Is Same-Sex Marriage a Civil Right?/Program 2

Introduction

Ankerberg: Welcome to our program. Folks, you’re going to love this program today. We’re talking about the important topic, is same-sex marriage a civil right? And I’ve got one of the greatest guests you’re going to hear in a long time. It’s Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. He earned his Masters of Business Administration from Harvard Business School; had all the abilities and opportunities to make big dollars in this world. God called him to ministry and he is now the pastor of Hope Christian Church in Washington, DC. They have over 3,000 members, consisting of 22 different nationalities. And, Harry, I’m so glad that you’re here.

I want to pick up this topic today with something that the mayor of San Francisco said about legalizing same-sex marriage. As you remember, in 2004 Mayor Gavin Newsom began handing out marriage licenses, giving out marriage licenses illegally to same-sex couples. And one of the homosexuals who traveled to San Francisco in search of a marriage license explained his rationale by saying, “I’m tired of sitting at the back of the bus.” And, of course, this was an allusion to the famous story of Rosa Parks. Parks was an African American woman who, one day in 1955, boarded a racially-segregated city bus in Montgomery, Alabama. I want you to tell me that story. And then I want to come back to, is it a fair comparison to compare what you and Rosa Parks and others went through in the Civil Rights Movement to what’s happening in this proposal for legalizing same-sex marriage? Tell me the story.

Jackson: John, thank you for having us today. This question is just infuriating to me. I’ve been to Montgomery, Alabama, to the Rosa Parks Museum, the whole nine yards. What happened, essentially, it was late November, actually, of 1955. Rosa Parks, who actually had been trained from a Christian perspective—most people don’t really understand that—to carry out a non-violence campaign; it had been done before in other places. But that day she said, “I’m tired, I’m not going to the back of the bus.” And then there was a great need, after all the hubbub that happened in the city, for the Montgomery Improvement Association to elect a leader. December 5, 1955, Martin Luther King, Jr., became the leader of the Montgomery Improvement Association. They boycotted the bus systems. And it was a really, really, intense time. King’s life was threatened at least 30 times a day for 30 days. And it was culminated in his house being firebombed. But at the end of that time, King said, “We’re going to stand on Christian principles. We’re not going to retaliate with violence.” It led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which included banning discrimination in terms of employment, housing and public accommodations.

And so the difference between that and this gay agenda really is that these people really had a grievance that was tangible; it was very, very real. And I think in some ways there has been a con—I’ll say it that way—perpetrated on the American people, in that there is supposed to be a right to marry somewhere in our Constitution. And so what really is their goal is to feel like they are equal with everyone else. And I think that there are other issues that they are struggling with that make them—I’m talking about gay activists, not all gay people, but the activists—want to have this station of life that “I can be married.” And they don’t care whether it affects the rest of the culture.

Ankerberg: Yeah. They usually pose it this way, Harry: How can you claim that denying same-sex marriage is not discriminating against those in the gay community? And in order to, I think, unscramble that, I think we have to go back to what was discrimination at that time. And when the law was passed, what was it based on? What was the difference between race as it was banned in civil rights legislation versus what the gays are talking about? One of the things was that the characteristic had to be in-born, alright. Talk about that.

Jackson: Well, first of all, let me back up real quick. Walter Fauntroy, who was the ambassador, if you will, of King to Capitol Hill, has worked with us in Washington, DC, as we fought for marriage. He actually signed on the legal documents that we presented, went to court cases with us. He says that real civil rights are based on five things. We’ve already mentioned them somewhat: education, housing, access to great employment, health care in terms of the sustaining of life, and a fair opportunity in court. It’s really no more than that. It’s individual liberties, so that you are treated as a person relative to everyone else. And I believe that that immutability concept, about making a group a protected class, is very serious. In my church I’ve got people who used to be gay, who now,… I’m thinking about one person who has two lovely daughters and is living for Christ. And that immutability, “can’t change it,” aspect of things, is one of the major reasons why there should not be this protection at all.

