Christianity,  Culture,  Politics

Albert Mohler on Gay “Marriage” Case

Yesterday, Dr. Albert Mohler’s radio program covered the Supreme Court of California’s decision to overturn the statewide Gay “Marriage” ban. His guests are Maggie Gallagher and Dr. John Eastman, and you’ll want to hear this one.


One of the most troubling aspects of this decision is that the court classes homosexuality as if it were a characteristic like race or gender. Mohler writes:

‘The court also declared sexual orientation to be a class protected by a “strict scrutiny” test of all legislation and regulation. In so doing, the California court became the first in the nation to apply this test on the basis of sexual orientation. This move also opens the door for much broader challenges to laws and regulations across the board.’

Be sure to visit Dr. Mohler’s website.

“California Supreme Court Redefines Marriage” – by Albert Mohler (


  • Derek

    Prayer is necessary, indeed.

    Hate to sound partisan here, but the Democrats are likely going to win a historic election this year in both the Presidential and congressional races. And there are a lot of judicial vacancies right now, because the Democrats have been systematically blocking every conservative judge possible from getting through. In 2009, the Democrats will literally unleash an avalanche of liberal, activist judges on our nation and the consequences will be devastating. These are judges who not only support the positions of NARAL (pro-abortion group), but the ACLU – and they will rubber stamp every gay marriage decision that crosses their desk.

    At that point, I truly believe that we as a nation are in deep, deep trouble.

    Prayer indeed.

  • Bryan L

    How do you think our nation would change for the worse if gay marriage were legal? Help me to see your vision of a society like this? I’m not being argumentative I’m just wondering what the fear or concern is of those who see this as a huge issue and detrimental to our society.

    Personally I would be embarrased if the divorce rate of homosexuals ended up being significantly lower than the church. That would give us a black eye I think.


  • Derek

    You should listen to the audio that Denny posted above, from the Albert Mohler program. I think he and his guests do a pretty good job explaining what the consequences are, without sensationalizing it.

    Bryan, what do you think about kids growing up in a gay family? Is that good? Is that healthy? Take a few minutes and think how your life would be different if you had been raised by gay parents. These are kids who are being indoctrinated into a lifestyle that is deeply unhealthy, highly promiscuous, is contrary to the way God designed us and Scriptures refer to it as an abomination. And the sad reality is, many people who are gay were introduced to the gay lifestyle when they were a child or minor (early sexual experiences have a bearing on our sexual identity). I find that to be profoundly tragic.

  • Bryan L

    It’s just a question Derek. Again not trying to debate this and really not interested in listening to Mohler. I would like to see what your vision is of a society where homosexual marriage is legal. You seemed to think that our society would be in big trouble and I’m just curious how. Our society already is promiscuous (and I wouldn’t blame homosexuals for that) and many kids already are raised by gay parents do I don’t know how that would really be different if homosexual marriage were legal.
    Really I’m just trying to see your vision of this society. Is it like Mad Max or something?



  • Derek

    I can only surmise that you don’t want to listen to the audio Denny posted because your mind is fastened to one view. I hope you will open your mind enough to hear another side (than yours).

    The California court ruling leads to a breakdown in the very understanding of marriage. It basically asserts that anyone is allowed to define their own legal definition of marriage. This has legal precedence in Sweden and has already caused deterioration in the institution of heterosexual marriage.

    No, I don’t have visions of Mad Max. But I do predict that we’ll see the same thing we see in other cultures (as we see in the inner city) where children don’t have a mom and a dad (and usually not a dad) – high crime, high poverty, high drug use, broken hearted kids who have no purpose and most importantly, kids who have become indoctrinated into a lifestyle that displeases God and makes people profoundly sad, largely because they know they are caught in a snare and don’t know how to get out of it.

    I should also mention that the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy found that boys molested by men are almost 4 times more likely to become homosexual or bisexual than boys who were not molested. If you talk to people in the gay lifestyle and especially those who have come out of the lifestyle, you will discover that many, but not all, were introduced to it at a fairly young age.

  • Darius

    I’m actually not as concerned with homosexual marriage (though it is a serious problem) as the things it will lead to (and already has led to): polygamy, bestiality, incest. As Scalia said, once you allow one, you have to allow them all. In Canada, gay marriage is relatively rare even though it is legal. But polygamy is becoming the new battleground and increasingly popular.

  • Derek

    The legalization of gay marriage has a number of implications, but the two implications that are most serious are a) how it will change adoption b) how it will change discrimination laws. As the Mohler audio describes, the CA ruling draws a parallel between racial discrimination and same sex marriage partner discrimination.

