Financial Accountability

In an age of financial scandal and meltdown it is critical the church conduct itself above reproach. Here's a quick check-up to keep us honest Abe's.

1. Check your registration status with the Attorney General. Churches do not file federal taxes (990) or state taxes (AG 990). While the church does not need to register with the federal government (form 1023 for 501c3 status) they do need to register with the State Attorney General. Check here to see if your church is registered. If not then you must complete a Form CO-1 and CO-3 with the attorney general. Failure to register can result in up to a $500 fine for each board member. While that is not likely to happen it is important to comply. If you need help we are happy to work with you.

2. Review collection procedures of offerings. Most churches have a two person counting rule but you should be certain you are carefully tracking cash from the moment it is put in the basket until it is deposited in the bank. Difficult times fuel temptation. Protect your offerings.

3. Review any investments. Assuming you have any left it is a good time to reconsider your investment policies. Some churches make the mistake of holding onto gifted stocks too long. You should sell such gifts. Short term investments at the moment bear less risk. If you have investment accounts you should be certain you have a policy regarding them and that you are carefully monitoring the performance.

4. Be transparent with income and expenses of the church. Many churches face financial challenges as a reflection of their membership. This is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the blessings of giving by faith and living by faith. If interested we have a three part Bible study on this subject available for small groups at no charge.

5. Review your charitable contribution policy to ensure you are handling designated gifts for benevolence and other purposes correctly. If you do not have a policy we are happy to provide you with a model policy at no charge simply e-mail churches@administerjustice.org.

A Taxing Situation!

The headlines this week read: "IRS might take church's tax-exempt status". The 2004 election was widely commented by the press to have been effected by the religious right. And the IRS took notice. Earlier this year, the IRS released the results of its Political Activity Compliance Initiative which investigated allegations of political campaign activity by 501(c)(3) organizations during the 2004 campaign season. The results: Out of 87 completed audits involving churches and charities from the 2004 election cycle, political intervention was substantiated in 71% of the cases. One of those involved All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena California.

Located across the street from Fuller Theological Seminary the bustling campus of All Saints Episcopal Church has approximately 3,500 congregants each week. The current controversy stems from a sermon delivered on October 31, 2004 just before the election. Entitled, "If Jesus debated Senator Kerry and President Bush" the speaker stated, "I do not intend to tell you how to vote... Good people of profound faith will be for either George Bush or John Kerry for reasons deeply rooted in their faith. I want you to hear me on this. Yet I want to say as clearly as I can how I see Jesus impacting your vote and mine... listen in as Kerry and Bush debate three hugely important issues this morning: ending war and violence, eliminating poverty, and holding tenaciously to hope." For complete text visit: http://www.allsaints-pas.org/all_saints_church.htm

So what could be wrong with that? Didn't the speaker do everything right? Well the church believes they did, however, the IRS disagrees. While I think it is reasonable to conclude the speaker was supporting Kerry over Bush, it would be the first time that one sermon resulted in the revocation of exemption. The remainder of the sermon went on to highlight the errors of President Bush in waging war, being anti-abortion and contributing to poverty. No criticism is leveled against Senator Kerry. The concluding phrase in three instances is a call to "vote all your values" and "Jesus places on your heart this question: Who is to be trusted as the world's chief peacemaker".

There is a war coming. This past Sunday the speaker challenged members of the congregation to see this as a fight for justice. Looking for feedback before responding to two summons from the IRS and a request for one of the pastors (rectors) to appear before the IRS, the speaker told those assembled "A courtroom would provide a venue in the halls of justice for us to make our argument. Our argument is that there is no objective basis for the IRS to have a reasonable belief that we have in deed participated in campaign interventiion. Furthermore we would argue that this entire case has been an intrusion, in fact an attack upon this Church's first amendment rights to the exercise of freedom of religion and freedom of speech." It appears the church is gearing up for a court battle which could significantly effect what churches can say from the pulpit.

