Obama, Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Being Christian

Under my last blog post "President Barack Obama" a gentlemen by the name of Matthew left some thoughts and questions for me (here):

David - yours is the first Christian blog that I've read that is supportive of Obama. All others have focussed on his extreme pro-abortion and pro-homosexual stances - were these not issues for you from a Christian standpoint?

Oh, and just to play Devil's Advocate, God most certainly did will that Obama be elected; but then, He also gave Israel the king that they wanted in King Saul.

Keep up your awesome writings ... you don't blog as often as I think you should!

First I wish to extend a personal greeting to you, Matthew, and to thank you for stopping by this blog and leaving your thoughts and questions. Second, the reason my response to you is getting its own blog post, instead of being in the comments field, is because I have far too much to say.

With regard to other Christian blogs being critical of President Obama rather than supportive? All I can really say about that—and I think your comment itself reflected this—is that it seems to stem more from a political commitment than a biblical one with a measure of willful ignorance. You say they express criticisms of his stance on abortion and homosexuality, which in North American society are obviously two polarizing political issues, especially as key positions characterizing the conservative agenda (whether the Republican party in the U.S. or Conservative party in Canada).

But as is far too often the case, these bloggers misunderstand—or shamefully misrepresent—what Obama's position is on such issues. Take abortion, for example. If you spend enough time listening to right-wing conservative radio (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Andy Wilkow, etc.), which many of these bloggers probably do, you would think Obama is in favour of killing babies because he voted 'present' on certain bills instead of voting 'no'. He is described, even by McCain himself during the final Presidential debate, as aligning with "the pro-abortion movement" (which in itself is a retarded label because no one is 'pro-abortion'). These despicable right-wing hosts are attempting a blatant character assassination of Obama by misrepresenting his position, and even misrepresenting how the system works. You see, the actual facts of the case paint a very different picture. But they do not wish to present all the relevant facts because Obama would not look as nefarious as they want him to appear. And I think a lot of these bloggers listen to these radio hosts, and it gets reflected in their posts.

But look at what the facts are. As a skeptic, that is my consistent position: listen to the arguments from both sides, investigate what the facts are, then draw a more informed conclusion. For instance, under the rules of the Illinois state legislature, only 'yes' votes count toward the passage of a bill; i.e. to vote 'present' has the same effect as voting 'no' since it has the same result on the bill. Ergo, it is misleading to say that Obama "voted against" the bills. He simply voted 'present'. Moreover, when you vote 'present' it generally means that you have a problem with the bill—like its wording, for example, or its failure to include something you feel should be there. But neither these right-wing radio hosts nor these bloggers inform people of these relevant facts.

That is how the state legislature works. As for Obama's voting record, let's look at a specific example. The reason why Obama at the Senate Judiciary Committee in the state of Illinois was opposed to the bill purported to ban partial-birth abortions was because it did not include anything about those abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother; it would have rendered doctors vulnerable to felony indictments for adhering to their Hippocratic Oath by performing an abortion when the mother's health was in jeopardy. In my opinion, anyone with a brain would have had a problem with that bill. "If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold life-saving treatment from an infant," Obama said during the debate, "it's because it's not true . . . I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions—partial-birth or otherwise—as long as there is an exception for the mother's health and life. And this [bill] did not contain that exception" (Obama-McCain Presidential Debate III, 15/Oct/08). Imagine that. He would support a ban on late-term abortions. But, again, neither these right-wing radio hosts nor these bloggers inform people of these relevant facts.

To be fair, usually these bloggers are not themselves aware of the actual facts of the case because (i) right-wing radio often avoids the facts whenever the facts weaken their agenda, and (ii) they do not personally verify the information they hear, they do not check to see if what they are hearing is true. They hear it from a source they trust (but should not) and readily believe it, and subsequently propagate it in their blogs.

Are not the 'abortion' and 'homosexuality' topics an issue for me, from a Christian standpoint? Well, yes and no. See, your question is hinged upon what I feel is a crucial equivocation. Speaking for myself, there is a fundamental distinction on these issues as they relate to (i) the 'church' on the one hand and (ii) the 'state' on the other—predicated upon my personal conviction (corresponding to the federal Constitution of the United States) that there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state.

For example, how I think the church should handle the issue of 'gay marriage' is distinct and unique from my view on how the state should handle it, such that I am quite opposed to legislating my 'church' convictions (regardless of how many people share them in common with me) over the entire constituency of the 'state' because I know there are many others who do not share them in common with me. Look at it this way: I would not want to live in a society where Islamic doctrines were legislated into state law; ergo, I am likewise opposed to legislating Christian doctrines into state law. The church can handle the issue of 'gay marriage' in accordance with its Scriptural mandate but it cannot impose those doctrines on the rest of the country's population. And the state can handle the issue in accordance with state laws, which are under the ultimate jurisdiction of the federal Constitution.

If I had lived in the state of California, I would have voted 'no' on Proposition 8; in other words, I would have been opposed to the state banning gay marriage. Why? Because there is no political or legal argument for banning it. Only a religious argument—e.g., Scriptural support for (i) the sanctity of marriage as ordained by and centered upon God, (ii) marriage being a union between one man and one woman, and Scriptural proscription against (iii) the practice of homosexuality. But religious arguments, no matter how solid or compelling they might be, are entirely moot because of the First Amendment.

Having said that, there are very strong Constitutional arguments against banning gay marriage; the arguments are complex and cite various Articles and Amendments of the Constitution but they basically boil down to this inescapable fact: if one group of people are allowed to marry, all groups are allowed to marry. If same-sex couples are barred from marriage, it is an abridgment of the privileges they are entitled to as citizens of the United States, stripping them of equal protection of the laws.

But I also insist that the state is Constitutionally prohibited from interfering with church practices. In other words, wherever gay marriages are to be recognized by the state, there must be protection for church clergy who, according to their religious convictions, refuse to officiate gay marriages. It is disgusting to me when I hear about clergy being prosecuted under a civil lawsuit because they refused to marry a same-sex couple. The "wall of separation" goes both ways.

"Oh, and just to play Devil's Advocate," you said, "God most certainly did will that Obama be elected; but then, He also gave Israel the king that they wanted in King Saul." Touché, my friend... touché.

And thank you very much, for your warm compliment about my writing.