British anti-hooligan law used to prosecute Preacher

There is a reason that the American Founding Fathers were afraid of an overbearing government, and put in a Bill of Rights to protect freedoms. Especially Free Speech. It is because human nature will inevitably use its power to suppress any opinion it considers offensive. Even opinions considered orthodox for thousands of years.

Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.

The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Wokington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.

This incident happened in Britain, not America. But it shows that even a society close to ours historically and philosophically can easily turn to abuse of power over controversial opinions.

Who Chooses the Church?

The news about the Episcopal Church formally lifting the ban on ordaining practicing homosexuals as bishops makes me wonder if Americans are losing their ability to sense hypocrisy. Americans demand the right to customize everything to our tastes. Don't like a black or white iPhone? We can recolor it. Don't like the standard burger? Have it your way! Don't like the way your house looks? We can match any color you do like! But when God makes a claim about how He wants His Church to work, we feel a right to contradict Him and decide He can't have it the way He wants.

I am sick of debating the biological/psychological origins of homosexuality, the political implications of it, and the comparative studies of homosexuality in ancient Israel versus today. They are beside the point. The Bible is quite clear on how God wants the Church to work.

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being am overseer [a pastor or elder], he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
1Timothy 3:1-7

Please note, heterosexuality is not the only qualification in this list. A pastor must also be shown to be gentle, not a big drinker, a good father, a long-time believer, and must have a good reputation (which even disqualifies anyone who has a bad reputation that is NOT EARNED). But heterosexuality and monogamy are clearly qualifications. Ordaining practicing homosexuals is ignoring this prescription (as would ordaining an alcoholic or someone with a child who is a criminal or even someone unwilling to entertain in their home).

But does God really care about this "fringe issue"? Doesn't He give people a lot of latitude in their styles of worship? The Bible shows Him giving latitude to the masses, and not to those who would be leaders. Consider the death of Aaron's sons who God killed for worshiping Him in a way other than He had prescribed. It was not that they were being disrespectful, not that they were worshiping other gods, not that they were even coming with some unconfessed sin. They simply worshiped in a way other than God required. Or in the New Testament consider Ananias and Sapphira who were killed for lying about the offering they gave to God. It was not that the offering was insufficient, it was not that the money offered was in any way "bad", it was not even that there was some other defect in them. They simply lied about the offering, presenting it in a way that was other than God required.

The ordination of bishops is the selection of leaders for God's church. Doesn't He have the right to decide who gets to serve and who does not?

Obama to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

In the least-surprising move of the year, President-elect Obama has let it be known that he intends to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy introduced by Bill Clinton. This policy, perhaps the least logical compromise of the last decade, allowed homosexuals to server in the military so long as they kept their relationships hidden. It was maintained by the George W. Bush administration in an attempt to keep the issue off of the public radar entirely.

I am sure this will eat up a lot of newsprint in the next few weeks, but it doesn't deserve it. This "compromise" neither served those who opposed gays in the military, nor those who felt they should be able to serve unrestricted. Still, such a horrible idea deserves to be noted when it finally dies.

Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage

One issue which was already red-hot in 2008 - and is sure to get even more explosive with a Democratic majority at the Federal level in 2009 - is Same-Sex Marriage. While most advocates would call 2008 a bad year, because of the loss in California, the fact is that significant progress was made toward remaking the political landscape in favor of legal recognition of same-sex unions. More state courts have mandated recognition, there is a greater awareness of the challenges faced by same-sex couples, and the opposition is growing tired of the fight.

Personally, I have opposed the recognition of same-sex unions as "marriage" for some time, but have been sympathetic to the problems of loving couples without the protection of "marriage." I was saddened when same-sex partners had no rights to information about their loved ones who may have been hurt or killed in the attacks on 9/11/01. I was angered by stories about same-sex couples crossing state lines and suddenly losing medical coverage or inheritance rights that they depended on.

For a while, I pushed the idea of a "next of kin" rights package, which would allow the designation of an arbitrary person for hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. rights. But no one seemed interested in following that particular idea set. My impression is that advocates want nothing less than the full social and civil recognition implied by the word "marriage", and opponents don't want to offer any compromise. President-Elect Barack Obama is on record as supporting "civil unions" but opposing "marriage for same-sex couples."

