The Case for Traditional Marriage/Program 4

Introduction

Ankerberg: Welcome to our program. What do you think of the folks that are proposing same-sex marriage, and claim that it’s an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution which the majority does not have the right to overrule; the judiciary is really there to protect our rights; Secondly, they argue that same-sex marriage is exactly like civil rights for African-Americans? Now, the gay and lesbian community says, “We can’t change what we are; therefore, we require the freedom to marry who we want.”

Now, we want to talk about these with three of our guests today that are the best. Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council in Washington, DC; former member of the Louisiana State Legislature where he served for eight years. Dr. Jim Garlow, one of the leaders that led the successful campaign which passed Proposition 8 in California, which seven million Californians voted for traditional marriage to remain the law of the state. He’s also Chairman of Renewing American Leadership, based in Washington, DC. He’s also the Senior Pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego. Then Craig Parshall, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters. Guys, I’m really glad that you’re here.

Tony, you had a fabulous illustration when we were talking about this in terms of, is this really a civil rights matter? Can this really be linked to that which happened in the civil rights movement back in the 60s?

Perkins: Well, in May of 2004 when Massachusetts, the courts forced same-sex marriage on that state, you had Mayor Gavin Newsom in San Francisco was emboldened by that. And he began to issue marriage licenses. And there was this one activist that was there and he was… I mean, there was great celebration. I mean, you saw all the news clips, the men embracing and kissing on the steps of City Hall. And one said, “You know, I’m tired of sitting at the back of the bus.” Well, that was a very loaded statement. What he was making reference to was Rosa Parks, the civil rights activist who refused to sit on the back of the bus or refused to give up her seat, which led to the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, making sure that African-Americans had, in fact, what the 14 ^th Amendment guaranteed to them, giving them their full civil rights. So there is clearly this effort to couple this push for same-sex marriage with the civil rights movement.

Ankerberg: Tony, I want to run a clip right now from your buddy Bishop Harry Jackson. And tell me a little bit about him. You wrote a book with him on “Personal Faith: Public Policy.”

Perkins: Yes. Harry is a remarkable individual who has stood up from the African-American community. And more than any other community they understand the importance of marriage. And he speaks, I think, for thousands of African-Americans to the importance of marriage and why this attempt to connect same-sex marriage with the civil rights that many, many in the African-American community fought for is just disingenuous.

Ankerberg: He’s also got his Master’s in Business Administration from Harvard Business School. 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. I want you to hear what he said about tying this issue to the civil rights movement. Listen.

Ankerberg: The gay and lesbian community comes back and says, “We’re exactly like the civil rights for African Americans because we can’t change who we are and therefore, we require freedom to marry who we want. And we’ve got to get that from the judiciary, we’re not going to get it anyplace else.

Harry Jackson: I know, as a fact, as a black man, I cannot change who I am. But gays, that a little bit different story. I have people in my church who have gone from being gay to being happily married and they can change.

Ankerberg: You appeared on CNN and made some statements that hit the press and I’d like you to tell me what you said at that time. What did you think about the judge’s decision?

Jackson: Well, I thought it was absolutely infuriating. You know 2/3 of the California voters, including 70% of African Americans, had their right to vote, stripped from them. You know the quintessential civil right that everyone went for (Martin Luther King and others), was the right to vote. My own dad was threatened at gunpoint, all kinds of things happened. We paid a price, shed blood, for the right to vote. And then, an openly gay judge, who seemed to be obviously biased in his decision, takes that civil right. It’s not fair and it’s not something that goes down easy. And in fact, to imply that it’s racist, that we get a say in this major institution really infuriates me. Because really, we’re not talking about bigotry. This is a matter of biology and men were not meant to be married to men; women not meant to be married to women. And so, where we are then, is that marriage really does require a husband and a wife and if we lose sight of that and have a momentary decision that is based on appeasing someone’s that intimidating, infuriating, we’ll destroy the fabric of our families. We are in a major, major time in history.

