Same-Sex Marriages

The past few days headlines highlight the growing debate over same-sex marriages. "Nebraska's ban on same-sex marriage overruled." "A year later, gay marriage law still debated." "Poll: Americans decry same-sex marriages."

Court vs. Congress. A fight of historic proportions is brewing. Nebraska was one of the states in 2000 where seventy percent of the voters voted to amend their state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. But last week one federal judge struck down the new law as unconstitutional. Judge Joseph Bataillon said the amendment "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."

Law vs. Legitimacy. In an effort to legitimize same-sex unions, gay rights groups have organized as never before and are promising to fight - "Once you've tasted full equality there is no going back" said Cheryl Jacques, the former president of the Human Rights Campaign who married her partner recently. Following the fight in Massachusetts where the Supreme Court of that state forced the state legislature to legitimize same-sex unions, 6,000 couples have married. Neighboring Connecticut legalized "civil unions" one step short of according full equal marital status and gay rights activist immediately sought the same legitimacy in California, Oregon and New York but those attempts ultimately failed. On the other hand 18 states responded with constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriages bringing the total states with specific laws on the books to 40. The federal government has a similar law - the Defense of Marriage Act - but the Massachusetts ruling calls into question the constitutionality of the law which is why President Bush has called for a constitutional amendment. States are left in a difficult position as the 6000 married couples in Massachusetts move across the country and seek to enforce recognition of their status under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution which requires states to give full faith and credit to the laws of another state. Who will prevail? The people through their representatives or the courts.

Polls vs. People. There have been several reports published on polls showing the American people equally divided over this issue. The poll released Sunday immediately hit all the news outlets proclaiming that 50 percent of Americans disapprove of gay marriages, while 37 percent approve and 11 percent are neutral. The same poll said 46 percent of people favored some form of civil union recognition while 41 percent opposed. The Boston Globe commissioned the survey conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. The poll is completely contrary to the overwhelming defeat of gay marriage inititiatives in the majority of states where the smallest margin is close to 60 percent and is usually significantly higher. However, the media will continue to seek to portray this as a dividing issue with "intolerant" conservatives on one side and "open minded" people on the other.

Liberty vs. License. The Massachusetts Goodwin case ignited this firestorm. In that cases the court wrote: "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." The concept of liberty used by our founding fathers was never intended to be used as a license to do whatever one wished. The concept was deeply rooted in the natural law tradition and it was only when an act clearly abrogated the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that it did not have to be followed. When we remove the fixed star of natural law from our jurisprudence we condemn ourselves to drift in a sea of rights without a compass to guide us.

Church vs. Christ. How can the church be at odds with Christ? The church is to be the bride of Christ, but we have too often been an adulterous bride running after the world. When the church removes the fixed star of inerrancy and the divine nature of Christ from our theology we too condemn ourselves to drift in a sea of rights without a compass to guide us. How can we stand for truth if we don't have something to measure what truth is? If that measuring stick is the ever-shifting will of the people, we are in serious peril. The history of the church and civilization should teach us the dangers of such folly.

Christ died for all because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Gay rights are unhappy wrongs. Like all sexual sin the end is destruction. The church should reach out to this community with the good news of the gospel of peace, but we should not abrogate truth in the process. Jesus claimed to be God. He claimed to be the truth. Either he is right in which case we should live in obedience to him or he is wrong and we are to be pitied above all men. Let's live lives worthy of the calling to which we have been called and take a stand for truth in a world that would rather believe a lie.

COMMENTS? For more information about Administer Justice visit our website at www.administerjustice.org.

His banner over me is... illegal!?

In Song of Solomon we are told, "his banner over me is love." SS 2:4. But better not try to raise that banner in Elgin. St. Paul's United Church of Christ and First Congregational Church both placed banners outside their churches. The banners have been there since December but one week after another local church challenged the city's actions by threatening a federal lawsuit for refusing to allow them to meet in a storefront area, both churches were served with notices of local zoning violations. This recent event highlights two areas of growing conflict for churches.

Religious Speech-Free Zones. Historically the church was seen as a positive influence in a community. Both the United Church of Christ and First Congregational Church have been in Elgin for over a hundred years. As Pastor Paris Donehoo said: "We feel it pulls the rug out from under what we're trying to do in this community. We've been trying to be helpful, and this just feels like a slap in the face to us."

Historically, in an effort to preserve the positive impact a church has in a community laws were passed preventing having a firearm within a certain number of feet of a church or selling alcohol or conducting certain other types of businesses. However, more and more the church is being told to stay within its own walls.

Elgin's ordinance like many municipalities ordinances prohibits the posting of temporary advertising signs without a permit. These regulations are permissible because they regulate commercial speech. The United States Supreme Court has long recognized a distinction between commercial speech which is used to make a profit and non-commercial speech. It would certainly be a stretch on the part of the city to say these churches are trying to "sell" Jesus.

Someone probably clued the city into this because the community development director said they would consider re-classifying the banners as "non-commercial opinion signs" which do not require a permit but do have size limitations. That would still be a burden on the United Church of Christ which receives its signs from headquarters in Ohio. Twenty five churches in Illinios and others around the country are all displaying the exact same banner without incident. But not in Elgin.

A few years ago Oak Park could not hold a community day of prayer because of the content of the message using name of Jesus. In New York churches were not being allowed to meet on school property because of the religious content of the messages being given. And back in Elgin, two other churches - Mision Apostolica and Our Redeemer Free Methodist - were given citations because the religious music being played was too loud. The result in all these instances is that the First Amendment which was designed to protect religious free expression above all expression is being afforded less protection than traditional speech.

Church - Free Zones. The other problem facing many churches is that they are being effectively zoned out of communities. Again instead of being seen as a positive stabilizing influence churches are seen as a drain on tax revenues. Even when they aren't eroding the tax base, cities often do not want churches locating near other businesses. In Elgin both All Nations Worship Center and Iglesia Apostolica Vida Nueva, were cited by the city for conducting worship without obtaining approval. One of the churches was actually located in the only zoning area that permits churches but the building was a house and even though plenty large enough for the small group assembling there the city did not want them to meet. The other church went before the city council and even though in an area with ample parking they were turned down. The zoning area allows membership organizations to meet and so the United Way two doors down is permitted by the city but a church is not. Sometimes the United Way's meetings are larger than the church attendance but the church was not allowed to meet until a Chicago attorney prepared a federal lawsuit. The suit did not need to be filed because the city realized it was not going to win and backed down.

Unfortunately churches are all too often not welcomed in communities. This makes the mission of the church more relevant and vital than ever before! We need to demonstrate our concern for our communities. We need to demonstrate the reason our faith is important and makes a difference. We need to be relevant Christians in a relativist society. Rather than shrink back within the comfort of our four walls, more than ever before we should heed the words of the prophet Jeremiah and "Lift up a banner in the land!" Jer. 51:27.