What I wonder at this point is whether we have moved beyond the area where compromise is possible? The logic compromise is "civil unions", where traditional couples keep the name "marriage" and same-sex couples do not, but where the word is equivalent from a legal standpoint. But this moderate course more and more is anathema to both sides, because the wrestling has ceased to be over the rights and conditions of the couples and has become about the social acceptance and normalization of same-same lifestyles.

What do Mod-Bloggers think? Is there still a reasonable middle road here, or are we heading toward an abortion-style reckoning where a winner-takes-all solution is imposed from above?

Deep Thought of the Day: Abortion and Gay Marriage

I may have posted this before, but the situation in California has brought it back to mind. In American history there have been a series of great compromises: the Connecticut compromise which created a proportionally-chosen House and a 2-per-state Senate, the compromise that cut off slavery at the Mason-Dixon line, etc. I am wondering if one more could be possible:

What if we were offered a compromise which would allow individual states to ban abortion, in return for allowing individual states to allow gay marriage?

Could it ever have a chance? Could a "new face" like Obama or a "maverick" like McCain propose such a compromise? Or would this simply radicalize both the Right and Left to make later compromise harder?

Okay, now it your turn to tell me how naive I am.

California Court Rules Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

Here in California we have a great process that allows us to keep our legislators in check. If we want a law and the legislature keeps dragging its feet, we can put it on the ballot, vote for it, and make it law. It's "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Back in March of 2000, California passed Proposition 22 which amended state law to read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California." 61.4% of the people who voted on the proposition voted yes. Unfortunately, since it is only law and not part of the Constitution, it is still subject to the courts. Well, the top court in California has had its say and has deemed the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. Now, I am against gay marriage, believing that, by definition, marriage is between one man and one woman, but I am also upset at how the will of the people were subverted by the courts. The system of checks and balances is a great thing... by having the courts able to declare a law unconstitutional, it is a check on the legislature. The problem I have is that the courts, instead of being "for the people" have decided to legislate from the bench not only overriding the people's will, but "creating law" as well - getting rid of the check and balance system. The next step for traditional marriage proponents will most likely have to be a constitutional amendment, which means more spending to "change" the law back to what it "is".

Information on Prop 22 taken from ProtectMarriage.com and the Official California Legislative Information site. Disclosure: ProtectMarriage.com is a former customer of my company prior to the sale of that part of our business.

Gay films and the viewing public

It's hard to believe that just 2 years ago people were excited or angry about the success of Brokeback Mountain. I never saw the movie, though my wife tells me it was quite good. At the time, everyone was saying that the movie had broken all sorts of barriers and that a windfall of great gay movies and gay leading characters were coming as a result of the success of the movie. I guess all those predictions were wrong. This article examines why those predictions were wrong. The article is definitely slanted in the pro-gay direction, but is worth a read. The article gives a lot of good reasons, but I think that they miss the point of demographics. Most estimates put the total gay population of either the US or the world at about 10%. Obviously that means that 90% fall into the straight category. If only 10% of the population is gay, why then should (or would) more than 10% of lead characters be gay. I know that the gay population wants someone they can relate to, but for better or for worse they are the minority and thus are going to have a minority of lead characters. If you're going to make a movie that's going to relate to people then you need to aim at the greatest number of people to fit that category and when it comes to sexual orientation that's going to be straight folks. Personally, I don't have a problem with gay characters as long as they're written with balance and their sexual orientation isn't thrown in my face, but that goes for straight characters as well. So I guess what I'm looking for is good writing and that doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation.

Surgeon General nominee facing rejection because of his view of homosexuality

I had not heard about this until today. GWB has nominated a new Surgeon General, who is, according to his colleagues, quite qualified for the job but could be rejected by the senate because he wrote a paper 20 years ago saying that homosexual intercourse is unhealthy. The article goes on to question if whether dissent on homosexual behavior is now a bar to serving in public office and if that is the case does that mean that Bible believing Christians are being barred from public office because of their beliefs. I think it's an interesting question to pose. I can understand that a public official has to serve all of his/her constituents faithfully regardless of gender, color, creed or sexual orientation. But simply because a person thinks that homosexual behavior is unhealthy doesn't mean that they can't or won't faithfully defend those under them. On the other hand I can understand how homosexuals would feel that perhaps they won't get a fair shake from someone with those views. And on yet one more hand, we've been electing people with various religious beliefs for years now and the freedom of religion hasn't been damaged.