Ankerberg: Now, folks, listening to that clip, obviously Harry and a lot of African-Americans are really angry that the same-sex issue is being tied to civil rights. And, you know, Jim, in California, when the folks voted for Proposition 8, if it wasn’t for the black people, you wouldn’t have passed it.

Garlow: That’s exactly right. Asians and Anglos voted 49% or slightly below, Hispanics voted 53% or 56%, depending on which poll you look at, and African-Americans 70%. So if it were not for African-Americans, we would not have been able to save traditional, natural marriage definition in California. And many African-Americans would say over and over that “I’ve known lots of ex-gays, but I’ve never known an ex-black.” They are offended by this attempt to tie the homosexual movement, with all of its privileges, to the African-Americans that were so oppressed in this nation for so long.

Ankerberg: Yeah. Great point. Let’s even get more technical here, Craig, and that is, why was the civil rights movement of African-Americans fundamentally different from the same-sex marriage issue? We banned discrimination based on race in this country for very specific reasons. What was race?

Parshall: First of all, 14 ^th Amendment said that you can’t discriminate on the basis of race. Then we had the passage of the Civil Rights Acts in 1964 that implemented it in terms of housing and voting rights and places of employment. But the model for race is very specific and very specifically different than anything that could be argued for the status of homosexuality. Number one, it has to be inborn; number two, it has to be involuntary, it means that you didn’t choose it; thirdly, very important, it has to be immutable, an immutable characteristic. And, of course, you look at the scientific data and there’s really no substantiation for an immutable gene or any other characteristic that forces you to be homosexual.

Ankerberg: Nobody is born gay. That’s what we talked about last week.

Parshall: No. Absolutely. Now, race now has been added to the Constitution and it makes it very easy, clear. The 14 ^th Amendment was added. The rights of women to vote was added as a Constitutional Amendment. But grafting on homosexuality is done strictly by judicial activism of judges who disregard legal precedent. I remember being in Washington, DC, when a prominent civil rights leader said that he was tired of the Freedom Train to Selma being hijacked by the homosexual community.

Ankerberg: Alright, Craig, as we were listening to that list, I couldn’t help but think if I was gay, I would be listening to that and I would be saying, “Wait a minute. I think I’m on board on the first three: a characteristic which is inborn. You know, it seems like I’ve always been this way.” The problem is we’re talking about the scientific literature, it doesn’t show any genes or characteristics from the physical make-up of our body that shows that we are predetermined to be gay, okay. If we’re talking about inclinations, the inclinations change. And we showed that from the scientific literature last week as well.

Involuntary: you can’t choose it. Well, the fact is that in a sense that, yeah, again, there are times when folks that are gay, they change the line. They go over the line. It’s amazing, in the statistics we were talking about that lesbian women have more sexual relationships with males than heterosexual women do. And you say, how can that be if this thing is immutable and involuntary? They must volunteer in one sense to do that.

The other thing is that when we’re talking about immutable, you’ve got a characteristic such as race, you’re black, you’re not going to change that. And again, the social sciences show us that homosexuals do go back and forth and they can change. This is something that is due to their environment, from their family and they’ve grown up with this. And so they don’t even know why they are built that way, I agree with that one. But the fact is they can learn, and when they do learn, things can happen and the social sciences show that you can have a fulfilling life in terms of being heterosexual as God made us.

Now, let’s roll on into this thing is that part of the argument comes is that, you know, you guys have the right to marry. All the heterosexual community, you’ve got the right to marry anybody that you want. Is this really a question of inequality in terms of marriage that we have the chance to marry anybody that we want?

Parshall: Well, first of all, there is a relative equality in marriage. Any man who is of appropriate age and any woman who’s appropriate age and doesn’t fall into some of the disqualifying factors, we’ll talk about them in a second, is entitled to marry anywhere in the United States. There’s where the equality is. Why don’t we just protect that category? Well, because our courts and our legislatures and, frankly, American culture based on faith-based reasons and moral reasons, has recognized that this is something that supports and is essential to society. Government has the right to prefer certain relationships that are beneficial for the society at large. So we’ve already voted on that for the last 220 years.