What does this mean to me? First, the IRS has significantly increased the monitoring of campaign involvement by the local church. The issue dominates front and center at the top of the main IRS web page. The IRS has developed guidelines that the church should review http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html.

Second, there are two guiding legal principles for the church to be aware of which include the tax code and case law. In regard to the code section 501(c)(3) says "no substantial part of the activities of [the organization] is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation.... and [it] does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." The other is the case of Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, where the court removed the tax exempt status of a church for intervening in a presidential campaign writing: "The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501(c)(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose."

Third, we should remember that tax exemption is a privilege not a right and that we owe a duty to render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and unto God the things that are God's. Influencing our culture for Chirst is a high calling and some churches may want to abandon 501(c)(3) status to do so. Others may want to form a separate political advocacy group which can speak out very specifically on the moral issues of the day through the formation of a 501(c)(4). None of us should abandon our calling to speak to the difficult issues of the day but when it comes to specific legislation and specific candidates the church should carefully count the cost.

If you are a partnering church with Administer Justice you can find additional information in the churches only section of our web site under "politics letter". The September/October issue of Church Law & Tax Report by Christianity Today also does an excellent review of this issue.

Good Friday?! Holiday or Holyday?

Good Friday? Why exactly is it that we cannot celebrate Good Friday in our public schools? I’m not sure I know why. A federal district court in Chicago in the case of Metzl v. Leininger (1995) said it was unconstitutional. But a federal court in Maryland said it was not unconstitutional (Koenick v. Felton (1997). Most states have decided to follow an Indiana court (Bridenbaugh v. O’Bannen (1998) in upholding the holiday so long as it was called a "Spring Holiday". Does that make sense to you? Why do we have to call the day a Spring Holiday instead of Good Friday? Doesn't it make more sense to say Good Friday. After all, I thought all Fridays were good. We celebrate the end of most people's work week and even have a restaurant named after the popular phrase "Thank God It’s Friday (TGIF)" and so what's so wrong with calling this Friday, Good Friday?

Good Friday! Historically, good Friday represents the day of Christ crucifixion. A crowd of people stirred up by the Sanhedrin cried out to crucify Jesus. Isn't our society, stirred up by the media and others still crying out to crucify Christ? Pontius Pilate was not that different from our leaders of today. His question of Jesus, "what is truth?" (Jn. 18:38) certainly resonates today. We do not want to believe there is an objective infallible truth anymore than the people in Palestine 2000 years ago. The problem is Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but by me." (Jn. 14:6). His claim to give life, be truth, and provide the only way to heaven, landed him on a cross. It seems to me that our school system and society would want to embrace the death of absolute truth and that doing so would be a Good Friday indeed!

Holiday. Then again maybe we are better off recognizing Good Friday is a religious holiday. After all we really don't want to play the kind of games society has played in excluding religion from the schools. It took an Act of Congress (Equal Access Act) and the United States Supreme Court (Westside Community Bd. Of Ed. v. Mergens (1990) to allow religious groups to meet on school grounds. In the Mergens case, the school was arguing they could exclude religious clubs because they did not relate to the school curriculum. With that logic the chess clubs were ok because they related to the math curriculum and ski clubs were ok because they related to the physical education curriculum. Were we to apply that logic we could argue that Good Friday relates to the spelling curriculum. After all, the Friday was originally known as "God’s Friday" and it was only through a spelling error (later derivations of the language) that we now have the term "Good Friday". Aren’t we jumping through equally silly hoops to call the day a "Spring Holiday" instead of what everyone knows is "Good Friday". We truly live in a blind world.

Holy day. The one thing I do know is that this really is a Good Friday whatever name you want to give it. God so loved the world that he sent his one and only son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect life despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows who willingly laid aside his rights so that he could be the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Because of his death we have hope. If we confess with our mouth that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead, we can be saved (Rom. 10:9). That is very good news to me and because of that good news I will celebrate Good Friday! I pray you have a Good Friday and a blessed Easter! He is risen!

