 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! |
|
