The Case for Traditional Marriage/Program 2

Introduction

John Ankerberg: Welcome. Thanks for joining me. We’ve got three great guests today. And our topic is, how will legalizing same-sex marriage harm your family, your personal freedoms, your right to free speech and your religious freedoms? Is that a true series of questions? I believe it is and you’re going to hear the results today in terms of why. My guests are Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council in Washington, DC. He’s a former member of the Louisiana State Legislature, where he served for eight years. And Dr. James Garlow, one of the leaders of the successful campaign which passed Proposition 8 in California, which seven million Californians voted for traditional marriage to remain the law of the land. He’s also Chairman of Renewing American Leadership, which is based in Washington, DC. Also, the Senior Pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, California. Craig Parshall is our Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters. Guys, I’m glad that you’re here.

And, let’s start with this thing, Craig, of in Judge Vaughn [Walker’s] decision in California, in Proposition 8, he said, “The majority of Californians that voted supported Proposition 8, but that’s irrelevant, because as a fundamental right, it may not be submitted to a vote. They depend on no outcome of no elections.” He also went on to talk about the Lawrence case. He said, “Whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles through criminal code.” In other words, can you enforce something that the majority of people said is wrong? And the State of California, Judge Vaughn [Walker] said, “The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses.” His conclusion is they cannot! Doesn’t matter, the seven million people that voted; they cannot do this. “California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to mandate its own moral code.” Now, all of our Christians that are listening out here, and a lot of folks that are just not Christians, but are concerned about this issue say, “Look, we’ve showed up in all these different states, we have voted and it’s like the judges say, it doesn’t matter what you guys do, we’re going to change it anyway.”

Craig Parshall: Yeah. This decision by Judge Vaughn Walker is a legal atrocity. The reason it is, is that he really performed a gymnastic leap to arrive at the conclusion that there is a fundamental right of one man and one man to marry and have that protected by the law as a marriage ceremony. Here’s the reason he was wrong and it was an atrocity. When you define a fundamental right, that’s a well-defined terminology by the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary. In a long line of cases, they’ve repeatedly said what a fundamental right is. And here’s what they say: it has to be deeply-rooted in the history, legal traditions and practice of a nation. We’re talking about something that’s hundreds of years old, embedded in our culture and is really part of our moral and sociological DNA. Now, the gay-rights movement started in 1969 with a riot outside of the Stonewall Tavern in New York. And grew in 1970s to marches in the public and so forth. That’s a relatively young phenomena. But here’s what the courts have said: 1986, the US Supreme Court says there is no constitutional right to commit homosexual acts. Moreover, the state in that case, in Georgia, was perfectly constitutional in criminalizing homosexual conduct. Now, the case, Bowers vs. Hardwick, was later overturned, in terms of the result, states cannot criminalize homosexuality. And frankly, there is some good public policy reasons why we shouldn’t be engaged in laws that criminalize it. But that’s different than saying now it’s protected constitutionally. Now, in all the cases that have treated Bowers ever since, the Supreme Court has consistently remained in this position: that homosexuality is not a fundamental right, and that’s absolutely clear. So, what Judge Vaughn Walker did is simply disregard that and say, well, marriage is a fundamental right. And there he’s correct, if you define marriage carefully. Marriage is one man, one woman. And in the history of our jurist prudence for 220 years, the United States, all the way back to the colonies, that’s the definition that’s been protected as a fundamental right. So, what he’s doing is grafting onto that the “oh, and by the way, if you’re the same-sex, it counts as marriage too.” Well, that’s a distinction that makes a huge amount of difference. And that kind of slight-of-hand is really how we accomplish the end result in that case.

Ankerberg: Tony, he also, impugned the motives of every guy that voted for keeping marriage traditional.