Ankerberg: Yeah. Listen, at this point I think we have to say we feel sympathy and also love for those that all of a sudden have these inclinations for same-sex attraction.

Jackson: Um-hmm

Ankerberg: They honestly don’t know how they got there. They just feel different. And then they get involved in the sexual side of this and the attraction to same sex and then they think, well, this is the way I am, so therefore I can’t change this. Let me give you an illustration of why that’s not true. I think we all remember when Anne Heche went together with Ellen DeGeneres.

Jackson: Yes, we do.

Ankerberg: Okay. And the thing is that they swore together in front of the public they were going to get married and that they were going to live “till death do us part.” And it was touted as the relationship. And they were together for three years, but then something happened. Anne Heche went off and married a heterosexual cameraman. So you say, now, wait a minute, somebody changed. In that instance, it was Anne.

Jackson: Yes.

Ankerberg: Alright. Now that’s the thing we’re seeing in our churches as well, is that when a person who feels different and doesn’t know what to do comes and they start looking at what God says is the model that he has made for humanity in terms of human marriage, and realizes that we are all part of the fall—the fall, sin that we have committed as a human race—we have all been plunged and it’s affected our emotions, it’s affected our will, it’s affected our bodies. There’s no reason to think that, in the area of sex, that we wouldn’t be affected either. Heterosexuals are affected; those who have same-sex inclinations are affected. And when you start to have a relationship with God and you realize Jesus is God the Son and you invite him into your life to be your Savior and Lord, then you say, “I don’t feel this way, Jesus, but you know what, I’m going to take your word for it. So, I’m missing something.”

And a lot of things to talk about why, but the family relationship is probably primary. They’re missing a relationship, from either the mother or father; something got messed up. They might not even know this. But the fact is, when it’s explained to them, those needs need to be fulfilled. And they can be fulfilled. And with the power and help of the Lord in your life, they can. And thousands of people have come into our churches that have had those needs and have started to struggle with them and face those. Just like heterosexuals might be inclined to be adulterous or into fornication or people that are alcoholics might be inclined to drink or folks that are inclined to cigarettes. We’re complex. But we’re all called to follow the Lord.

And it’s interesting, in Scripture God calls the sinful behavior of homosexuality, the “it” that is the sin, okay. He loves the person, but he says that behavior is what I don’t like. And the fact is, so when a person resists that temptation, the Lord loves that person and works with that person and can start to change and transform them. Anne Heche was an example. I don’t believe she’s a Christian, her mom is a Christian and praying for her. But the fact is that this thing that homosexuality cannot be said to immutable; like you, Harry, cannot change being Black; it just is not going to happen; where it can happen on the other side of the tracks. And that’s part of the difference. Give me another one.

Jackson: Well, I think also, the word “innocuous” comes up, which says that there’s no damage to anyone else. And we are finding out that as soon as you legalize same-sex marriage, it really does affect the entire public school systems, adoption agencies and many other laws of the land. So it’s not “it’s not going to harm anyone else.”

Ankerberg: Yeah. I think one of the things that you said on CNN really struck home to me, Harry, and that was that you said, look, if we legalize same-sex marriage, what you’re really saying to the entire society is that either you don’t need a man for kids, you don’t need a father, or they don’t need a mother. One of them is not necessary because you’ll have either two men or two women. And the fact is that then we get into the thing of, what happens to the children? Is that the most beneficial for them? People say, “Well, can’t gay people raise kids into a healthy environment?” Yeah, but it’s not the most optimal. And that’s what the social science studies show.

Jackson: Absolutely.

Ankerberg: What are the things, especially in the Black community, Harry, where a guy is absolutely necessary, the father’s got to be there?

Jackson: Well, we are,… I like to say this phrase—[it’s] a little strong—marriage in our nation is on life support. And if you take the Black community, it really is even more so. And so without a dad in the homes, you’ve got kids that get involved in gangs, you’ve got lower income levels, you’ve got kids that don’t perform well in school, and on and on and on. The problem of an absentee father or non-existent father is huge. And I believe if the mother is not there, it’s the same kind of thing. So they’re experimenting with kind of manipulating the courts, manipulating the legislatures and saying it’ll be alright; it’ll sort itself out; don’t listen to the bigots; when actually the voice of reason needs to be heard now. And it is not a bigotry issue or hatred issue, as you’ve taken so much time to explain.

