Religious Liberty & LGBT Equality

Rather recently, Jay Michaelson wrote a piece for The Daily Beast entitled, “The ‘Religious Liberty’ Bullies and Their Fight Against LGBT Equality.”  In it, he suggests that those who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons are the same as the racists who opposed desegregation laws.  He calls those who protect religious liberty, and who therefore are willing to stick up for the rights of religious people who oppose same-sex marriage, insincere and “racist,” as well.  “Today is a different age— but the players, and the rhetoric, are the same,” he states.  Later on, he says that defenders of religious liberty are “simply repurposing an old, racist rhetoric to fight the same social battles as always.”

 

Ken Blackwell of Townhall.com makes three points:

 

1. There can be no comparison between the fight for racial equality and the movement for same-sex marriage.

2. Supporting the traditional definition of marriage is not the same (or even akin) to supporting institutionalized racism.

3. Concerns about religious liberty are both sincere and valid, especially regarding the social trends Michaelson discusses in both his article and a related report he recently released.

 

Ken Blackwell (a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and the American Civil Rights Union) goes on to explain –

 

The matter of race occupies a singular place in our country’s history and laws.  Our country fought a bloody Civil War and passed three separate Constitutional Amendments to rid our society of the injustice that was slavery.  The segregation laws that followed were ugly remnants of a culture of racial slavery, and they were immoral and unjust.  They defied the American promise – “… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Black Americans were enslaved, literally deprived of their liberty, often robbed of life, and denied the opportunity to pursue happiness.  Segregation laws were a legal statement of inequality.  No other law in American history spells indignity and injustice like they did, and no other law so explicitly rings false to our country’s founding principles.  Applying the racism of segregation-era America to today’s “social battles” does not make for a compelling comparison.  To state what should be obvious – Not all racists oppose same-sex marriage, and not all who oppose same-sex marriage are racists.  To say otherwise is disrespectful and frankly ludicrous.  No reasonable person is advocating “segregation” between the opposite-sex attracted population and the same-sex attracted population.  I don’t need to go into detail on this point.  It should be enough for readers to simply think of their own family, friends, and acquaintances— some of whom, no doubt, are uncertain about or against same-sex marriage— and realize that pairing “racist” with “opposed to same-sex marriage” means labeling many reasonable people as outright bigots.  That kind of accusation has heavy consequences and is dangerous to healthy discourse.

 

Marriage, as it stands and has stood for centuries, is not an institution that was driven into existence by bigotry, or constructed to deny some right to same-sex partners.  People who oppose same-sex marriage do so for a variety of reasons.  There are many who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons, and others for reasons grounded in history, philosophy, and our country’s Constitution.  What traditional marriage supporters generally want is to uphold a centuries-old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.  It is a fixed definition.  They see marriage as unique and unchanging, valuable because of (and contingent on) its singular male-female union, and meaningless without it.

 

The idea that those who are concerned about religious liberty rights in and around same-sex marriage are covertly advancing some right-wing agenda is misleading, false, and insulting. Religious liberty is a real, fundamental right, first in our Constitutional Amendments.  It’s what allows a man to be a conscientious objector, or a church to choose its own minister.  In general, it’s what protects religious people who hold views that are out of political favor. Michaelson admits that intellectuals and politicians on both ends of the political spectrum support religious liberty.  He simply thinks that religious liberty is much more limited than it is or ever has been.

 

As the recent cases against the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate demonstrates, America has a diverse and principled religious population of citizens willing to fight for the right to express their faith in all aspects of life.  That some, like Michaelson, don’t agree that buying contraception for others violates a person’s faith, does not suddenly appease the troubled consciences.  Those who advocate strong conscience protections— whether from a contraceptive mandate or from federal recognition of same-sex marriage— do so sincerely.

