Young Conservatives for Traditional Marriage

From where I’m sitting, it seems like conservatives everywhere are folding like a cheap nickel-knife on the issue of marriage. Defections of the likes of Rob Portman and John Huntsman have convinced many that legal gay marriage is an inevitability and that traditional marriage is a thing of the past—a quaint notion that is dying out with the older generations that have until now held so steadfastly to it.

Well, not so fast. The New York Times reports today on a crop of young conservatives that are still fighting the good fight. These are the guys that are on the right side of history. I know two of the men quoted in this article, and both of them are hopeful, happy Christians who are making the case for traditional marriage but not against gay people or gay rights.

Eric Teetsel, the executive director of the Manhattan Declaration, comments:

Proponents of same-sex marriage have done a fantastic job of telling the story of same-sex marriage through music and television and film… I think it’s really a case where once they hear the other side of the issue, and really think about it deeply, we’re going to win a lot of those folks back.

Is it really possible to win those folks back? Teetsel says this:

Even if we are doomed, and I’m totally naïve, I think it’s important that I do this work anyway… If what I believe is true is true, then I’ve got a responsibility to be on its side for as long as I can be.

Amen and amen to that. Andrew Walker of the Heritage Foundation is optimistic as well:

If you take the longer view of history — I’m not talking just 15 years, I’m talking 40 years or even 100 years — I can’t help but think that the uniqueness of man-woman marriage will be adjudicated over time.

This is a helpful article. Read the rest of it here.

24 Responses to Young Conservatives for Traditional Marriage

  1. Brett Cody March 21, 2013 at 11:20 am #

    Believers are obligated to the truth! Even if this culture rejects it at this time, the truth will prevail. And true marriage (one man and one woman) will stand the test of time.

    • Matt Martin March 21, 2013 at 11:22 am #

      These guys thought they were obligated to tell the truth too…
      http://photos.ark-ives.com/general/1775_23r.jpg

      40 years from now, we’ll look back on Teetsel and Walker just like we do with the above photo.

      • buddyglass March 21, 2013 at 7:02 pm #

        “40 years from now, we’ll look back on Teetsel and Walker just like we do with the above photo.”

        Depending on who you’re referring to when you say “we”, in order for this to be true the Church would need to almost universally reject the idea that homosexual relationships are sinful. (Just as the church has nearly universally rejected the idea that mixed-race relationships are sinful). I don’t see that happening in 40 years. Or any time soon, for that matter. Namely because the biblical case for the sinfulness of same-sex relationships is much, much stronger than the biblical case for the sinfulness of mixed-race relationships.

      • J O E B L A C K M O N March 21, 2013 at 7:11 pm #

        Matt

        All Christians recognize that homosexuality is a sin and that homos have no “right” to marry. The fact that you believe differently is no surprise.

        • Lauren Bertrand March 22, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

          The fact that plenty of Christians do not agree that homosexuality is a sin, and that Evangelicals continue to label those Christians as “not real Christians” or “apostate”, demonstrates the extreme fractiousness that has no doubt facilitated the exponential growth in approval for such patently unbiblical movements as the push for same-sex marriage. There exist far more Christian denominations now than in the Tudor era when the Anglican church split in its views on divorce. It took quite some time for many other denominations to join the C of E in “de-recognizing” divorce/remarriage as a sin, but now pretty much all denominations feel that way. Conversely, churches came to virtual unanimity rather quickly that bans on interracial marriage were based on misinterpreted Scripture (though it took Evangelicals longer than most). And now virtually every Christian denomination has a different, nuanced view on SSM, making it considerably harder for them to form a united front.

  2. Charles Putnam, (@aboutcepimages) March 21, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

    I listened to the Q&A with Eric Metaxes and John Piper yesterday – excellent. In it, both were asked about the gay marriage issue, and both answered it eloquently.
    http://vimeo.com/61288603

  3. Brian Watson March 21, 2013 at 2:59 pm #

    Matt Martin,

    Such “logic” fails because those people didn’t have truth on their side. Their beliefs were not supported by Scripture (which is very much against racism, because all people are made in the image of God and therefore are valuable). It’s one thing to argue that marriage between a man and a woman of two different “races” is wrong and quite another to argue that marriage between two men or between two women is wrong. The racists had no authoritative standard to support their hate. We, on the other hand, have an impeccable authority (God) and a flawless standard (the Bible), not to mention science (yes, two men or two women can’t naturally procreate) and history on our side.

