The Gallup organization has been tracking this for some time. In March of 1996 they asked the public, "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" Twenty-seven percent said "Yes" while 68% said "No." They tracked it over the years. The highest point was in May, 2018, where 67% said "Yes" and 31% said "No." Currently (May, 2019), it is 63% for and 36% against. In 2008 when California was arguing with itself and the courts over the concept, only 40% of Americans thought same-sex marriages should be recognized. In 2015 when the Supreme Court legislated "same-sex marriage" from the bench, 58% of Americans were in favor.
The numbers are interesting. In 23 years the public opinion shifted 40%. That's a rapid change in a relatively short time. The fact that the "approval rating" actually dropped by 4% most recently is curious. The realization that a clear majority of Americans opposed "same-sex marriage" when the courts were demanding it is telling. But the other thing that struck me about the figures was that high point of 67%. The sense we get from the media and the public is that "You nearly nonexistent folks who disagree with the concept are not worth considering." The fact is that 1) at the highest point it was 2 out of 3, not 9 out of 10 or 95 out of 100 like it is typically presented, and 2) "majority" was not a consideration when the idea was being pushed in the first place, but appears to be now. A larger percentage of people opposed "same-sex marriage" in 1996 than currently favor it now.
All this to say that "what is right" is not determined by public opinion. In the case of "same-sex marriage" "what is right" was determined first against public opinion. Two of three opposed it in 1996. President Obama stated his opposition in 2008. "What is right" is not determined by law. In the mid 90's President Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law, blocking the government from infringing on a person's exercise of religion without a "compelling government issue." Currently the Equality Act has been passed by the House and is now in the Senate aimed at removing protections from religious organizations in regard to LGBTQ issues. If passed, faith-based organizations will not be allowed to discriminate for hiring, etc. on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Your church thinks that homosexual behavior is a sin and God only made two genders? Too bad. The new law contradicts the old law (and the Bill of Rights, but who's counting?). The courts don't decide "what is right." They may decide what is legal. They may decide what will be done. They don't decide what is moral.
Where does that leave us? Well, on one hand we have the principle of objective morality -- morality that is based in absolutes. If there is a God, that God gets to say, "This is moral and that is not" and no opinion, no legislation, no court gets to decide He's wrong. He is the standard and everything else must comply or be wrong. Or, morality is purely "what is right in his own eyes" (Judg 17:6; 21:25). Each of us determines right and wrong and no one can compel anyone else to share a common moral perspective. This, of course, is not feasible. So we have this current moral ground where small groups with sufficient emotional force can bend a nation's moral outlook to their will with use of propaganda and "hate lists" and "hate maps" and adjectives to be avoided at all costs (e.g., "hater," "bigot," "homophobe," etc.) and even legal action get to define a nation's morality on their own narrow vision. Like in Georgia where threats from the NFL and Hollywood and the Walt Disney company forced the governor to veto a bill defending religious freedom.
So where does that leave us? God is out. His moral views are irrelevant, regardless of whether they're right or best or authoritative. Public opinion is only relevant if it agrees with the powers that be. And we can be pretty sure that this will continue to edge religious freedom out of the nation even if the Bill of Rights guarantees it. "Your moral outlook is irrelevant; come to the dark side." That's today's outlook.
3 comments:
I completely agree. What I'm wondering is how those affected by this will respond. Will they stand up for what is right, regardless of the consequences, or will they follow the lead of the progressives and acquiesce?
Some have merely thrown up their hands saying, "What's the point of arguing anymore?" That's the worst...where resolve is so easily diminished by the constant badgering of the immoral and their enablers in the courts and legislatures. And with every success by the immoral, it becomes more difficult to reverse course back to morality and sanity. And more people lose their resolve and give up. It is how we're destroyed from within.
At the same time, as people try to live their lives, they're unwilling to risk by speaking their minds. Every charge of hatred and bigotry stifles free speech in ways legislation never can, and thus the goals of the immoral are reached more easily.
Part of me wants to say, leave them to it. There further away they push Christianity away from acceptable, the more chaff will be threshed from the wheat. The American Church is sick. The only way to save it, aside from another Revival gifted by God, is to cut the bad parts out. Christianity grew the truest and fastest when it was illegal. Christianity had been the "in" thing for so long that it has lost any meaning. When you can say in the same breath that 67% of Americans are Christians and that 67% of Americans approve homosexual behavior, Christan no longer has any meaning. I would rather have to hide my faith with the faithful, than be loud and proud with the "faithful".
Post a Comment