 

Ken Blackwell concludes: We can all agree that the topic of same-sex marriage draws intense emotions from both sides.  But those emotions do not justify branding people who disagree with us as liars or bigots.  That’s a cheap way to silence dissenters, when there is real and substantive debate to be had. It’s also a grave insult to honest, truth-seeking individuals, and a violation of the principles of American society.  All people should be free to explore and define their beliefs.  And all should be free to speak, act, vote and advocate according to their beliefs.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Gosnell is By No Means the Exception

It is of no surprise to me that we initially heard little-to-nothing from the national liberal media about the trial of abortions performed by Dr. Kermit Gosnell.  (The left-leaning media would never want the public to really know the gruesomeness of the abortion industry in American that has now killed over 52-million babies since the Row vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision in 1973 … because it would result in bring an end to this American holocaust.)  But the USA Today columnist, Kirsten Powers, brought light to this dark cesspool in Philadelphia (my birthplace) … posturing as an abortion clinic (operating without inspection for 17 years). Gosnell has been formally charged in the murder of one woman and seven infants.  However, the grand jury report and testimony of family and staff at the trial indicate that if there were records in this dump, where life was snuffed out daily, Gosnell would be indicted for the death of hundreds of live-birth children.  The national press got dragged unwillingly to report it because of Ms. Powers’ courageous column.

 

Despite the sense that no one was paying attention to the Gosnell story before Kirsten Powers wrote about it, you need to know that Dr. Gardner (founder and president of the National Black Pro-life Union), Dr. Alveda King (niece of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.), and other pro-life activists were demonstrating outside Gosnell’s clinic as early as February 2011.  They held a press conference about the trial on April 4, a week before Powers’ column appeared.  Alveda King wrote in her blog the day before, “… Rev. Clenard Childress and Dr. Day Gardner … are in Philadelphia reporting on the Kermit Gosnell trial that the mainstream media is virtually ignoring.”

 

Just the other week, The Washington Times had reported that Gosnell-like conditions have existed at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Vice President Biden’s own backyard in Delaware.  The Times reports – “Abortions have been suspended at a Delaware Planned Parenthood, after several 911 calls made from within the clinic prompted a new investigation by Health and Human Services.”  Two nurses quit to protect their licenses, one saying, “I couldn’t tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was.”  According to the story – “Since January 4, five patients have been rushed to the emergency room.”

 

Last year pro-life activists worked assiduously to get press attention on the story of the death of 24-year old Tonya Reaves, who died after a botched abortion procedure at a Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic.

 

Why is it that this gets so little attention by mainstream media?  There are at least two reasons:

1. As a nation we still are willing to tolerate abortion.  We say that Dr. Gosnell should be convicted of murder because he botched an abortion.  Never mind that he destroyed (by brutal murder) a live child.  We somehow think it is okay if that same child dies while still in the womb. 

2. The filthy conditions allowing this butchery to take place all over the nation persist for the same reason that the Gosnell trial almost went uncovered.  The press does not want to report about the gruesome truths of abortion.  And, because it occurs disproportionately among low income, minority women, they are even less interested.

 

The sad reality is that while Gosnell's crimes may be an extreme case, he is by no means alone in his contempt for life.  The pro-life group Live Action just recently released two new undercover videos from abortion mills in the Bronx, NYC and Washington, D.C., revealing that both facilities might allow a baby born during a botched abortion to die.  At the Bronx “clinic,” a staffer discussing a late-term abortion said she would essentially drown the baby in a jar of solution to stop it from “twitching.”  When an investigator asked what she should do if the two-day long procedure caused her to go into labor at home and delivered a live baby, the staffer says, “Flush it!”  The D.C. abortionist was more artful with his choice of words.  When asked what he would do if a baby were born alive, he said: “Technically -- you know, legally we would be obligated to help it, you know, to survive. … It's all in how vigorously you do things to help a fetus survive at this point.  Let's say you went into labor … and you delivered before we got to the termination part of the procedure here, you know?  Then we would do things -- we would -- we would not help it.”

 

The practice of “after-birth abortions” is likely more widespread than most of us realized.  One of the left's biggest lies is that it stands for compassion.  Where does after-birth abortion fit into anyone's idea of compassion?  While most Americans rightly recoil in horror, too few realize that this is a legacy of Roe vs. Wade.  Some elites complain that the conservative movement is perceived as “uncaring.”  Yet they are the very same people who suggest we stop talking about issues like the sanctity of life.