Now, does that mean that anybody can get married? No, it doesn’t we have a number of categories that disqualify you. If you have too close of a blood relationship with someone, or if you’re under the age of consent, or if you’re incapacitated from giving voluntary consent. All of these conditions attach, in all 50 states, to your right to get married. So they are conditions. So equality doesn’t mean there can’t be conditions. The condition has to be one man, one woman. And that’s been embedded in our common law in the legislatures of our states for the last 220 years.

Ankerberg: And what is the thing that they’re trying to protect? In other words, why don’t they open the doors just to anybody?

Parshall: Well, obviously marriage is preferred….I should say that traditional marriage is preferred, because it’s essential. The governments, legislatures and the people have decided, and the courts have recognized over the years, that one man/one woman creates families where morals are transmitted, where citizens are built up. Frankly, it’s the best Department of Health, Education and Welfare ever created, because God created it; very first institution that he created in the book of Genesis. So society has recognized this, American society in particular. So we know that variations to that are going to disintegrate society rather than build it up. So government has the right to prefer that and say only one man and one woman will be recognized with official marriage status.

Ankerberg: And naturally it’s essential as well, isn’t it, Tony? I mean, if you’ve got a man you’ve got to have a woman to have a baby!

Perkins: Well, if you want another generation. If you want the population to cease, then yeah, go ahead, pursue same-sex marriage. In fact, we’ve seen where it does have an impact upon normal marriage. Those jurisdictions that have adopted same-sex marriage see a decline in the marriage rate. They also see a decline in the birth rate. So it is, I mean, at its core, and we cannot walk away from this argument, because I know that it’s been one that they dismiss very rapidly, that marriage is about procreation. It is, in fact, about children. Now, that doesn’t mean everyone who marries is going to have children or has the capacity to have children. But that is the norm of marriage. That’s where children come in, it’s where the next generation is trained and equipped. And that cannot be lost in this debate.

Ankerberg: Yeah.

Garlow: Well, and also the issue of just natural law. This is not rocket science. Males and females fit together. Without having it any more graphic, every person, once they get beyond a normal age, recognizes right away that male and females are the complementary halves of humanity. They come together and they fit together. This doesn’t take the Bible to make the case, just an examination of maleness and femaleness. They come together, they fit together.

Ankerberg: Yeah. Do it theologically, too.

Garlow: Well, theologically, from the Scripture itself, when we have the openings of Genesis we were created in the image of God, no male is a full expression of the image of God, and no female is the full expression of the image of God. Male and female, as they come together, are the full spectrum of the image of God. God is neither male nor female, so maleness nor femaleness describes God, he’s more than that. That being the case, as husband and wife come together, they are the expression of the image of God. Therefore, if I were Satan, I would want to destroy that image of God upon the earth.

Let’s jump from Genesis to Revelation where we find at the culmination of history, Jesus and the Church coming together, we can’t grasp that. Paul says it’s a mystery. So to give us a picture of what that’s going to look like, on earth God established husbands and wives coming together. We tend to think of this is real marriage on earth and God borrowed a metaphor to describe the close of history. It’s actually the opposite. That’s real marriage, Jesus and the Church when they come together, that’s going to be real Marriage, capital M. We just have sort of a facsimile of that here. And God did it for the purpose so we would understand: Jesus and the Church coming together? That’s a mystery; I don’t understand that. Ah! But husband and wife coming together, I grasp it. And that’s why we have the picture of marriage on earth. And that’s why, if I were the enemy, if I were Satan, I’d want to destroy the definition of marriage here on earth so it keeps people from grasping the culmination of all of history.