Happy Chrismukkah?

Merry Secular Observance: For many years I have heard the Christian community complain about the secularization of Christmas. Honestly I never joined in such complaints because as a matter of history we were the interlopers.

It should be well known that Jesus was not born on December 25. Our celebration of Easter would be much closer to his actual birth in the Spring when Shepherds tended their flocks at night. Rather our early church fathers wanted a way to combat the pagan rituals of the winter solstice and so that is how Christmas became celebrated December 25. While many people may not celebrate the winter solstice there certainly are other secular rituals which take place against which the birth of the Christ child can truly serve as a light in the darkness - "the true light that gives light to every man" (John 1:9).

Season's Greetings. I was disturbed when while in College the United States Supreme Court went to great lengths to contrive appropriate constitutional seasons greetings. In 1984 the Court decided the case of Lynch v. Donnelly, where the city of Pawtuckett Rhode Island erected a manger scene in a private park. The scene was surrounded by many of the figures and decorations traditionally associated with Christmas, including, among other things, a Santa Claus house, reindeer pulling Santa's sleigh, candy-striped poles, a Christmas tree, carolers, cutout figures representing such characters as a clown, an elephant, and a teddy bear, hundreds of colored lights, and a large banner that reads "SEASONS GREETINGS." A divided court came up with the now so-called 'reindeer rule' stating that because the creche was part of a much larger display it did not advance a particular religion and was appropriate.

Part of the argument in Lynch centered around political divisiveness - now more positively phrased, political correctness. Justice O'Connor was a true prophet when she wrote: "In my view, political divisiveness along religious lines should not be an independent test of constitutionality. Although several of our cases have discussed political divisiveness under the entanglement prong of Lemon, we have never relied on divisiveness as an independent ground for holding a government practice unconstitutional. Guessing the potential for political divisiveness inherent in a government practice is simply too speculative an enterprise, in part because the existence of the litigation, as this case illustrates, itself may affect the political response to the government practice.... But the constitutional inquiry should focus ultimately on the character of the government activity that might cause such divisiveness, not on the divisiveness itself. The entanglement prong of the Lemon test is properly limited to institutional entanglement."

Happy Holidays. This brings us to the craziness of 2005. Why can we no longer call a Christmas tree a christmas tree? Why can a store employee no longer say "Merry Christmas" and why can't schools have traditional Christmas songs as part of a holiday celebration? Several years ago X-mas was a popular phrase eliminating Christ from Christmas, but in our pluralistic society of today we simply eliminate any identity with Christ and instead have holiday programs and holiday trees and elevate new holidays like Kwanzaa - a non-religious celebration of family and community invented in 1966. And the newest holiday appropriately called Chrismukkah the merry mish-mash holiday.

There is nothing constitutional or proper about removing Christ from the holidays. Employers, government and schools attempting to be so politically correct have wound up creating political divisiveness where none needed to exist. There is no place in our holiday jurisprudence for such created divisiveness and we would be wise to return the pendulum to the middle where it belongs. Let the secularist enjoy only Santa and rudolph and let Jews celebrate Hanukkah, but let Christians celebrate Christmas.

Merry Chrismukkah. I attended my sons school holiday program and enjoyed the Hanukkah music and dances and the newly created Kwanzaa music and traditional secular Christmas songs, but why couldn't I hear a traditional Christmas song as well? Out of nearly 30 songs only one - Go Tell it on the Mountain - mentioned the name of Jesus and that apparently made the cut because it was an African Spiritual, although only the first verse was allowed because mentioning sinners would certainly be taboo. There is simply no room for Jesus.

Merry Christmas. Before we get too politically divisive ourselves let's realize that from the very day of his birth there has never been room for Jesus. How can there be room for a God-man who calimed to be the truth and only way to the father!? The name of Jesus made demons shutter, politicians quake, and created division among people. There is great power in the "name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." So if people don't want to make room for Jesus then I simply remind myself that He is still Lord and I smile, say 'Merry Christmas' and move on singing or whistling Joy to the World. One day there will only be room for Jesus as earth receives its king. And that will be a Merry Christmas indeed!

Rehnquist and Roberts Rabid Rancor

"The framers of our Constitution came up with two major contributions to the art of government. The first was the idea of an executive not dependent on the political support of the legislature. The second was the idea of the judiciary independent of the executive and legislative branches." William Rehnquist.

In the beginning: As the rancorous Robert's hearings close today it is worth taking a moment for a little historical, as opposed to hysterical, perspective.

When studying constitutional law, many of my students over the past 15 years have been suprised to learn about the history of the Supreme Court. Other than establishing it, Article III of the United States Constitution spells out neither the specific duties, powers, confirmation, nor organization of the Supreme Court: "[t]he judical Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Instead, the Constitution left it to Congress and to the Justices of the Court itself to develop the authorities and operations of the entire Judicial Branch of government. President George Washington appointed the first court of six justices, including the first Chief Justice John Jay.
Lacking any specific direction from the Constitution, the new U.S. Judiciary spent its first decade as the weakest of the three branches of government. Early federal courts failed to issue strong opinions or even take on controversial cases. The Supreme Court was not even sure if it had the power to consider the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. This situation changed drastically in 1801 when President John Adams appointed John Marshall of Virginia to be the fourth Chief Justice. The Supreme Court, under John Marshall, defined itself with its historic 1803 decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison. In this single landmark case, the Supreme Court established its power to interpret the U.S. Constitution and to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by congress and the state legislatures. John Marshall went on to serve as Chief Justice for a record 34 years.

Over the years the number of Supreme Court Justices sitting on the bench has changed six times, before settling at nine in 1869, where it has remained as a matter of practice, not law. In its entire history, the Supreme Court has had only 16 Chief Justices and the role is an important one. The Chief Justice decides the courts calendar, which justices will review cases to determine whether a case will be heard by the court or not and then assigns who writes the majority opinion - if he is in the majority. In the politics of the court these assignments often make a great difference particularly in close cases.

Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and must be approved by a majority vote of the Senate. Until the 1960's there were no hearings like the current rabid fanfare. Abe Fortas had the unfortunate distinction of being the first nominee to sit through such a hearing after being nominated by Lyndon Johnson. The Senate first exercised their filibuster rights in his case resulting in Johnson having to withdraw Fortas from consideration and the nomination fell to Richard Nixon who nominated Warren Burger.

What about ideology? Presidents have always considered a candidates views, background and experience when nominating them to the court. However, there are two very important historical notes. First, historically this was assumed and the most important factor in consideration was the qualifications of a candidate to serve. The first challenge to a President came with Franklin Roosevelt. However, that was not because of the ideology of the candidates but because Roosevelt wanted to increase the number of Justices sitting on the court. It was not until Abe Fortas that the Senate determined they had to investigate a candidate through hearings and even then the challenge to Fortas was to his character in advising the president in secret sessions and financial dealings in accepting large amounts of cash for differing side projects - not ideology.

Second, history and every major study performed proves there is no strong correlation between a judicial nominees past and how they will rule when serving a life-time appointment on the Supreme Court. One of the most comprehensive studies reported in Political Research Quarterly. 53(3): 557-573 by Jeffrey A. Segal, Richard J. Timpone, and Robert M. Howard concludes: "Presidents appear to be reasonably successful in their appointments in the short run, but justices on average appear to deviate over time away from the presidents who appointed them."

Consider just a few recent examples. Hugo Black was believed to be extremely conservative given that he had been a member of the Klu Klux Klan and defended them in a famous murder trial of a priest (imagine how well that would go over in Senate confirmation hearings!). Yet it was Black who created the most liberal doctrine of U.S. Supreme Court history known as the "Incorporation Doctrine" where somehow the word "liberty" in the 14th amendment was meant to incorporate most of the first ten amendments to apply those amendments to the states. This idea lies at the heart of most of the religious liberty cases, privacy cases, and other civil liberties cases. Or how about Earl Warren a conservative California attorney general who was responsible for herding thousands of Japanese families into internment camps during the war. Once again I doubt that would have played well in a Senate confirmation hearing. Yet he went on to lead one of the most pro-active Supreme Courts in deciding all the leading civil rights cases. Finally, consider the first justice to survive the modern senate confirmation hearings - Warren Burger. He was a strong conservative Republican appointed by Nixon, because Nixon had read some of his strong writings. Yet Burger signed on with the majority in deciding Roe v. Wade.

Rehnquist Rememberance. William Rehnquist would undoubtedly be dismayed to see the hearings his former clerk and pall bearer has endured. Being a strong strict constructionist and historian, Rehnquist would have seen his independent role and not have publicly commented but he would have strongly disagreed with the assumption made by many of the Senators that they had the Constitutional right and duty to know and compel a judicial candidate to disclose his position on matters likely to come before the court. I always appreciated Rehnquist strong intellect and willingness to challenge assumptions. As he wrote, "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history."

I will miss William Rehnquist and the strong role he played in standing for constitutional truth. His former clerk has big shoes to fill and I hope he fills them well, but as his former boss would strongly affirm, whether Roberts represents Rehnquist conservative ideology or not he is highly qualified to serve on our nation's highest court and that should be the most important consideration of the Senate.

Moses and a Sour Lemon

If you haven't deciphered the confusion on the two 10 Commandment decisions by the United States Supreme Court, you are not alone. The court wrote 137 pages in 12 different opinions by 7 of the 9 justices! Only Justice Ginsburg for the liberals and Justice Kennedy for the conservatives quietly agreed with the split decisions. So just what did the court say?

Move over Rudolph - The bottom line seems to be "context". When the context is historical then, at least on paper, all the Justice's appear happy. Like Justice O'Connor's now famous "reindeer rule" where a creche is appropriate if it is placed in context of secular and other religious symbols (Lynch v. Donnelly - cited frequently by the court) it appears that the 10 Commandments are ok if mixed in with other symbols -- but not if it appears the purpose behind the display was to promote religion over non-religion -- or if the action might appear to a reasonable observer (whoever that is) that the message unmistakably endorsed religion. Confused yet?

The sour fruit of Lemon - For those of you familiar with Establishment Clause cases you will no doubt recall the Lemon test which set forth a tripartite analysis of purpose - effect - and entanglement. The purpose had to be secular (not pervasively religious), the effect had to be to neither advance nor inhibit religion and the result could not involve excessive entanglement of church and state. Well as the old song goes, "Lemon tree very pretty and the lemon flower is sweet, but the fruit of the poor Lemon is impossible to eat." From the 137 pages written by the court it is fairly obvious that no one is happy with Lemon, many are making alternative suggestions, but no group has enough support to adopt their position or overrule Lemon. So where does that leave us?

O'Connor's reasonable observer. Justice O'Connor has long held to a "reasonable observer test" which she set forth in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984). The question is 'would a reasonable observer believe the state was endorsing religion?' (This "endorsement" test is a separate wrinkle interposed into the entanglement question). That test is obviously unworkable. How can anyone argue that intelligent mature men and women on the United States Supreme Court aren't reasonable and yet they sharply disagreed on the 10 Commandment question (5-4) in both opinions. Justice O'Connor herself argued that in Kentucky the history of the litigation revealed a clear religious motivation (purpose) on the part of the county board in Kentucky and no amount of later changes to add in other historical documents could change that. However, in Texas where no one seriously challenged the secular purpose of the 10 Commandments monument which has sat for 40 years on the capital grounds and the person who sued had walked by the monument for five years before suing, Justice O'Connor still sided with the minority in concluding her reasonable observer would find that offensive. With all due respect to Justice O'Connor there is no way of squaring her position in the two cases except for wanting to reach a predisposed position. That can hardly be considered an objective reasonable observer.