 

So what can we do?  At minimum, we can demand that our tax dollars cease to fund our nation’s largest abortion provider – Planned Parenthood.  According to Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn), who has submitted a bill to stop funding Planned Parenthood, “Every 94 seconds Planned Parenthood performs an abortion and in that amount of time they take in over $1600 in federal taxpayer money.”

 

And to think that in the midst of this Gosnell trial, President Obama became the first sitting president to address the Planned Parenthood national conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the nation's largest destroyer of innocent human life.  His speech was full of distortions.  As is so typical of the left, Obama accused the pro-life movement of wanting to “turn back the clock to … the 1950s.”  He added that there is an “orchestrated and historic effort to roll back basic rights when it comes to women's health.”  Isn't it amazing that in Obama's world, 1.2 million abortions a year is seen as progress?  It is obscene when Obama equates the killing of innocent unborn children with healthcare.  Pregnancy is not a disease!  Even accepting that there are occasions when a woman's life or health may be in danger, such circumstances are among the rarest of reasons why abortions are performed today.  Obama concluded with pledging his allegiance to Planned Parenthood, saying – “… I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way.  Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

 

Let me translate that for you: While we are cutting back on education, our military and benefits to our seniors, Obama will be there to make sure that your hard-earned tax money keeps flowing to Planned Parenthood to subsidize abortions and to make sure that no legislation preventing any abortion of any kind ever becomes law.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Choose You This Day

If anyone has been reading my blog postings (to date) they may falsely accuse me of being homophobic and a bigot; they might wrongly conclude that I hate gay people and lack the love of Jesus that I’ve proclaimed for the past 37-years of ordained ministry.  If that is their best analysis, then they are no doubt those simple-minded people who take the words of Jesus out of context and love to proclaim – “Jesus loves everyone … regardless …” Really?  Think again!

 

Since the time in which Christ Jesus established His Church some 2000 years ago, the Church has distinguished between the ‘sin’ and the ‘sinner.’  We can say with certainty that Jesus loves all people; but righteously hates the sinful acts of a deprived humanity.  In fact, God came to earth in the person of His beloved Son to die for the homosexual (and every other sinner); to shed His sinless blood on Calvary’s cross for the redemption of every repentant human being; and there paid the price for our sins, and provide the free (for us) but costly (for Him) gift of salvation.  Clearly, Jesus loves gays and lesbians; but hates the abominable acts of homosexuality as contrary to the truth of God’s Holy Word.

 

Undeniably, the Christian biblical worldview runs against the grain of today’s progressive thinking.  Many of America's young have come to accept that homosexuality is a natural preference of a significant minority and ought to be accommodated; and same-sex unions ought to be treated as traditional marriages.

 

Case in point: At George Washington University, two students have demanded that Father Greg Shaffer of the Newman Center be removed for creating an environment hostile to gays.  The priest's offense:  When President Obama endorsed same-sex marriages, Shaffer posted a blog restating Catholic teaching condemning homosexual acts as unnatural and immoral.  In private sessions, Father Shaffer also counseled gay students to remain celibate for the rest of their lives.  One senior, Damian Legacy, says he was shaken by Father Greg's admonition that he was risking his soul and by his ouster from the Newman Center after the priest learned he was in a relationship with a male student.  Legacy and his partner have filed complaints against the Rev. Shaffer with the university Office for Diversity and Inclusion, alleging his homophobia has had a detrimental effect on the emotional health of gay students.

 

Though a minor collision in the cultural war, this clash at GWU may be a forerunner of what is coming … as the homosexual community seeks to have its agenda written into law and openly practiced in society.  The traditional Christianity's view … that homosexual acts are immoral and same-sex marriage an absurdity … cannot be reconciled with the view that homosexuality is natural and normal, and gay marriage a human right.  Like abortion, it is an issue on which both sides cannot be right.  Yet it is an issue of paramount importance both to devout Christians and to the homosexual rights movement in America.

 

While today’s culture war may seem as a little skirmish, we have not begun to see the magnitude of battle.  A new era of civil disobedience is being prepared among the true people of God.  Which side will you be found to enlist your faithful service?  Choose you this day whom you will serve.  Like Joshua, I will serve the LORD!