Notice even the description of Jesus and the Church coming together, we use marital bed language. We use “the consummation,” we use “the climax” of history. People say, “Why is there no marriage in heaven?” It’s because there is marriage in heaven: Jesus and the Church coming together. “Why no sexual expression in marriage as we know it on earth?” It’s because even sexual expression and the joy and the delight of that on earth is to be a depiction of the sheer delight in being in the presence of Almighty God with the Church and Jesus coming together; “At thy right hand are pleasures forever more.” So if I were the enemy, I’d want to destroy the image of God on earth – Genesis; I’d want to destroy the picture of the conclusion of history – Jesus and the Church coming together with marriage on the earth. That’s the theological or biblical backgrounding to what the enemy, what Satan is doing in all of this.

Ankerberg: Alright. We’re going to take a break. When we come right back I’m going to ask you another questions, you guys, and that is that fact, hey, we’ve got a separation of church and state, so the fact is, your theological views shouldn’t influence this at all, okay? And then secondly, you know, a minute thirty into almost any discussion I’ve seen you guys in, on any of the talk show, okay, it goes from anybody that disagrees is a bigot, and if you’re a bigot you must also be a racist, okay. And how do you respond to that? We’re going to talk about that when we come right back.

Gloria Allred: It is a violation of the equal protection clause of our California Constitution, to make distinctions between same gender couples and opposite sex couples, that that would be a mark of second-class citizenship for same-gender couples.

Joe Solmonese: It is not as palatable or popular as it used to be to be a bigot, to be homophobic.

Ankerberg: Jim, that was a clip from your appearance with Dr. Phil. And it just kind of shows the emotion that comes on. And you’re called a racist and a bigot in just a short period of time. What did you feel?

Garlow: Well, it must be terribly hard to be on the side of secularists, because they don’t have truth and they don’t have history on their side. And if you don’t have those two things, you have to call people names. You don’t have any other options. And they try to do it by intimidation and by bullying. At one point in the show, as best I can reconstruct what was said, Gloria looked at me and she says, “I want you to know, I have a license to practice law in the state of California.” Which was demeaning and condescending, meaning, “You ought to shut up. I know everything.” To which I responded back to her, “Yes, and I have a license to practice theology in all 50 states.” In other words, I’m not going to be blown off by that. We have truth on our side, and we should speak out. The other thing too, on the flip side of that, is after that show was over, as well as other shows like it, I really make an effort to cultivate a friendship with those that seem more…most hostile to us. I think Jesus would do it, I think it’s the right thing to do. And I actually form a decent friendship with some of those same people.

Ankerberg: Before I go on to Tony, tell me about when you went to the Human Rights group and you asked them to talk about what they thought about you.

Garlow: Well, I had a good time with one other person who was on that show who was attacking me vigorously. And I went to his office intentionally in Washington, DC. I said, “Tell me your story. I’m not here for a particular agenda. Just tell me your story.” And he did over the next 90 minutes. And before I left I asked a question. I said, “You spoke of me as a bigot. Am I a bigot?” And he looked at me and he said, “No.” And I said, “Fine. I just wanted to check that out. We can be friends. Let’s be friends.”

Ankerberg: You are on so many shows, Tony. And you are one of the kindest, most humble people talking when people are attacking you that I’ve ever seen. I mean, I’m just amazed at your humility under this immense pressure where everybody’s ganging up on you. What’s your advice to other Christians that are listening, at school, in their office, at the university? When people say, “Hey, just because you disagree with me, you must be a bigot, a racist on this question. I mean, come on, you’re discriminating.” What do you say back?

Perkins: Well, you know, to Jim’s point, the truth is on our side. And we’re not in retreat. We don’t have to make apologies for what we believe. They’re lacking on their side of the equation. And so what they do is they throw these trump cards. If in today’s P C culture if you can call someone a racist, game over. And so they don’t really want to have that debate. And this is what I say, and this is what I do. And I pray about it every morning as I get up and as I spend a disproportionate amount of my time discussing these issues from the average American. We have to speak out of a heart of redemption. You know, we have to love them. We don’t see the homosexuals as the enemy. They’re not the enemy; they’re actually being held captive by the enemy. And it’s our job as Christians to see them released and set free. And we can never do that if we respond to them in anger. They’re hurting. They’re looking for fulfillment. Yes, we have to stand for the truth because the law, the truth, is a tutor. It will draw them to the truth. But we do it out of a heart of love.

