Thursday, May 10, 2012

Obama Finally Stumbles Out Of The Closet

“Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”
 Hebrews 13:4

Yesterday US President Barack Obama finally stumbled out of the same-sex marriage closet he has been hiding in the last four years. This is hardly a surprise to those of us who studied candidate Obama’s position on the issue four years ago. To be blunt, Obama has been blowing pink smoke since his inauguration.

In the last two years Obama has indicated on more than one occasion that his views on the matter were “evolving”. Well, yesterday, in a grand moment of punctuated equilibrium, Obama transmutated and came of age! Of course he has tacitly endorsed the gay agenda, to include gay marriage, all along, as his actions well attest. By repealing the military’s policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell , and openly refusing to enforce the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), indicate he has been waving the rainbow flag all along. Apparently, President Obama believes he is imperiously above enforcing the laws of the land while simultaneously immune from the law of God.

Obama claims he came to this “new” found enlightenment gradually, subsequent to discussions with family, friends, advisors, and gay Americans. In other words, his emergence from the closet is predicated upon an amalgam of both human opinion and experience, as if these serve as the gold standard for truth and morality.

It goes without saying that Obama invoked the Bible, crediting the “Golden Rule” (It is too bad he doesn’t invoke the Golden Rule where partial birth abortion is concerned!) for his transvalued take on marriage. But given Obama’s anemic and tortured use of Scripture on the subject (see excerpt from my book below), it is hard believe he really cares what the Bible says about anything, let alone same-sex marriage.

On the contrary, I am of the opinion the catalyst for Obama’s sudden about face, on this most acrimonious issue, has more to do with a combination of   experience and political expedience, which is as subjective as it is relativistic. He is in serious trouble politically with his reelection bid imperiled. Some democratic-party faithful have been withholding campaign donations from Obama to force his exit from same-sex sequestration. Just coincidence?

Only November 6th, 2012 will reveal whether Obama, and his advisers, just committed political suicide, or not. That 31 states have overwhelmingly voted in favor of marriage amendments to their respective state constitutions, doesn’t bode well for an Obama second term. But I won’t hold my breath just yet, for as the saying goes, a day is a long time in politics.

In light of Obama’s renaissance moment, it must be asked if Obama’s view on marriage will continue to “evolve” into other “equitable” relational combinations, like polyamory (group marriage) and pedogamy (intergenerational marriage)? After all, if experience and expedience are the guideposts for morality and truth, why stop short at gay marriage?

*(Note: The portion below is from my book Same-Sex Marriage: Is It Really The Same? It was written nearly four years ago detailing, then candidate, Obama’s position of the same-sex issue. Also, see my post below on Jesus’ view of homosexuality to refute the absurd nonsense that Jesus promoted homosexuality via the Golden Rule):  

9. What is Barack Obama’s (US President Elect) position on gay rights and same-sex marriage?

Given that during the US presidential campaign Barack Obama claimed he did not fully support same-sex marriage, what are we to make of his position on the issue? In short, his position on gay rights and SSM is as radical and far reaching as his views on abortion, which amount to infanticide[i]. The best way to answer the question is to use the words of Obama himself from a statement he issued to the gay community:

Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and
a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”[ii](Emphasis added)

The first sentence says it all, “Equality is a moral imperative.” It is basically all downhill from there. Though he may have tried to distance himself from gay marriage during the campaign, it is evident that was only because it was politically expedient for Obama to do so. He has no moral convictions or ethical squabbles with homosexuality or its related issues. Essentially,  he will try and promote comprehensive gay rights legislation that will irrevocably empower this tiny minority to enslave the many who deem homosexuality morally abhorrent.

Once this wide ranging list of gay friendly legislation is signed into law, Bible-believing Christians will be in the cross hairs of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and gay rights crusaders, who will tar and brand all who disagree as “right-wing bigots” and “homophobes”. We will see the professed “tolerance”, gay rights sympathizers preach quickly, morph into tyranny as these cultural transvaluationists begin applying hate crime laws and hate speech legislation to Christians and conservative congregations.

President elect Obama has also called for the complete repeal of the federal version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Obama is on record saying, “…I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell …”[iii]

The federal DOMA was enacted by a Republican led congress in 1996 to regulate matters related to tax status, immigration, and social security as it relates to SSM. As the basis of the regulation, the DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman. In addition, this DOMA gives all 50 states the autonomy to reject the same-sex marriages from other states that performed them.[iv]

By completely repealing the DOMA, Obama will jeopardize every state DOMA in the country—most states have their own individual DOMAs. This will probably require one state with a DOMA to recognize another state’s same-sex marriage. For example, a state like Texas would be forced to then recognize the same-sex marriages of those who were married in the state of Massachusetts, should such couples relocate to Texas.

