Search

Let’s hop in the Wayback Machine and go into the distant past, all the way back to 2008.

Here’s the question from Gwen Ifill during the Vice-Presidential Debate:

Let’s try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

Senator Joe Biden:

No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

A month later, Senator soon-to-be-president Obama told MTV:

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.

Let’s take the President and Vice-President at their word. They honestly changed their minds on gay marriage. They really were against it in 2008, and their positions shifted over the next few years. Fair enough, but two questions remain.

1. How can it be mindless bigotry to hold to the same position that our President affirmed until a little over two years ago? Almost every single vote cast for President in 2008 went for a candidate who believed in marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Nearly 70 million Americans voted for Barack Obama and millions more celebrated his victory as a proud moment in our nation’s history. Even if scores of these voters wished for Obama to support gay marriage, the fact is that he did not. And a majority of the country still voted for him, finding nothing so despicable about his defense of traditional marriage that disqualified him from public office, let alone that rendered him unfit for public life. If opposition to gay marriage is the sine qua non of unenlightened, intolerant, extremist thinking, then our President was a cretan up until 2012.

2. How can it be discrimination to do what our Vice-President affirmed we should be able to do two elections ago? Again, let’s allow that people can change. Joe Biden now supports gay marriage, when he explicitly did not in 2008. But what about the commitment to let people of faith practice their faith? Religious leaders like Rick Warren of Saddleback and Michael Lindsey of Gordon College are simply asking that faith-based institutions not be punished by the federal government for trying to hire people who affirm and live out their religious principles. Has so much changed in two years or six years that this is now too much to ask?

Of course, the answer to that question may very well be “yes.” Public opinion has shifted. Tolerance has become militantly intolerant. Every institution and every nation has its orthodoxies to enforce, and it looks like conservative religious persons are the new heretics. No debate is necessary. We haven’t lost the argument on marriage as much as arguments are no longer allowed. To say what our President used to say–and said explicitly while running for President–is quickly becoming unacceptable in polite society.

If bigotry is “the stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own” who is the bigot: the one who tries to provide reasons for his views or the one who says there is no reason your views deserve to be heard? If the President’s evolved position proves to be the new mainstream in our culture, is it too much to ask that the position he used to believe in be accorded the protection and freedom the Vice-President once alluded to? Conservative religious persons and conservative religious institutions could be embarrassingly wrong about gay marriage. But if they are, they haven’t been embarrassingly wrong about it for very long.


View Comments

Comments:


41 thoughts on “What a Difference Six Years Can Make”

  1. Paul Reed says:

    As Kevin easily points out, policies toward homosexuality that were recently very mainstream have now become viewed as primitive and unenlightened. I would also point out that the same thing has already happened with birth control, with most of us being taken in. Birth control, in all its forms, was once condemned as wrong by nearly all, except among a few fringe groups. It Margaret Sanger and others who changed this and mainstreamed birth control.

  2. If this happened in USA, it is not crazy to think that it can also happen in my country (Dominican Republic). Nowadays our government maintains a posture of heterosexual marriage, BUT at the same time is allowing the U.S. ambassador and his gay couple to promote LGBT with public festivity. It is a very interesting post.

  3. Curt Day says:

    our lack of honesty and refusal to reflect on ourselves only hurts us regarding this issue. We Christians have been demanding a privileged position to determine cultural values and now that we are losing that position, it is inappropriate to cry “bigotry” or claim that our liberties are at risk.

    BTW, a side effect of our bellyaching is that we are discrediting what the Bible says about marriage.

  4. Zach Garris says:

    Throughout his presidency, President Obama has given us no reason to take him or Joe Biden “at their word.” It’s unlikely that Obama’s view on gay marriage shifted that quickly. It’s much more likely that he professed the traditional marriage view in order to get elected. Then he conveniently “came out” about his real views when he could get away with it.

  5. Phil says:

    I don’t understand this blog post. It seems to be saying: How can a position be bigoted if a lot of people held it recently, including the President and Vice President?