Ankerberg: Alright. Guys, what I find interesting is that when you bring up your theological view, and you bring Jesus and God and the Bible into this thing of marriage, okay, they say this is a separation of church and state matter. But, Craig, if we pass same-sex marriage, will this be a freedom of religion, we can still speak our mind?

Parshall: Well, the answer is no. If you pass any law that says same-sex marriage is officially legalized, it means that those of us that criticize it are going to have our rights diminished. In fact, that equation has been held true: in every court where suddenly homosexual rights are elevated and recognized, the rights of Christians to then either protest or criticize or exercise the rights of conscience have diminished. It’s an equation that has held and not only internationally but in terms of the courts here in the United States.

Ankerberg: Hey, but if we pass a federal amendment, go the opposite way. If we pass a federal amendment and you say that there cannot be same-sex marriage, then aren’t you discriminating against us that way?

Parshall: It’s a little bit like saying that when we passed the 14 ^th Amendment to support the rights of African-Americans we discriminated against whites. Or when we passed the Amendment recognizing the rights of women to vote, we discriminated against men. No, what you’re doing is you’re elevating by constitutional protection that which the courts have already protected for over 200 years, but has now been assailed by federal judges who have ignored our precedent and our history.

Garlow: And this phrase too, separation of church and state, is used to intimidate Christians from having views and expressing them. We all know the history of that statement, coming from Jefferson’s writings. And it was completely distorted from its original historical intent or purpose. So that’s even a false statement to begin with. But in a democracy, anybody can walk into the ballot area, the voting booth, and they can vote based upon whatever the formation of their views are. I say to my atheist friends, “I don’t tell you you can’t vote based upon your atheist presuppositions, do you have a right in a democracy to tell me as a Christian that I cannot vote biblical convictions?” So we have that right in a democracy, and no believer should ever be intimidated from voting according to their own conscience.

Parshall: Jim, let me add to that. In 1986 when the Supreme Court said that homosexuality was not a fundamental right, and they said it could actually be criminalized. The opinion of Chief Justice Warren Burger said that “disapproval of homosexuality has ancient roots,” and then he went on to say this. He said, “It is at the heart of Judeo-Christian ethics and morality.” Now that means that he was violating separation of church and state as the sitting Chief Justice of the United States in saying that. Of course, it’s not true. The Judeo-Christian ethics and morality is the underpinning of western civilization and our whole approach to law. You take that approach out and what are you left with? Utilitarianism, pragmatism, a godlessness, relativity. You have a value system that basically says we want to change by social experiment our social fabric rather than obeying precedent.

Perkins: You’ve touched on a very troubling trend, and that is, if a public policy has as its foundation something that is shared as a moral precept, it is somehow invalidated. And that is what Judge Walker did in the Prop 8 case. He said because of the conclusion that marriage between a man and a woman is to be protected is arrived at because of religious faith or beliefs, then its invalidated. And that, if you look at our entire legal system, Craig, what would we have to throw out if anything shares a foundation of moral truth?

Parshall: Well, first of all, most of the laws against things like animal cruelty, prostitution, drug abuse, most of our crimes, if not all of our criminal offenses under all of the codes of all 50 states. Now, yes, they have provable harm: burglary, theft and so forth. But the underpinning is that they were derived from a western tradition of law that goes back to the English common law that goes back, frankly, to the Old and New Testament.

Ankerberg: Guys, this is tremendous information. We’re going to continue this next week and we’re going to talk about a very controversial question that comes up: do children really need a mother and a father, both, okay? Or can they get along with just two mothers or just two fathers? That’s the question we’re going to look at next week. I hope that you’ll join us.