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Demonizing of Christians in the Military

As many of you know, I spent the last twenty-five years of my life as an U.S. Army Chaplain where I fought the good fight of faith in the context of the military community.  In fact, at one time I was the Command Chaplain for the U.S. Army Reserve Command.  If I were yet in that position, I would find myself involved with the likes of these incidents that recently surfaced.

 

An U.S. Army Reserve unit in Pennsylvania was recently given a briefing on “Extremism.”  Within that PowerPoint presentation there was a slide (#24) under the heading “Religious Extremism” with more than a dozen examples of extremist groups. Al Qaeda was listed fifth. Hamas was sixth. The Ku Klux Klan was eighth on the list. At the top of the list was “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” was tenth.

 

The Department of the Army contends this was an isolated incident, and that the materials were not condoned by the Army. Sadly, that’s not true; for not long after there was news that U.S. Army LTC Jack Rich of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, sent a 14-page email warning of behaviors inconsistent with “Army Values” and warning about various groups that “do not share our Army Values.”  Among those groups listed in his email were neo-Nazis and the KKK, along with pro-family Christian organizations like the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. 

 

Sadly, this is more evidence that left-wing activists who equate traditional Biblical values with bigotry and extremism have burrowed their way into the government bureaucracy and are even moving up the ranks of Obama's military.

 

The source for this briefing and email appear to have been the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center.  According to the American Family Association, the Southern Poverty Law Center brands anyone with a biblical view of homosexuality as extremist; therefore targeting the American Family Association who insists that the Bible teaches that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that same-sex relationships are sinful.  

 

Earlier this year, a report from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point labeled as part of the “violent far right” anyone who espoused “strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals' civil and constitutional rights.”  That could well be a majority of the country!  According to a Pew Research poll taking in February, 53% of Americans view the government as a threat to their liberty.

 

For decades, the political left has been on a cultural jihad to purge God and faith from the public arena. (Don’t forget last year’s DNC Convention that just about voted God out of their platform.)  The political left mocks Christian conservatives as “the American Taliban.” Now we are being told that believing marriage is between a man and a woman is bigotry.

 

When leftists outside the government condemn men and women of faith, why would we be surprised when leftists inside the government start producing reports calling Christians “extremists”?  If any fair-minded observer in the media wanted to figure out why there is such a concern about universal background checks and a national registry of firearms, he should look no further than this latest Army briefing and email, and he will see the left's routine demonization of normalcy.

 

Let me venture a guess as to why this is happening. It is the slippery slope of repealing the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy. As the administration began to demand tolerance for alternative lifestyles, the word quickly went out from the top that tolerance had its limits. LTG Thomas Bostick, then the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, said, “These people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out.”  Why, even the U.S. Army Chief of Chaplains (MG Douglas Carver) said as much to the Corps of Chaplains.  Since the repeal of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” (Dec 2010), we have gone from tolerance for homosexuals serving in the military to intolerance for men and women of faith serving in the military.

 

Don’t be fooled – There is occurring a direct assault on religious liberty.  It is blatant anti-religious bigotry that seeks to force men and women of faith into the closet.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Don’t Play Russian Roulette with Marriage (Part 3 of 3)

Continuation from 29 April and 1 May blogs

 

III. Homosexual couples should not be denied to marry.

 

Extending legal protection to sexual preferences and elevating personal sexual preferences to that of a “civil right” (ultimately leading to the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” and marital entitlements) will not simply alter American culture and traditional marriage; it will destroy the culture and the sacred institution as we know it.

 

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex “marriages.” Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow at the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said it’s unrealistic to think the military would be out front of the rest of the government in offering benefits to unmarried partners. “They don’t do it for straight people, and they’re very unlikely to do it for gay people,” Frank said, unless, someone were to use the U.S. military to impose a risky “social experiment” to satisfy an agenda.    

 

The same-sex “marriage” movement has crystallized the difference between two distinct views of marriage:

·         The recent view advocated by same-sex proponents can be summed up as follows: “Marriage is an essentially private, intimate, emotional relationship created by two people for their own personal reasons to enhance their own personal well-being. Marriage is created by the couple, for the couple.” Under this view, the human arrangement is merely a private, and, perhaps in some cases a sexually intimate relationship that deserves a license by the government in order to obtain certain legally recognized benefits. This view of marriage believes that it is discriminatory to favor one kind of personal relationship (between a man and a woman) over other kinds of relationships (between people of the same sex). Those who advocate this private view believe marriage is “just one lifestyle choice among many.”