    I don’t see any particularly reason why. just because the President held an opinion (along with a lot of other people) recently, that means it wasn’t a bigoted opinion.

  6. Mark says:

    Obama has changed his opinion as many times as he has taken vacations while serving as POTUS. He has shown himself to be an insecure person and is constantly seeking approval of others. It is no wonder that his opinion changed on such a difficult topic.

    I too may be swayed by some people on some topics as well, but I try hard to filter my opinion from God’s through daily reading of the Holy scriptures and sound teaching by the Body of Christ. This is not the norm for most Americans so they are easily swayed. Jesus told followers and DISCIPLES hard things in John 6 and many walked away. We cannot be shocked by these two men who are consumed by the world and its changing opinions, they have just turned from the truth because it is difficult. Pray for our leaders. Daily!

  7. anaquaduck says:

    I think at the time Obama cited his teenage daughters because they were in favour of some kind of marriage equality. I think Michelle was wearing a blue dress but I cant be sure but what does it matter what colour her dress was if everything is relative…that seems to be the new religion, everything is equal but some things are more equal than others. A country, society or community that walks away from God may enjoy a sense of freedom for a while but soon enough it will devolve into something else.

  8. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    Zach Garris: “Throughout his presidency, President Obama has given us no reason to take him or Joe Biden “at their word.” It’s unlikely that Obama’s view on gay marriage shifted that quickly. It’s much more likely that he professed the traditional marriage view in order to get elected. Then he conveniently “came out” about his real views when he could get away with it.”

    Zach is probably right.

  9. Christopher r says:

    I’m confused.. Why couldn’t Obama and Biden’s opinion be bigoted? Simple answer to your obtuse argument would be.. Their argument WAS bigoted, and now it is not. The Christian persecution complex is in full effect in your response.

  10. Kyle says:

    This is a great point to make. Thanks.

  11. Stephen says:

    Phil and Christoper, I think the point is that people should not be discriminated (fired like the Mozilla CEO or blasted ad nauseum in the media like Dungy/Chick-fil-A etc.) for saying the same thing that helped get our current President elected.

  12. Ryan Edwrads says:

    From the mainstream culture’s perspective the last line is incorrect. Since we in our new moral evolutionary step of advocating same-sex marriage are superior to any past positions we can now look back and judge all previous persons and religious systems that don’t agree with our newly acquired stance. We have risen above the social intolerant bigotry that prevailed until now.

    So really, we have been wrong about it for centuries.

  13. Scott says:

    What will be the next 25 steps in our evolution of thinking in regard to sexual behavior?

  14. Bill says:

    Calling someone a bigot is bigotry. The pro-gay marriage crowd thinks their bigotry is justified. Pitiful reasoning!

  15. Bill says:

    The pro-gay marriage crowd steals objective morality from the Biblical world view in order to undermine it, all done with a pomposity and bigotry.

  16. lew says:

    As I read this and the responses by Chris, Ryan and Phil (if that’s not tongue and cheek) is that I’ll ‘betcha’ you didn’t have such venomous responses towards Obama and Biden.

    Bigotry is a big word and you should probably consider yourselves one as well since you have such a phobia against someone having a thought different than yours. :)

  17. Kevin says:

    Ryan- the GC wrote another great post about the idea of Progressivism. There is no such thing as moral evolution, and this post makes a similar point- not even debating the morality of homosexuality. We are talking about the fact that a huge percentage of Americans won’t simply ” progress” as fast as a slightly larger and much louder percentage would. And when it comes to “progress” or maybe “moral evolution” of a society (if you believe that exists), if it is to happen it MUST happen gradually- not at the rate the last 6 years have shown. The only historical examples I have learned about where society is forced to quickly “progress” into new morality end up looking a lot like Nazi Germany. If we as a society have been making a mistake about homosexuality, the church needs to prayerfully and genuinely make amends – not be bullied into societal submission (this is not saying I believe the church is wrong-I don’t- but to argue this point)

  18. Georgetta says:

    What do we expect from people who are not Christ-followers. I’m probably the less political person making a comment here. But we keep wanting our government to be Christian and IT’S NOT!! As Christ-followers what we can do is stand-wisely for the religious liberties and continue to pray for the government so that we may live a peaceful life and continue to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this is good this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior (I Tim. 2:3) Oh by the way, writing a bunch of articles won’t help neither will our comments-though I got nothing but love for Kevin DeYoung and other wonderful men and women in the Body of Christ.

    Dropping the mic…

  19. Phil says:

    Phil and Christoper, I think the point is that people should not be discriminated (fired like the Mozilla CEO or blasted ad nauseum in the media like Dungy/Chick-fil-A etc.) for saying the same thing that helped get our current President elected.

    Huh? Because the President said it too, it cannot be bigoted? Or it can be bigoted, but it is ok, because the President said it?

    (I am not sure how you are using the word “discrimination” here.)

    The whole thrust of this article is “How can it be “wrong” to hold a position that was ok for our President and Vice President to hold only 6 years ago?” As I said, this makes no sense. Just because they held that position, doesn’t make the position right.

  20. jim says:

    Kevin – great points. ‘Progress’ doesn’t sweep in at the rate we’ve seen it. We have outrage media and loud voices shouting down any dissent. Passion is not a substitute for clarity. Volume is not a substitute for content. Emotion is not a substitute for conviction. Unfortunately we the people (believers or otherwise) have this problem called Fear of Man. We don’t want to be called a bigot, a homophobe, a hate-monger (none of which are typically true). So when the fingers are pointing and loud voices of anger are shouting, we duck for cover and go along instead of standing, writing, talking and maintaining our convictions. I think we need to decide who we should fear. Matt. 10:28

  21. Phil says:

    Some more comments on the blog post:

    If bigotry is “the stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own” who is the bigot: the one who tries to provide reasons for his views or the one who says there is no reason your views deserve to be heard?

    Is someone keeping the anti-SSM views from being heard? Who? How?
    Is someone saying “there is no reason your views deserve to be heard?” Who? How? (BTW, this position might actually be fine, if the views have been heard before, considered, and rejected. For example, look at all the court cases in the last 3 years or so, where the anti-SSM views have clearly had a chance to be aired.) Likewise, there was once lots of “reasons” to be against inter-racial marriages (just look at the reasons offered by the State of Virginia when it argued at the Supreme Court in 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case). We don’t “hear” those reasons now. (Although, of course, anyone can still literally publish those reasons, and still advocate for them. Why don’t we “hear” those reasons now? (Whatever “hear” means.) Because they have been considered, and rejected.)

    If the President’s evolved position proves to be the new mainstream in our culture, is it too much to ask that the position he used to believe in be accorded the protection and freedom the Vice-President once alluded to?

    I don’t know. But I do know that simply because the president and vice-president used to believe something, it doesn’t follow that the position should get automatic protection.

    Conservative religious persons and conservative religious institutions could be embarrassingly wrong about gay marriage. But if they are, they haven’t been embarrassingly wrong about it for very long.

    Or lots of people have been wrong about it for a very long time. But no, religious persons and religious institutions haven’t been “embarrassingly” wrong for very long. Is there a certain time frame that would make it embarrassing? (My guess is the answer is no.)

  22. Dylan Valliere says:

    Phil wrote, “I don’t understand this blog post. It seems to be saying: How can a position be bigoted if a lot of people held it recently, including the President and Vice President? ”

    The point above is not “bigotry” alone but “mindless bigotry.” DeYoung is not arguing that because this (or any other) President held the view, it must be acceptable but rather, just 6 years ago, this was the official position of the president and it was AFFIRMED by a majority of the voting public. The majority of Americans–by virtue of having elected Obama with an explicitly anti-gay-marriage platform–deemed the anti-gay-marriage position acceptable. Even if they didn’t agree with him, they did not judge his views to make him unfit for office.

    The point isn’t about the president as much as it is about the majority of the American populace having swung radically from where they themselves where just a few years back (as evidence by the election).

  23. Kevin says:

    Phil- you are bringing up some great questions but I still don’t know if you are catching the main point of the post. First of all, I think DeYoung is indeed saying that Anti-SSM voices are beginning to be discriminated against. That’s why he wrote this post- because it is very interesting how quickly the “debate” has turned. There used to be an actual discussion if it was right or wrong- within a few short years that is not even the poit anymore…if you are not in support-no enthusiastically supporting the cause- then you are indeed in danger of being called a bigot. If you don’t see that happening around you, you may live in a much more conservative area than I do but for me it’s pretty hard to miss. The whole paradigm of the discussion on the topic has changed, and in terms of changing what society believes about something, it is changing WAY too fast. To not see that there is a voice being shunned, and that voice is not the pro-LGBT community, is to be pretty ignorant of what most of the country is observing. This post is not to discuss the actual issue itself – it’s about the fact that the discussion has changed in a way that doesn’t represent the liberties our diverse nation has benefitted from in the past.

  24. Phil says:

    Dylan,

    I still take his point to be: How can it be wrong for us to be anti-SSM when most people were anti-SSM only 6 years ago? The fact that a majority of people held a position doesn’t say anything about whether the position is right or wrong.

    What am I missing?

  25. Kevin says:

    And also- is there an appropriate amount of time for something to be considered a mistake in belief? Maybe- a good way to judge is do you Harlow to inreasonable violate
    civil discussion in order to silence the “mistaken” views. Just to thought? It’s a good question.

  26. Suzie says:

    Dylan Valliere – You hit the nail on the head when you wrote this: “DeYoung is not arguing that because this (or any other) President held the view, it must be acceptable but rather, just 6 years ago, this was the official position of the president and it was AFFIRMED by a majority of the voting public. The majority of Americans–by virtue of having elected Obama with an explicitly anti-gay-marriage platform–deemed the anti-gay-marriage position acceptable. Even if they didn’t agree with him, they did not judge his views to make him unfit for office.”

    A concise and – I think – accurate summary of what DeYoung is trying to say here. Thank you.

  27. Jamie says:

    Phil,
    The question isn’t right or wrong….
    “Bigotry is the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person’s ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.” Can someone disagree with SSM and not be a bigot? Can’t I not agree but still love me gay friend? I do…so don’t tell me I can’t. There seems to be no way to disagree on any topic now and still have respect for the other person’s intellectual struggle to come to that end result. Lack of love and respect have played into that, but not all Christians lack love.

  28. Phil says:

    Keven,

    To not see that there is a voice being shunned, and that voice is not the pro-LGBT community, is to be pretty ignorant of what most of the country is observing. This post is not to discuss the actual issue itself – it’s about the fact that the discussion has changed in a way that doesn’t represent the liberties our diverse nation has benefitted from in the past.

    I guess where you see a voice “being shunned,” I see a voice losing the debate.

    (Also, I don’t see where voices are being shunned. Where are you not allowed to even have the debate anymore? Where do you see SSM steamrolling the entire country into accepting it? As but one example: SSM only exists in 19 of 50 states.)

    What I think you are seeing is people who are losing the debate, and in so losing, believe that, if only they could get their view out, they’d win. But, since they are losing, someone must be keeping them from getting their view out (or so they think).

    Finally, with regard to things “changing way too fast,” Denmark has had same sex civil unions since 1989. This issue (in various permutations) has been debated in the West for 40 years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage

  29. Dylan Valliere says:

    Hi Phil, to follow up to your last question: he’s not arguing for or against a particular position based on common acceptance 6 years ago. DeYoung would most definitely locate the morality of a position in the character and Word of God. Rather, he is arguing against labeling the position MINDLESS bigotry. Most folks were okay with the position just 6 years ago but the cultural current has swung so far and wide and quickly that people viciously condemn others who believe what they themselves believed ever so recently. He’s arguing against the bandwagon mentality that vilifies opponents, treating their position as unthinkable and without an coherent basis.

  30. Phil says:

    Jamie,

    About the word “bigot,” I found this helpful:

    http://amptoons.com/blog/2013/04/04/kind-smart-lovely-people-sometimes-support-bigoted-public-policy/

    It was part of a larger debate at Family Scholars Blog, which was fascinating, and which I cannot seem to find now. (If you are curious, you can google it.)

    Here’s an analogy: I think there were good, kind, decent people who believed it was wrong for the races to intermix. Does that make them bigoted? I am sure they probably even had friends of other races, and loved their friends, and believed that it was wrong for any race to mix, I guess, at the end of the day, I would call them a bigot.

  31. Its practitioners were called the bushi, or samurai, and it is tools were the
    katana and wakizashi swords. Other additions to the game include a big list of skins for
    dedicated fans to peruse. The contestant must select the word that fits the definition.

  32. Phil says:

    Dylan,

    Rather, he is arguing against labeling the position MINDLESS bigotry. Most folks were okay with the position just 6 years ago but the cultural current has swung so far and wide and quickly that people viciously condemn others who believe what they themselves believed ever so recently.

    I don’t see how the word “mindless” changes things in a meaningful way. The point of the blog post seems to be that the anti-SSM position cannot be a “mindless” bigotry (or “wrong” as I said), because a lot of people held that position, including the President. Why can we conclude that it must have been a “mindful” (or reasoned, or thought out, etc.) position, simply because a lot of people held it 6 years ago? Indeed, it seems to me that a lot of people may be changing their minds for precisely this reason, that is, they realized that they had no good reason for why they were anti-SSM (that is, the position, to them at least, is “mindless”)

    He’s arguing against the bandwagon mentality that vilifies opponents, treating their position as unthinkable and without an coherent basis.

    First, we treat lots of things to the bandwagon effect. 9/11 truthers come to mind. If you hear their arguments once, and reject them, you don’t have to keep hearing them again and again. Those arguments are, in fact, unthinkable and lack any coherent basis.

    What he is really arguing is that THIS position shouldn’t be subject to the bandwagon effect, because (presumably) he believes there are good arguments for it. But again, those arguments have been heard in court (and have been heard pretty continuously in the population as a whole) over the last 5 years (at least). If the arguments have been heard, and rejected, it is ok to not keep hearing the arguments again and again.

  33. Michael says:

    Very stimulating article (though obviously not clear enough as to his purpose). I agree with KD’s main point: We want the same respect 70 million people gave Obama and Biden six years ago. But the tsunami of the public opinion shift makes it clear that we are not going to get it, at least not anytime soon.

    I was uncomfortable with KD’s concluding two sentences, which I found very surprising for him.
    What else have we been wrong about? Timing has nothing to do with it. Either the Scriptures are clear or they are not. Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton* – et al, have based their opinions on what? Certainly not 3500 year-old revealed principles. Americans may evolve and be proud of their evolution, but these have not evolved. God’s reveal design & intention for our good, the logic of a thinking twelve year old, and nature collectively line up on one side while public opinion now opposes it. Which side do I want to be on?

    How did you respond to the public opinion of raucous middle-east crowds celebrating 9/11 in their city streets or the oft fomenting hatred directed toward the west for some thing these same people disdain? How is the current unfounded, unprincipled American public opinion any different? Unless based on something greater than ourselves?

    Upon what do our current leaders base their new opinions and how is any different than anti-western public opinion?
    Arthur Leff gave a lecture at Duke U in 1979. He opened with “I want to believe – and so do you – in a complete, transcendent, and immanent set of propositions about right and wrong, findable rules that authoritatively and unambiguously direct us how to live righteously.

