SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Less than two months into the new year, legislative bodies in two states have passed bills that would legalize gay marriage, while a civil unions bill has made progress in a third state.

The Illinois Senate passed a bill Feb. 14 that would legalize gay marriage, three weeks after the Rhode Island House approved a gay marriage bill. The Colorado Senate passed a civil unions bill Feb. 11. Each bill still must pass the other chamber in each state, but significantly, the Democratic governors of each state support the respective bills. Democrats control the legislatures in all three states.

Gay marriage is legal in nine states and the District of Columbia.

The Illinois bill passed by a vote of 34-21, with two members voting present. Illinois already has civil unions, which grant same-sex couples the benefits of marriage, minus the name.

“We are one step closer to marriage equality in Illinois,” Illinois Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn said in a statement after the Senate vote. “Couples across Illinois have even more reason today to celebrate their love for each other, thanks to the hard work of committed advocates and lawmakers.”

The bill’s opponents, though, said the bill would impact religious liberty and parental rights.

“If Illinois legalizes ‘same-sex marriage,’ parents can expect elementary school teachers to include homosexuality in discussions of family and marriage,” Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute wrote. “Some make the absurd argument that since families led by homosexuals exist, schools must teach about them. The truth is, however, that schools have no obligation to teach about every phenomenon that exists, nor do they have to include resources that affirm every phenomenon that exists. Does anyone believe that if a student being raised by polyamorists were enrolled in a public elementary school, teachers or administrators would feel obligated to include books in their libraries that affirm polyamorous family structures?”

Gay marriage legalization, Higgins wrote, will mean that “children will be taught that homosexuality is normative and good.” Society, she said, would be declaring that “children do not have any inherent rights to know and be raised by a mother and a father.”

State Rep. Greg Harris, a Democrat and the lead bill sponsor in the Illinois House, said he believed the bill will pass his chamber, although he declined to say if he has the necessary 60 votes, according to the Chicago Tribune.

“I think we are very close to that,” Harris said.

In Rhode Island, a gay marriage bill passed the House 51-19 in late January, although it faces a more difficult road in the Senate, where Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed opposes it.

In Colorado, a civil unions bill passed the Senate, 21-14 and is favored to pass in the House.

The news wasn’t all bad for traditionalists, though. In Hawaii, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said in mid-February he would not schedule a hearing on a gay marriage bill, a move that apparently kills the bill for this session, the Star-Advertiser newspaper reported. His colleagues, he said, did not want to bring it up.

(EDITOR’S NOTE – Compiled by Michael Foust, associate editor of Baptist Press.)

NASHVILLE – With the U.S. Supreme Court set to take up gay marriage and potentially legalize it this summer, churches that host wedding ceremonies or other events for traditional couples should examine their bylaws and shield themselves from the impact of possible litigation, says an attorney who specializes in religious liberty issues.
 
The justices are scheduled in March to hear two cases concerning gay marriage, and by June could either uphold the traditional definition of marriage or legalize gay marriage in all 50 states. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) – a religious liberty legal organization – is hoping for the former but preparing churches for the latter, just in case.

A number of situations could place churches in legal trouble, such as congregations who would:

• allow a traditional couple but not a same-sex couple to use their facility for a wedding ceremony.
• allow a traditional couple but not a same-sex couple to take part in a marriage class or retreat.
• terminate an employee involved in a same-sex wedding.

Bylaw language defining marriage in the biblical sense doesn’t mean a church won’t face a suit or a complaint, but it does mean the church would be in a much better situation legally, said Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for ADF.

“I think we’re in a day where every church needs to have a statement in its bylaws of its doctrinal beliefs on marriage and sexuality,” Stanley told Baptist Press. “This is a proactive approach that churches can take to head off any claims of discrimination in the future, should they occur. There’s no magic language for such a bylaw statement, but it should be some form of a statement of the church’s religious beliefs.

“What that does is it allows for a good defense of a church to any type of discrimination claim that may arise, by saying, ‘Look, this is part of our religious beliefs.’ When we fight on the ground of protecting a church’s religious belief, then we have a lot of ammunition in our arsenal from a constitutional perspective.”

Even without gay marriage legal nationwide, there have been lawsuits against churches.

In 1999 a woman who had worked as a youth minister at a Colorado Episcopal church was terminated after it was learned she was a lesbian living with another woman. She sued in federal court, but the lawsuit was dismissed, with the court ruling her suit was barred by the First Amendment. (The case was Bryce v. Episcopal Church in Diocese of Colorado.)

In 2001, a California church’s worship minister, Bob Gunn, was let go when it was discovered he was gay. He sued the church, primarily because the pastor told the congregation why Gunn – who was popular with members – had been fired. The church won in court. (The case was Gunn v. Mariners Church.)

ADF has listed on its website suggested bylaw language for churches. (Read the two ADF articles on the subject – http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/content/docs/issues/church/Suggested-Lang-Church-bylaws.pdf and http://www.speakupmovement.org/Church/Content/userfiles/Resources/church_seven_bylaws.pdf. Also, read the suggested language at the end of this article.)

“What we tell churches is that the clearer and the more explicit you can make your religious beliefs about those issues, the better off you are going to be in defending yourself against a claim of discrimination,” Stanley said. “Because then it becomes: You’re not discriminating against an individual based upon their sexual orientation or marital status. You’re making a decision to abide by your religious beliefs. And that’s protected by the Constitution. The more that we can move this from the ground of a claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status to the ground of ‘We are simply abiding by our deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs,’ the better off a legal defense is going to be.”

The legalization of gay marriage, Stanley said, will impact religious freedoms.

“Religious liberty is on the chopping block any time same-sex marriage is legalized or normalized in the culture,” he said. “But we’re not defenseless and we’re not left hopeless. If same-sex marriage is legalized by the Supreme Court, these types of cases that we see pop up, they’re just going to become more commonplace.”

In January, Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee, urged Southern Baptists and other Christians to pray for the Supreme Court as it takes up the issue of marriage. Read his column here.

Following is ADF’s suggested language on marriage and sexuality for church bylaws:

“We believe that term ‘marriage’ has only one meaning and that is marriage sanctioned by God which joins one man and one woman in a single, exclusive union, as delineated in Scripture.

“We believe that God intends sexual intimacy to only occur between a man and a woman who are married to each other. We believe that God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.

“We believe that any form of sexual immorality, such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bisexual conduct, bestiality, incest, pornography or any attempt to change one’s sex, or disagreement with one’s biological sex, is sinful and offensive to God.

“We believe that in order to preserve the function and integrity of the church as the local Body of Christ, and to provide a biblical role model to the church members and the community, it is imperative that all persons employed by the church in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to this Statement on Marriage and Sexuality and conduct themselves accordingly.

“We believe that God offers redemption and restoration to all who confess and forsake their sin, seeking His mercy and forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

“We believe that every person must be afforded compassion, love, kindness, respect, and dignity. Hateful and harassing behavior or attitudes directed toward any individual are to be repudiated and are not in accord with scripture nor the doctrines of the church.”

(EDITOR’S NOTE – Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press.)

WASHINGTON – Support by religious citizens of laws affirming traditional marriage does not make those measures unconstitutional, the Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics entity and other organizations have told the U.S. Supreme Court.

In two friend-of-the-court briefs, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) joined the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and other religious groups in urging the high court to rule in favor of a federal law and a state amendment that define marriage as between a man and a woman. The briefs, filed Jan. 29, are in cases for which the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments March 26 and 27 and likely issue rulings before its summer adjournment.

The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decisions in the cases could prove momentous in an ongoing, national debate – resulting in either the legalization of same-sex marriage or the affirmation of laws protecting traditional marriage.

The ERLC, NAE and others urged the court in one brief to overturn the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ invalidation of Proposition 8, a 2008 amendment approved by California voters that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In the other brief, they called on the high court to reverse the Second Circuit’s ruling against a section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that also defines marriage in federal law as only a heterosexual union.

ERLC President Richard Land said the briefs seek to combat anti-religious discrimination.”

Such discriminatory treatment by courts “would seek to disqualify the votes of people of religious conviction or to say, ‘If your vote was based on religious conviction, it’s somehow disqualified from the debate,’” Land told Baptist Press. “That’s anti-religious bigotry, and these briefs point that out and defend the right of people of religious conviction to be treated with equal value with those who don’t have such convictions. Anything less is anti-religious bigotry by any other name.”

In their brief in the Prop 8 case, the ERLC and its allies contend the Ninth Circuit unjustly depicted the amendment as “a product of anti-gay animus,” or hostility.

Support for the proposition was based on “sincere beliefs in the value of traditional marriage for children, families, society, and our republican form of government,” the brief says. “Only a demeaning view of religion and religious believers could dismiss our advocacy of Proposition 8 as ignorance, prejudice, or animus.”

The ERLC and the others say in the brief they “are united in condemning hatred and mistreatment of homosexuals.” They believe “God calls us to love gays and lesbians” while defending traditional marriage, they say.

Prop 8 “must be judged on its merits according to settled rules of laws – not on a more demanding standard born of antipathy toward religion or religious believers,” according to the brief. “That Proposition 8 was supported by some religious voters or is in harmony with some religious views is constitutionally irrelevant.”

Heightened scrutiny of a law by a court “because of its support by religious voters or its relation to religious beliefs would raise serious First Amendment concerns,” the ERLC and the others argue. “Increased scrutiny could result in the disenfranchisement, or at least dilute the voice, of religious voters.”

The brief acknowledges Prop 8 “takes sides in the moral debate over same-sex marriage” but says such a value judgment cannot be escaped.

“California’s endorsement of traditional marriage as a policy preference does not transgress constitutional limits any more than the thoroughly moral judgments expressed in laws regulating obscenity ... or abortion ...,” the brief says.

In the DOMA brief, the ERLC and its allies contend using DOMA’s adherence to “traditional moral and religious beliefs” would contradict previous Supreme Court rulings that do not permit government to treat religion and religious adherents as subversive.

A “taproot of American citizenship would be damaged if votes cast by the religious – or by their representatives when influenced by religious values – were evaluated more critically by courts than other votes,” the brief says.

“DOMA is entitled to be judged on its merits according to settled rules of law – not on a more demanding standard born of suspicion toward religion, religious believers, or their values.”

In addition to the ERLC and NAE, the other organizations signing onto the Prop 8 brief were the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Romanian-American Evangelical Alliance of North America and Truth in Action Ministries. The same organizations joined in the DOMA brief except for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court’s invalidation of Prop 8, the 41 states that do not recognize same-sex marriage could be forced to do so. If it agrees with overturning DOMA, the federal government would have to recognize gay marriages in the nine states where it is legal.

The states that have legalized same-sex marriage are Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington and Vermont. Gay marriage also is legal in the District of Columbia.

California voters approved Prop 8 after the state Supreme Court had legalized gay marriage earlier in 2008. Congress passed DOMA, and President Clinton signed it into law, in 1996.

The Prop 8 case is Hollingsworth v. Perry, while the DOMA case is United States v. Windsor. Oral arguments in the Prop 8 case will be March 26, while they will be March 27 in the DOMA appeal.

(EDITOR’S NOTE – Tom Strode is Washington bureau chief of Baptist Press. With reporting by Michael Foust, associate editor of Baptist Press.)

Jim Henry will never forget the time his wife made an appointment to see him.
 
Henry, who was pastor of Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, Tenn. at the time, said he thought his wife, Jeanette, was playing a joke on him at first.
 
“Mrs. Henry, is there anything … I can help you with?” he asked her playfully.
 
Jeanette looked him straight in the eye and said, “You’ve got time for everybody else, and now you’re going to take time for me.”
 
“The church was growing, and I thought I was doing a pretty good job at home,” Henry said. “And I realized I wasn’t.”
 
Henry, who today is pastor emeritus of First Baptist Church Orlando after 28 years of service there, said that was his “kum-ba-ya” moment when he realized he needed to adjust his routine.
 
After 53 years of marriage, three grown children, five grandsons and one great grandson, Henry said that was a defining moment in his ministry. It stirred him to do a better job of balancing his schedule, not over committing himself to ministry, and carving out more “family appointment” time.
 
“Nobody taught me … these things,” said Henry, who pointed out that most young pastors aren’t properly equipped to juggle family and ministry. “I was not taught anything like this at seminary.”
 
And today’s pastors are paying a heavy price – with divorce or leaving the ministry.
 
Now on an advisory committee with Care For Pastors, an organization that ministers to church leaders, Henry said 1,600 pastors are leaving the ministry every month.
 
And one of the main reasons is linked to marriage trouble. Every year more and more pastors are getting divorced, and church leaders – like Henry and others in North Carolina – are looking for ways to curb the trend.
 
Matt Chewning, a church planter in Boston, admits the first two years of giving birth to Netcast Church weren’t easy on him and his wife, Beth, and their four children.
 
“It really was difficult on my wife and me,” said Chewning, who got his start as an intern at 1.21 Church in Winston-Salem.
 
“There is a real enemy who is trying to attack your family. If the enemy can un-unite the husband and wife, that trickles into the church, and there will be disunity in the church.”
 
Finding the balance meant saying “no” more often to the demands of ministry and saying “yes” to his family.
 
“Number one, it says to my wife, ‘You are more important to me than our church,’” he said. “‘I’m not going to cheat on you with the church God has given us.’ If I don’t do certain things, I’m not hindering God’s ability to build this church. 
 
“Jesus is going to build this church.”
 
Too many pastors transfer their loyalty from their families to their church once they begin their ministry, added Eddie Thompson, senior consultant for marriage and family ministry at the Baptist State Convention of N.C. Thompson counsels with pastors and their families and leads a variety of marriage conferences throughout the year.
 
“They don’t mean to [transfer loyalty], but it’s just the nature of the job,” he said. “This really hurts them in the long run.”
 
The sooner pastors learn their families are a critical part of their ministry, the better off the ministry becomes, said Thompson. Pastors often become isolated from their families and friendships over time.
 
“Even though they are around a lot of people … many pastors feel isolated,” Thompson said. “Ask most women, ‘Does your husband have a close friend? No. He doesn’t.’”
 
“When somebody feels isolated this really opens up the doors strongly to temptation.”
 
In addition to infidelity, pornography is a growing “plague” and “cancer” in the lives of many pastors, and it wreaks havoc on their families and their ministries.
 
“This is the number one call I get from staff members from across the state,” Thompson said.
 
“Some are trapped in a world of pornography and don’t like it one ounce. The access to pornography is just too easy.”
 
Thompson cited a poll done by Focus on the Family a few years ago that surveyed 2,000 pastors. The study asked them if they had viewed pornography in the last 20 days. Sixty-seven percent responded with “yes.”
 
Pastors and church leaders must realize they are an “easy target,” Thompson said. “You have the biggest target on your back than anybody.”
 
Facebook creates another temptation for people – including pastors – to engage in inappropriate relationships and extramarital affairs. A study involving 600 divorce attorneys revealed that two thirds of divorces in the United States are linked to the social networking site.
 
“We see Facebook really as [having] an intensely negative effect on the family right now,” Thompson said.
 
“This has really opened the door for pastors, just as much as everybody else.” 
 
Couples must establish boundaries with Facebook and other social networking sites. And congregations must also learn to be sensitive to the fact that pastors, and their families, deal with the same temptations and struggles everyone else encounters.
 
“Many of these pastors and wives are hurting deeply, but they never tell anybody,” Thompson said.
 
“They’re so afraid, and they’re so ashamed, that they can’t make progress on their own. They just continue to exist in a marriage, in a family relationship that’s not very good.”
 
Thompson challenges pastors and their wives not to settle for “less of the marriage that God intended [them] to have.” He said pastors and their wives can schedule an appointment for free counseling anytime. There also are convention-sponsored marriage conferences available throughout the year.
 
But in order to get the help they need, pastors must overcome their fears and reach out for help.
 
While pastors face their own troubles, they usually have a church full of laymen, church staff and leaders struggling to hold their marriages together.
 
Scott and Holly Ladner, who have been married for 12 years, were one of those couples.
 
Today they co-teach a Sunday School class at Apex Baptist Church in Apex for young married couples. But during their first few years of marriage the couple, who now have a 6-year-old daughter, went through a “dark time.” They shared how for months they didn’t even kiss.
 
“What was amazing was that nobody knew what was going on,” Holly said. “There was not any infidelity. There was not any addiction. We were just fighting like cats and dogs.”
 
“We would go to church on Sunday morning, and we were great,” she said.
 
“We would smile. We were participating in Sunday School. To this day, we will have people tell us, ‘Are you kidding me? We had no idea.’ We were really wearing the mask well.”
 
But the couple sought counseling. They also started attending LifeWay’s Festival of Marriage at Ridgecrest.
 
“The only reason[s] Holly and I are still married is number one, Jesus Christ,” said Scott, who is a deacon in the church. “Number two, the … Festival of Marriage. It has saved our marriage, besides Jesus. And that’s no joke.”
 
Attending the annual marriage conference continues to be a part of their “an annual check-up.”
The Ladners hope their story inspires others to know that they aren’t alone and that marriage is worth the fight.
 
Holly said marriage is a journey, one that can be revealed and studied throughout scripture.
 
“The whole Bible is about marriage,” Holly said. “It’s about how much Christ loves His bride … this picture of us being the bride of Christ. It’s been beautiful the way the Lord has taught me through His Word about marriage. It is all about Him.” 

 

Books

• Leading on Empty: Refilling Your Tank and Renewing Your Passion by Wayne Cordeiro
• Dangerous Calling: Confronting the Unique Challenges of Pastoral Ministry by Paul David Tripp
• Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas
• Love and Respect by Emerson Eggerichs
• Visionary Marriage by Rob and Amy Reinow

 

Marriage events

• The Pastor’s Juggling Act: A Pastor and Wife Getaway, Ridgecrest Conference Center, Black Mountain, June 6-8

Also Oct. 24-26 at Fort Caswell on Oak Island
 
For more information contact Eddie Thompson at (800) 395-5102, ext. 5644. Thompson can also plan events for your church.

• Festival of Marriage, LifeWay Ridgecrest Conference Center, Black Mountain, Oct. 11-13. For more information call (800) 588-7222.

WASHINGTON – President Obama called in his second inaugural address for an agenda that includes the strengthening of civil rights for homosexuals that some interpreted as an endorsement of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.
 
Speaking Monday (Jan. 21), Obama told the hundreds of thousands gathered outside the U.S. Capitol, “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

The president’s remarks – reportedly the first in an inaugural address to mention homosexual rights – came shortly after he equated rights for homosexuals with the women’s voting rights and African-American civil rights movements.

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still, just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall,” Obama said near the close of his 19-minute speech.

Advocates for the right of women to vote held a convention in 1848 in Seneca Falls, N.Y., while Selma, Ala., was the starting site of important marches in 1965 to the state capital of Montgomery in support of voting rights for blacks. The 1969 riots after police raided New York City’s Stonewall Inn, which welcomed openly homosexual customers, helped launch the gay rights movement.

An advocate for same-sex marriage said Obama’s comments seemed to indicate he was prepared to support such unions as a constitutional right.

“I was very gratified to hear the president state in clear and unambiguous language that our gay and lesbian citizens must be treated equally under the law and that their loving relationships must be treated equally as well. That can only mean one thing: equality under the Constitution,” Ted Olson said, according to The Los Angeles Times.

Olson was solicitor general under President George W. Bush and is now a lawyer for homosexual couples challenging a California amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The White House denied Tuesday (Jan. 22) the president’s position had changed. “The president believes that it’s an issue that should be addressed by the states,” Press Secretary Jay Carney said in response to a reporter’s question at a White House briefing, The Washington Examiner reported.

Obama announced his support for gay marriage in May, becoming the first sitting president to do so. He said then the issue should be left to the states, but his inaugural speech seemed to leave open the possibility he had changed even further on the issue.

He soon will have an opportunity to make clear if his administration backs same-sex marriage as a constitutional right. In late March, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two marriage cases that could either reaffirm the historical understanding of marriage or result in the legalization of gay marriage in all 50 states.

On March 26, the justices will participate in arguments on the constitutionality of the California amendment, known as Proposition 8. The next day, they will weigh the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in federal law.

The Justice Department must file a brief by late February if it intends to stake out a position with the high court.

A Southern Baptist college professor and cultural commentator said the president’s inaugural comments “deserve some scrutiny because their implications are morally devastating for the definition of marriage.”

Denny Burk – associate professor of biblical studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. – wrote in a blog post that Obama “actually presents in miniature a moral case for gay marriage based on the Declaration of Independence.”

“The president only means for this statement to apply to gay marriage, but his words have implications beyond the unions of gay people,” he wrote. “If equality relies on legal recognition of any union between people who love one another, why must that only apply to homosexual couples?

“I know that President Obama doesn’t support polygamy, incest, or statutory rape,” Burk said. “But that is only because he’s inconsistent. The moral basis that he cites for same-sex marriage necessarily applies to those other arrangements as well.”

The president of the National Organization for Marriage took exception to Obama’s advocacy for same-sex marriage during his inaugural speech.

“Gay and lesbian people are already treated equally under the law,” Brian Brown said in a written statement. “They have the same civil rights as anyone else; they have the right to live as they wish and love whom they choose. What they don’t have is the right to redefine marriage for all of society.”

Brown said, “A presidential inauguration should be a time for the nation to come together; instead President Obama chose to voice his support for a radical agenda advanced by some of his biggest campaign contributors to redefine marriage for everyone. Marriage brings our nation together. The concept of gay ‘marriage’ would have been totally alien to our founding fathers, and the protection and advancement of marriage between one man and one woman will immeasurably serve the common good of this country and further strengthen our Union.”

In addition to Obama’s comments:

• Richard Blanco, an openly homosexual poet, read a poem he had written for the occasion;
• The Lesbian and Gay Band Association, with 215 members, marched in the inaugural parade.

In addition, Luis Leon included a reference to homosexuality in his benedictory prayer, saying, “But with the blessing of your blessing we will see that we are created in your image, whether brown, black or white, male or female, first generation or immigrant American, or daughter of the American Revolution, gay or straight, rich or poor.”

Leon, Episcopalian rector at St. John’s Church in Washington, replaced Louie Giglio for the benediction after the Atlanta pastor was sharply criticized by gay-rights groups for a sermon in the 1990s in which he described homosexuality as sinful.

In his speech, Obama also addressed global warming, though it has lost much of its momentum and credibility as an issue in recent years.

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” the president said. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”

He also called for immigration reform.

Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden took ceremonial oaths of office during the inauguration. They had taken the official oaths Jan. 20 as required by the Constitution.

Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, delivered the invocation for the inauguration. The Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir sang “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” during the ceremony. Also singing during the inauguration were Beyonce, James Taylor and Kelly Clarkson.

Earlier in the morning, Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden, along with their families, attended a prayer service at St. John’s Church, which is near the White House. Atlanta pastor Andy Stanley preached.

(EDITOR’S NOTE – Tom Strode is Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press. With reporting by Michael Foust, associate editor of Baptist Press.)

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Gay marriage supporters enjoyed landmark victories in 2012 and are hoping for an even bigger win at the U.S. Supreme Court this year, but in the meantime political battles are brewing in at least six states where marriage redefinition bills likely will be considered.

Significantly, all six have governors who appear supportive of gay marriage. Also, the November elections saw gay marriage supporters increase their strength in the state legislatures.

Leading the way are Illinois and Rhode Island, where gay marriage bills are being pushed and potentially could pass within weeks. Other states that likely will consider gay marriage bills in 2013 are Delaware, Hawaii, New Jersey and Minnesota. Of the six states, all but one – Minnesota – have legalized same-sex civil unions, which grant all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name.

Nine states and the District of Columbia recognize gay marriage, while 30 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Last November, voters, for the first time, endorsed gay marriage at the ballot, when Maine, Maryland and Washington state approved it.

Christ Plante, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage-Rhode Island, says bills in each of the states can be defeated, but it will require voters speaking out. The National Organization for Marriage has played a key role in defending traditional marriage on the state level.

“In all of these places, the most important thing is: Are voters speaking up?” Plante told Baptist Press. “Are people of faith calling their representatives and their senators in their statehouses and saying, ‘Don’t redefine marriage.’ This is really up to the people. Legislators, in most cases, do in fact listen to their constituency. If a representative gets hundreds of calls on this issue, they will take note. That’s particularly what’s going to need to happen in Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware and Rhode Island, where we’re in a defensive mode.”

In Illinois, a gay marriage bill passed a Senate committee in the final days of the lame duck session but didn’t come to a vote in the full chamber before the session ended. But with Democrats having increased their majorities in the state legislature, supporters are hopeful it can pass in the new session, which already has begun. (Democrats control the legislature in all six states where gay marriage is being considered.) Traditionalists are hoping more moderate Democrats from outside of Chicago can help defeat the bill. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn backs gay marriage.

In Rhode Island, a gay marriage bill is favored to pass the state House, where House Speaker Gordon Fox, who is gay, says it is a priority.

“We have a huge battle on our hands, with tons of pressure and tons of money coming against us,” Plante said.

Rhode Island is the only New England state where gay marriage isn’t legal. Plante hopes the bill can be killed in the Senate, where Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed is a bill opponent. Also opposing the bill is Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Michael J. McCaffrey, whose committee likely will consider the issue. Paiva Weed and McCaffrey are Democrats in a state where the issues don’t always follow political lines.

The Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage has been critical in preventing it from being legalized in Rhode Island in past years, Plante said. Supporters of gay marriage tried but failed to defeat McCaffrey in a primary, Plante said.

Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican turned Independent, supports gay marriage.

Legislatures have a legitimate reason to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, Plante said.

“Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is unique because it’s only the union of men and women that can bring forth children. Children need a mom and a dad,” he said. “That’s why societies throughout history, across the globe, have supported marriage and protected it. This unique institution binds mothers and fathers to their children, and their children grow up in a stable home that leads to a respectable and productive next generation. We understand that doesn’t happen all the time, but that is the ideal. And government has the duty to incentivize and support that ideal.”

Following is a brief look at the four other states where gay marriage bills could be considered:

• Delaware: Democratic Gov. Jack Merkell said last year he believes gay marriage is “inevitable” in his state. He also said he expects the legislature to tackle the issue this year.
• Minnesota: When citizens defeated a constitutional marriage amendment in November, they also gave Democrats control of the House and Senate. With Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton openly supporting a bill, gay marriage supporters hope to see gay marriage legalized in Minnesota in 2013. Sponsors have promised to introduce a bill.
• Hawaii: Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie refused to defend the state’s constitutional marriage amendment in court, saying he believed it was unconstitutional. A federal judge upheld the amendment in August. But because of the unique language of the amendment, gay marriage supporters still have a path to legalization. That’s because the amendment did not define marriage but simply gave the legislature the power to define marriage in the traditional sense, which legislators subsequently did. That means legislators in the state also could legalize gay marriage.
• New Jersey: Republican Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a gay marriage bill in the past but some supporters hope to put the issue before voters, asking them to legalize gay marriage. Christie has said he would be supportive of letting the voters decide.

(EDITOR’S NOTE – Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press.)

Related stories

Guest Column: The gay marriage battle isn’t lost
Survey: Fewer in U.S. see homosexuality as sin

WASHINGTON (BP) – The U.S. Supreme Court has announced the dates it will hear two huge cases concerning lawsuits that could reaffirm the historical definition of marriage or lead to the legalization of gay marriage – March 26 and 27.

The high court will consider the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 March 26 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act March 27. Combined, the two cases could lead to the legalization of gay marriage nationwide – or the affirmation of current laws. The court previously had announced it was taking the cases but it didn't reveal the oral argument dates until Monday (Jan. 7).

Some are calling the cases the “Roe v. Wade” of gay marriage. But Christian groups are hoping for a more positive outcome.

At issue in the Prop 8 case is whether California – and possibly by extension any state – can legally define marriage as between one man and one woman. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case concerns a similar issue: whether the federal government can define marriage in the traditional sense, and thereby not recognize gay marriage in the states where it's legal.

Nine states recognize gay marriage, and 30 have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The other 11 states define marriage in statutes as between a man and a woman.

If the Supreme Court strikes down California Prop 8, then the 41 states that don't recognize gay marriage could be forced to do so. If it overturns DOMA, then the federal government will be forced to recognize the gay marriages of the nine states where it's legal, something it currently does not.

Lower courts struck down DOMA and Prop 8 in the cases at issue.

California voters passed Prop 8 in 2008 by a margin of 52-48. The amendment reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It reversed a California Supreme Court ruling that had legalized gay marriage.

“Every one of the numerous legal steps we have taken for the past four years has been in anticipation of this moment,” Andy Pugno, general counsel for California's ProtectMarriage.com, said in a December statement. ProtectMarriage.com is the organization behind Prop 8.

“Arguing this case before the Supreme Court finally gives us a chance at a fair hearing, something that hasn't been afforded to the people since we began this fight,” Pugno said. “We are delighted that the nation's highest court will decide whether to uphold the will of more than seven million Californians who voted to preserve the unique definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman.”

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Clinton.

“Marriage between a man and a woman is a universal good that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western Civilization,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorney Jim Campbell said in a December statement. ADF supports DOMA and Prop 8.

“Marriage expresses the truth that men and women bring distinct, irreplaceable gifts to family life. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team looks forward to advocating before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the people's right to preserve this fundamental building block of civilization,” Campbell said.

(EDITOR’S NOTE – Compiled by Michael Foust, associate editor of Baptist Press.)

WASHINGTON – In a landmark move, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed Dec. 7 to take up two cases that could either lead to the legalization of gay marriage nationwide or affirm the rights of legislators and voters to protect traditional marriage.

The court’s action means that sometime next year – perhaps in March – the court will hear oral arguments in the cases and hand down a decision by the end of June.

The justices will consider the constitutionality of two laws. One is the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as being between a man and a woman. The other is California Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Together, the cases pose a question at the core of the marriage debate: Under the U.S. Constitution can the federal government and the various states define marriage in the traditional sense, thus prohibiting the recognition of gay marriage and other non-traditional unions? Supporters of gay marriage say DOMA and Prop 8 violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Nine states recognize gay marriage, and 30 have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The other 11 states define marriage in statutes as between a man and a woman.

If the Supreme Court strikes down California Prop 8, then the 41 states that don’t recognize gay marriage could be forced to do so. If it overturns DOMA, then the federal government will be forced to recognize the gay marriages of the nine states where it’s legal, something it currently does not.

Lower courts struck down DOMA and Prop 8 in the cases at issue.

California voters passed Prop 8 in 2008 by a margin of 52-48. The amendment reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It reversed a California Supreme Court ruling that had legalized gay marriage.

“Every one of the numerous legal steps we have taken for the past four years has been in anticipation of this moment,” Andy Pugno, general counsel for California’s ProtectMarriage.com, said in a statement. ProtectMarriage.com is the organization behind Prop 8. “Arguing this case before the Supreme Court finally gives us a chance at a fair hearing, something that hasn’t been afforded to the people since we began this fight. We are delighted that the nation’s highest court will decide whether to uphold the will of more than seven million Californians who voted to preserve the unique definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman.”

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Clinton.

“Marriage between a man and a woman is a universal good that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western Civilization,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jim Campbell said in a statement. ADF supports DOMA and Prop 8. “Marriage expresses the truth that men and women bring distinct, irreplaceable gifts to family life. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team looks forward to advocating before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the people’s right to preserve this fundamental building block of civilization.”
 
(EDITOR’S NOTE – Compiled by Michael Foust, associate editor of Baptist Press.)

WASHINGTON – A federal judge has upheld Nevada’s constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, providing a victory for social conservatives who have suffered a string of court losses on the issue.

In his Nov. 26 opinion, Judge Robert C. Jones ruled that Nevada had a constitutional right to pass the amendment, which was approved twice by voters – once in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote and a second time in 2002 with 67 percent. The lawsuit was brought by Lambda Legal, which advocates for gay issues.

Within the past year, appeals courts have ruled against the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California Proposition 8, each of which could be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in coming months.

Jones, nominated by President George W. Bush, said Supreme Court action in a 1972 case confirmed Nevada’s ability to define marriage as it wishes. That case, Baker v. Nelson, came to the court on appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court, which had upheld Minnesota’s traditional marriage law in a case that was seeking to legalize gay marriage. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal “for want of a substantial federal question” – that is, the court believed Minnesota had the right under the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman because there was no relevant federal issue.

But Jones went further in his ruling, saying Nevada had a legitimate state interest in defining marriage as it did.

“The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women,” Jones wrote.

It is “conceivable,” he wrote, that if gay marriage is legalized, “a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently ... because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of- wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences.”

Jones added, “Because the family is the basic societal unit, the State could have validly reasoned that the consequences of altering the traditional definition of civil marriage could be severe.”

Jones also pointed to this year’s elections, in which three states legalized gay marriage, saying that gays are not politically powerless.

“It simply cannot be seriously maintained, in light of these and other recent democratic victories, that homosexuals do not have the ability to protect themselves from discrimination through democratic processes ...,” he wrote.

The case is Sevcik v. Sandoval. The decision likely will be appealed.

(EDITOR’S NOTE – Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press.)

It’s time for Baptists to awaken and take a stand, said Mark Harris, during his presidential address at the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina’s annual meeting Nov. 13 in Greensboro.
 
Speaking on this year’s annual meeting theme, “Awaken,” Harris shared how N.C. Baptists must continue to fight off apathy and being overrun with “theological junk food” that keeps many from a true spiritual awakening. 
 
Southern Baptists have to focus more on becoming servants, and understand that one of the signs of spiritual awakening is service.
 
“[Service is] a fundamental principle that the Word of God teaches,” Harris said. “What’s amazing is the humanists out there understand that all too well as they’re running the modern welfare system. They figured out that whatever agency serves the needs of people will ultimately gain the allegiance of those people. So they’re serving and our church is missing it.”
 

Mark Harris addresses N.C. Baptists during the annual meeting, Nov. 13.

Far too many Christians do not realize that there is a direct link between serving others and authority, Harris said.
 
“Authority is earned through service, and early in American history, it was the church that understood this,” he said. “The church was awake.”
 
Harris added, “It was the church that operated hospitals in this country. It was the church that operated orphanages in this country. It was the church that operated the rescue mission. It was the church that operated the soup kitchens. It was the church that operated the welfare agencies. It was the church that operated the schools. It was the church that operated the universities. … The church was a home to the homeless and a refuge to the rejected.”
 
“And as a result, the church had authority in this nation.” 
 
Today Christians are facing increasingly difficult times, but they “have to keep fighting for what is right,” he said. 
 
Harris said many have approached him recently and said Christians need to let go of pro-life issues or traditional marriage.
 
“I’ve heard people saying … ‘Listen, we have to accept that day is gone. Let it go,’” he said. “I share with you all the fervency in my being ‘We will not let that go.’”
 
There are issues that Christians must continue to fight for, Harris said.
 
“We’ve got to be willing to stand on these issues in our day and refuse to back up.”
 
Harris shared how churches used to take a stand on political issues and candidates running for public office. He said that changed in 1954, when an amendment to a tax code bill passed in the United States Senate. The amendment prohibits non-profit entities from making public statements in support of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
 
Harris said a day is coming in this country when many believers will have to pay a heavy cost for standing up for their faith.
 
What will taking that stand cost?
 
Harris said, “Earlier this year, a Catholic Bishop in New York, who is now a Cardinal made this statement recently … ‘I expect to die in my bed. I expect my successor to die in prison. I expect his successor to die a martyr’s death in this country.’”
 
“I know there’s a cost,” Harris continued. “And we have no choice but to pay it. We desperately need a church. We desperately need people in those churches that are willing to risk their own reputation in order to be counted among people like Noah, Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, Amos, Ezekiel and John the Baptist.
 
Harris said he prays God will help N.C. Baptists to be a convention of churches that are awake.
“When we awaken, the world will know it,” he said.
 
“When 61 percent of North Carolinians went to the polls in May and said marriage is between one man and one woman, I’ve got news for you … they knew we were awake. When you and I begin to engage … it will make all the difference.”

Related story

‘It’s all about obedience’ Ezell says to N.C. Baptists

For more stories from the annual meeting, visit here.