    As a for instance, suppose you are a mom who has an unplanned pregnancy and you want to carry the baby to term, but you don’t want your child to be raised in a gay “family”. Or suppose you are a Christian adoption agency and you don’t want to let gay partners adopt a child. In either case, you could be sued by the homosexual partners or even by the government under laws that are going to be structured the same way as racial discrimination/civil rights laws.

    Think about that. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

  • Bryan L


    Listening to Al Mohler doesn’t really require you to open your mind. In fact it may be just the opposite. But either way you presume to much about my reason for not wanting to listen to the audio of Mohler:
    1.) I don’t have a lot of free time and that time that I do use listening to lectures I’d rather listen to something more in my field of interest like biblical studies or theology lectures not a radio show.
    2.) I asked what you thought. I asked what your vision of a society was. I didn’t ask what Mohler’s was. You made th comment about this society going down the toilet if Democrats get voted into office and if they make gay marriage legal. Fine that’s your opinion, but I wanted to know what your vision of this society was (and why you assumed this would take place.) I assumed since you were passionate enough to say that sort of thing on a blog that you would have spent the time researching it and coming to your own conclusions instead of just referring me to what someone else says.

    Either way I got your vision of what would happen to society if homosexual marriage became legal: “high crime, high poverty, high drug use, broken hearted kids who have no purpose and most importantly, kids who have become indoctrinated into a lifestyle that displeases God and makes people profoundly sad, largely because they know they are caught in a snare and don’t know how to get out of it.”

    If I’m correct in reading you that is what you see as the consequences of legalizing homosexual marriage. Ok. That’s all I wanted to know. Thanks.


  • Derek

    Bryan, as I stated, those are results that happen when the family structure that God designed for us breaks down. But you missed the other aspects that I’m concerned about when a child grows up in “family” structure where sodomy is practiced and celebrated as a matter of principle and routine.

    If I understand your position, you are unconcerned with the reality that as you pursue a career in the ministry (presumably, since you are apparently in seminary), that you and your ministry can be sued or prosecuted for discriminatory practices if you or your ministry or your church makes a distinction between gay and heterosexual married couples? You are also ambivalent as to whether or not a Christian adoption agency could be sued or have their license removed in the event that they refuse to endorse the applications gay or unmarried partners? Is this an accurate summary of your views?

  • Bryan L


    I haven’t stated or even inferred my views. I just wanted to know how you saw homosexual marriage leading our society down the drain and what exactly you envisioned it looking like.

    I am taken back a bit by some of your views (such as the child growing up in a home where sodomy is practiced and… celebrated, and the effect of being raised by homosexual parents) but if that’s what you think then so be it. I’m guessing you’ve probably thought long and hard about this and studied it as much as possible before just sharing your views about it on blogs so if that’s what you think then ok. Again all I was wanting to know was what your of a society where homosexual marriage is made legal looks like to you. Thanks.


  • Derek

    By the way you trivialized the court decision and introduced a red herring in post #3, it seems clear that you are more or less ambivalent or possibly even happy with the ruling. I think that is the way most intelligent people would interpret your views. Anyone else agree or disagree?

  • Bryan L

    Derek there was no red hearing because I was making no argument. I don’t know where you got the idea that I was or that I was trivializing the court decision.
    Why do you keep thinking I’m arguing for something or that we are in a debate? Are you always this defensive?

    Honestly I already got the answer I was originally seeking from you and there’s nothing really making me want to stick around and pursue this topic any with you further so… later.


  • Derek

    As if it weren’t clear where you were coming from in Post #2 (where you introduced a red herring re: heterosexual marriage), you stated that you didn’t want to hear about what Albert Mohler or his guest experts (on this topic) thought, even though this post is about Albert Mohler’s analysis.

    Without listening to the audio, you said that “listening to it would require you to close your mind, not open it.”.

    Then you further trivialized my position with your Mad Max comment.

    Interesting that you don’t have anything substantive to say about the topic, yet wish to introduce side issues and (sorry, but I don’t see the logical connection between the divorce rate and this topic, sad as it is to see that too many Christians divorce) cast aspersions on those who are concerned about this issue and are analyzing it from a Biblical perspective.

    Not trying to be argumentative – I just don’t think snarky comments bring anything of substance to the table.

  • Bryan L

    Get over yourself Derek. Again maybe I would have introduced a read hearing if I were actually arguing for something in post #3.