    “I also want to believe – and so do you – in no such thing, but rather that we are wholly free, not only to choose for ourselves what we ought to do, but to decide for ourselves, individually and as a species, what we ought to be. What we want, Heaven help us, is simultaneously to be perfectly ruled and perfectly free, that is, at the same time to discover the right and the good – and to create it.”

    He then went on to conclude that since we are alone, we have to make up the rules as we go. Might makes right. Power rules.

    He finished by saying “All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we have. (God doesn’t exist and we are all alone in the universe.) Given what we know about ourselves and each other, this is an extraordinarily unappetizing prospect; looking around the world, it appears that if all men are brothers, the ruling model is Cain and Abel. Neither reason, nor love, nor even terror (Stalin, et al), seems to have worked to make us “good,” and worse than that, there is no reason why anything should. Only if ethics were something unspeakable by us, could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs.”

    But he couldn’t live with his own conclusion. He finished by countering all he had just said for the past hour with “Nevertheless: Napalming babies is bad. Starving the poor is wicked. Buying and selling each other is depraved. Those who stood up to and died resisting Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Pol Pot-and General Custer, too – have earned salvation. Those who acquiesced deserve to be damned. There is in the world such a thing as evil. God help us.” (How could he say this if there are no transcendent propositions about right and wrong?)

    * Hillary Clinton’s strangely awkward Terry Gross interview on gay marriage” http://tinyurl.com/kzhz53p — “So actually what Clinton is saying is: she used to be opposed, and now she is in favor, but NOT for political reasons. Rather, because she is an American. And, as an American, she evolved.”

  34. Michael says:

    Hi all,

    For everyone stating that the views of the American public didn’t take a sudden swing in a short period of time but more that, at the time of Obama’s election in 2008, with a battered economy, two (arguably) unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and America’s global reputation in tatters because of the handling of those aforementioned conflicts, most Americans were less bothered by SSM and more concerned about the issues I mentioned earlier? Seeing the tidal wave of support he received and appearing to be a breath of fresh air compared to Bush, I don’t think his views on gay marriage were taken into much consideration in 2008.

  35. krakkers says:

    Phil,
    I don’t know if you are being dense on purspose. But Kevin’s point is pretty straightforward:

    2008 Obama: I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
    2008: Main stream media: Silent
    2008: LBGT: Silent
    2008: Pro-SSM activists: Silent

    2014: Christian: I believe marriage is between a man and a woman..
    2014 MSM: You are bigots.
    2014 LGBT: Christians are bigots.
    2014 Pro SSM activists: Christians are bigots

    What changed between 2008 and 2014? Did MSM and others suddenly discover that being pro-traditional marriage is a wildly bigoted position? Please explain.

  36. Phil says:

    Krakkers,

    I don’t know if you are being dense on purspose.

    No.

    But Kevin’s point is pretty straightforward:

    Ok. Let’s see what you think it is:

    2008 Obama: I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Yup. Kevin clearly mentions that Obama said in 2008 that he believed marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman.

    2008: Main stream media: Silent
    2008: LBGT: Silent
    2008: Pro-SSM activists: Silent

    Huh? I don’t see this (or this idea) mentioned in Kevin’s post at all.

    2014: Christian: I believe marriage is between a man and a woman..
    2014 MSM: You are bigots.
    2014 LGBT: Christians are bigots.
    2014 Pro SSM activists: Christians are bigots

    Nope. I don’t see this either.

    As said repeatedly above, the main idea of this blog post is “How can it be mindless bigotry to hold a position that our president and vice-president held only 6 years ago?” It isn’t about how the main stream media and LGBT activists did not call the president out on the bigotry 6 years ago (Indeed, the post says nothing about them at all.)

    [I suppose you could be saying that in 2008, the MSM, LBGT, and Pro-SSM, honestly did not think that Obama’s position was bigotry. And they were silent because they either did not know the position was bigotry, or did not believe it. But now (in 2014) they have come to believe it. But I don’t think you are saying that, though. I think you are saying they were hypocritical. In any case, this doesn’t matter for what I am saying.]

    Kevin notes that “70 million people voted for the president” in 2008, when his position was anti-SSM. From this, and the fact that the president himself (and the vice president) were anti-SSM, he takes away that anti-SSM was a mainstream position (and thus cannot be mindless bigotry).

    My point is simply that, even though the president holds the position, and a lot of people do too, it can still be mindless bigotry (despite Kevin’s clear implication that it cannot be).

  37. What’s up to every , for the reason that I am truly keen of reading this
    webpage’s post to be updated regularly. It carries
    good material.

    Check out my blog post :: youtube downloader mp3

  38. Debbie says:

    I realize my comment is not directly related to the blog’s point, so I apologize in advance for that. But after reading these posts, and scanning some, I can’t help but feel sad and frustrated all at once. We have a nation, culture, and church ignoring God’s word. Of course this does not encompass everyone, so if you are still holding fast to God’s Word, then Praise God! But in general, we no longer have a Christian nation because we no longer have a nation, and even church, willing to apply Biblical principles to every area of our life, including govt. But what is so sad is that the homosexual will not inherit the Kingdom of God; even if he prayed a sinner’s prayer 20 years ago. We have church denominations who think they are being loving because they are telling them it’s ok that they are practicing this lifestyle. We also have churches, and families, that are not helping young children out of the fornication lifestyle. I would even go so far as to say some encourage it with what their young are allowed to do, watch and listen to. Fornication, another sexual sin that will cause someone not to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, despite our nations’ condoning of this sin, and the church and family’s blind eye towards it. Again, not all churches and families. And now we are doing it with homosexuality. And as Kevin lists in his book, “The Hole in our Holiness”, there are many other sins that if we do not repent of as an individual, we will not see the Kingdom of Heaven. So while we can discuss Obama’s either bold faced lie or change of mind, the point is that God’s word says this is not the lifestyle of a child of God who is one with me, and if there is not repentance of this behavior, and many other behaviors we “Christians” do, then we will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Shouldn’t that be what we discuss, and what our churches should preach, until our nation falls on her knees in repentance? The Gospel: repent and believe, and you will be saved. Too many of us are not repenting, and even worse, too many of us are not truly helping those who need to repent, which by the way is all of us, always. I pray God’s mercy on this nation and the people.

  39. Chris says:

    Part of the issue is that we have always fought the political battle wrongly.

    What is out issue with homosexuality? It is a behavior that we believe is sinful. We should always made this our issue.

    The issue of gay marriage is an “intersection of faith, freedom, and law” issue. I do not have an issue with the legality of gay marriage politically because I do not live in a theocracy. I do not want to.

    To use an absurd type example:
    Would you be okay with a Jewish or Muslim majority in this country outlawing the consumption of bacon because their religion forbids the eating of pork?

    Of course not. Now…while that is an absurd example…it reveals an important point. IT IS: if you support the restriction of freedom based on your religious beliefs…then you risk the restriction of yours based on someone else’s.

    There is a byproduct of this type of stance that is fantastic. It is that we can make the case that we have not harmed anyone, we believe in the freedom of all…but are perfectly entitled to disagree with behavior we believe to be sinful. We champion free will. We support the government not restricting freedom based on religious means. But we will never change our view of morality just because someone says we must.

  40. Johnny Beat says:

    Obama/Biden’s views probably didn’t change so much as it became more politically acceptable to come out about those views. That’s just basic politics. As far as public opinion moving on this subject very quickly? Yes .. it is. But I think that’s only because the position of being against equal rights for homosexuals is so untenable when confronted with reality of the situation … and that’s what’s happened over the past few years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Kevin DeYoung photo

Kevin DeYoung


Kevin DeYoung is senior pastor of University Reformed Church (PCA) in East Lansing, Michigan, near Michigan State University. He and his wife Trisha have six young children. You can follow him on Twitter.

Kevin DeYoung's Books