By Joe Rutherford
Former NPR and current Fox News political analyst Juan Williams made an excellent point Monday night on “The O’Reilly Factor.” Williams said the major reason President Obama had not endorsed same-sex marriage is because of the strong opposition to it in the black and Hispanic communities.
Who could have doubted, though, that the president favors expanding the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians?
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to have it both ways when he claimed the president’s position on same-sex marriage is still “evolving.” This means the president opposes North Carolina’s new constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the legal union of a man and woman and bans same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships.
We are supposed to believe the president opposes “discrimination” against same-sex couples who wish to marry, but still favors traditional marriage, as he claimed back in 2008 when he said he believed “marriage is between a man and a woman.” At least, of course, until Wednesday when he sat down for a hastily arranged interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts and said he thinks “same-sex couples should be able to marry.”
Traditional marriage is an issue most conservative Christians embrace, but … this is a battle they are unlikely to win for a number of reasons.
One is the behavior of so many in the traditionalist camp. If you are Christian and are going to argue in favor of traditional marriage, it doesn’t help that so many in your camp are poor examples of what marriage is supposed to be.
A 2004 study by the Barna Group, of Ventura, Calif., a polling firm that focuses mainly on Christian beliefs and practices and their cultural influence, found “the likelihood of married adults getting divorced is identical among born-again Christians and those who are not born again.”
If conservative Christians don’t accept the opinions and practices of those who favor same-sex marriage, why should gays accept theirs? The fight centers on who can muster the most votes, not whether something is objectively true and, more importantly, who gets to make the rules.
In ancient and rebellious Israel when there was no wide acceptance of the laws and precepts God had laid down for His people, the writer of the Book known as Judges uses a phrase that could easily apply: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25.)
How do you impose a biblical and traditionalist worldview about marriage when so many people have become their own “god”?
Cal Thomas writes for Tribune Media Services, 2010 Westridge Drive, Irving, TX 75038. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas at email@example.com.