It is not a surprise, but it is a milestone for Christianity Today to finally publish a piece endorsing “gay marriage” in the US. Already, they have chastised the overturn of Roe v. Wade, heralded the Marxist Junteenth and a bevy of other liberal tyrannies through their publication, but this is official, endorsing sodomitical relationships and calling it marriage. All this is a continuation of the leadership of Russell Moore.
While Christianity Today will claim that an opinion columns “does not necessarily represent the opinion of the publication,” one cannot separate the content of an article from the publication when it advocates flagrant antinomianism and support of sinful behavior contrary to Christian doctrine. This goes beyond ecumenical differences on Calvinism, baptism, or church music. This compromise is a direct reflection of Russell Moore and Christianity Today’s theology of antinomian compromise.
The piece entitled “Everything You Need to Know About the Respect for Marriage Act” written by Carl Esbeck, a law professor at the University of Missouri, comes across as one of those articles seeking to dispel misinformation and offer clarity, only to do nothing but advocate liberalism. Esbeck is also affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals, an apostate organization that advocates liberalism under the banner of Christianity. For decades, Esbeck has served as a legal expert for the publication to gather quotes and analysis from.
This week, the Senate advanced the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA). The law tries to balance the unquestionable goodness of traditional marriage with America’s changing views on same-sex relationships. Some conservatives will undoubtedly treat the act as a loss. But others will take the view that, in a morally pluralistic society, a few concessions yield a win for the common good. I’m one of them.
Off the bat, his thesis is that this is not a negative, but a law necessary to the common good of society, yet this presumes that there is a common good to anal sex. Please elaborate! How does society benefit from two dudes having sexual intercourse. Aside from the increase in sexually transmitted diseases which benefit pharmaceutical companies, there is none. Homosexuality is corrosive to society, as the increase in depravity begets more depravity, which since Obergefell has increasingly targeted children both through the schools and pediatric medicine.
Nevertheless, Esbeck argues that the change in society’s attitude necessitate this law. This is ignorant to the notion that the change came because societal attitudes changed when the issue was decided via judicial activism. Beginning with Mitt Romney, forced “gay marriage” down the throats of the people via the state. While the paganism of the populace increased, the government drove this moral decay, not the other way around. In other words, the codification by the states, which ultimately culminated in Catholic Anthony Kennedy’s decision to nationalize it, led to a societal shift dramatically in favor of gay “marriage.” Laws drive morality, something a law professor writing for a “Christian” publication should know.
The history of RMA goes back to late June, when the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overruled its predecessor Roe v. Wade. Buried in a concurring opinion by justice Clarence Thomas was his suggestion that the court make a clean sweep of things by reconsidering the 2015 Obergefell decision finding a constitutional right to gay marriage. That comment unsettled the tens of thousands of Americans who had entered same-sex unions, which in conservative states are dependent on Obergefell remaining good law.
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito gave Americans a road map for overturning Obergefell, but Esbeck contends that this is a negative because it makes certain Americans uncomfortable. The GOP having the balls to do this aside, he has, in typical Big Eva fashion, given up on the marriage fight.
He proceeds to detail what the law does and does not do, basically stating that it is a codification of the SCOTUS ruling. He contends that the US DOJ already has the power to prosecute state officials noncompliant with Obergefell and supporting the “religious exemptions” that preclude clergy from being forced to participate.
Does a religious organization’s tax-exempt status with the IRS arise from a marriage? No. Does a religious school’s accreditation arise from a marriage? No. Does a religious employer’s exemption from civil rights employment antidiscrimination statutes arise from a marriage? Again, the answer is no.
Churches, Christian colleges, K-12 religious schools, and faith-based social service providers can take comfort in these boundary lines.
This was never the concern, at least from those who read the law. The real concern since Obergefell was the persecution of private service providers who refused to bend the knee to the Rainbow Jihad. Is Jack Phillips any of these categories? No. He is a private baker who has repeatedly been persecuted by Colorado for refusal to support buggery. What this law does is open the door for the federal government to involve itself in these situations as civil rights violations. Colorado is bad, but should Jack Phillips have to suffer the full weight of Uncle Sam bearing down on him? Under this law, the door is wide open.
All in all, RMA is a modest but good day’s work. It shows that religious liberty champions and LGBT advocates can work together for the common good. It says to the original House bill, “If a bill is about us, it has to be with us.” And it shows that Congress can still legislate, not just be a gaggle of egos who go to Washington to perform but never fix.
There you have it. Compromise Today says it is a good day’s work to pass legislation affirming an abomination as marriage. There is no common good in sodomy, only societal decay that seeks not tolerance or acceptance, but celebration and participation. Anyone who contends otherwise is delusional or oblivious to the degeneracy that has wrought society since Obergefell was made law. America is suffering for this sin, and she will suffer even more if the “Respect for Marriage Act” is passed.
In 2015, Russell Moore was quoted by Christianity Today as stating, “We can’t negotiate away a Christian ethic of sexuality without betraying Jesus.” Unlike Moore and Christianity Today, we should uphold this belief.