·         The historic view of marriage does not consider the institution to be merely a private relationship but rather a public good. What every known human society calls marriage shares certain basic, recognizable features, including most especially the privileges accorded to the reproductive couple in order to protect both the interests of children and the interests of the society. In every society, marriage is the sexual union where childbearing and raising is not only tolerated but applauded and encouraged.  By socially defining and supporting a particular type of sexual union, the society defines for its young what the preferred relationship is and what purposes it serves.

 

Understanding marriage as a public good is fundamentally different from viewing it as merely a private relationship. Marriage is the fundamental, cross-cultural institution for bridging the male and female divide so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers. The marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers; that societies need babies; and that adults have an obligation to shape their sexual behavior so, as to give their children stable families in which to grow up and thrive.

 

The problem with endorsing same-sex “marriage” is not that it would allow a handful of people to choose alternative family norms, but it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults’ desires. The debate over same-sex “marriage” is not some sideline discussion. It is the marriage debate itself. Either we win or we lose the central meaning of marriage. The great threat unisex marriage poses to marriage as a social institution is not some distant or nearby slippery slope; it is an abyss at our feet. If we cannot explain why unisex marriage is, in itself, a disaster; we have already lost the marriage ideal.

 

Same-sex “marriage” would enshrine in law a public judgment that the public desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers. It would give sanction and approval to the creation of a motherless or fatherless family as a deliberately chosen “good.” It would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine.

 

Marriage between one man and one woman is a public good that is best for society, and particularly its children and future generations. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” would equalize same-sex relations with marriage and parenthood. In doing so, marriage and parenthood would be severed, and the structure of children raised with a mom and a dad would suffer. It is one thing to tolerate personal relationships that are different from ours, but it is another thing for society to elevate such a relationship to a preferred status; and, that’s what same-sex “marriage” would do. To sanction same-sex “marriage” would be to say that there is no relevance to gender; and thus, result in the abolition of gender. Indeed, many same-sex and transsexual proponents advocate the abolition of gender, stating that the concept of male and female is an outdated, stereotypic model that needs to be abolished.

 

Once the government says that gay couples have a right to have their commitments recognized by the state as a “marriage,” it becomes next to impossible to deny the same right to polygamous or even cohabitating relatives and friends. And once everyone’s relationship is recognized, marriage is gone; only a system of flexible relationship contracts is left.

 

Some would ask: Is equal protection violated by prohibiting same-sex “marriage?” Preserving marriage between one man and one woman does not violate equal protection any more than gender-specific restrooms. Marriage has never been open to any and every one. The Supreme Court has approved banning polygamous marriages, and most states ban incestuous marriages and place age restrictions on marriage. These restrictions have never been thought to violate equal protection.

 

Some argue that same-sex “marriage” proponents want marriage for its benefits. If benefits are the issue, then instead of deconstructing marriage itself, advocates of same-sex “marriage” should focus on the specific benefit desired rather than create a new form of marriage. Marriage is more than benefits. Marriage is a universal human institution. Marriage predated America, as it did every civilized society. Thus, before there was any law regarding marriage, marriage existed. Marriage is not merely a set of benefits. The laws and benefits associated with marriage are designed to support the institution because it is so fundamental to our society and future existence. Laws that promote marriage between one man and one woman to the exclusion of any other are supported by compelling governmental interests in the preservation of society and the public good.

 

Although for different reasons, same-sex “marriage” opponents and some states rights advocates oppose amending the Constitution to protect marriage between one man and one woman. Protecting traditional marriage is, and always has been, a federal matter. The act of amending the Constitution is an exercise in states’ rights. Marriage will be national one way or another. Either the courts will dictate marriage policy or the people will. If a federal constitutional amendment is not adopted, the courts will no doubt alter traditional marriage policy.

 

Now some argue that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, and thus should not license marriage. In this way marriages could consist of either private, religious or secular ceremonial services, but with no state sanction. While this argument has some surface appeal, it fundamentally misunderstands the importance of marriage and its impact on society. The state has always been empowered to regulate in order to protect the public health and welfare of its citizens. Thus, we have laws protecting our personal security and property rights. Although consensual, we have laws regarding prostitution, gambling, and private drug use. The reason society has chosen to regulate these areas of our lives is because these private acts have public consequences. The same is true with marriage. Marriage is not merely a personal, private act. Children are part of marriage, and as such, the greater society is affected.

 

It is neither wise nor desirable to deregulate marriage because, in so doing, our society would suffer. No, marriage is a public good, and it is precisely one of the areas in which the government should and must continue to regulate in order to protect the public good. Sanctioning same-sex “marriage” would have a profound destabilizing effect on the health, welfare, education and morals of the country. We should not play Russian roulette with marriage.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

 

Don’t Play Russian Roulette with Marriage (Part 2 of 3)

Continuation from 29 April blog

 

II. Homosexuals were born that way; and therefore should have the right to marry.

 

The typical definition of “sexual orientation” includes the status of being or the perception of being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual or even the most recent label, “questioning youth.” The definition itself includes the entire spectrum of human sexuality. Homosexual groups are lobbying to amend laws to include such terms as “gender identity” and “gender expression.” Homosexuals have attempted to point to certain “genetic” studies touting the idea that homosexuality is a genetically inherited characteristic. However, many of these studies are fraught with methodological flaws and are not replicated by reputable scientists. 

 

In contrast to these flawed methodological studies, more than 70 years of therapeutic counseling and case studies suggest homosexuality is a gender identification issue that is environmentally influenced. Homosexuals can change their behavior. There are numerous examples of changed sexual behavior documented in many studies, including the landmark research of Masters and Johnson. (From 1968 to 1977, the Masters and Johnson Institute ran a program to convert or revert homosexuals to heterosexuality. This program reported a 71.6% success rate over a six-year treatment period.  At the time of their earlier work, homosexuality was classified as a psychological disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, a classification which was repealed in 1973.)  A new website has since been launched by the American College of Pediatricians that cautions educators about the management of students experiencing same-sex attraction or exhibiting symptoms of gender confusion.  (It was created by a coalition of health professionals to provide accurate factual information to educators, parents, and students about sexual development.) The college further advises that schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long, and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.

 

Bottom line: There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic and, therefore, immutable. It is noteworthy that Dr. Robert Spitzer, the man who was instrumental in pushing the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder, has now acknowledged that homosexuals can become heterosexual. His (2003) treatment-outcome research concluded that change, though of unknown frequency, does occur for some individuals and that reorientation therapy should not be dismissed as a treatment option.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Don’t Play Russian Roulette with Marriage (Part 1 of 3)

Today, there is a lot of oxygen being “sucked-up” on both sides of the issue of same-sex “marriages.”  There are those who just think it’s wrong; that it is contrary to the Creator’s design; that it is biblically chastised; that it threatens society as we know it.  While others say it’s natural, and that homosexuals should not be denied the opportunity to happily marry the person they love, and be afforded the same entitlements granted to heterosexual marriages.  The debate uses tradition, personal experience and logical reasoning … on both sides of the issue.  One side calls the other intolerant and homophobic; while the other is called perverted and immoral.  There’s not a whole lot of middle ground on this subject.  And because “we the people” are so divided, we appear more than willing to let the government decide.  Even persons of conviction preferred not to decide … as evidenced in the recent “Minnesota nice” outcome of the vote for a Minnesota Amendment to the State Constitution defining marriage as “between one man and one woman.”  
 

I would suspect that everyone knows someone for whom this is their sexual preference or orientation; and for that reason, are reluctant to express themselves publically; and, therefore, prefer to let the legislative or judicial branches of government “make the call.”

 

While for some it is a matter for the government to resolve; for others it is a matter of personal preference; and still others it is a matter of principle. For me as a Christian, I must come from a Biblical worldview, which says I must think on “… whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable …” (Philippians 4:8) 

So, seeking to address this matter with truth, let’s examine several of the arguments expressed by the advocates of same-sex “marriage.”
 

I. It is a civil right of same-sex couples to marry.

 

In order to gain power, the gay-rights movement has sought to ride the civil rights train. Using words like “rights,” “discrimination,” and “tolerance,” the homosexual movement has successfully convinced many to believe their cause is just and the right to practice openly-homosexual behavior should be permitted to climb the platform atop the civil rights pedestal. However, a person’s sexual preference is not a civil right and has nothing in common with the civil rights movement of the twentieth century.
 

The federal law known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was part of a landmark legislative attempt to remedy discrimination on account of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The Act prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation; it bans discrimination in public facilities and in public education; it prohibits discrimination against recipients of federally assisted programs; it addresses discrimination in the workplace. This Act laid the foundation for future civil rights laws that were later adopted by several states, including local governmental subdivisions such as municipalities. An understanding of the historical background and reasons for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is important when considering adding any new class of persons to a protected civil rights category.  The two driving forces behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 arose primarily out of discrimination against African-Americans and, secondarily, out of discrimination against women. The Act prohibits discrimination against individuals on account of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” All five categories have at one time or another been the subject of no less than five constitutional amendments.

 

No one can seriously argue that African-Americans did not suffer rampant, widespread discrimination. Blacks were forced to use separate drinking fountains and restrooms. They were prohibited from staying in motels or from patronizing restaurants. African-Americans (and other people of color) were prohibited from voting until the states ratified the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Those of Korean, Japanese, Jewish, and German descent also faced discrimination following World Wars I and II. Women faced similar discrimination. They were prohibited from voting until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.  Like African-Americans, women were also excluded from the job markets and from places of political influence. The widespread discrimination against Blacks, women, and other people with particular national origins undeniably resulted in blatantly direct employment discrimination which excluded them from the economic marketplace. 

 

Race, color, sex, and national origin share common immutable characteristics. (An immutable characteristic serves to identify the protected class.)  A person’s race, color, sex, and national origin are unchangeable characteristics. One cannot transition from one category to another. A person is either born African-American or Caucasian, male or female. There’s no such thing as an ex-African-American. The ancestry of a person is fixed at birth.

 

Religion is the sole category within the Civil Rights Act that does not share the pattern of an immutable physical characteristic as do the other four categories. However, the characteristic of immutability in terms of religion is rooted in the 1st Amendment, and indeed, predates that Amendment. The drafters of the 1st Amendment considered the freedom to believe in God and the free exercise of religion to be a sacred right, which may not be alienated by any sovereign government. The 1st Amendment affords special protection to religion, in part, because of the history of religious oppression. This special protection was codified in the Civil Rights Act.

 

The matter of whether a person’s sexual preference meets the immutability requirement is not debatable. The practice of homosexuality is a matter of choice. In contrast to the immutable characteristics of race, color, or national origin, a person’s sexual preference is not static; it is an ever-moving target and, as such, can never be considered immutable. Fluidity of one’s sexual preference and the lack of any evidence establishing its immutability precludes defining a protected class based on sexual preference. 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel 

It’s Freedom of Religion, Not Freedom from Religion

The primary legal source that protects religious freedom for all American citizens is the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  These “free exercise” and “establishment” clauses forbid governmental entanglement with matters of religion.  This means government may not favor one religion over another; may not target one religion for particular benefits and burden another; may not entangle itself in core ecclesiastical subjects; may not set itself up as the arbiter of religious truth and enforce its determinations as law … just to name a few.  With this simple statement, the U.S. Constitution rightly established the proper boundaries for religions and for the state.  The two clauses protect the same central liberty … from two slightly different directions: the “establishment” clause forbids government prescription of religious exercise; and the “free exercise” clause forbids government proscription of religious practices.  The government should not try to force compliance with any particular religious belief or practice, or compel people to support any particular religion – because religious belief … if it is to be genuine … cannot be forced on people against their will.

 

By the same token, the opposite of the “compel religion” view is in error: that we should “exclude religion” from the public square; that religious belief should be kept at home and limited to places of worship; that it should not influence a civil society. 

 

This “exclude religion” view has had a strong influence in recent campaigns to persuade the courts and public opinion in legalizing same-sex “marriage.”  If these “exclude religion” arguments succeed, they could well be applied against evangelicals and Catholics who make “religious” arguments in light of their moral values against the likes of abortion, euthanasia, mandated costs of reproductive health by employers, and in the case of Christian owned/operated businesses – requiring them to service the gay agenda … all of which encroach on their religious principles.  By such reasoning, all actions of religious citizens and civil officials for almost any moral issue could be found invalid.  This would be the direct opposite of the kind of country the Founding Fathers established and contrary to what they meant by “free exercise” of religion in the 1st Amendment.  This changes freedom of religion into freedom from religion.  Our Founders never envisioned that the 1st Amendment would become a weapon to excise Christian or traditional religious expressions from the public arena.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Lawsuits Against Christians Refusing Business to Gays

Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same-sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer.  Elane Photography politely declined citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state’s anti-discriminatory laws, and won.  In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer.

 

Now the State of Washington is suing a small flower shop after the owner declined to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding – based on her religious beliefs.  Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, WA, is facing thousands of dollars in fines and penalties for allegedly violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.  “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service,” Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement.

 

On March 1, a longtime customer asked Stutzman to provide flowers for his upcoming same-sex wedding.  According to court documents, she told him that she would not be able to do so “because of her relationship with Jesus Christ.”  The Attorney General’s office sent a letter to the florist on March 28 giving her a chance to reconsider her position and sign an agreement indicating her intention to comply with the law.  But Stutzman refused.  “Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” the attorney general said.  In their letter to Stutzman, they told her the only way to avoid a lawsuit was to agree to provide services for homosexual weddings.  “This means that as a seller of goods or services, you will not refuse to sell floral arrangements for same-sex weddings if you sell floral arrangements for opposite-sex weddings,” the Attorney General’s office wrote.  The Attorney General is seeking a permanent injunction forcing the flower shop to comply with the law – as well as $2,000 in fines for every violation.

 

Attorney JD Bristol called the notion that his client was guilty of discrimination “nonsense.”  “Arlene’s Flowers has catered to all patrons, including homosexuals, for many years,” Bristol wrote in his reply to the Attorney General.  “Arlene’s Flowers has had openly gay employees.”  He told The Seattle Times that he believes the state is trying to make an example of the flower shop.  “This is about gay marriage, it’s not about a person being gay,” he told the newspaper.  “She has a conscientious objection to homosexual marriage, not homosexuality.  It violates her conscience.”

 

Bristol said he believes this is a freedom of religion issue.  “What the government is saying here is that you don’t have the right to free religious exercise,” he told the newspaper.  Religious liberty groups in the State of Washington and across the country are voicing their support for the flower shop.  “You may not be a florist, and you may have made a different decision, but liberty is at stake for all of us,” said Joseph Backholm, Executive Director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington.  “Draw your line in the sand right here.”

 

Backholm sent an email blast urging supporters to stand with Arlene’s Flowers.  “Don’t ignore the bully just because he hasn’t punched you in the mouth yet,” he said.  “A small business owner is looking at years of litigation and huge legal expenses because she won’t bow to the political elites.”

 

Peter Sprigg, with the Family Research Council, told Todd Starnes of Fox News they are seeing more and more of these types of cases.  “People need to be aware this is the underlying motive for the push for same-sex marriage,” he said.  “It’s not just about legal rights and benefits.  It’s about forcing everyone in society to recognize their relationships as being one hundred percent equal to opposite-sex marriages.”  He called the lawsuit a dangerous step towards encroaching on religious liberty.  “It also reflects a narrow view of religious liberty where people may have freedom to exercise religious liberty in their church, but they don’t have that right when they go outside those four walls,” he said.

 

Well before our nation’s birth, a biblical basis for freedom of religion came from the words of Jesus who said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” (Matthew 22:21)  In this statement, Jesus established the principle of a distinct realm of “things that belong to God” that should not be regulated or constrained by the government (or “Caesar”).  Although Jesus did not specify what things belong to this realm that is outside of Caesar’s control, certainly “the things that belong to God” must include decisions and actions regarding faith and practice.  This means that people's religious convictions and activities should clearly be an area in which government gives citizens uninhibited freedom. 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel