The Obama Administration Comes Out of the Closet on Marriage
Barack Obama declared throughout the 2008 presidential campaign that “marriage was between one man and one woman.” During that same period, he expressed strong support for homosexuality and the right of homosexuals to civil unions and other benefits.
Many of us were confused by his stance. Was he trying to walk the fence–pleasing homosexuals on one hand by strongly supporting and encouraging their sexual rights–but also trying to capture Judeo-Christian voters by speaking up for traditional marriage? Or was he truly conflicted in his mind about whether homosexuals should be allowed to alter the five thousand year definition of marriage?
We do not know the man’s heart. But now we do know that he stands opposed to all forty-four presidents before him on the issue of marriage. We also know that he is neither a Christian or a Muslim on the subject. As I have stated for two years, in policy, he is a secularist. His position on marriage is not only anti-Christian, it is against the moral teachings of every major religion in the world.
Furthermore, we know that he is desperate to activate his base in order to win the 2012 presidential election. Because on February 23, the Obama Administration came out of the closet on marriage by saying they would no longer defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
By doing so they have thrown down the gauntlet on the most important moral issue of the 21st century.
This is a stunning development–worthy of our prayers and attention. For five millenia wise and civil societies have built their social fabric on the God-given concept that the joining together of a man and a woman in the blessing and protection of marriage is essential to stable societies and the nurturing of children.
Only one worldview–atheism/secularism–which accepts no moral absolutes–has ever rationalized the crucial nature and definition of the marriage relationship.
The secularists in Europe have made vast inroads on this issue over the past forty years. Homosexual marriage has been growing steadily in popularity there. Now America, once the world’s most Christian and free nation, is following the European path to dissolving the sanctity of marriage.
We now know that the 2012 US Presidential election will not just be about our economic woes or uncertainty in the Middle East.
The issue of marriage will be front and center.
Marriage must be saved.
The secularist assault on morality must be stopped.
The New York Times said about the president’s about-face: “Although President Obama drew much criticism from gay righ advocates during his first two years for dragging his feet on their most important issues, they now see him shifting his positions as he looks at the 2012 elections. The president has calculated that the benefits of responding to his base out weigh the risks of upsetting conservatives who wouldn’t vote for him anyway. The president’s views on homosexual marriage are ‘evolving.'”
This is why the response to the Obama Administration’s coming out of the closet on marriage brought such swift and powerful reaction from the people of faith.
I am a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals–the largest consortium of Christian leaders and churches in America. Following the Obama Administration’s about-face on marriage, NAE President Leith Anderson issued this statement to our members:
“We are at a crossroads in the fight to defend traditional marriage. Attorney General Holder’s announcement on Feb. 23 that the administration will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court is a break with the time honored tradition in which the Justice Department works to uphold laws passed by Congress. Congress now needs to step in and hire its own lawyers to defend traditional marriage—IF we can convince them to do so. Congress must act within 30 days, or it will lose the right to defend DOMA in the courts.”
“Traditional marriage is fundamental to healthy families and a healthy society. This is a critical moment! Let’s flood Congress with calls and letters, asking them to act now to defend traditional marriage. The NAE has a new website where you can go to find the names and addresses of your legislators: www.nae.net/advocacy. You can write them directly from our site! I encourage you to take a minute to do so right now.”
I am grateful of Leith Anderson’s leadership. I encourage to respond to his trumpet call to action.
The highly respected Heritage Foundation also chimed in on the need to save the institution of marriage. Here is their sobering message:
“This Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder sent his own version of a “Dear John” letter to the Speaker of the House, informing him that President Barack Obama’s Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. The letter clearly states that the decision was personally made by the President himself, who, supposedly just this week, came to the conclusion that DOMA violates “the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment” of the U.S Constitution. This purely partisan act is completely consistent with both President Obama’s unprecedented politicization of the Justice Department and the same-sex marriage movement’s end-run around for democracy.”
“DOMA was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. DOMA has two core provisions. First, it defines the words marriage, spouse, husband, and wife wherever they appear in the U.S. Code as referring only to the union of a man or a woman. Second, it defends the right of each state not to be forced to accept the redefinition of marriage in a handful of other states as a result of state court decisions or laws. Nearly 40 states have enacted state-level DOMAs, and 31 have embraced traditional marriage in their state constitutions. No state’s voters have ever voted to the contrary.”
“President Obama knows all of this. He also knows that his Administration’s litany of failures (unemployment above 8 percent, Guantanamo still open, exploding debt, etc.) has weakened him politically. By now asserting that there is no rational case for defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman, President Obama is echoing the claims of same-sex marriage advocated who portray the defenders of traditional marriage as irrational and bigoted. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Chuck Donovan explains, defense of traditional marriage is not only rational but a cornerstone of civil society:”
“‘Marriage is the cornerstone in an archway of values that form the constitution of the family and the foundation of civil society. To its advocates as an institution with a pre-political meaning, it is not an entity created by the state but rather one recognized by the state. It is not about one family, but the coming together of two families, whose role in begetting and bearing children make them not merely part of a community but the creators of community. The community they create is not time-bound, but existing across generations. … What is at stake is the whole task of society to ensure that as many children as possible are raised by their mothers and fathers.'”
“There is one silver lining in the President’s decision to call the vast majority of Americans who believe in traditional marriage bigots: Congress now has the opportunity to offer a real defense of marriage in court. Up to this date, the Obama Administration’s fraudulent defense of DOMA in federal court has been characterized by even supporters of same-sex marriage as “collusive litigation.” Congress should defend its rights as a co-equal branch of government under the United States Constitution and fight for marriage.”
“This does not mean that Congress needs to vote on DOMA again. DOMA is still good law. It does mean that Congress needs to act to make sure DOMA has effective and aggressive defense in court. Members of Congress, should seek to intervene in the case to assure that DOMA gets the vigorous defense that should be afforded to all federal statutes for which reasonable legal arguments may be offered—and that the President is refusing to provide.”
As Heritage points out, not only has the president turned his back on traditional marriage–the backbone of American society–but he has also chosen to selectively enforce the laws of the land–a direct affront to his oath of office. This greatly weakens the traditional strength of our three branches of government.
The Obama Administration wants to dictate to the US Supreme Court and Congress.
The Family Research Council also decried the administration’s position:
“Family Research Council condemned the decision today by President Obama that the U.S. Justice Department will abdicate its responsibility and no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) enacted overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, is currently under attack in the courts.”
“Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments regarding the decision: ‘This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President’s failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States. What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?’
“‘Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama’s decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.'”
“‘With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President’s neglect of duty,’ concluded Perkins.”
If you do not believe that we are truly in a fight for the heart and soul of our civilization, then you need to think again.
The battle for slavery was the great moral issue of the 19th century. We won–after a bloody Civil War. Abortion was the greatest moral evil of the latter part of the 20th century. We are getting close to reversing it–and saving the lives of millions of children.
In the 21st century, the pillar of marriage is weak, crumbling, and about to be re-defined. This will produce disastrous consequences to us, our children, and our grandchildren if we allow its demise.
I ask you pray, make phone calls, and rise up to strengthen and re-establish the institution of marriage in your nation. Start with your own. get active in your state and nation.
The Obama Administration has come out of the closet on marriage.
We must repent of our apathy, seek God’s forgiveness, and through his strength and guidance–put this looming danger back into the shadows where it properly belongs.
The Meaning of the Madison Protests
If you’re like me, you’ve been watching the protests in Madison, Wisconsin–and indeed throughout the Middle East and the world–with great interest and some fear and trepidation.
On the one hand it’s good to see people standing up for what they believe. On the other hand, the Madison protests in particular seem bullyish and quite deceptive–with teachers closing down the schools with faked sick notes and fourteen Democratic law-makers fleeing the state to shirk their legislative responsibilities.
For the protesters, their main justification seems to be that the end justifies the means.
But that principle only applies to despots, tyrants, or anarchists. It does not apply to Judeo-Christian-based republics, their ethics and manners.
Does that give us a hint of the meaning of Madison?
For those who haven’t been following this story, here’s a little background. The 2010 elections saw a large number of conservative governors, legislators, and representatives rise to leadership promising a return to fiscal sanity. Many of them were elected in states where the previous liberal leadership had run up huge budget deficits through unrestrained growth of government workers and services.
In Wisconsin, enter newly elected Governor Scott Walker who inherited a 3.6 billion dollar deficit from the out-going administration. As in many other states, the people elected him to reverse direction and deal with the budget problem caused by egregious spending.
