Why Christians Should Oppose Laws They Favor

The majority, perhaps upward of 80% of Christians, oppose unjust discrimination against LGBT people. Then why should they oppose the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in civil rights laws? One name: Kelvin Cochran, former Atlanta Fire Chief.

Here’s a time line of the pertinent events.

(?) Cochran gets verbal permission to write a book. Atlanta’s policy has been reported to get prior written approval from the Board of Ethics.

2012 Cochran publishes “Who Told You That You Were Naked?”, which upholds biblical sexuality for all people, not just gays.

2012 Cochran gives copies of the book to several co-workers including the mayor. He mayor does not read the book.

2013 (Nov.) Cochran gives more copies of book to several co-workers, at least one of which alerts the mayor of its contents regarding homosexuality.

2013 (Nov.) Cochran is suspended without pay for one month, ordered to receive sensitivity training, and a discrimination investigation is launched. He is told not to talk about his suspension.

2013 (Dec.) Cochran does talk publicly talk about his suspension.

2014 (Jan.) The investigation finds Cochran had not unjustly discriminated against anyone. Mayor Kasim Reed fires Cochran for the following reasons:

  1. He did not get written approval from the Board of Ethics to publish the book.
  2. He spoke publicly about his suspension.
  3. His actions, decisions, and lack of judgment undermined his ability to effectively manage a large, diverse workforce.
  4. Every single City of Atlanta employee deserves the certainty that he or she is a valued member of the team and that fairness and respect guide employment decisions. His actions and his statements during the investigation and his suspension eroded the mayor’s confidence in his ability to serve as a member of his senior leadership team.
  5. To make sure that Atlanta has an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love, can come to work from 8 to 5:30 and do their job and then go home without fear of being discriminated against.
  6. NOT because of Chief Cochran’s religious beliefs.

Some responses from LGBT activist on Chief Cochran’s firing:

Jeff Graham, executive director of Georgia Equality:

“Frankly the only course of action at this point and time is his immediate and permanent dismissal.”

“It appears that his language is so extreme, so belittling of gay and transgender people that I don’t see how he could possibly lead a diverse workforce.”

So looking over the mayor’s reasons and responses from gay activists it is clear: Chief Cochran was fired primarily over his religious views.

Realizing this looks bad, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) created the following graphic:

Now why would the HRC be commenting on the firing of a city employee if it did not directly pertain to gay rights. Because it did.

Atlanta has a civil rights ordinance which includes sexual orientation. It has a perfect LGBT score with the HRC. Although religion is also included in both federal and Atlanta’s civil rights law, in today’s political and legal climate, sexual orientation trumps religion.

Kelvin Cochran does not believe in unjust discrimination based on sexual orientation. I don’t and neither do 80% of Americans at last count. But because the LGBT rights movement clearly does believe in punishing Christians for their beliefs (see here and here), well meaning Christians supporting legal gay rights may well be supporting their own unemployment.



Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Religious Liberty

The state of Louisiana attempted to pass a “Marriage and Conscience Act” (HB 707), which would have prohibited the state from denying or revoking a tax exemption, tax deduction, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, or employment on the basis the person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. It died in committee to the disappointment of Gov. Bobby Jindal, who then signed an executive order with the same language. Of course since LGBT advocates have no desire to infringe on peoples religious rights, they had no problem with the order.

So actually gay advocates do have a problem with religious liberty and see the Governors order as shameful and deplorable. To them opponents to same-sex marriage should not be able to:

  • keep their tax exemption status
  • keep their tax deduction status
  • get government contracts
  • be included in cooperative agreements
  • get loans
  • get or keep professional licenses
  • get or keep certifications
  • keep school accreditations
  • get or keep a job

Keep these in mind the next time someone claims same-sex marriage and gay rights have no negative effect on others.

Related article “The Conflict of Discrimination


Justice Ginsburg – Eviscerate or Irrelevant?

Ian Millhiser has written an article titled “Justice Ginsburg Eviscerates The Case Against Marriage Equality In Just Five Sentences.” Here are the five sentences:

[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

Millhiser summarizes, “Justice Ginsburg’s point was that, until surprisingly recently, the legal institution of marriage was defined in terms of gender roles.”

Here is Justice Ginsburg’s argument expressed as a syllogism:

  1. Marriage was complementary (dominant male and a subordinate female)
  2. Same-sex relationships cannot be complementary
  3. Therefore, same-sex relationships did not fit marriage

But now that marriage law has changed to egalitarian because of a Supreme Court case in 1982:

  1. Marriage is now egalitarian
  2. Same-sex relationships are egalitarian
  3. Therefore, same-sex relationships fit marriage

A question that should be asked when making an argument is would I buy the argument if it was used against my position. Asking this question helps to avoid bad, hypocritical arguments.

First, a SSM case was appealed to the Supreme Court in 1972. Advocates for SSM did not have a problem that this appeal occurred before the Court’s egalitarian ruling in 1982, only that the Court chose not to hear the case.

Second, most advocates for SSM are obliviously to the Court’s 1982 ruling. It is irrelevant to their view that same-sex relationships is a fit for marriage.

Third, gender roles have never been a criteria for entering marriage. No clerk has ever asked a couple, “do you meet the correct gender roles to be issued a marriage license?”

Fourth, if Justice Ginsburg believes same-sex marriage did not make sense under complementary marriage, then same-sex marriage does not make sense in a country where marriage has always been for opposite sex couples.

In conclusion, a better argument would have been:

  1. Marriage is for legal sexual relationships
  2. Same-sex sexual relationships were illegal in some states up until 2003
  3. Therefore, same-sex sexual relationships did not fit marriage nationally before 2003

But in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed its ban on sodomy from its ruling just 17 years earlier. I will conclude with a quote from every liberals favorite justice, Antonin Scalia:

“…if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers [1986], state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable.”




Explaining Christianity with Simplicity