So, about what happened in North Carolina yesterday...

Celebrating that one unaccountable man has redefined more than six thousand years of tradition from across the width and breadth of human society with one stroke of a single pen.

Seems more than a little ridiculous to me.  To say nothing of arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme.

I've seen a lot of hate and viciousness since yesterday afternoon.  Most of it seems to be coming from those who were most clamoring for "equality of love".  I can't understand that.  Or maybe I can and I don't care to articulate why... because what would be the point?

It's not same-gender marriage.  Same-gender marriage is a contradiction.  It's an oxymoron.  It is something so illogical that it cannot exist.  There will be consequences. Legal and otherwise.  Especially legal.  Ramifications for both "sides" of this debate.

Personally, I'm not worried at all about yesterday.  Marriage is something beyond human establishment.  It's untouchable.  Those people - and I'm referring to both parties involved in this - can scream that it's a mountain all they want.  Still doesn't change the fact that it's a pebble.

Bear in mind that at the time I was against Amendment One.  For various reasons I am still against it.  There are some things which are defined by something higher than man.  Whether that is God or immutable law, there are concepts which can neither be defined or redefined by legislation or activist judiciaries.  I couldn't support Amendment One because I knew something of the spirit of the men who were most pushing for it, and theirs was NOT borne out of respect for that higher concept of marriage.

And ironically, neither is what happened yesterday.  But where does this end?  Will polygamy be next?  Will corpses be given legal rights so that necrophilia is legitimized?

How far does this now go?

I'm looking at the LONG-term ramifications. And there will be consequences of this trend.

Some have asked by what right am I to dictate how two people are to love each other?  Well , I haven't conspired or ever attempted to tell anyone about what they express to another person.  I do have to sincerely wonder though about defining and re-defining something that is derived from law higher than man's.  Let's be honest: is what happened yesterday about marriage, or is it about coercing those who do not agree with it into endorsing something that they do not believe in?  There are some businesses which do not cater to same-sex marriages.  Some bakeries have refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.  They have been "penalized" with fines and made to sit through "sensitivity" classes.  Are they to be forced to do so against their beliefs?  It is already happening.

If two people want to express their love for each other, fine.  Let them do it.  Knock themselves out.  But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else should be made to give it an official stamp of endorsement.  I didn't think that Amendment One needed to do that for traditional marriage and I don't think that one judge's decision "needed" to do that for "gay" marriage either.

I cannot reiterate nearly enough that marriage is something man can't define.  Our attempts to do that will only meet with disaster.  Perhaps not today, but eventually.

For what it's worth: I think a case can be made that Amendment One, and it's biggest proponents, paved the way for what happened yesterday.  It really was one of the worst-worded, worst-inspired amendments that I've ever seen (and I mean from a strictly legal perspective, not on whether one agreed with it or not).  The ones who were demanding it cared more for strutting their own egos than they were about anything else.  One cannot set out to do something with an impure motive.  Doing so will in time destroy that work.  And that is what happened here.  It became less about defending marriage and more about looking like players at the big table of politics.

There are many who would be wise to learn from this.

Read More

Dear News & Record: Opposition does NOT equal hate and fear of homosexuals

One of the front-page stories of today's edition of the (Greensboro, North Carolina) News & Record is about DC Comics delaying publication of science-fiction writer Orson Scott Card's story for the upcoming first issue of DC Comics' Adventures of Superman anthology.  Chris Sprouse, the artist assigned to illustrate the story, is refusing to work on grounds that the "controversy" about Card's publicly-stated beliefs that homosexuality is wrong.  Especially his opposition to "gay marriage" during the lead-up to last year's amendment to North Carolina's constitution affirming that legal marriage is between one man and one woman.

You won't find it in the story posted on the News & Record's website, but the article's synopsis in the print edition reads thusly: "An uproar over author Orson Scott Card's homophobic views leads illustrator to withdraw."

"Homophobic"  As in, literally, "Orson Scott Card is in fear of homosexuals".  The implication being that if he is in fear of homosexuals, Card also harbors hate of homosexuals.  That is certainly how such things are associated in the minds of too many journalists these days.

I don't know if Robert C. Lopez - the News & Record reporter who wrote the story - is responsible for his article's print synopsis.  Regardless, whoever wrote it is either terminologically ignorant or journalistically negligent.  Or, inexcusably driven by agenda.

But that's not the point of this post...

There is a difference between disapproving of a person's activity and disapproving of that person as a whole.  I know many homosexual individuals.  I sincerely believe that their behavior is wrong and even self-destructive.  But I have never hated them.  Some are even good friends who I have worked with and acted alongside on stage.  I like to think that they can disagree with me as well without harboring any animosity.

But through the prism most politicians and journalists and media "personalities" have demanded we see reality through, a failure to endorse the lifestyle of others is indicative of hatred toward others.

No wonder the political climate of this country is so polarized.  How can there possibly be earnest and sincere discussion about anything at all, when any side sees others as deserving scorn and ridicule, and lacking merit enough to be heard out?

Orson Scott Card is being charged - whether or not it will be admitted aloud - with inciting fear, hatred and intolerance toward homosexuals.  Curiously, the irony has gone woefully under-appreciated that those levelling such claims are inciting fear, hatred and intolerance toward Card and anyone else who believes homosexuality is wrong.  At the Mysticon science-fiction convention in Roanoke last weekend, my girlfriend overheard two people conversing with each other about how Card - the literary guest of honor - wasn't "very Christian" because of his statements against homosexuality.  I also heard one attendee claim that it was wrong for Card to have been invited because he was, quote, "hateful of people like me".

The only people I see demonstrating legitimate hatred of others are those who want there to be hatred of others.  When all else fails in an attempt at persuasion, hate is the time-tested tool of evoking deceit, distrust and division.  It is a coward's tool.  It is a tool of men of barbarity, not men of intellect.

The News & Record writers and editorial staff should bear that in mind, pertaining as much to their personal predilections as their professional ones.

Read More

Dear Amazon: I don't care about gay marriage, just gimme my damn books

I believe that homosexuality and bisexuality is just as wrong as heterosexual extramarital intercourse, rape and polygamy and for the same reasons.

Do I have gay and lesbian friends?  Yup, sure do.  Plenty of them in fact.  They already know that I cannot approve with a sincere heart the behavior they engage in.  They also already know that though I must judge as wrong that behavior, I cannot judge them wrong as people.  Certainly not as the friends who I am thankful to have.

I don't believe that "homosexual marriage" is wrong.  I know that it is.  The notion itself is a contradiction against logic and human culture.  "Marriage" entails the uniting of two unique characteristics into one, so that the the sum is greater than the equal of its constituent parts.  That is something among human society that can only be found in the uniting of one man and one woman.  We've had six thousand years of recorded history without "gay marriage" up 'til now, and many thousands of years of human culture just as absent of it before that.  Sure there were aberrations and deviations once in awhile, but by and large gay marriage is a mutation that has never survived social Darwinism.

Those who advocate "gay marriage" are ignorant of something else.  Namely, that true marriage is not focused at all on sexuality.  That is a defining aspect of marriage... but it's only one aspect of it.  If a marriage is based primarily on sex, then it's not going to be a marriage that tends to survive and endure the trials and tribulations of a couple's lifetime together.  That goes for any couple, be they gay or straight.

So why are we seeing homosexual marriage hoisted high and in our faces lately?  There are two reasons, I have observed.  The first is that legalizing "gay marriage" is perceived by its proponents as being official endorsement for that behavior.

The second is that many if not most of those demanding "gay marriage" believe that doing so demonstrates how "progressive", how "forward-thinking", how "wise and tolerant" they really are.  They won't admit or acknowledge it in the slightest but to them, they are assuming that they "know better" than the rest of us and that we have to be "educated" and made to conform to their own demands and expectations.

Case in point: Amazon's new commercial for its Kindle Paperwhite e-book reader.  I first saw it last night.  It opens with a man and a woman laying on the beach.  The guy is squinting at his tablet in the harsh sunlight while the lady is obviously enjoying reading without straining her eyes.  Convinced, the man immediately orders a Kindle Paperwhite and tells the girl they should go out and celebrate.

Trying to shut him down, she tells him "My husband is bringing me a drink right now."

"So is mine," the man tells her.  Cut to the bar behind them and their husbands(?) waving back at them.

No doubt that Amazon deems this to be a groundbreaking and culturally revolutionary ad.  That it's a game-changer for marketing.  The climax of the commercial practically screams out "WE'RE DIFFERENT AND PRO-GAY DAMMIT!"

Fine.  Amazon is pro-homosexual "marriage".  I couldn't care less what Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos believes on the matter.  He's as entitled to his beliefs and spending money on them as much as anybody is.

But this kind of marketing is a terrible, terrible model for a business.  In fact, it's proven to be downright disastrous.

And I'm not talking about for taking pro-gay stances either.  Anytime a company's leadership decides to use that company as a platform for a social or political agenda, the profits drop.  Ever heard of Hechinger?  It used to be a pretty major name in the hardware and home improvement business, right up there with Lowe's and Home Depot.  And then its head executives chose to make Hechinger as a company pro-gun control.

People stopped shopping at Hechinger as a result.  They wanted lumber and bathroom fixtures, not a political statement.  That was twenty years ago and very few people now remember the company existed at all.

Want more proof?  J.C. Penney's profits dropped 32% in the past quarter.  The situation there is so dire that the company is apparently deferring payments to its suppliers.  Many are blaming J.C. Penney's pro-homosexual marketing: a blunder bad enough to warrant many to demand the banishment of Ron Johnson, the current CEO.

Look, it's not the particulars and peculiarities of the personas involved that is the present problem.  I've come to enjoy the products I buy from Apple.  My iPad goes with me everywhere.  It's become an indispensable part of my life.  I also know that Apple's CEO Tim Cook is widely reported to be gay.  But not for a moment have I considered not buying stuff from Apple because of it.  I buy Apple's gadgets because they work and because the company trusts its products enough to sell themselves.  I do not now, nor will I ever buy something because it's being sold as "pro-straight".  I would however very seriously consider not buying a product if the officials running the company selling it decide to get "in yo' face" about an issue that I disagree with.

And based on history, I don't doubt that there are many others who would refuse to support such a company either, on those same grounds.

Amazon: seriously?  A pro-gay e-book reader?  Why should I care?  Why should anybody care?

Jeff Bezos, keep your pro-gay stance to yourself.  Just be a responsible CEO and shut up and sell books.

Read More

I'm Christian. I'm called "conservative". I'm not voting for Amendment One.

I will not vote for Amendment One.

Neither will I vote against Amendment One.

Because the more I have thought about it and the more that I have seen especially during the past couple of weeks across North Carolina, Amendment One is by far the worst thing that I have ever seen on a ballot in the Tarheel State. And that's sayin' something about this place...

For this blog's readership in various and sundry places not between Manteo and Murphy, Amendment One is the measure on next week's ballot that would make the Constitution of the state of North Carolina explicitly state that marriage will only be between one man and one woman. As you can probably imagine, this is widely perceived to be a measure attempting to circumvent the legality of "gay marriage".

I've been wrestling literally for the past several weeks on how to articulate what I believe about this, and not be misunderstood. Because my stance about Amendment One is not something that could be squared away as either "conservative" or "liberal". Which will likely honk off many who can't think beyond such ultimately meaningless ideologies. But I don't care. Because that's just how I roll. I'm out to follow as best where God leads me, and not the capricious wendings of man's temporal politics.

The initial reason why I will not be voting on Amendment One is that marriage is instituted by God and is not left to us at all to define. I've no doubt that there are many well-meaning people who will be voting for Amendment One because they sincerely believe that marriage is something that "must be protected".

It's not. It's really not. Not by a political gimmick anyway. And if it must be protected that way, then we as a society have vastly bigger problems than "gay marriage" could ever be.

There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage". It's a contradiction in terms of the most obscene kind. Marriage by definition is the uniting of two entities of distinctly different yet complementary natures into a new entity greater than the sum of its parts.

What does that mean? A man cannot naturally reproduce on his own. Neither can a woman. And neither can two men unite to create new human life between themselves.

I contend that this is the essence of the universal concept of marriage: that the potential for natural reproduction exists. This is not a "biblical" concept, as I have seen many across this state argue in the months leading up to the vote on Amendment One. "We support biblical marriage"? Bah! As if only marriages performed according to Judeo-Christian standards are valid in the eyes of God. The greater balance of cultures and faiths across human history have held that marriage is between one man and one woman. Are the proponents of Amendment One willing to assert that the vast majority of people today should be legally declared whores and bastards? But I digress...

Marriage of one man and one woman is as fundamentally an aspect of moral law as is the knowledge that murder is wrong. I have seen many statues on the books defining punishments for murder: I have yet to see a constitutional amendment saying that murder is illegal. It's something that merely is not needed, or should not be needed anyway.

And "gay marriage" is already illegal according to North Carolina law. Amendment One would not be changing anything.

"But Chris, some liberal activist judge could decree from the bench that gay marriage is legal in this state and that would be it! We need Amendment One to prevent that from happening!"

If that's true, then... wow, we really are screwed. Like I said before, we'll have inherently graver issues than gay marriage if that's the case. In the mind of this writer, it will means that we as a people have surrendered that wisdom and fortitude that the Founding Fathers meant for us to have as a free people. It will be a sad acknowledgement that we no longer possess the liberty of mind that too many men and women fought and even perished that we might enjoy. If we have arrived at a place where fear-mongering and worse, fear of nebulous ideologies drive our actions, then what does that say of us as We The People?

And this brings me to the most conscientious reason why I refuse to vote on Amendment One: because as a follower of Christ, as one who chooses the renewal of the mind in defiance of the patterns of this fallen world, I will not be motivated by fear and hatred and lust for political power. And unfortunately it has been those base drives which I have long observed have been behind the push for Amendment One.

Ever wonder where Amendment One came from to begin with? You should. It originated with Return America, an organization created and headed by Dr. Ron Baity, the pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem.

I will not dare judge the condition of Baity's soul before God. However, I am compelled to wonder aloud about any man who revels so much in the use of the word "queers" against his enemies as Dr. Baity has done, including in a number of Renew America newsletters and publications (which I have on hand). I also found it curious that Baity is fond of referring to President Obama as "Hussein Obama" in his group's official literature. But again, I digress.

Do people like Ron Baity truly believe that God needs their "help" to protect marriage? Because if so, presuming that He does indicates horrendous pride on our part.

I am not going to support Amendment One because I'm a Christian and "expected" to look down upon homosexuals with loathing and scorn and fear. Indeed: I have many friends, some of whom I have come to trust and be entrusted with counsel, who are homosexual. They know that I cannot approve of their lifestyle, that I do believe it to be sinful.

But how as one saved by the grace of God do I dare condemn them as being more sinful and less righteous than I?

I can't. Nor can anyone else. Whether or not they feel empowered by public referendum.

A little over a year ago I went public with my having bipolar disorder. It is what destroyed my first marriage. Among other things it made me extremely hyper-sexual, even though at NO time was I ever unfaithful to my wife. However, let's just say that my own mind drove me to do things that I would have otherwise never have thought myself capable of.

I don't believe God made me do that. It was just a symptom of something that for whatever reason, He allowed me to be born with. But as a result of it I do now see how some people could very well have a homosexual drive.

I do not however believe that is what in any way should define a person, any more than heterosexual drives should define others. As a follower of Christ I must accept that we live in a broken, imperfect world that can NEVER be made right in the hands of man. We are each, every one of us, beset with temptations and thorns in our flesh (as Paul put it). I did not want to be compelled toward pornography, but it happened and I wasn't strong enough to fight it. It is only by the grace of God that I have moved forward, and allowed God to bless me with things that I could have never found on my own.

That is why I can not condemn homosexual people. I don't know what their struggles must be like, but I DO know that they struggle with the flesh just as much as I have my own. Who am I to believe that they are any more lost than I have been?

At the same time I could never accept that a homosexual relationship could ever qualify as "marriage" in the traditional, historical and natural sense. If two people of the same gender wish to live together as "civil partners" or somesuch, then fine. That's their right. Calling it "marriage" however would put us on the slippery slope toward some attempting holy matrimony with barnyard livestock (I shall leave it as an exercise for the reader as to whether or not this has been attempted within this state). And there again, there is a terrible rot within our cultural soul if that is the case, for which a "pro-marriage" amendment would be akin to placing a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound to the head.

I cannot see any legitimate Christian love and concern, tempered with the quality of humility, in regard to Amendment One. If the same people who have most pushed this ballot measure had been living for Christ all of this time for His sake, out of a meek and humble spirit, this may not even have been an issue at all. As it is however, there is an impure motivation for Amendment One. And I absolutely believe that if the motive is impure, the work will be corrupted and in the end, do much more damage than we can perhaps understand.

The biggest reason Amendment One is on the ballot is because there are some who seek to exploit our hate, for their own gain.

But I refuse to give them that satisfaction.

Amendment One is just another political game... and I for one will not be playing it.

Read More

Proposition 8, states rights, and the end of jury nullification

Two things that trouble me about California's Proposition 8 - the "gay marriage" ban - being struck down yesterday by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker...

The first is that a single member of the federal judiciary is empowered to render null and void the vote of more than 7 million voters in a matter pertaining to their own state of residence.

The other thing is that even as this is being cheered in some quarters as a "victory" for certain individuals, in truth it is a dire setback for all individuals. I speak of the now decades-long erosion of jury nullification: the tradition that common people empaneled on a jury can acquit defendants and even overturn legislation in spite of legal and prosecutorial weight, if sincere conscience should so dictate. And even though jury nullification is generally a matter strictly relegated to affairs at trial, its principle extends throughout the whole of the law of our democratically-elected republic.

Jury nullification is something that I have long appreciated. It is - and should always be - the citizenry's last, best bulwark for peaceable resistance against any and all agents of government overstepping the rightful bounds. The moment that government refuses to honor this, then it begins to be questioned whether government is obligated to acknowledge and respect the rights of the people... or whether the people are obligated to acknowledge the government in kind.

The people of California voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8, and whether the rest of us agree with it or not we should respect the people of California to manage their own affairs as a state.

And one judge, sitting on the federal bench and regardless of agenda, should never be enabled with the power to negate the legislative will of citizens in good conscience. For that way, lies tyranny.

Read More