Breyer's Legal Judgment Test. Justice Breyer was the swing judge in the two cases. To his credit in following Justice O'Connor's logic he could not come to the factual conclusion that Texas was impermissably advancing religion. He criticized O'Connor for reaching a contrary conclusion. He also criticized the application of the reasonable observer standard as well as the test set forth in Lemon. "I see no test-related substitute for the exercise of legal judgment." He wrote. Because the Texas capitol grounds have 17 monuments and 21 historical markers which represent a diverse reflection of the ideals of Texans, he upheld that monument but not the Kentucky display. The history in Texas was long and in the legislative record devoid of predominanty religious purpose. In contrast he wrote that the history in Kentucky "indicates a governmental effort substantially to promote religion, not simply an effort primarily to reflect, historically, the secular impact of a religiously inspired document." Unfortunately for Justice Breyer, how can an objective "legal judgment" test be any different from the objective "personal judgment" he decried, particularly in light of his colleague Justice O'Connor's position.

Justice Souter's neutrality test. Justice Souter joined by Stevens and Ginsburg took the unusual position that the establishment clause required neutrality which they interpreted to mean that government could not favor religion over non-religion. In other words, government cannot in any way promote religion. As Justice Scalia strongly pointed out that disregards the history of our nation and many laws from relieving churches from paying property taxes to exemption for religious organizations from religious discrimination to releasing students for relgious instruction from school. That has never been the standard and would be a dangerous interpretation of neutrality principals generally applied in free exercise clause jurisprudence not establishment clause cases.

Justice Scalia's historical analysis. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Justice Scalia he is a brilliant man with an excellent grasp of history. He wrote a scathing dissent in the Kentucky case. "Why, one wonders, is not respect for the Ten Commandments a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country?" Historically he pointed out that there has been nothing wrong with promoting religion in general. It is impossible to take God out of the historical fabric of our society. Scalia quoted George Washington's farewell address where he stated: "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." For Scalia the 10 Commandments are an integral part of our historical and religious heritage which is why they can be found in locations all over Washington D.C. including four different places in the United States Supreme Court building. The three monotheistic faiths all believe Moses was given the tablets of the law and more than any one particular religion the Commandments stand for faith and law and the importance of each in society.

Justice Thomas's coercion test. "This case would be easy if the Court were willing to abandon the inconsistent guideposts it has adopted for addressing Establishment Clause challenges and... return to the views of the Framers and adopt coercion as the touchtone for our Establishment Clause inquiry." Thomas wrote. It is refreshing to see a Justice argue against what is known as the 'incorporation doctrine' which is what applied the First Amendment to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. Thomas opined the court erred in applying the Establishment Clause to the States and then realizing that ship had sailed set out why he believed the emphasis of the clause was to prohibit forcing one to adhere to a particular belief. For him the mere passive presence of a religious symbol was not sufficient to invoke the Establishment Clause. In support he cited numerous ridiculous challenges around the country including a suit to eliminate a cross erected to honor WWI veterans on a rock in the Mojave Desert. As he said, "If a cross in the middle of a desert establishes a religion, then no religious observance is safe from challenge."

Justice Rehnquist - final opinion? Justice Rehnquist will likely announce his retirement and writing the opinion in the Texas 10 Commandments case may well be his last written opinion. Justice Rehnquist cut to the heart of the matter in his 12 page opinion. "Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause." Rehnquist refused to look at the ailing Lemon test but rather looked at history, our practices as a nation, the practical placement of the monument as part of a larger context and therefore far more passive than coercing students in a classroom to view the text, to reach a very practical conclusion. His sharp to the point writing and position will be missed.

In the end... The end result of the 137 pages was to show a deeply divided court in Establishment Clause issues. This confusion and division will continue forward into other cases and arenas which may profoundly effect the voice of religion in the American Marketplace of Ideas. At the end of the day, Christians know the command of the Commandments: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Our citizenship is not of this world and we serve a jealous God who will call to himself those who love him and keep his commandments!

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.