Tony Perkins: Yeah, he essentially said that this was because of a moral view, and that this moral view, these religious views, religious beliefs, he said, that gay and lesbian relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships, harm gays and lesbians. And so he really attacked religious freedom. I think he was stomping on the First Amendment, that these religious beliefs that we have and we pass on to our kids, are somehow a problem. And, of course, if a judge identifies this as a harm to a certain segment, it requires the state to then use its police powers to correct it. So, that’s a real serious issue, which I know we’ll talk about. But to your point with Craig, our Constitution’s going to be amended. And what this judge has done in California, is he is in the process of amending the Constitution of the United States to guarantee a right of same-sex marriage. And if the people of this country do not amend it the proper way, by either, by petition or by starting from the states or having it come from Congress, amending the Constitution and ratifying at the states, we’re going see activist judges do it, which they have been consistently doing. And that’s why we have been arguing since 2004 that we need a Marriage Amendment at the Federal level that protects that historical definition of marriage that Craig talks about.

Ankerberg: Yeah. I find it interesting that Michael Signorelli is one of the leaders in the homosexual movement. He explained in Out Magazine, where this thing’s going. He said what the real goal is in legalizing same-sex marriage. He said, “The trick is, gay leaders and pundits must stop watering the issue down, that this is simply about equality for gay couples, and offer same-sex marriage for what it is.” What is it? “It’s an opportunity to reconstruct a traditionally homophobic institution” talking about marriage, “by bringing it into our more equitable queer value system. Here’s a chance to transform the definition of family in American culture. Our gay leaders must acknowledge that gay marriage is just as radical and transformative as the religious right contends it is.”

Now, what are we going to be facing? You have a clip that we’re going to show the folks right now of, if same-sex marriage is legalized, what this could mean in terms of your personal freedoms, what you’ll be able to teach kids in schools, how you could talk, what we’ll be able to preach in churches, how we can talk at the business office. And let’s start with the Parker family. Talk to me about that.

Dr. Jim Garlow: Well, religious freedom is not just the ability to worship inside a building; it’s the ability to transfer your beliefs and convictions to your children. It’s the ability to live them out. And that’s what’s at stake here. And the Parker family in Lexington, Massachusetts, I went there, which happens to be the birthplace of freedom, where the first skirmish with the British took place in Lexington and Concord, the first shots fired in that war for independence. This family, who has a Christian family, strong beliefs. What happened was their kindergartener went to school, got a diversity book-bag, after the state courts imposed same-sex marriage on that state, giving the child… they showed me the book, showed me all the material, indoctrinating their children into same-sex marriage. What’s so troubling about this, as a father of five children, I can empathize with David, who simply went to the school and said, “Look, I just want to be able to take my child out because this is in contrast to what we’re teaching our children at home.”And what happened is nothing short of remarkable.

Ankerberg: Alright, let’s roll the clip. I want you to see this.

Announcer: If Prop 8 fails on November 4 ^th, all public school children will be affected. It’s time for everyone to get involved.

Perkins: When you vote on protecting marriage this November, your vote will affect every family in your state, including yours. Hello, I’m Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, here in Washington, DC. You may be asking yourself, “How will same-sex marriage affect my family?” Well, based on the evidence, everything changes when same-sex marriage becomes legal. If it is legalized, then it must be taught as normal, acceptable, and moral behavior in every public school. Don’t believe me? It’s already happened in Massachusetts. That means public schools in every grade, even kindergarten, must teach your children to accept same-sex marriage. This really confuses children. David, appreciate you and Tonya inviting us to come into your home, I’ve been looking forward to sitting down and talking to you about this because I think this is such an important story. And I think parents need to know what’s happening in our schools.

David: The beginning of 2005, our son, Jacob was going into kindergarten and he came home with a “Diversity Book Bag”. And in the Diversity Book Bag was a book entitled, “Who’s In a Family”, by Robert Skutch, and that introduces children to same-sex households.

Perkins: Now, wait a minute. Let me be clear, your son is in kindergarten?

Tonya: Yes.

Perkins: And he was given a book about homosexuality and marriage?

Tonya: Yes.

Perkins: What was your first reaction, when you saw this?

