 When I first drafted this post, rumor had it that a key conversation that would arise in the 2016 Indiana General Assembly would be about whether or not sexual orientation and gender identity should be added to the state civil rights law as protected classes.
That is indeed a growing conversation, and some are already helpfully suggesting certain parameters for this debate. Currently two bills have been introduced in our State House — Senate Bill 35 and House Bill 1079 — that would prohibit men from accessing women's restrooms and locker rooms throughout our state. Not only would I earnestly support these legislative considerations, but I would also strongly argue against the broader issue of making sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes under the civil rights law in Indiana. Consider three arguments: First, making sexual orientation a protected class will open the door for the government to punish, for example, a religious business owner who does not want to participate in a homosexual wedding ceremony. In the future, it is very likely that this would then pave the way to penalizing churches and pastors who only support marriage between one man and one woman. This would elevate sexual behavior above religious freedom. I’m so grateful for the religious freedom that has been a hallmark of our country (and our state), but am alarmed at how diligently some are attacking it. I want my life and ministry to always be marked by respect and graciousness toward those with whom I disagree, and I always want this nation/state to be a place in which those individuals can exercise their civil and religious freedoms. I simply ask for the same in return. I make a careful distinction between the "homosexual agenda" as a very clear worldview and mission, and many homosexual individuals who simply desire the same freedom and peace that I do. From what I can tell, that homosexual agenda is bent on taking away the freedom that Christians, in particular, have had to practice their faith—both individually in our business decisions and corporately in our church communities. I strongly believe that mutually enjoying religious freedom means that a Christian business owner (e.g., photographer, baker, florist, etc.) should broadly and indiscriminately serve his community through his business. However, for that Christian business owner, a marriage ceremony is more than a community event; it is a worship service of a most special spiritual significance (Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:6-9; Ephesians 5:22-33). It would be an absolute denial of religious freedom to force him to participate in a homosexual wedding ceremony against his conscience in this matter! I believe it would be as uncivil and inconsiderate as, for example, forcing a Muslim photographer to take pictures at a baptismal service where participants publicly express allegiance to our God and Savior Jesus Christ. Second, and most germane to bills mentioned above, it has been well-documented that some sexual predators have abused the proposed allowance (i.e., allowing transgender individuals to access the bathroom of their choice) in order to gain access to women and children in a particularly vulnerable locations (e.g., private restrooms and locker rooms). Being a concerned son, brother to three sisters, husband, and father of three children, as well as a pastor over many people that I love dearly and desire to protect in any way I can, and a fellow human that desires to take up the cause of the defenseless (Psalm 82:3)—I believe passing a law that requires such an allowance would unnecessarily jeopardize many innocent people throughout our schools and communities. To substantiate that this is more than a personal concern, but a documented danger, consider these articles:
Third, the very basic meanings of these two phrases, “sexual orientation” (i.e., who someone wants to have sex with) and “gender identity” (i.e., what sex someone wants to be), reveal that there is no ending to the allowances that may have to be extended once that path is taken. Admittedly, my Bible-informed Christian beliefs compel me to agree with God that the only right (and thus able to contribute to human flourishing) sexual relationship is between a man and woman in the context of marriage. However, this does not deny that some sexual aberrations are far greater than others. If a man wants to have sex with a child, should he then also be protected? If a man wants to have sex with multiple women, should he be given legal standing in that freedom? If a woman wants to be intimate with an animal, should allowance be granted? For these reasons, I support SB 35 and HB 1079, and I strongly encourage our Indiana leaders to not include matters of sexual orientation and gender identity in our state's civil rights protection. And I hope that you will think carefully and lend your voice freely to this conversation. And, may I add, don't just Tweet or post about your opinion—participate in the process, engage your elected officials, vote your conscience, and practice the privileges of living in a democracy!  Marriage looks to be redefined constitutionally, and religious liberty looks to be under serious attack. Just a couple years ago, in 2013, the Defense of Marriage act was struck down by a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. This has become known as the Windsor decision, a decision made without any involvement by the Solicitor General, the person appointed to represent the federal government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States (i.e., basically the president’s attorney).
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case known as Obergefell v. Hodges, which is basically four lawsuits combined into one, originating from a Cincinnati lawsuit, in which homosexual couples are suing their state for not recognizing their marriage. The decision in this case will eventually determine the legal definition of marriage in the fifty states. And again, as in the Windsor decision, one justice, Justice Anthony Kennedy, is likely to be the swing vote. Kevin DeYoung, a godly leader within evangelicalism, recently wrote, “I’m concerned that many younger Christians—ironically, often those passionate about societal transformation and social justice—do not see the connection between a traditional view of marriage and human flourishing. Many Christians…[have this] mantra...: personally opposed, but publicly none of my business. I want Christians...to see why this issue matters and why—if and when same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land--the integrity of the family [i.e., human flourishing] will be weakened and the freedom of the church will be threatened.” Yesterday, during the oral arguments, the threat to religious freedom became immediately and painfully apparent. This time, the Solicitor General, Donald Verrili, did speak on behalf of the administration and President Obama and bluntly announced that the rights of a religious school to operate on the basis of its own religious faith will survive only as an “accommodation” on a state by state basis, and only until the federal government passes its own legislation. Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli about the right of religious institutions to maintain tax-exempt status, citing the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Internal Revenue Service to strip Bob Jones University because of that school’s policy against interracial dating and interracial marriage (NOTE: a moral blight that the university has since rescinded). Justice Alito referenced that ruling and asked, “Would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?” Solicitor General Verrilli responded, “You know, I—I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I—I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is—it is going to be an issue.” Albert Mohler, another godly well-respected leader within evangelicalism, wrote soon thereafter, “We will soon find out just how tolerant those who preached tolerance for same-sex marriage will turn out to be, now that they are ascendant in the culture. Meanwhile, even as we were repeatedly told that warnings about threats to religious liberty were overblown, the truth came out before the Supreme Court yesterday. Take the Solicitor General at his word. ‘It’s going to be an issue.’” |
|
