Kevin Alan Lewis
Comments & Columns
Un-Natural Law: The California Supreme Court Overrules Proposition 22
May 16, 2008
By an egregious act of judicial activism, the California Supreme Court, by a 4-3 decision, has overruled Proposition 22, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 2000 by 61.4% of voters, explicitly amended the California Family Code to limit marriage in California to one man and one woman. Period!
The legal result of the court’s decision is that California will begin to permit legally recognized homosexual marriages in 30 days, unless the court grants a stay on its decision. In November, Californians will likely vote on the Marriage Amendment Initiative, which, if passed, would in substance make the language of the Defense of Marriage Act a part of the state constitution. This would effectively prevent the court from tinkering with the will of the people on the matter. However, given the sad state of legal reasoning found in the current decision, I would not be surprised if the California Supremes’ next feat of judicial prestidigitation was to declare the constitution itself unconstitutional.
This California decision, if implemented, will quickly affect every state in the union. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution will likely require each state to acknowledge homosexual marriages contracted in California as legitimate marriages and grant each homosexual “couple” the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples.
This current ruling, however, should not surprise anyone. The Christian law and public policy community has seen this judicial tsunami coming for over two decades (See Bowers, Romer, Lawrence, et al.). The homosexual lobby has been relentless and united in its crusade against Christian ethics and the traditional family. And if the Christian community fails to act quickly and effectively, this decision will be only one of many constitutional train wrecks to come in the near future. (Q): What’s coming next if we do not get busy? (A): Hate speech laws to silence those who disagree with the left’s agenda.
Problematic Legal Reasoning
So what’s legally wrong with the decision? The dissenting opinion by Justice Baxter nicely summarizes the problems with the majority opinion. In it, he states a number of problems with the court’s ruling:
“In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.”
“Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.”
“The majority’s mode of analysis is particularly troubling. The majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative”
The majority decision also employed the homosexual rights lobby’s commonly used specious arguments and legal sophistry, for example, comparing the current denial of homosexual marriage with the denials of interracial marriages in past decades. And in its analysis of the state’s constitutional right to marry and the state’s equal protection clause, the court emotionally opined about the need for “equal dignity” and the end of “discrimination” against homosexuals.
This was judicial activism at its worst.
The Required Response by God’s People
America is clearly engaged in a cultural war of values. Judicial activism into deep, morally rooted worldview issues, such as abortion, has only produced the effect of a deeply divided culture. Roe v. Wade prematurely cut off the substantive, legitimate debate in the public square on a vital, moral and legal issue. A judicial decision finalizing an aspect of the debate on homosexuality only serves to further divide the culture and cut off the legitimate debate in the public square.
The struggle against evil will continue until the Lord returns. And as such God’s people must respond with more than a passive disgust. Christians must stop playing defense and begin to implement a comprehensive offensive strategy to protect the culture, making it a safe and healthy place to raise children and live our Christian faith. This, I believe, is the preferred way to live.
Contemporary Christian leaders in the university and the church need to adopt a biblical theology of church and state (See Romans 13:1-7, et al.) and train our own people to think Christianly, while functioning in civil government at the highest levels. In the era of America’s Founding Fathers, we, the church, produced leaders like John Jay, a co-author of the Federalist Papers, Governor of New York, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and the second President of the American Bible Society! Christian higher education needs to rapidly produce more outstanding leaders like Justice Jay.
On a more local level, we need to recruit our own candidates and work diligently to have them elected. Then, we must vote intelligently for these candidates—including judges. Christian civic leaders can protect our inalienable God-given freedoms. Unfortunately, Christian apathy and inaction at the ballot box has only served to produce a parade of legislative, executive, and judicial tyrants at all levels of government. There are many good voters’ guides available. We need to get registered, get informed, and vote so that we, our children, and our children’s children will continue to enjoy the blessings of liberty and the providential favor of our Creator.
Homosexuality is and always will be a sin (See Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:18-32). And it is bad public policy for the state to legitimize and encourage behaviors and unions that harm the family, the backbone of civilization.
Fortunately, God, the Righteous Judge, has already overruled the California court’s decision. However, it is up to God’s people to implement His decision—rapidly, wisely and prudently.
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD” (Psalm 33:12)
Click here to download the full supreme court opinion (PDF File)
For resources on the issues related to homosexuality in culture, see http://www.lawandjustice.org/studyroom/theology.php
For Christian friendly voters guides, see http://www.lawandjustice.org/june2008votersguides.php
Misplaced Hope in Presidential Messiahs
May 1, 2008
As we look at the current presidential race, it appears quite clear to me that there is nothing close to another Ronald Reagan in the field of candidates and there will not be a Reagan epiphany any time in the near or distant future.
This want of genuine conservative Christian candidates for all public offices is troubling.
From the era of the Founding Fathers to the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the Christian community in America encouraged and produced its own governmental leaders by having a robust theology of government and graduate schools in which to train our own people. This is no longer the case. I truly believe that those in the position of affecting Christian higher education need to move—and move quickly—if we do not want to see the culture disintegrate even further. We need to recruit and train our own leaders in society as we once did when Christians controlled Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
Another troubling issue is that we seem to have placed too much hope in the executive and judicial branches of government. The concept of the godly republic is leaving the public conscience.
A good argument can be made that the country has disproportionately placed too much of its cash, time and hope into presidential races and has, for the most part, neglected the congressional races. And to what end? The presidential candidates are not the stellar lot for which we hoped. I think at the present time we can get more bang for our political buck by diverting some of our time and cash to the congressional races.
By design the U.S. Constitution gives congress, which is most representative of the people, some formidable powers over the other branches of government.
The congress may remove laws from judicial review by means of Article 3, Section 2 of the constitution, neutering a good deal of judicial activism. (See http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-25.html for an interesting read on the usefulness of this congressional tool.) And congress may override presidential vetoes and impeach and remove wayward members of the Executive and Judicial branches of government.
Newt Gingrich proved that you could, with the right strategy, win the congress and accomplish a substantial amount of good (e.g. federal welfare reform)—even when you have a left-of-center democrat as president.
While the goal is to “own” all three branches of government, perhaps it time for a renewed strategy. With so many Republicans retiring, it is time to redouble our efforts on capturing congress. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112602235.html?hpid=topnews )
Here is a golden opportunity for a new “Covenant with America” as a congressional race strategy. We need to nationalize each congressional race with the conservative issues we hold dear.
America seems to want a king to take care of all of our problems. Sorry! There is only one Messiah. And when He returns, He will not be pleased with what He finds His people doing (See Revelation 19:11-16).
It’s time for Christian people to ignore the lie that “one person can fix all of our problems” and embrace freedom, personal responsibility and representative government.
It’s time for the New Covenant with America.
______________________________________________________________
The Crux of Romney’s Evangelical Problem
December 3, 2007
With the primaries just around the corner, some pro-Romney advocates have begun to put the full-court press on those conservative Evangelicals still opposed to voting for Romney. They have asserted that Evangelicals who fail to see the wisdom of voting for Romney are, among other things, committed to self-defeat, bigotry, religious litmus tests or an unrealistic standard of “perfection” for a candidate. And, they conclude, this sort of foolishness can only lead to the inauguration of the she-devil herself, Hillary Clinton.
So what’s wrong with Romney? He is ethical, a competent executive, a good family man,—and, we’re told, he’s even good looking as a nice bonus. So with the stakes so high in this election, how could any Bible thumpin’ Evangelical fail to see the wisdom of voting for Romney, the Mormon?
The answer is simple. First, Evangelicals do not want a president whose religion is hostile to theirs. And, second, there may be eternal consequences for placing a Mormon—any Mormon— in the office of the President of the United States.
Evangelicals do not want a President who is Theologically Anti-Christian.
It may come as a shock to some who are new to the debate, but Mormonism is actually an anti-Christian religion.
The Mormon religion has been openly hostile to orthodox Christianity since its inception in 1820. The founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, claimed that “all the churches” were wrong, “all their creeds were an abomination,” and “all the professors” (of the Christian faith) were corrupt. And this “First Vision” is the foundation for the Mormon claim to be the only true restored church. Thus the Mormon Church has been Anti-Catholic, Anti-Protestant, and Anti-Eastern Orthodox from the beginning.
The declaration from all Christian orthodoxy is clear: Mormonism is a false form of Christianity—a theological cult (read: “group of heretics”). The Mormon Church teaches that the god of this planet is nothing more than one of many true gods that exist. And the Mormon god is a limited, evolved, exalted man with a body of flesh and bones. Ultimately, salvation (or Exaltation) in Mormonism is becoming a god. And all Mormon males who have the restored Melchizedek Priesthood are eligible to work their way to godhood.
The salvific opinion of Christian orthodoxy is clear: If one believes the official Mormon gospel and worships the god of Mormonism, she is not saved. Period. All of the good works in the world are worthless for salvation. And even more so if one has a different Jesus and another Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Cor. 11:3-5). Evangelicals believe Mormons are not Christians. And as such, Mormons need to convert to orthodox Christianity if they are to be saved.
Likewise, the Mormon Church has always actively proselytized orthodox Christians due to their belief that orthodox Christians are in a false church.
So why are Evangelicals opposed to Romney, the Mormon? It is because Romney appears to be a faithful Mormon, who believes all the official doctrines of the Mormon Church—until we hear otherwise—and, as such, is theologically opposed to Evangelical Christianity.
The result of this theological tension is that many Christians are extremely uncomfortable placing a person in the White House whose religion is openly hostile to their own—even if he shares their ethical standards. These same Evangelicals would also never accept a Muslim in the White House—even if the Muslim shared their conservative values—because Islam is also theologically hostile to Christianity.
This is not a new objection. Many Protestants did not want to live in Catholic ruled countries and the Pilgrims (Protestants) did not want to live in Protestant England—even though both groups had common ethical systems. Christians generally prefer—and should prefer—a leader who is theologically friendly to their cause.
John Jay, Founding Father, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, and the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court agrees. He declares:
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Conservatives who love the Founding Fathers would do well to return to their wisdom in these matters if we want to remain a great a good nation.
A Conflict Between the Gospel War and the Culture War
Evangelicals are well aware that we are now in the process of electing a President, not a national pastor.
However, Evangelicals also know that they are fighting two simultaneous battles. There is an ongoing “Gospel War” and a “Culture War.” When there is a conflict between the two tasks, the Gospel takes priority. The Gospel war has eternal consequences—particularly, eternal, conscious separation from God. Failure in the culture war produces only temporal consequences.
So how does this potential Evangelical dilemma apply to the Romney question?
Some Evangelicals believe a Mormon in the White House would only serve to mainstream Mormonism as a religion in American culture, making conversion to Mormonism far more acceptable than it has ever been. Thus a Romney presidency would quickly accomplish what the Mormon Church itself has failed to do in the last several decades—mainstream itself in American culture.
Should this scenario occur, it would simply help the Mormon Church make more converts. And many Evangelicals would rather have four years of bad government, than indirectly aid a false religion by helping to mainstream it with their vote.
So, in sum, a vote for Romney is likely to be a de-facto vote to mainstream a false religion.
Evangelicals who believe that the Jesus of Christian orthodoxy is the only Way of Salvation (John 14:6) and eternal punishment awaits those who reject Him (Rev. 20:11-15) are simply not apt to throw caution to the wind and risk assisting a false religion that, if believed, would result in separation from God for all eternity.
For skeptics, atheists, and others who know little about Evangelical Christian theology, these theological objections to Romney will appear meaningless and incoherent. This article is not for those folks. I know they don’t get it.
For Christians who are convinced of the eternal consequences of false religion, they will consider well these weighty factors before casting a vote for Romney.