Tonya: When I saw the book, I was quite upset that they would couch this diversity and include it in the diversity book-bag, and not give me notification they were going to be introducing this topic of homosexual relationships and homosexual behavior to my young 5-year-old child. I was, I was very upset.

David: I have the book right here. “Who’s In a Family”, it introduces children to such things as Clifford, and her dad’s partner, Henry.

Perkins: This is what they sent home with your 5-year-old?

David: That’s correct, Tony. After the Diversity Book Bag came home, we realized that the intention of the administrators and teachers was to affirm these relationships and gay marriage in the minds of children. When we went into the school, what we requested is parental notification when these are issues are brought up by adults within the school and the option to opt our child out of this type of indoctrination.

Tonya: We said we didn’t think, number one, it was appropriate to discuss that with our 5-year-old and that if we ever felt it was necessary too, to have that discussion with our son, we would choose the timing and the manner in which to discuss it with him. And then, she said, “Well, she had checked with the administrators and they had said that this was not a parental notification issue, and in fact, that any adult in the school, could discuss homosexual families and homosexual issues with our children. One of the reasons they give is they said, “Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, therefore we can brooch it any time with your child. And when they are putting forward that it’s equal, they are putting forward that it’s morally equal alternative and affirming it in the minds of children. Now, these are young, impressionable children, and they know very well that there are many parents that do not hold these beliefs. But irrespective of that, in an intolerant and in an aggressive manner, they are putting forward that we, as parents, do not even have the right to know that they are saying to our children.

Tonya: So, when she would not acknowledge our parental rights in this area, we then went to our Judeo-Christian beliefs and our faith and said, “Well, you wish to affirm homosexuality to our son, you’re presenting that which is sin as though it is not, to our son. And we cannot allow that. And at that point, she reiterated, this is not a parental notification issue.

David: It is our sacred duty, as parents, to guide our child. What they did and what they were doing, at the point where they won’t allow parental notification or the option to opt-out, is they were taking the parental role for themselves. And they had no tolerance for the notion that parents have the right to be the primary directors of the child’s upbringing and moral education. And I said, “I’m prepared to sit here all night, until I see some form of accommodation, as a parent.” To make a long story short – the accommodation they gave was to put me in handcuffs and send me to jail. Tonya: I couldn’t believe that they were willing to arrest my husband because my David, because my husband and I just wanted parental notification. We want to raise our children to know God, and God has blessed us with this sacred responsibility to raise them for Him, to know Him and to know His truth. David: I was willing to see how far this administration would go in denying us our rights, and squashing parental rights. And they were willing to handcuff a father and send him to jail. It was a 6 x 8 cell, filthy, but you know I felt I didn’t have a choice at that point – in order to fulfill my role and duty as a father. Parents need to stand their ground. If they intend to have a war over our parental rights, battling for the hearts, minds and souls of our children, then let it begin here.

Perkins: Do you see the implications of same-sex marriage being legalized in your state? It affects every family and every child, including yours.

Announcer: This fall, CCN and thousands of California pastors invite you to three simulcast rallies to protect marriage in California. Join Christians from around the state and host these three historic CCN simulcast events. For more information, go to protectmarraigesimulcast.com. If we don’t save marriage now, it could be gone forever.

Ankerberg: Jim, watching that clip scares every parent that’s watching right now.

Garlow: And well it should. What’s interesting is, Dave and Tonya were not demanding that the school change their curriculum, which I think they should have been changing their curriculum. All he was saying, “I want the privilege, as a parent, when you’re going to teach on sexual themes, to remove my child,” which should have been protected by the opt-out policy in the state of Massachusetts. And the school authorities said this, “No. Since homosexual marriage is legal in this state, you have no right, as a parent, to teach your child what you want to teach them about that. We will do that.” And they would not inform him. For four months he tried to find out, “When are you going to be teaching on this, so I can remove my child.” They would not tell him.

Ankerberg: Alright. We’re going to take a break. When we come back, we’re going to talk about the stories that will impact every church, and every pastor, and your tax-exempt status, when we come right back. You won’t want to miss this. Stick with us.