    I didn’t just take an unprovoked shot at Mohler. I wasn’t even talking about him. You brought him up and when I didn’t jump at the chance to listen to him you then called me close minded so I responded back in like manner.

    The post might have been about Mohler’s audio but your first comment in #2 was not. You didn’t even mention him at all in that comment so I was responding to your comment. Sorry if I thought it was ok to talk about what you said in your comment which wasn’t concerning Mohler.

    Yeah I may have trivialized your comment with my jest about Mad Max but read your comment.
    You made statements like “the consequences will be devastating.” and “I truly believe that we as a nation are in deep, deep trouble.” You said deep twice! That means it must be bad ; )

    You seemed to believe our country would be in really dire circumstance if gay marriage were made legal so I was just trying to gauge what this apocalyptic vision of America is that you have and all I could think of was Mad Max. Either way you seem to think it would be pretty bad so help me see this vision you have.

    You are right, I don’t have anything substantive to say about this. I didn’t intend to. I was just asking a question and looking for an answer and as I have stated repeatedly I’m not interested in debating this topic with you I just wanted to know what your substantive view of America’s future is where homosexual marriage is legal.

    I think you were reading too much into my comment about divorce rate. It was just an observation I was making and tacking on to the end of my question. Notice how I didn’t keep talking about it? That means I wasn’t trying to divert the attention towards that issue, but again just reflecting on something that I thought would be sad.

    Seriously Derek, you need to chill a bit. Maybe have a beer or glass of wine to take the edge off a bit.

    Take care,

  • Derek


    How exactly would you know whether my comment in post #2 referred to Mohler’s analysis since you’re too busy with your Biblical studies to listen to it?

    The audio addresses who this will play out in the legal process – so my comment in post 2 was germane.

    I’m sincerely encouraging Christians to pray that God will prevent this immoral legal decision from taking effect in California and the rest of the country. Somehow, I don’t think God wants us to react to this situation by grabbing a beer or making condescending comments.

    – Derek

  • JNG

    Bryan L never wants to debate. He just likes to toss loaded questions around and then take a stance of entitlement and moral highground, because well he isn’t “debating”.

    Psst, no one buys it Bryan.

  • Bryan L

    How did the people on this blog become so paranoid sounding. JNG you don’t know what your talking about. Get a clue will ya. Read back through the archives and you’ll see I’ve done quite a bit of debating here. How long have you been here? A few months? Am I not allowed to just ask a question now and then? If this were meant to be a set up then Derek had already given me enough to shoot back but as it is I just wanted to know about what he was envisioning and he answered so that’s it.

    It’s a shame how polarized this blog has gotten. There’s always been disagreement but now it’s a complete us versus them mentality and people treating others they disagree with like enemies.

    It’s very sad.


  • JNG

    Ok I got a clue, now what? Oh and you must answer my question because I am entitled to your answer. Why you ask, because I am not debating with you and just want to see with genuine and sincere interest what your position is on this so I can further my understanding of it. Do you not see how silly that sounds?

    I have been around longer than a few months and have read several of the archives. You often pull the I am not debating just asking a question card, but you are right you have debated and thus my terminology of “never” was incorrect.

  • Bryan L

    Apparently you didn’t get a clue because you are still trying to go back and forth about something completely stupid and accusing me of stuff, so I don’t know how to answer your question.

    You know, I don’t really know who you are at all JNG. I don’t remember interacting/debating or discussing anything with you. That’s what makes this so sad, that you seem to have a lot of antipathy towards me, so much so that you felt the need to jump on here and and vent about me and put me down and I don’t even remember who you are. This is a waste of time.

    I’m done. later.


  • JNG

    And you are accusing others of being paranoid? Oh the irony.

    Let me explain. It was tongue in cheek to make a point about this entire discussion. I didn’t really expect you to answer.

    I wasn’t going back and forth. I was conceding a point to you.

    I didn’t realize that one had to qualify or meet certain criteria before interjecting one’s opinion.

  • Matt Svoboda

    “It’s a shame how polarized this blog has gotten. There’s always been disagreement but now it’s a complete us versus them mentality and people treating others they disagree with like enemies.

    It’s very sad.”

    Brian, do you not realize you are one of the leaders in this?

  • Brent

    I don’t think that’s fair either. After all, it was Derek who said, “How exactly would you know whether my comment in post #2 referred to Mohler’s analysis since you’re too busy with your Biblical studies to listen to it?”

    How many phrases can I think of to describe this? “Snide”? “Hypocritical”? “Sidestepping Bryan’s legitimate defense for his question completely”?

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.