Governor Walker remarked last week: “I’ve said all along the protesters have every right to be there, but I’m not going to let tens of thousands overload or overshadow the millions of people in Wisconsin, the taxpayers of the state, who want us to do the right thing and balance the budget,”
Walker decided to take his budget axe to the root of the problem: the unsustainable and unfair growth of government employee entitlements. He proposed having government workers:
- Pay twelve percent of their own health insurance costs. That seems reasonable.
- Pay five percent of their pensions. That seems fair too.
- Have some limitations on their collective bargaining agreements. (More on that later.)
The first two points are no-brainers. These are modest changes that are totally necessary. We are in a deep recession. People in the private sphere are struggling to make ends meet, and, in some cases, are making draconian cuts to their businesses and lifestyles to survive.
Shouldn’t government workers be asked to make some sacrifices too?
The average America believes so. That’s why deficit-reducing governors, legislators and representatives were swept into office in record numbers in November.
In fact, the problem is much bigger than just asking government workers to give a little. The truth is that times have changed radically in America over the past fifty years.
It might even be necessary to re-define “white collar” and “blue collar” workers.
For most of America’s history, white collar stood for the private sector professionals and business people who wore nice suits and made more money than farmers, factory workers and people in the trades. The blue collar workers were the lower rung of society who got dirty for a living.
How times have changed. Today, the white collar workers are the government folks (plus some professionals and business people). They wear the nice suits and work for a smorgasbord of agencies like the IRS, FAA, FDA, NSA, and thousands more. And today’s blue collar are the self-employed and small business owners who are being strangled by government regulations, fees, and rising taxes to pay for the salaries and benefits of the new government white collar class.
It’s the new American reality–and it’s a huge economic problem.
According to the generally liberal newspaper–USA Today–this growing discrepancy between the salaries of government white collars and private blue collars is exploding. Here’s their take:
“At a time when workers’ pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees’ average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds. Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.”
“Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.”
“The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.”
“What the data show:
•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government’s contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.
•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.
•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.”
USA Today’s number relate to the federal government work force. But the same escalation in state government entitlements–especially pensions–has followed the national curve.
At a basic level, the current battle in Madison boils down to the simple need of shrinking the size of government and its perks. It will soon spill over to many other American states that are also “government-heavy.”
It’s way past due.
Government service has been historically viewed in this nation as “public service”–a sacrifice one makes for less pay and benefits to “serve” his country. This concept comes directly from the Bible in Romans 13 where government is viewed as a “minister of God for good.” A minister is a servant. He’s not the boss, the wealthy owner, but rather the one who sacrifices for the greater good.
For over two hundred years, America kept to this wise political model.
But over the part few decades the power of government unions has changed all that. Instead of seeing government employment as a “service,” it is now viewed as a right that demands more money and higher benefits than those who pay the bills in the private sector.
Let’s talk about unions for a moment. I was a union member for a short time in my life, and I’m certainly not against the concept. The union movement was born during a time in which private business was neglectful of a number of basic human rights. The early unions helped correct that by encouraging and passing some good child labor laws and eventually the five day work week. I’m not sure that is biblical (six days in the Scripture norm), but it was a healthy step.
Unions helped balance the economic ledger in the early days of the Industrial Revolution.
However, today, unions have become a noose around the neck of business trying to compete in a global marketplace. With basic human rights issues settled decades ago, unions have become primarily a potent liberal political force–without the concurrence of members. They have gotten in bed with state and national lawmakers in raiding the government till for health services and pricey pensions that the average taxpayer cannot afford to underwrite.
Truth be told, union power and their demands are financially raping many state governments. Wisconsin and many other states are broke because the private sector has been forced to support out-of-control government growth and its associated costs.
Now to the controversial part. The union members are saying that the Wisconsin protests are not about paying their fair share of health care and pensions. They say it is about collective bargaining rights. But history is clear on this point: Government unions should not have collective bargaining rights. So said Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1940s and every president prior to him. Roosevelt believed government workers were servants of the people, and should never be put in the position where they can paralyze or shut the government down–as they doing in Wisconsin.
Private unions can collectively bargain–not government ones. They are essential to the smooth functioning of a civil society.
If you’re interested in the “facts” about the Wisconsin protests, click here for valuable information.
But there is a bigger meaning to the Wisconsin riots that are destined to hit other cash-strapped states. It is this: A battle is going on for the heart and soul of the American nation. It is a 230 year battle between the forces of liberty and those who look to government controls.
America began in liberty–essentially the first constitutionally-born Christian republic in the history of the world. America’s great experiment in liberty was the result of spiritual revivals, faith in God, morals in society, and godly principles in family life, economics and civil polity.
