A June Surprise? President Obama and Same-Sex Marriage

Is President Obama about to endorse same-sex marriage? The possibility was the subject of open speculation on the front page of Sunday’s edition of The New York Times. Reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg quoted an unnamed Democratic strategist close to the White House, who said that the President’s advisers are considering the political costs, if any, of such an action.

When President Obama ran for office in 2008, he stated that he was opposed to same-sex marriage, but he ran as an ardent supporter of the homosexual community. This week, he will host a $1,250-a-plate “Gala for the Gay Community” in New York City. Stolberg also reports that the President will host a gay pride reception at the White House on June 29. The issue of same-sex marriage will inevitably be discussed, especially given the fact that the New York legislature may be poised to legalize same-sex marriage as early as this week.

Interestingly, Stolberg cites the fact that while Obama, as a candidate, ran as one opposed to same-sex marriage, “he may have been for same-sex marriage before he was against it.”

She writes: “In 1996, as a candidate for the State Senate in Illinois, Mr. Obama responded to a questionnaire from a gay newspaper. ‘I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,’ Mr. Obama wrote, ‘and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.'”

President Obama has already called and worked for the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and has instructed his Attorney General not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. Same-sex marriage seems like the logical next step, given the President’s record.

Nevertheless, an open endorsement of same-sex marriage by an incumbent President of the United States would be a very significant and troubling development. If he were to do so, President Obama would not only repudiate his former position(s), he would push this nation toward the unraveling of civilization’s most central institution — marriage.

The unnamed Democratic strategist said that President Obama “is clearly a president who is interested in making big historical changes . . . I think this issue has moved into that context for him.”

The realm of politics is as corrupted by sin as is any other dimension of creation and human culture. Here is a prime example of that fact. With this article, the White House is moving forward in gauging the political costs of such a move. The very fact that this article appeared in a Sunday edition of The New York Times indicates that the White House is well down the road of endorsing same-sex marriage. If this strategist is right, President Obama sees himself as the leader who can make “big historical changes.” Well, this one is big, indeed.

Such a move would represent nothing less than a moral revolution. Furthermore, the one who makes such a move would be nothing less than a moral revolutionary.

The Myth of the Genderless Baby

Back in the nineteenth century, the British people were introduced to a fairy tale about “water babies” through a story written by Rev. Charles Kingsley. The water babies entered folklore, and generations of British children imagined the water babies and their story.

Now, out of Canada comes another strange story, but this one is not a fairy tale. Two Canadian parents have ignited a firestorm over their determination to raise their third child as a “genderless” baby.

As reporter Jayme Poisson reports, “The neighbors know [Kathy] Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising a genderless baby. But they don’t pretend to understand it.”

Well, the neighbors might take these parents at their word, but the very idea of a genderless baby is nonsense. This is not a baby with ambiguous genitalia, a defect that occurs in a very small percentage of births. The parents admit that this baby has a clear biological sex, but they do not want that to become the child’s identity. They want the child to make that determination at a later date.

To no real surprise, these parents classify themselves on the political and ideological left. Their two older children are both boys, but the parents encourage the boys to act and dress in unconventional ways. So much so, that as the reporter informs us, many who see them assume they are girls.

The new baby, named Storm, is dressed and presented in a manner that makes no clear gender statement. Only the parents, the two older boys, and a close family friend know the truth about the child’s biological sex.

As Poisson reports:

“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.

“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.

Well, actually, you do — not in the crass and crude way that Mr. Stoker puts it, but in the virtually universal way that people ask of a baby: Is it a boy or a girl?

The controversy surrounding Storm is a sign of our times. Our rebellion against the Creator has now reached the point that we will deny the fact that our identity is not just our own personal project, but is first of all established in the Creator’s intention — and part of that intention is the fact that we are male or female.

Storm’s parents clearly believe that our personal identity is our own personal project. They lament even the fact that parents make so many decisions for their children. “It’s obnoxious,” Stoker says.

Well, the decision about gender is not something made by parents, but by God. At this point, the Christian worldview and the worldview of secularism run into direct collision. Nevertheless, the objective reality of the child’s gender will eventually become a public issue, regardless of the parents’ intentions. As even they recognize, at some point in the future, decisions about such things as which bathroom the child will use will force the issue.

The major issue at stake in this controversy is the objective reality of sex and gender. We are, in fact, what our genitals tell us we are. This is not because we are genitally determined, but because we were created by a holy God, whose plans and purposes for us are, inescapably, tied to our gender.

Gender is not merely a socially constructed reality. When the Southern Baptist Convention modified its confession of faith, The Baptist Faith & Message, in 2000, it added language that defined gender as “part of the goodness of God’s creation.”

Some observers wondered why that language is important. Now, you know.

1 14 15 16 17 18 97