    • Matt Martin March 21, 2013 at 3:40 pm #

      The logic doesn’t fail. And I say that as someone who agrees with you that homosexuality is a sin according to scripture. But the authoritative standard in this country is liberty for all. We are not a theocracy. When we try to obstruct the freedom of others to marry whom they choose, we’re crossing the boundaries of liberty in this country.

      We are to love sinners. Not legislate their sin on a federal or state level, so long as that sin does not directly infringe upon the rights of another individual. Banning gay marriage in this country is a form of discrimination and hate. Just as it is with prior attempts in this country to restrict the rights of others based upon sex, race, and personal preferences.

      • James Bradshaw March 21, 2013 at 4:39 pm #

        Matt: I’ve been saying the same things for quite some time, to no avail.

        I’m not sure why they don’t see their own glaring inconsistencies.

        While Calvinists may find Catholicism (or Mormonism) idolatrous, they don’t yet see a need to criminalize it or remove legal protections for those who *choose* the Catholic faith as a “lifestyle choice”. They don’t seem to take issue with the government’s granting of tax exemptions to these faiths and treating them as if they were “true Christianity”, either. Given that the stakes are just as high (if not higher) than gay marriage (one’s immortal soul), you’d think they’d try to make this a matter of legislation, no?

        What about divorce and remarriage? Each Christian sect has their own ideas of what constitutes a “Biblical marriage” or what is permissible grounds for divorce in God’s eyes. Yet, I hear no suggestion that these standards be imposed upon all heterosexuals across the nation.

        No … it’s only when it concerns gays that everyone suddenly becomes a Reconstructionist.

      • Brian Watson March 21, 2013 at 4:49 pm #

        Matt,

        It’s not logic because it’s really just an emotional appeal. Those kind of pictures (not just the one at hand, but all those pictures with smart little captions that circulate on Facebook) don’t prove anything in a logical way.

        We are not free to do whatever we want, even in a country with liberty such as ours. It has never been a civil right to marry anyone you want. Furthermore, any law is based on some faith, a belief that something is right and something is wrong. Banning certain things is the equivalent of “legislating sin.” Assuming that legalizing same-sex marriage won’t harm anyone is naive. There will be negative consequences concerning freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Banning a form of marriage (whether it’s homosexual marriage or polygamy), does not mean we are hating anyone or discriminating against anyone in the pejorative sense of that word.

        Sure, since we are a democracy, the populace may decide to legalize something that is wrong. It looks like that is what is happening. But it will be part of the corrosion of our country. The founders of our country, while far from perfect, knew that in order for this form of democracy to survive, people needed to have have freedom, virtue, and faith. Freedom relies on virtue, so that it is not abused. Virtue comes from faith, because it needs a transcendent and unchanging standard of right and wrong. And faith, of course, must be placed in something beyond one’s own feelings. But the current climate in America is that we can do whatever we want, and so the authority becomes ourselves and the standard becomes, “Whatever I want.” This won’t end well.

  4. Ken Temple March 21, 2013 at 3:25 pm #

    Did my comment go through? I put both first and last name in.

  5. Michael Snow March 21, 2013 at 3:29 pm #

    The Zeitgeist’s strength is stunning.
    My ‘take’ on this issue is that the salt has been found savorless and is being tossed into the street.
    If we want to gain ground, we will have to build among the ruins. Most Christians have been so swayed by the spirit of our times that their ideas of “love” [the banner which makes 'acceptance' palatable] are severely distorted.
    As I don’t see Christians getting back to basics, I don’t see much chance of again seasoning our culture.