To further substantiate his extreme position on gay rights, it should not be surprising Obama uses Scripture to advance his gay rights panacea. In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama maintains that he is not “willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans [about homosexual practice] to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”[v]

Only a thorough-going postmodern trained attorney (Harvard Law School) could make such an outrageous assertion regarding of the following passage:

Romans 1:24 “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper”.

There is absolutely nothing obtuse or opaque about Romans’ graphic portrayal of homosexuality. One must intentionally determine not to understand what Paul is saying, in order to be so dismissive of what is as plain as the nose on your face.

Obama’s ignorance regarding both the Romans account and the Sermon of the Mount is glaring given the subsequent considerations from the sermon:

·        Where in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is homosexuality ever promoted or approved even tacitly? Further, where in the Sermon on the Mount is Romans 1:24-28 ever contravened or questioned?

·        In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Jesus upheld even the lesser laws like those related to tithing, so it is unreasonable to think that Jesus abrogated the sexual ethics contained in OT Law.

·        In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus used six antitheses to expand the dictates and demands of the Law by applying it to matters of the heart (mind, will, and emotions). The sum of these antitheses was to target the thoughts and motives of any would be follower of Christ. Two of the six antithesis relate directly to marriage and sexuality:

Matthew 5:27-28: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery';  but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

 Matthew 5:31-32: "And it was said, 'Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

These two passages cover the essential terrain of the seventh and tenth commandments (adultery and covetousness)[vi]. If anything, Jesus is actually increasing the demands of sexual laws to include one’s thought life. Not only is it a sin to adulterate, fornicate, commit incest, to rape, and to perform homosexual acts; it is a sin to even ponder such things in one’s thoughts.

·        In these two antitheses, Jesus emphasizes the distinct priority of male-female union only afforded in heterosexual marriage. He never intimates any other arrangement is acceptable. Jesus also underscores that the nature of the heterosexual union is to be both a lifelong commitment and monogamous.

·        It is true that the sermon addresses other themes like loving your enemies (5:43-48) and hypocritically judging others for small matters when much larger issues loom large in our own life (7:1-6). As Robert Gagnon concludes, “However, these themes provide no more support for homosexual unions than they do for loving, committed polyamorous or polygamous unions or for adult-consensual incestuous unions, both of which Jesus obviously opposed.”[vii]

·        Given that Obama uses the Sermon on the Mount as support for his “moral imperative” for gay rights legislation, it is interesting he says nothing of the end of that sermon where Jesus sternly warned,

Matthew 7:15, 22-23: "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves … Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'”(Emphasis Added)

God’s will regarding sexual ethics is straightforward and obvious throughout Scripture. Jesus considers violation of the Genesis 2:22-24 mandate for marriage (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:2-11) lawlessness, which includes homosexuality and SSM. Just because Barack Obama passes legislation favoring homosexuality, does not make it any less lawless in God’s eyes.In the end, Obama’s “moral imperative” amounts to moral impudence from Christ’s perspective.

Indeed, President Elect Obama needs much prayer regarding both his views on gay rights, and his eclipsed understanding of what Jesus really thinks about this issue.

[i] Barack Obama, as Illinois state senator, voted against the Born Free Act, which would allow babies born alive during abortion the chance to have access to medical care. 

[iii] Ibid, p.2.

[iv] The US Constitution has a “Full Faith and Credit Clause” which mandates that states must recognize the “acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of other states. In the case of the federal DOMA, this clause is suspended and not in force.

[v] Online: , Accessed 11 November 2008.

[vi] The Ten Commandments serve as paradigmatic law, which means these laws are more extensively explained and expounded in the rest of the law, where specific applications are given. For example, Leviticus 18 is an application of the both the seventh and tenth commands.

[vii] Robert Gagnon, “Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex,” Online at: , Accessed 11 November 2008, p.3. Also see Robert Gagnon, “Obama’s Coming War on Historic Christianity over Homosexual Practice and Abortion,” Online at: , Accessed 11 November 2008.


Anonymous said...

So to summarize...same-sex attracted people can't marry people that they can have a physical relationship with. So the only option for same-sex attracted people is to marry someone of the opposite sex? Mark, are you willing to have your daughter marry a man who is exclusively same-sex attracted?

The Radical Watchman said...

Same-sex people can marry anyone they want, just like polygamists can marry as many as they want, but don't expect state approval anymore than the polygamist, or a pedogamist (minor attracted person) should expect state sanction for his or her sexual predilections. As for my daughter, her prayer is for God to provide a man who delights in God above all else. That will moot any notion of being attracted to the same-sex, as God created them male and female from the very beginning!

Anonymous said...

"That will moot any notion of being attracted to the same-sex, ..." Mark, are you saying that there is no man who exclusively has same-sex attractions who delights in God above all else? What about Alan Chambers of Exodus. He admits he has same-sex attractions. You finished with a "...As God created them male and female from the beginning!" I don't understand what you are talking about here. Can you explain? What does this have to do with same-sex attractions.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to bother you one more time. How certain are you that the Bible was written by man but inspired by "God" and not written by man and inspired by man. If you say you are 100% certain, then what makes you say this? If you admit that there is a possibility is was inspired by man, doesn't this make the possibility that you are a religious fool and your entire life's work is for nothing. And, if Jesus' sacrifice was necessary for our salvation, then why didn't God have Adam and Eve nail him to a cross right after they sinned? This could have avoided a lot of false religions from forming through history before the old testament was written. Will you address my actual questions?

The Radical Watchman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Radical Watchman said...

@Anonymous while I don't doubt one's same-sex attractions, or desires, the question is are those desires legitimately from God, or a result of man's depravity? The Bible is unequivocal and unrelenting from cover to cover, that any deviation from the one-man and one-woman for a lifetime is a departure from the will of God as expressed at creation. So while Alan Chambers admits he has same-sex attraction, he also realizes that those desires stem from a the sinful human condition and do not reflect God's creation ideal. He humbly admits he has a sinful human weakness in that area and as such has abandoned himself to the God of all grace who can give him victory in that area.

The question of delighting in God while having same-sex attraction depends on whether one is pursuing and entertaining those desires, or recognizes the illegitimacy of such desires, as is the case with Alan Chambers. The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 makes it clear that it is incongruous for one to say they love God and while they continue to actively engage in a sinful lifestyle of any kind: "Or do you not that unrighteousness will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God."
In light of that, is it possible for one to be a stealing Christian, or a Christian murderer, or a Christian adulterer? If one is truly in Christ these things become a thing of the past, for no man can serve two masters. It is no more possible for one to be a homosexual Christian than it is to be a Christian murderer. That may be what one was before Christ, but to continue to walk down the same old road of homosexuality while claiming ties to Christ is like trying to walk down both sides of the road at the same time. There is a clear distinction between what I was before Christ and what I now am in Christ. I serve Him, not my sinful desires--I submit my sinful desires to Him that He may give me grace to walk in His ways.

As for your last question: "'...As God created them male and female from the beginning!' I don't understand what you are talking about here. Can you explain? What does this have to do with same-sex attractions." The Genesis 1 and 2 paradigm for marriage and sexuality is upheld throughout the entire Bible, even after the fall God never amended His original plan from creation. Jesus, in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:2-11, reaffirms this creation ideal as does Paul in Ephesians 5:22-33, when he compares the church's relationship with Christ to the metaphor of marriage as found in creation.The point is simple, any departure or deviation from this creation ideal, whether adultery, incest, fornication, pedophilia, or homosexuality is a departure from God's intended design for gender, monogamy, and sexuality. Therefore, any desires to the contrary of God's prescription are not from God, but stem from the sinful human nature. While your desires/attraction are real, they are not from God but are rooted in the sin nature.

The Radical Watchman said...

If you had taken the time to read my post right below the one you commented on you would already know the answer to your question. A few more posts below is another article addressing the authority of God's word on the same-sex debate. To a great extent those two posts answer you statement veiled as a multi-part question.

I am as certain that God's word is inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative, and all sufficient as I am that night will always give way to day. No doubt to unbelievers I am a religious fool, but I fear God, not fickle man. If you are really open-minded and want to know why I believe the Bible is God's word I would suggest you read a recent edition of Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict".

As for you, without any empirical, diagnostic proof whatsoever, how do you know homosexuals are biologically oriented that way--or as Lady Gaga would say "Born That Way"? How do you know pedophiles, zoophiles, and serial adulterers aren't "Born that way" as well? Such is the slippery slope of moral and cultural relativism.

The Radical Watchman said...

Regarding your final question about why God didn't send Christ to the cross in the garden fails to consider how God did express His grace and mercy to the fallen couple in Genesis 3:22, when He provided a covering for them, which required the sacrifice of an innocent animal--a stark reminder that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Also, in the midst of meting out the curse, God made future provision for salvation through a sinless substitute to come (Genesis 3:15), who we know as Jesus. The Old Testament saints were saved by grace through faith in the messiah who was to come. Their salvation was then evidenced in adherence to the law and participation in the sacrificial system, which was a picture of the perfect sacrifice to come via Christ.

Galatians 4:4 records, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman born under the law ...". Hebrews 1:1-3 chronicles the same sentiment, "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things through whom He made the world. He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of power.When He made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

The Bible is progressive revelation that incrementally reveals the redemptive plan of God. You can second guess why God didn't do things differently, or why He didn't do what He did according to human reckoning, but you and I are not God: "Oh the depth of the riches both of wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the LORD, or who became His counselor? Or who has first has given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36). As Paul said, "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God unto salvation." So in the end, I might be a fool, but I am God's fool. Whose fool are you?