Over time, the forces of tyranny turned the American nation from a Christian republic to a Christian-based democracy; Then to a secular-based democracy; Following the election of Barack Obama–they were on the verge of changing the American nation into a secular-based social democracy with huge government overreach (programs and entitlements) and a great erosion of freedom.
But the people rose up in 2010. Step one in restoring the American heritage of liberty was the Tea Party movement. Step Two was the landslide November 2010 elections which included the election of Scott Walker as governor of Wisconsin.
We are now entering Step Three in the reformation process–the paring back of bloated governments and its restraints on American competitiveness, greatness and freedom.
Many battles lie ahead in various state capitals. In Washington, D.C., a revitalized House of Representatives is leading the way for federal reforms in the growth of Big Government. It will be a a test of wills, but the cause of liberty is worth fighting.
Step Four will be the 2012 national elections. We need a US president and administration that is committed to scaling back the crippling power of the Entitlement State. We also need a United States Senate that is willing to look at vital tax reform, a balanced budget, and dealing with the federal entitlement monsters of Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare.
This is the meaning of the Madison protests.
Step Three has begun.
It is a fight for America’s future under God and his principles of freedom.
Will you pray and join the side of liberty?
Egypt’s Choice – A Primer in Government 101
The “Lotus Revolution” in Egypt is both wonderful in its demand for increasing freedom for that ancient civilization and frightening in terms of how it will turn out. Who will rise to power? What kind of new government should be established? How will the new government affect the stability of the Middle East and of the entire world?
Because Egypt is now faced with a choice of new leadership, I thought it would be valuable to use this occasion for a primer on government.
As my friend Bill Burtness wisely points out below, there are really only three forms of civil government in our fallen world: 1) Anarchy – usually a transitional form of government, but in operation in places like Yemen and parts of Pakistan. 2) Tyranny – Egypt formerly had a secular-leaning dictatorship under Hosni Mubarak. It could get a religious one (radical Muslim) under groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. 3) Democratic Republic – this could be established, a la the American model, if the Coptic Church leads a spiritual/character awakening in the nation.
I hope you can guess which one would be a blessing to the people of Egypt and globally.
Bill Burtness teaches the biblical principles of civil government in the United States, the nation of Kosovo, and other countries of the world. He’s one of the smartest men I know on civil polity.
After you read his excellent digest (which I’ve slightly modified), you might consider buying his e-book and boning up on this vital subject.
Big changes are coming to our world. Let’s pray that the peoples yearning for freedom will choose their governments wisely. RB
GOVERNMENT 101
The Proper Functions and Boundaries of Civil Government
By Bill Burtness
Are there proper functions and boundaries for civil government? Can’t civil government just do whatever it wants? As we watch events unfolding around the world this week, we see stark examples of basic life principles concerning government that are clearly illustrated in the Bible. We can understand these events more clearly by analyzing them according to a philosophy of government.
VIEWS OF SOVEREIGNTY
To begin, we must point out that when talking about government, many of us immediately think about politicians and the special buildings in our nation’s capital. That, however, represents only one sphere of government – civil government. There are other spheres also – family government, church government, business government, self-government and others.
Everyone has a philosophy of government that guides their thinking and choosing. Our philosophy of government begins with our understanding of sovereignty. This is our view of who or what has top authority.
We can simplify our analysis by categorizing all philosophies and ideologies as resting upon one or the other of two ultimate presuppositions. Either 1) the personal, infinite God of the Bible exists, or 2) the personal, infinite God of the Bible does not exist. Both of these presuppositions cannot be true. They each define worldviews by which people live.
If God exists, we can see that He is the highest authority – He has ultimate sovereignty. If we believe that God does not exist, then there are two other possible answers to our question, “Who or what has ultimate authority?” Either the state has ultimate authority or the individual, in and of himself, has ultimate authority. These three are the foundational possibilities. Let’s quickly summarize each one.
The Sovereignty Grid – “Who is in Control?”
POSSIBILITY ONE – GOD IS SOVEREIGN
The Biblical View
God is sovereign
Liberty with law
Government by consent of the governed
Limited civil government
Individual character – the basis of a self-governing (democratic) republic under God
POSSIBILITY TWO – THE STATE IS SOVEREIGN
The Socialist view
The state is sovereign
Tyranny (no freedom)
Total civil control
Unlimited civil government
Individual character subservient to the state
POSSIBILITY THREE – THE INDIVIDUAL IS SOVEREIGN
The Humanist view
Individual is sovereign
Anarchy (no law)
No civil control
No civil structure
Individual character is autonomous or rebellious
These are the three presuppositional philosophies of government – God is sovereign; the state is sovereign, the individual is sovereign. Let’s analyze them a little deeper.
GOD IS SOVEREIGN
The alternative to the world’s system of tyranny vs. anarchy is the recognition that God is sovereign – God is ultimately the top authority. This assumes that God exists and is active in the world today. God’s sovereignty means He has supreme authority over men and nations. This was the American founding father generation’s view.
In this view, the Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. He created us with the ability to govern our lives individually in our relationships with Him and with each other (Matt. 22:36-40). He told us how to do that by giving us in the Bible laws to which both men and the state should conform. This means that government is not derived from the opinions and passions of people, but is to rest on the wisdom of the Creator. His statutes take into account everything we do not know or understand and are motivated by His desire to secure love and the highest good. He says that these laws are not too difficult for us. The misery we see in the world is the simple result of individuals’ selfish choices and rebellion against God’s government of wisdom and love.
The Bible shows that civil government was given by God to man and has a proper purpose, which is to serve the individual by providing protection from force and fraud, not to control the individual. It is to secure the individual’s safety by protecting good and punishing evil (Romans 13:3-4). The state has a proper function to secure the ‘natural rights’ of the individual to life, liberty and property. Tyranny exists to the degree the state oversteps these proper boundaries.
To the degree that God’s sovereignty is recognized and honored by the people in any society or nation, there is freedom without chaos as the people individually control themselves under God according to His Law and ways. There is order without tyranny, because the Law is written on the hearts of the people. The result is peace and prosperity as the context of life. The individual is free to advance himself and his family as he sees fit.
THE STATE IS SOVEREIGN
If one does not believe that God exists, or does not know Him personally, then the biblical view really does not exist in his mind or experience. “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” Jesus told us. In this case, we look around and ask, “Where does top authority lie?” Many then suppose that the state is sovereign – that supreme authority rests in the civil government.
The extreme of this view believes that whatever the state decrees is absolute, right and by definition must be obeyed. The purpose of civil government is to control the individual’s life, not serve and protect the individual. The value of the individual is defined by his contribution to the state.
In other words–the state is God. In the extreme, the state decides who should live and who should not, what the individual can and cannot do, what his career will be, how many children he may have, what property he may have, how much of his earnings he may keep, what he may do with his property, what he may think and tell others, where he may travel, and what he may teach his children.
Here, the state gives rights to life, liberty and property as it wills and can take these rights away as it wills, to strengthen its control.
Employing the educational, media and political elites, the state’s purpose in this view is to control the lives of the people. This is tyranny – total civil control. This control can either take a secular or relgious form.
THE INDIVIDUAL IS SOVEREIGN
There are individuals who rebel against this control, reasoning that, “The state is actually just people like me; what gives them the right to tell me what to do?”
If we believe that God does not exist and the state is not sovereign, then our only alternative is that the individual in and of himself must be sovereign. In this extreme each person is autonomous in his own life and chooses for himself what values will be his and what rules of conduct he will abide by.
This is anarchy – no civil control. Anarchy, however, is only a short transitional phase before tyranny. People need and want order and peace. In times of anarchy they look for a strong ruler on whom they can depend. This is what was happening in the Bible in Judges. The last verse tells us, “In those days there was no king in Israel, everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” They were free but God had faded in their hearts from being king. Soon, (I Sam. 8) they were demanding of Samuel a human king “to [rule us] and fight our battles.” Their dependent character would not be dissuaded so God ultimately gave them the king they desired.
IN SUMMARY
The alternative to the world’s struggle between anarchy and tyranny is the Biblical view that the civil government’s proper function is to serve and protect. This liberty is sustained only by a populace of strong, self-governed character under God. Every nation must choose between anarchy, tyranny, or bilblical freedom. Let’s pray that Egypt and America–and many other countries will experience spiritual awaking and corporate character enough to retain the new wine of civil liberty.
* Excerpts from Chapter 3 of the new resource, Philosophy of Freedom: Principles of American Self-government, by Bill Burtness– a layman’s analysis in simple terms of the Biblical ideas that formed the basis of the American founding documents and philosophy of government. It is a .pdf e-book on pre-publication Internet Sale – $10.00: