acknowledge sexual orientation as a protected class along with religion, race, and sex. They are willing to do this in certain “areas” of public life, so long as religious liberty is not curtailed in any way. Continue Reading →
The New York Times hosts a debate today about the role of the Supreme Court in ruling on cases. The debate has in view two big cases coming before the Court this Spring—one dealing with the constitutionality of Obamacare and the other gay marriage. The paper calls three constitutional scholars to answer the following question: “Should real-world effects influence the thinking of Supreme Court justices in reaching decisions?”
Two scholars say real world consequences should determine the Court’s decisions. One scholar says that the law alone should determine Court’s decision no matter what the consequences are. And herein is one of the great challenges of our age—whether we will be a nation ruled by law or by the opinions of judges. Continue Reading →
Here’s the conundrum GOP candidates face. Standing for traditional marriage is a winner for the primaries but a loser for the general. That is why many hope that the Supreme Court will bail them out this summer. But no matter what the Supreme Court rules, these guys still have to persuade a conservative base. From Politico:
DES MOINES, Iowa — The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on gay marriage once and for all in June, and there are many Republicans who privately would love nothing more than to have the question settled and off the table in time for the 2016 presidential election.
It’s not going to happen. Social conservatives here are determined to keep the issue alive during the run-up to next February’s Republican caucuses, no matter how the high court rules or how much some establishment figures would like to move on.
Read the rest here.
Last week I read a report about philosophy professors who believe the debate about marriage is over. For many (perhaps most) of them, the question has been settled. There is no rational basis to privilege the union of one man and one woman in our laws and culture. To do so is the equivalent of bigotry. Or so these professors believe. And that is why many of them are no longer treating it as a matter up for debate. Conversation over.
It struck me that while many people in our culture will evade this discussion in a similar way, that doesn’t close the issue. Why? Because an ostrich with his head in the dirt doesn’t actually make the sun disappear. The sun shines as ever, no matter how much one closes his eyes to it. Likewise, marriage really is the covenanted union of one man and one woman with a unique connection to procreation and child-rearing. That truth about marriage remains the truth, no matter how much people try to pretend that it is not. The evidence of that truth will persist and will explain—perhaps better than anything else—the pain of brokenness of those who deny it. Continue Reading →
The religious liberty implications of our culture’s moral transformation on homosexuality continue apace. The big news out of California yesterday is something that we should all take note of. I don’t know how else to view it except as a foreboding sign of things to come.
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled that state judges could no longer hold membership in the Boy Scouts of America. Why? Because the Boy Scouts allow gay scouts but not gay Scout leaders. As far as the California Supreme Court is concerned, the Boy Scouts discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and that violates their code of ethics. The Los Angeles Times reports,
There are very few pro-abortion politicians willing to talk openly about the unborn. Most obfuscate with tropes about “choice” and “reproductive health” without ever addressing the fundamental moral question. Are we killing human beings when we abort unborn children? Pro-lifers insist that the humanity of the unborn is the primary consideration. Pro-abortion politicians say… well actually, those politicians generally don’t want to talk about that at all. And if you press the issue, they close their eyes, plug their fingers in their ears, and cry “Nah, nah, nah, I’m not listening to you, nah, nah, nah…” Continue Reading →
I just read the news that Congressional Republicans have decided to abandon plans to vote on a bill protecting unborn children capable of feeling pain. According to the report, these “pro-life” lawmakers have decided to forsake the unborn for the sake of political expediency. The going got tough, and they got going. It is the definition of what Proverbs 24:10-12 warns against:
If you are slack in the day of distress,
Your strength is limited.
Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back.
If you say, “See, we did not know this,”
Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
And will He not render to man according to his work?
Near the end of President Obama’s State of the Union Address, he said something deeply dishonest. I’m sure he doesn’t view it as dishonest, but it is nevertheless. In his own words:
I want our actions to tell every child, in every neighborhood: your life matters, and we are as committed to improving your life chances as we are for our own kids.
Does the President really want to tell “every child” that their life matters? That he wants to improve their “life chances”? How can he say such a thing when he actively supports policies that exclude a whole class of children from the human community? How can he say such a thing when he believes it is a Constitutional right to kill one particular class of children? President Obama believes that there is a Constitutional right to kill any child in the womb at any stage of gestation (from 0-9 months) for any or no reason at all. Continue Reading →