Ankerberg: Alright. We’re back. And we’re talking about if we legalize gay marriage, will it result in a loss of religious freedoms? Some people say, “No.” Others say, “Hey, you know, just don’t worry about it.” Our guests are Tony Perkins, James Garlow, Craig Parshall.

And, Craig, I want to come to you. In terms of, are we going to lose religious freedoms? Some people say, “No, we’re not.”

Parshall: You know, Judge Vaughn Walker in the Proposition 8 case, he’s a federal judge in San Francisco, who supported the so-called constitutional right of same-sex marriage. One of the most outrageous things that he said, one of the reasons his decision is so intellectually bankrupt in that case, is he actually had a finding of fact in that case saying that, look there will be no negative consequence, no harm to the Christian community that supports Proposition 8, if we legalize same-sex marriage. Well, the reason that’s so preposterous is we already have a legion of cases that show that that’s already happening right now. We don’t have to wait for the future.

Ankerberg: For example, Tony?

Perkins: Well, one is the Ocean Grove case in New Jersey, which Jim’s actually been there and been on site. But this should concern every church in America, that has the potential, if they refuse to be a part of these same-sex marriages, could lose their tax-exemption.

Ankerberg: Jim, tell the story.

Garlow: I have some emotional interest on that. I did my doctorate in the study of the holiness movement. And this is one of the most spectacular stories. It started about 1860 or so. But here is this Holiness campground that’s being told by two lesbians who come along and say, “We want, we insist…” and there’s an entire Jersey shore, but they say, “we have to be married on your property.” They have this beautiful boulevard that goes right up to the ocean, right up to the Atlantic. And there was this pavilion there, and they demanded to be married there. The man in charge, who happened to be a friend of mine, I’ve spoken there on that campground. He explained lovingly, tenderly, he says, “No, we’re a church, we don’t do that.” He thought that was the end of it. He thought that was over. And they came back, the state of New Jersey came with a lawsuit, and says due to the fact that some state funds were used to maintain the beach right there, therefore, therefore, you must perform lesbian ceremonies. And it’s been going on for years now, and now in a court fight right now. We tend to think, well, that’s somewhere off there. This same story could happen in every single one of our churches. We can be coerced and forced of what we do, in this case, a lesbian ceremony.

Ankerberg: Alright. We also got some history of what’s happened where countries have actually legalized same-sex marriage and pastors have been put in jail or fined.

Parshall: You know, you go to Canada as an example. Some of these are so outrageous, they look more like fiction than fact, but believe me, they are true. One gentleman was passing out pamphlets that simply expressed the biblical view about homosexuality being a sin, and the fact there’s redemption through Christ. What happens? He gets fined for hate-crimes speech in Canada and has to pay over $17,000 in fines.

Garlow: Ake Green in Sweden is one that’s an intriguing case. And the secularists try to discount that and say, well, that’s Sweden and we’re here. Well, the problem is, you have to look at the countries where they’ve had this kind of interest in protecting same-sex relations for a while to see what the government eventually starts doing. Ake Green, a Pentecostal pastor, preached from Romans 1, ended up being arrested, he went to trial, was found guilty. Another trial was found innocent. Another trial at the Supreme Court level in Sweden, was found guilty again. Due to the fact that Sweden had gone into the European Union, they didn’t actually enforce the consequences of that. But he was drug through this court system forever and was going to be put in prison for a number of months, simply for preaching from Romans 1. And that is what is ahead for us here.

Perkins: Well, lest you think it only pertains to those who preach the gospel, it also applies to those who try to live it out. Even here in our country, there’s a young gal, 24 year-old, Jen Keeton. She was a graduate student at Augusta State University in Georgia, who was in the Masters Counseling Program. And because she held a view of traditional morality, that homosexuality was immoral, and that homosexuals could, as we’ve seen, become straight again, through proper training and counseling and coming to know Christ, she was actually told she was going to have to drop her Christian beliefs or get out of the program. And part of dropping those Christian beliefs was going through a remediation program that had her being indoctrinated with pro-homosexual literature. She actually would have to go to a gay-rights parade and write a report on that parade. Now, that went to court, she challenged it. But that’s the level to which this has become. And that’s what goes back to Vaughn Walker’s statement. This is not theoretical any longer. It’s in black and white, by a Federal Judge that if it allows to stand as it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, that becomes the law of the land. We cannot live out our faith. That’s what’s at stake here. And I hope people realize this and wake-up before it’s too late.

Garlow: I talked to an attorney who’s from Britain, who is defending cases where Christians are being fired from their jobs, simply for having a biblical view about the nature of homosexual practice. And they’re doing it on the basis that the workplace has to be discrimination-free, and because these Christians have biblical views, they’re automatically discriminators, they have to be fired. He’s been defending case after case.

Ankerberg: Tell me about the folks that work in the hospital in California.

Garlow: Two doctors who were involved in the practice of artificial insemination. They had a policy for personal, religious reasons, this is happening in my town, in San Diego, that they would not perform this on a woman who did not have a husband. A lady came in, they said, “There’s others who will do this for you, we will not, for our own religious convictions.” They didn’t actually, initially, know she was a lesbian. She came back and sued them and forced them to change their policy. They could no longer follow their religious conviction. For them to continue to stand their religious conviction they would have had to have gone to the Supreme Court and it would have cost them a million dollars.

Ankerberg: Yeah. In the job market, we talked about this last week, let’s tell the story again about the folks in New Mexico that were asked to take pictures of a lesbian wedding. What happened?

Garlow: I had the privilege of meeting Elaine Huguenin and her husband, Elane Photography in Albuquerque. And lesbians came and said, “We want you to film our celebration service.” She said, “Well, others will, I cannot.” And so they sued. Now, the state of New Mexico doesn’t even have same-sex marriage, but it stepped in, and the result is that case has been going now for years; $6700 to a young gal who is just 25 years of age, starting her business as a photographer, who cannot do her business, based upon her religious convictions.

Ankerberg: Craig, you’ve got an illustration about freedom of speech as well.

Parshall: Yeah. I talked a couple of minutes ago about Bill Whatcott, the fellow in Saskatchewan, who was fined $17,000 by a court up there for simply sharing information with a biblical worldview about what homosexuality is and what it isn’t. What I failed to point out is the most onerous thing that happened. He was given a lifetime order from that court never to discuss homosexuality, never to distribute literature about homosexuality again.

Ankerberg: That’s coming. Give us a summary here, Jim.

Garlow: Well, the problem is there’s even dozens and dozens of these kinds of cases, we’ve only touched on just a few. Here we see, any time the government has a vested interest to protect same-sex relations or same-sex marriage, the result is always the same, no matter where it is: it’s a loss of personal freedoms, a loss of parental rights, a loss of religious liberties, a silencing of the freedom to speak. This is serious, it’s happening here now. We need to rise up. We’ve got an election in a few days, we need to make that election count. We need to pray, and we need to vote.

Ankerberg: Tony, why do we need a Federal Marriage Amendment, a constitutional amendment?

Perkins: Well, John, we need to understand that the Constitution is going to be amended one way or the other. Either activist judges like Vaughn Walker are going to amend the Constitution or the people are going to amend it through their elected representatives. We’ve got to change Congress, so that we can change that Constitution, so we defend the historical definition of marriage.

Ankerberg: Alright. Next week, we’re going to go to the myths of homosexuality. And then after that, we’re going to the civil rights question. Is this a civil rights matter? And,… but before we can go to the legal question, I think we need to figure out what we’re dealing with and there are myths about homosexuality being spread in our society: over 10% of the population is gay; gays can’t change; they don’t want to change. We’re going to talk about all that and show you the social research, the scientific social research, not Bible verses, social research, next week. So I hope that you’ll join us.