Ankerberg: Okay, so the characteristics, in terms of race, were: it had to be in-born,…

Jackson: Mm-hmm.

Ankerberg: …involuntary—you can’t choose it; immutable—you can’t change it.

Jackson: Right

Ankerberg: And what else?

Jackson: We also talked about it appearing in the Constitution, that race did. And this is really the very heart of the Prop 8 discussion and many of the things that are trying to force national legalization of same-sex marriage. I do not see it in the Constitution, because one of the requirements, John, as you may know, of joining the Union way back in the days as we were forming, was that you had to do your own wedding/marriage certificates and believe in a monogamous, one man/one woman kind of arrangement. They were trying to block out polygamy back then, specifically. But there has never been this universal right for everybody to get married under whatever terms. In Canada they’re now talking about polyamory, which means two people of one gender with another person. Where will it end?

Ankerberg: Group marriage, yeah.

Jackson: Yes. Group marriage. That’s actually being talked about right now. And we’ve got ADF—Alliance Defense Fund—lawyers actually working on cases right at this moment in Canada about that thing. So we need to take a stand.

Ankerberg: Alright, Harry, in the few seconds we’ve got left, summarize it one more time. We banned discrimination based on race in this county for the specific reasons that “race” is what?

Jackson: Well, number one, that it’s a characteristic that’s in-born. Secondly, that race is involuntary—you can’t choose it. Third, that race is immutable—in other words, you can’t change it. Fourth, very important, it’s innocuous—meaning in and of itself it harms no one. Five, race appears in the Constitution. And number six—we need to really understand this difference here—and that is to engage in homosexual behavior is none of the first five statements that we made. So it’s altogether different from what we experienced as we were looking at the civil rights of Blacks.

Ankerberg: Terrific. Alright, we’re going to take a break. When we come back we’re going to talk about “hate crimes” that could arise, are already arising, and stuff that’s happening even when it’s not even the law yet, alright. So, folks, you’ve got to hear this, so please stick with us.

Ankerberg: Alright, we’re back. We’re talking with Bishop Harry Jackson from Washington, DC. And, Harry, we just got done talking about the fact that the civil rights legislation banning race in terms of the things that we do in our country was based on certain things; we’ve covered those. But now what’s happening is the proponents of same-sex marriage are saying, “Look, there won’t be any further repercussions to those of you that are preaching, to those of you that are teaching in the schools, if you’re a counselor, a lawyer, if you’re a big businessman, if you’re taking care of an adoption agency—you don’t have to worry about it, because nothing is going to change.” That’s not true, and things have happened to you. Let me start it off this way. In California, I believe that the pundits said that 90% of African Americans actually voted for President Obama.

Jackson: Um-hmm.

Ankerberg: And yet, what infuriated those that are proposing same-sex marriage in California is that,… tell the folks here, what was the number of African American folks that voted to uphold marriage?

Jackson: Well, I’m proud of it: 70% of Blacks voted to uphold marriage. Ninety [percent voted] for Obama, and out of that same group, 70% voted to uphold marriage when their own party was pretty much pushing advocacy for the other side.

Ankerberg: Yeah. In fact, we would not have won Proposition 8 unless it had been for the African Americans that were in California.

Jackson: Absolutely. So we’re excited about it. But there was a backlash. The backlash was this, John. People were called the “n-word” right out in the public, on their way to meetings back and forth. Some of the gays who were lashing out didn’t realize that the Blacks that they were calling those terrible names were actually gay themselves. This had a backlash in the Los Angeles Times. A lady named Jasmyne Cannick began to write about it and talk about the unfairness of a predominantly white gay movement pushing something that all gays don’t even want—marriage. And that’s one encounter. Secondly, the intimidation that happens all over the country. In our city, our team and others who we work with had to ask the police to come in for special protection for me. I’ve been on “The O’Reilly Factor” because…

Ankerberg: Tell what happened when you were on Bill O’Reilly.

Jackson: Well, O’Reilly was an interesting case. He actually offered great support of me…

Ankerberg: Yeah. In fact, he actually said on the air that if you got more threats and people were trying to go after you, that you needed to let him know and he would do something about it.

Jackson: Well, and that was very encouraging, because this is what happened. Every other week for a period of about a month they had been putting my DC address in the newspapers. I own some properties in Maryland as well. They put all these things out, and they kept showing pictures of me, as if to intimidate. And it led to me having to get heavier security in the condominium in which I was living. People stuck notes under my door saying, “You picked the wrong place. We’re against you.” And folks were threatening with emails, calling up our church yelling and then slamming down the phone; folks saying “I’ll meet you anywhere, anytime. I’ll take you out.” That was relatively mild compared to other things that were said.

And so, one of the most chilling things, John, was to feel the intolerance of those who feel like they want tolerance in a public hearing, where I was sitting talking to one of our team. And this gentleman comes in and begins to say, “You’re that preacher, aren’t you? Yeah, you guys usually do this… you’re on radio and TV… da-da-da-da-da…” And then he began to say, “God is not for unrighteousness. You’re not right. He’s going to get you.” And that guy began to taunt verbally, walked up very close to me and basically said—he didn’t basically say, I’ll quote him—“Death to the bigots.” And he was close enough that he could have struck me. And fortunately some policemen were close by, and we have a security group that we work with. Nothing actually happened. But it’s very, very intense, the number of threats; hundreds that have come to me personally, and everyone who signed on with us in the early days, every single minister. We took out a full-page ad in the local newspaper to tell the city council that we did not want this to go through—on the front page. Those guys all got calls, 20-30 calls to them, kind of reinforcing the treatment that they gave to us. So it’s been really quite an experience in tangling with the other side.

Ankerberg: What happened in Philadelphia?

Jackson: Well, in Philadelphia, many of your listeners may recall, there was a group. We call them the Philadelphia Eleven. An aged African American grandmother, about 73 years old, was out with a bunch of folks at a gay rally. They weren’t participating, across the street, in the public place, and they simply were very nicely handing out some tracts. Now, I will admit that’s bold, but that is our right. And they were not unkind; they were not in any way disrespectful. Well, the cops got called. The grandmother gets taken in with everyone else. They brought her up, John, on charges that would have put her in jail for between 45 and 47 years. And they made her stay the night, until some legal help came.

And so there is this intimidation factor that deals with how our elected officials want to interpret the laws such as hate crimes on the books. It will be used, as in that case, against us, to tell us “Hush. Quiet down.” You cannot even reach out in Christian love and witness to this group.

Ankerberg: What if you, as a mom and dad, are teaching your kids about the value of having a traditional marriage, and then you send them to school? Are you going to be able to keep your kids in the same vein of thought that you taught them at home?

Jackson: No. They will be taught something totally different than what we believe. And Judge Walker, in California, said that these were harmful beliefs. And he passed that judgment on the beliefs. So under a hate-crime kind of legislation, what could happen if your kid gets into a fight at school? How many kids get into fights? A lot. And they could say, well, it’s because he thought that other kid was gay. They come back to your house, find teachings from Bishop Jackson or someone else, and they could actually begin kind of a witch hunt into your belief system and/or give you a heavier penalty for a childhood altercation because your family taught you that gay lifestyle was not right.

Ankerberg: Alright. This is terrific information, Harry. And what we’re going to do is, next week we’re going to talk about this thing that anybody that rationally disagrees with proponents of same-sex marriage, you’re first of all called a racist, then you’re called a bigot. And how do you respond to these folks? I think everybody that is listening, you need to realize and take some tips from somebody that has gone through the fire on this one and is going through the fire on this one. And I want him to explain that, so I hope you’ll join us next week.