  6. Brett Cody March 21, 2013 at 4:43 pm #

    What a double standard you have–would you admonish the homosexuals to stand up for what they believe? If so, leave Teetsel and Walker alone.
    An eternity from now and you will see the truth prevail. God’s Word will stand for eternity. Go ahead and live in your moment, but quit being so afraid of letting them speak their mind.

  7. Brett Cody March 21, 2013 at 4:56 pm #

    All laws legislate morality. You can not avoid legislating morality. Your argument for the homosexuals’ liberty fails because they have the liberty they need–they are free to be homosexuals in this country. What you suggest they are owed is the right to take an institution which is fundamentally heterosexual and ruin it with their perversion. Let them establish their own institution–their issue is that they can not have marriage, but that’s not an infringement on their rights.
    They also do have the right to marriage in this country–just not to someone of the same sex. Here again–no infringement on their right.

  8. Ken Temple March 21, 2013 at 5:05 pm #

    thanks charles for the link to the video with John Piper and Eric Metaxes – very good and all the pro “gay agenda” people who read this blog and comment here should watch the whole thing – they talk about Bonhoeffer and meaning of Romans 13 and submission to government, his theology, Nazis co-opting the church in Germany, plot to kill Hitler, relation to racism in the 50s-60s, abortion and so “called same sex marriage”.

    Piper was clear, “so called same sex marriage does not even exist” and “we have trained a generation to be afraid of being looked down on and being thought of as mean and ‘right wing’ (the raised eyebrow”) – we are afraid to speak out because we don’t want to be thought of as “right wing”/mean/bigoted/ ugly/ not cool / like what lot’s of people thought about the late Jerry Falwell, etc.

    Eric was so clear that if same sex marriage goes through and becomes the law of the land; then Christians are going to be forced to not even give our opinion in public that it is always sin and always wrong. that is already happening in Australia and Canada.

    He pointed out how our government right now is just forcing businesses to comply with the abortion / insurance issue with “Obama Care” – they say, “tough; we are fining you and stomping on you like an Elephant”. That is exactly what this is coming to.

    Another good book is “A Queer Thing Happened to America” by Michael Brown (a Messianic Jew) and his web-site and web-cast. (the line of fire with Dr. Brown)

  9. Ken Temple March 21, 2013 at 5:21 pm #

    Just reading through many of the comments at that article at the New York Times was really sad. Most poured out their hatred and distain for the these young people (and people like me) standing for the true definition of marriage with “don’t they have a job?” and “they are racists, like the old view in the South in the 50s (same as Matt Martin’s view above) that inter-racial marriage was wrong” and comments like, “I don’t understand what affect is has on them; or your church, etc.” and “if heterosexuals want to defend marriage, then work on the divorce problem and adultery problem”, (as if Christians did not speak out against that stuff; but the media shut us off as “nut-jobs” and cruel back then, and now 50 years later use those as examples against Christians, etc. One commenter said something like, “one word for this position = CRUEL” (to deny homosexuals the right to get married).

    It is actually cruel to not say, “no, this is wrong and sin”.

    The whole thing is very sad. It is the end of decent civilization as we know it; because it will open up the flood gates for bi-sexual marriage (3 persons); polygamy (Mormon groups and Muslims will use the same arguments that the gays are using now); man-boy lover marriages, incest marriages, and other things too weird to mention; and persecution of anyone who brings their disapproval of this stuff into the public square.

    There is no basis for stopping any of that, with the way it is going now. The gays and atheists and skeptics and total secularists/Darwinian materialists/ leftists (like a few examples that are prominent in our culture – The Huffington Post, MSNBC, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins) have no moral basis for any morality at all.

  10. Ken Temple March 22, 2013 at 10:16 am #

    this is good – but one doesn’t know where she is coming from until the third paragraph.

    thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2013/03/21/an-open-letter-to-the-church-from-a-lesbian/

    Part of the problem is that when churches usually preach on the sin of homosexuality, they are speaking and preaching against the wide cultural acceptance of it; and the constant push to try and normalize it and say it is natural and normal for that 2.5 or 3.5 % of the population and so, “live and let live and leave them alone”, etc.

    Some churches and some Christians are too harsh.

    But a good church knows how to minister to those that are humble and repentant and even someone who is investigating Christianity, etc. – but the real defiant, “in your face” activist types – most Christians cannot handle them.

    I actually led a guy who was a homosexual to Christ around 1986 (?) at the church I attended at the time, and I visited him at his home and ate meals with him. He appreciated that, as very few people would have any thing to do with him. We had a few bible studies, and he confessed, “every time I did it; I knew it was wrong.” After I started going on mission trips, I heard that he died of AIDS. But I know he went to heaven because he demonstrated true repentance and faith in Christ and turned from his sin.

    Christ does have the power to overcome and change a person’s heart and desires and affections if they truly want to change and turn to Christ in faith.

    “And such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.” – I Corinthians 6:9-11

    I also taught another man who was a former homosexual and he went on to get married to a wonderful woman and had 4 boys. At first, he was surprised that I invited him to my home and we ate breakfast early before work once and week and shared Scripture and prayed together.

    I am only giving those 2 examples because a lot of homosexuals think that All of those who preach that it is wrong would never actually just sit down and have a cup of coffee or a meal with a homosexual and talk calmly.

    In the article linked to above:

    She is humble and acknowledges her sinfulness.

    Instead of “Lesbian” or “gay” identity; it seems to me the proper Christian way to think about it is, “a person who struggles with same sex attractions”. part of the problem is calling that one’s identity.

    This is significant:
    “To those of you who would change the church to accept the gay community and its lifestyle: you give us no hope at all.”

    and this is also:
    “To those of us who know God’s word and will not dilute it to fit our desires, we ask you to read John’s letter to the church in Pergamum.”

  11. AKash Charles March 23, 2013 at 5:09 am #

    If churches actually cared about marriage they would use their resources to spread the gospel and thus automatically change public opinion rather than waste their resources on hateful political campaigns and organisations

    • Ken Temple March 23, 2013 at 4:59 pm #

      Even spreading the gospel is no guarantee that public opinion will “automatically change”. Only God can change hearts, and preaching is no guarantee of automatic results.

      What political organizations standing for traditional, biblical marriage (one man, one woman) are “hateful” ??

      Don’t name Fred Phelps and the Westboro cult. Yes, they are hateful and evil and ugly and disgusting. All other Evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics and traditional Jews – almost NO one else agrees with them. They are sick and disgusting.

      Also, you have to document a specific statement of hatefulness from any conservative political group fighting for traditional Biblical marriage.

      • Akash Charles March 23, 2013 at 10:17 pm #

        when I said spreading the Gospel- I mean’t God changes people hearts (how is this separate-the gospel can only be spread if God changes people’s hearts!)

        No I do not need to document a statement when “so called conservatives” are isolating themselves from society, if they really thought Gay marriage were bad well they would not be as scared of it as they seem to be

        I am not saying vote for gay marriage- all I am saying is that it would be better if churches helped the poor and oppressed rather than use their resources for organisations that will fail at doing what the church hopes they would do.

        • Tom Parker March 24, 2013 at 7:54 am #

          Sadly, the SBC has hooked its star to the Republican Party and as we can see lately the Republican Party is starting to distance themselves from Evangelicals. Why? IMo, to get elected or re-elected. Please SBC go back to the main task of sharing the Gospel.

          • Akash Charles March 26, 2013 at 5:27 am #

            I do not think the SBC is the main problem

  12. Ken Temple March 24, 2013 at 8:43 pm #

    about preaching the gospel –

    There is almost no more powerful passage that 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 that says Christ has the power to change people and their slavery to sin. That is the gospel – the power of His cross, the power of His resurrection, and the power of the Holy Spirit.

    9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Application of the current issues on so called “gay marriage” with Bonhoeffer’s response to the Nazis and Civil Rights issues in the 50s and 60′s | apologeticsandagape - March 21, 2013

    [...] I made this comment at Denny Burk’s blog.  [...]

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes