New Book

A Unique and Revealing Look at America!---The Miracle and Magnificence of America. If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing my recent book. Click here to get it at Amazon. See here for more information.

Book Banner

Book Facebook

HELP US GET THE WORD OUT: If you "Like" this page, please visit our new Facebook page for The Miracle and Magnificence of America and "Like" it. Thank you!!!

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives:

Monday, April 6, 2015

On Marriage: Never Give In. Never, Never, Never…

The battle raging over religious liberty on several fronts across the U.S. has been quite revealing. Most telling are the lengths to which liberals continue to go to ensure that the homosexual agenda roars on undeterred. As Ross Douthat has alluded, the political and cultural melee we’ve endured the last several days is because the perversion on marriage wrought by liberals has prospered to the point that an ever growing number of Americans have found themselves in the crosshairs of today’s gaystapo.

Interestingly, and sadly, religious liberty laws like what passed in Indiana, the one that failed in my state of Georgia, the one sent back to the legislature by the governor of Arkansas, and that exist across the rest of the country, have served as little to no protection for business owners, who, because of their religious convictions, want nothing to do with SSM. This is especially the case in states where SSM is legally recognized.

As Tobin Grant noted on the Washington Post recently, “In the 20 years since RFRA became federal law, there has not been a single case in which a person successfully used RFRA to get around civil rights laws.” And if SSM is legal in a state (as the liberal courts ensured in Indiana), it is a “civil right.” In spite of this, liberals insist that such legislation is nothing more than a license to “discriminate.”

Of course, the timing of these attempts at mimicking the federal RFRA is what has liberals up in arms. In part, they are correct. These attempts at religious liberty legislation are, at least in part, a conservative political response to what is rightly seen as a rogue judiciary forcing marriage perversion upon states whose electorate OVERWHELMINGLY rejected such perversion. Thus, this battle over religious liberty has turned into yet another debate over SSM.

Of course, this has brought liberals back to using their worn-out cry of “discrimination.” Whether used as a tool in an attempt to paint the police as oppressors, to justify their ridiculous environmental agenda, to defend the “right” to kill children in the womb, to promote virtually any kind of sexual act that deviates from the standards God gave us, and as fast and freely as they can spend other people’s money, liberals resort to bawling “discrimination!”

And they do it because it works. Rampant accusations of “discrimination” got GOP governors and many legislators in the states mentioned above to kowtow to the modern militant homosexual agenda. “No one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love or what they believe,” said Indiana’s Governor Mike Pence as he sought to “clarify” his state’s foray into RFRA. Liberals took gleeful notice.

After Arkansas’s legislature passed their version of RFRA, Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson declined to sign it and sent the bill back to the GOP-controlled legislature to be “rewritten.” Hutchinson said, “We want to be known as a state that does not discriminate, but understands tolerance.” Notice that? Liberals got a GOP governor, in the midst of a religious liberty fight, no less, to tickle their ears with two of their favorites. It’s as if Slick Willie himself trapped Hutchinson in the Clinton Library and wouldn’t let him out until he yelled “discrimination!” and “tolerance!”

What’s more, many so-called conservative pundits in the media are very quick to express their support for the various and new-found “rights” (including marriage) of homosexuals. Fox’s Megyn Kelly and Bill O’Reilly have both been sympathetic to SSM and the “rights” of homosexuals for some time now. David Brooks captured well the current “progressive” thinking that has infected some conservatives in this matter when he recently wrote, “If denying gays and lesbians their full civil rights and dignity is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. Gays and lesbians should not only be permitted to marry and live as they want, but should be honored for doing so.” (Imagine that. We should “honor” a lifestyle notorious for disease, depression, and promiscuity.)

When overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the U.S. Supreme Court’s swing vote Anthony Kennedy, wrote that DOMA created a “stigma upon all who enter into” same-sex “marriages.” He added that the law’s effect was to “demean” those in same-sex “marriages.” Kennedy also wrote that the “avowed purpose and practical effect” of DOMA was to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” on those in same-sex “marriages.” In other words, the federal government was “intolerant” and thus “discriminating” against those in same-sex “marriages.”

I wonder if Justice Kennedy and his fellow homosexual apologists will have the same sympathies towards the polygamous, incestuous, or those same-sex couples who want to “marry” for reasons that have nothing to do with sex. Will he be as concerned about their “separate status” or the “stigma” they must surely suffer as their relationships are currently deemed less than others? In other words, are not these alternative (or perverse) relationships also suffering “discrimination?”

Of course they are. Though liberals are loathe to admit such, every position in the marriage debate requires a measure of “discrimination.” As an experiment, try to get a supporter of SSM to declare how the U.S. should legally define marriage. (My favorite line of questioning is, “How would you ‘discriminate’ and define marriage?”) In spite of all their blustering in this matter, it is next to impossible to get an answer.

Perhaps republican politicians should resort to such an approach. Sadly, they are far too eager to capitulate. It takes a strong will, a firm conscience, and a sure sense of what is right to stand against the homosexual agenda. Unfortunately, few politicians today can muster such character. This is especially the case if they fear it means a hit to their bottom line.

With the avalanche of court decisions in favor of SSM, sensing a swing in public opinion, and looking only to their bottom line, significant numbers of corporations are lining up against the truth in the marriage debate. A few weeks ago, more than 300 corporations issued a friend-of-the-court brief in the upcoming Supreme Court case that will decide if same-sex “marriage” will be forced on all of the U.S.

Many of these same corporations are now also pressuring states currently considering RFRA laws. Of course, many of these offended industries have been doing business for years with states that already had RFRA laws on their books, and many of them seem to have no problem doing business with communists or Islamists.

The sports industry has also fully embraced the “discrimination” meme, or is being heavily pressured to do so, when it comes to marriage and the homosexual agenda. A letter sent by Chad Griffin, president of the homosexual propagandists known as the Human Rights Campaign, to Roger Goodell, commissioner of the National Football League, said of Georgia’s religious liberty bill:

…Atlanta is a top contender for the Super Bowl in 2019, but this law directly contradicts the NFL’s nondiscrimination policy and values of acceptance and inclusivity. Should this bill become law, Georgia will not be a welcoming place for LGBT people or many other minorities.

NASCAR is disappointed by the recent legislation passed in Indiana,” said chief communications officer Brett Jewkes. NCAA president Mark Emmert was “especially concerned” about the Indiana legislation. Duke’s Coach K didn’t seem to be as concerned, and the living legend was called out for his silence on CNN. Former NFL punter and CNN contributor Kris Kluwe, who’s a rabid proponent of SSM, said “[I]f you are a superstar athlete or a superstar head coach, it is your obligation to be aware of these issues because you will be asked about them and you do have a platform to talk about these things and you should be knowledgeable about it because that is the world you live in. That is your society.”

Kluwe’s correct, though I’m sure when he means “talk about these things” he means “speak favorably about all things homosexual.” Like so many small business owners recently, any celebrity, even homosexual celebrities, caught deviating from liberal orthodoxy on homosexuality, are threatened, castigated, disparaged, mocked, boycotted, and so on. And when a pizza parlor in Indiana, and a florist in Georgia decided to “talk about these things” (mainly because they were asked about them)…well, you know the results.

Al Mohler was also right when last year he concluded, “We are in the midst of a massive revolution in morality.” And of course, “sexual morality is at the center of this revolution.” We are indeed at the “crossroads” Mohler referenced, and unavoidable showdowns are looming. More and more Americans, whether they like it or not, are being forced to make difficult moral decisions. In spite of the willingness of many mainline republicans to do so (because so many would love for all of this to just go away), the left is not silent on the social (moral) issues.

In other words, many Americans, who would prefer to remain on the sidelines as we continue to debate the moral issues in America, are being forced to declare with whom they stand. This fight is not for the weak, but like the battle for life in the womb, it is certainly worth having. And like with abortion, if the courts ignore the truth on marriage, our efforts must continue. We certainly can’t expect those who’ve aligned themselves with the enemy of truth to behave honorably.

Nevertheless, as Pastor Rick Warren instructs us, we cannot be afraid to be unpopular (which is very hard for most politicians and celebrities), and we must remember that the only way to be relevant is to make sure that our words and actions align with eternal truths. Don’t worry if you’re on “the right side of history;” you just need to be on the “right side.”

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

15 comments:

  1. "the only way to be relevant is to make sure that our words and actions align with eternal truths."

    I think you already remarked on the eternal truth, which is divorce has caused far more damage to marriage than any gay rights issue or the "gay agenda" (which is a rally topic conjured up by neocon propagandists to manipulate the religious masses). See your quote below:

    "As tragic and as devastating as same-sex "marriage" is on our culture, the sad consequences of such a marriage perversion pales in comparison to what decades of divorce and sexual promiscuity has given us."



    Time for your ministry to align with the eternal truth. Otherwise you are not relevant because you prefer to focus on an issue that constitutes only a minor threat to marriage instead of the major threat, which is divorce.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The eternal "truth" on marriage is that it is the union of one man and one woman for life. Divorce, fornication, same-sex "marriage," et al all violate this truth. The left propaganda machine is currently using only same-sex "marriage" to wage war on the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So Trevor, I have a question for you. Under God's law, if a woman or a man becomes divorced (which you've said is sometimes necessary), can she or he remarry? It's a yes or no question.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Geee Trevor, I only see one propaganda machine. That machine is on the political right. Can you show me some examples of the propaganda machine on the left relative to this issue?

    From Webster's Dictionary:

    Propaganda: ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help or damage a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you can't see the propaganda from the left, your head has been buried so deep in the sand for so long that somebody's mistaken you for a lounge chair.


    Just recent examples: Ferguson, Rolling Stone and Campus Rape, religious liberty is a license to discriminate, ...


    Long-time examples: a child in the womb is merely a "choice;" children don't need a mother and father; Islam is not violent and repressive; government welfare is charity; marriage is whatever we want it to be; humans have common ancestors with apes, apricots, elephants, eggplants, Llamas, lemons, and so on; fossil fuels are warming the planet, etc. etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know of no such circumstances. I only know what Jesus said. "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Therefore, does Jesus say that God can un-join two people from the covenant of marriage? Since we're talking about Jesus, let's adhere to New Testament proof. So what are these circumstances which trump the word of Jesus?

    ReplyDelete
  7. God bless you Trevor. You're a great talker, but you're not a very good listener at all. I think becoming a better listener might improve your ministry.

    For instance, I said "Can you show me some examples of the propaganda machine on the left relative to this issue?"

    The key words from that quote are "RELATIVE TO THIS ISSUE." The issue is the biblical definition marriage, how that definition is undermined in a minor way by SSM, and how that compares relative to the major damage divorce causes to the institution of marriage.

    The majority of example "leftist arguments" you cited: [Ferguson, Rolling Stone and Campus Rape, a child in the womb is merely a "choice", children don't need a mother and father, Islam is not violent and repressive, government welfare is charity, marriage is whatever we want it to be, "humans have common ancestors with apes, apricots, elephants, eggplants, Llamas, lemons" (evolution science), fossil fuels are warming the planet, etc. etc. etc...] -NONE of these are relative to the discussion we are having about the specific issue of marriage, SSM, and divorce.


    To be fair, I do acknowledge the examples you cited are considered to be progressive causes, and that some of them (for example the Ferguson story) are more propaganda than fact.


    I would also agree that in a perfect world every child should have a mother, a father, two sets of grandparents, childhood friends, good teachers in school, appropriate moral guidance (respect of law and religion) and a village or a town that completes the common set of modeling queues and support systems to rear up a child to become a healthy adult.


    Sadly we live in an imperfect world, and substitutes may have to suffice in some cases because God wouldn't want children to do without love and care.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Excuse me! It seems that I read a bit too quickly. However, a couple of my examples are relative to the marriage issue ("children don't need a mother and father" and "religious liberty is a license to discriminate"). More propaganda on this: "homosexuality is normal healthy behavior," and "liberals are for 'marriage equality.'" The latter is nonsense b/c the vast majority of liberals are not making arguments for polygamy, incestuous "marriage," group "marriage" ("throuples," etc.), and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matt. 19:9) Some translations read "adultery," or "marital unfaithfulness," and the like.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The "religious liberty is a license to discriminate..." argument I excluded from the list I cited. This was an acknowledgement of it's relevance to the discussion. The other example argument (children don't need a mother and father) I will have to concede as an example of leftist propaganda. I put it in the list of unrelated arguments, but it is at least tangential to the core issue of the discussion.

    As for the "homosexuality is normal healthy behavior" argument, I'd suggest what is defined as "normal" changes over time. Normal height of a human being has increased over the modern era. What is "normal" in terms of human behavior may be argued to depend upon the subjective discretion of the observer and the times he lived in.

    Examples: It was "normal" and accepted for Roman citizens to see people beaten or stabbed to death on a regular basis and regard it as entertainment. It was "normal" for US citizens living in the south during the early 1800's to own slaves. For years it was "normal" that women could not vote in the United States. None of these behaviors is considered normal today.

    While homosexual tendencies are relatively rare in terms of the range of human sexual behavior, they may be regarded as similar to geologic events like volcanic eruptions. -Statistically rare but within a normal range of conditions for a volcano like Vesuvius, which has erupted around three dozen times Since the year 79 AD.


    Between the Old Testament and the New Testament, even the normal relation between man and God has changed. Praise Jesus Christ for that. Unfortunately, one could also argue that sin is the "normal" condition of man and that has not changed.


    As for the "liberals are for marriage equality" argument, that's a straw man. Conservatives have made it a straw man by defining marriage in overly broad terms solely for the sake of their argument. Thus we hear Trevor claiming liberals don't support equality for polygamy, incestuous "marriage," and group "marriage".


    For the records, liberals are for equal access to the benefits accorded the civil and social status of marriage. You can keep the benefits of it's religious status within the authority of the church.

    But if religious conservatives want to run a pharmacy or a hospital or an airline, my opinion is they must sacrifice their religious freedom in terms of discrimination to ensure the equality and proper delivery of a critical public service. For other stuff like bakeries and florists, this is not such a big deal.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Let's concede that most divorce happens largely because one party has been unfaithful to the other and desires to recommit a fresh vow of marriage to his or her new love interest. I've read the general view of the church is that God offers His mercy and grace to the innocent party in a divorce and
    allows that person to remarry without it being considered adultery. This would of course be best for young children needing two parents. Then we had to go and screw that up with no-fault divorces...


    As long as we're on a roll, what do you say for the man who marries a barren wife?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Regarding my previous comment, lets consider specifically "that person who was unfaithful [who] is not allowed grace to remarry."


    These people remarry all the time. Our laws protects their right to remarry. Why doesn't the church (and you for that matter), -why don't you protest these remarriages and the law that allows them? It would seem that such an act would doubly violate the sanctity of the biblical marriage covenant. And yet you are completely, ominously silent.


    You see, I'm pointing up your hypocrisy here. Do you have an answer for this? Whose slave are you?

    ReplyDelete
  13. A man who marries a barren wife will have no children. The unfaithful divorced person may or may not be permitted to "faithfully" remarry. See: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/augustweb-only/48.0c.html

    and here: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/divorce-and-infidelity/should-i-get-a-divorce/how-should-a-christian-view-marriage-and-divorce

    and here: http://www.gotquestions.org/remarriage-adultery.html



    And yes, divorce is made far too easy in our legal system, but we don't fix marriage by making things worse (with same-sex "marriage" or other perversions).

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The unfaithful divorced person may or may not be permitted to "faithfully" remarry..."


    So... are you saying that scripture is not clear, -or that interpretations of scripture made by men with motivations less pure than Christ may not be clear? Methinks the latter.


    Still, I find it remarkable that neither you nor the church have any interest in protesting remarriage of the adulterous party after adultery destroys his or her first marriage. Perhaps your heart and spirit just aren't up to His word? Perhaps you choose to do the easy thing and protest against the tiny minority that comprises the LGBT community while you pass up the opportunity to do the hard thing (protest remarriage after adultery) that might set many more believers against the church and word of God.


    To my mind, a saved sinner who committed adultery and destroyed his marriage prior to becoming saved must honor the first marriage covenant he made before God by remaining celibate outside of that marriage. Otherwise he isn't saved at all, and isn't obeying the commandments of God. This is only an opinion, -I can't clearly cite biblical scripture for it. Regards.

    ReplyDelete