There is some good news in the dust up involving Phil Robertson and A&E.
Last week, A&E suddenly reversed course and has said they will continue filming with Phil Robertson despite his statements that he believes homosexuality (like a lot of other things) is sin.
Before we close the books on this little chapter of our cultural debate over sexuality, marriage, and religious freedom, there are two things I think we should try to remember.
There is some good news in the dust up involving Phil Robertson and A&E.
Life has many frustrations.
one of the greatest for me is the fact that I get very little credit for all my good intentions. If only people knew how patient, organized, and romantic I intend to be. I even give myself pep talks when I know I need to step up my game.
But for some reason I have a hard time translating that into my actual life. So, despite the way I know I intend to be,
The news connected with same-sex marriage and its various subplots seems to develop more quickly than it can be responded to.
You probably know by now that A&E has suspended Phil Robertson, one of the stars of its most successful show ever, Duck Dynasty, over comments he made about homosexuality to GQ Magazine.
In a related local story, Eastside Catholic High School dismissed its vice-principle for violating church teaching and his contract after they became aware that he had become part of a same-sex “marriage”.
The challenging roll-out of the ironically named Affordable Care Act has been well documented.Needless to say, things haven’t gone according to plan. Not only is it hard to sign up for, it appears that the average family isn’t going to save $2,500 a year on health care premiums, some of the best hospitals aren’t covered, and lots of doctors won’t accept those who are covered by it. And, you can’t necessarily keep your health insurance if you like it.The President is paying the price politically.
Over the last couple years, the abortion industry in Washington has done a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility that some insurance plans sold in Washington would not cover abortion.
When it was passed, the Affordable Care Act gave states the right not to cover abortion in their health care exchanges.
Eighteen states passed legislation specifically prohibiting abortion coverage in their exchanges.
Of course Washington was not one of them.
We break from our routine to be thankful to those who sacrificed years of their lives, and in some cases their health, in service to our country. I hope each of us takes the time to thank someone who served. But as we do, I hope we take a moment to think beyond the person and consider what it is about service to our country that we admire.
The pledge of allegiance isn’t actually allegiance to a flag-a piece of cloth arranged in a particular way-it is allegiance to a set of ideas we share.
In a State Senate race that was one of the most expensive legislative races in Washington State history, Republican Rep. Jan Angel is narrowly leading Democratic Sen. Nathan Schlicher in the 26th district covering Kitsap and parts of Pierce County.
While only 770 votes currently separate the candidates, that margin is expected to hold.
This was a special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by Derek Kilmer when he was elected to Congress.
Does the punishment fit the crime?
This question addresses an issue of proportionality. Greater offenses should have greater punishments. It wouldn’t be just to punish jaywalking in the same way we punish murder.
In most cases, you can tell how serious an offense is based on the severity of the penalty.
That’s why the penalties built into Obamacare are so curious.
As you know, Obamacare has a number of mandates.
Last month I read an article about New York Giants cornerback Prince Amukamara who is apparently referred to by some as the Black Tim Tebow because of his faith and commitment not to have sex with women he isn’t married to.
The story wasn’t negative, but the fact that it existed as a story at all was an indication of how an over-sexualized culture feels about people who believe sex is for marriage.
In 1990, the Supreme Court’s Employment Division v. Smith decision lowered the bar for religious freedom protections. Three years later, Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which restored the higher standard of religious freedom protections that existed prior to the Smith case.
The RFRA required the government to have a “compelling government interest” before doing anything that would restrict religious freedom.
This did not mean you could do anything in the name of religion,
By now you know that the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the case United States v. Windsor.
While this was one small step for the Supreme Court, it represents one giant leap for make-it-up-as-you-go judicial decisions and exposes the fact that the Supreme Court is not inoculated from the hyper-political, cultural debate surrounding marriage.
Proponents of natural marriage feared that the Supreme Court would issue a Roe v.
The story of Arlene’s Flowers, a Richland, Washington florist who declined the chance to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding, has now garnered national attention. Given the nature of the issue, it is likely to be a significant story for a long time. The situation is not entirely unusual. Many other businesses and professionals have faced legal trouble because of their beliefs about marriage and homosexuality.
But this case is unique.
Yesterday, newly elected Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a lawsuit against a florist in Richland, Washington because she declined to provide floral arrangements to a same-sex wedding ceremony. Arlene’s Flowers is a small business whose owner, Barronelle Stutzman, had served this customer for years. She knew he was gay, and it was never an issue, because she’s happy to serve everybody.
But she isn’t willing to lend her services to every activity, and when it came to a same-sex wedding,
“Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rules take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us. He who sits in the heavens laughs;…” Psalm 2:1-4a
Yesterday, Preserve Marriage Washington conceded that our attempt to repeal the same-sex “marriage” law that was passed by the legislature was not going to be successful.
In a story that could foreshadow future developments should Washington voters approve Referendum 74, a story out of Evergreen State College reveals some of the consequences of attempting to eradicate the significance of gender differences.
According to a letter from the Alliance Defending Freedom, which can be found here, Olympia parents are concerned over the use of a woman’s locker room by an Evergreen student who, though anatomically a man,
Same-sex couples already have every right and benefit of marriage. The outcome of Referendum 74 will not impact anyone’s ability to inherit, get health care benefits, visit each other in the hospital etc…
So, in order to create a sense of unfairness, proponents of redefining marriage are placing great significance on the term itself.
They argue that the term “marriage” is universally understood and has special cultural significance for which “domestic partnership” is an inadequate substitute.
Those trying to redefine marriage want you to believe it’s a civil rights issue. Lots of people fall for it. And once someone believes it’s a civil rights issue, it’s hard to oppose. After all, who opposes civil rights? We’re Americans, darn it!
But what do people actually mean when they say that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue? Do they mean that people have the right to marry anyone they want?
In about 60 days, Washington State will vote on the definition of marriage.
This decision will be a definitive moment in the history of our state, and possibly in our nation.
Washington could become the first jurisdiction in the history of human civilization that went to the ballot and voted for same-sex “marriage”. The eyes of the world will be on us. Those hoping to redefine marriage believe victory in Washington will break that dam that will ultimately take it to the rest of the nation and eventually the world.
Marriage is generally thought of as a social or moral issue. In fact, many conservatives avoid issues like marriage to focus on economic issues. Strong families, they argue, will follow strong economies.
For the leftist, they avoid issues like marriage in favor of social justice issues. From their perspective, we shouldn’t try to force one particular value system on people because legislating morality is inappropriate. They feel time is better spent focusing on how we can practically help those in need.
Those of us who don’t support redefining marriage think gender matters. We think the absence or presence of a man and woman is a relevant difference between relationships and we think our language should reflect that reality. We think it matters, most significantly, in the lives of children who do best when both their mother and father are present and involved in their lives. Therefore, having a unique term for a unique relationship seems appropriate.