Marriage merits: CMA commentary published in The Tennessean

Reprinted from “Tennessee affirms opposite-sex marriage, not bigotry,” commentary by CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody, published in The Tennessean, March 13, 2015 - Re: "Discriminated after crossing state lines," March 6, 2015 - In a letter to the editor, a Chicago resident complains that Tennessee does not recognize in law the fact that Illinois considers him married to another man; he labels Tennessee's legal definition of marriage a matter of discrimination and inequality.

The state of Tennessee retains a constitutional right, highlighted in the Supreme Court's recent Windsor decision, which deemed a federal definition of marriage as usurping states' rights, to determine by objective qualifications and definitions who qualifies for a marriage license. Tennessee also uses objective qualifications to determine which of its citizens can vote, practice medicine, own a gun or teach in public schools.

These qualifications only constitute "discrimination" in the sense of discerning the relevant factors that merit granting legal status and privileges.

Why would Tennesseans legally define marriage as between a man and a woman?

Social science research clearly demonstrates that marriage between a man and a woman in a lifelong, exclusive commitment offers society, and children in particular, unique benefits — economical, educational, psychological — that no other relationship offers as well.

These benefits have led governments for millennia to recognize and endorse in law the marriage of a man and a woman.

A state's recognition of the unique benefits of man-woman marriage does not preclude love, respect, dignity or the extension of a host of government benefits and privileges to non-married citizens.

It's simply an objective affirmation of what marriage is and an endorsement of the unique benefits it provides to society and children.

Jonathan Imbody, VP Government Affairs, Christian Medical Association

Resources
CMDA Marriage Public Policy Statement
CMDA Same-Sex "Marriage" Public Policy Statement

Action
Learn how to legislatively counteract the politics of same-sex marriage to prevent harm to children served by faith-based groups providing social services:

• Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act - S 667 - would ensure that organizations with religious or moral convictions are allowed to continue to provide services for children
• Youth services bill OPPOSED for gender / religious freedom issues threatening services by faith-based organizations to runaway youth - S 262

CMDA offers marriage principles

Excerpted from "Leading Christian medical association unanimously affirms traditional marriage," Life Site News, October 13, 2014, - The Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA) unanimously adopted its Same-Sex "Marriage" Public Policy Statement September 18, criticizing the “radical revisionist view” which “ignores millennia of legal and cultural affirmation” of marriage, and endeavors to replace it with a subjective concept of marriage based on emotional relationship.

The CMDA said this skewed belief is divorced from the natural and objective elements of marriage - physical union and procreation.

“Marriage is a consensual, exclusive and lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, expressed in a physical union uniquely designed to produce and nurture children,” the CMDA statement said.

“The universal recognition of conjugal marriage by virtually every civilization throughout history, arrived at from both secular and theistic perspectives, testifies to the natural evidence for marriage, its objective structure and its significant contribution to human flourishing and societal stability.”

The CMDA statement was released just a few weeks prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October 6 dismissal of five U.S. states’ petitions to review lower court decisions overturning their marriage protection amendments.

The CMDA said that recognition of marriage as being between one man and one woman does not necessarily impede acceptance of other consensual relationships.

“The core debate hinges not on a moral evaluation of various types of relationships, but rather on the objective qualities that make marriage, marriage,” the CMDA statement said.

The benefits to children raised by both a mother and a father, the greater economic stability of intact families and the high cost to government and society when marriage breaks down were all listed by the CMDA to illustrate the government’s stake in preserving marriage.

The CMDA also critiqued court decisions that have asserted that support for marriage is not rational and instead based on hostility toward homosexuals, saying that these judgments have paved the way for religious persecution toward proponents of traditional marriage.

“Once the government adopts an official position that opposition to ‘same-sex marriage’ is based solely on animus and constitutes discrimination, the state can assert a compelling interest to advance this social policy--even if doing so means trampling the rights of religious conscientious objectors,” the CMDA statement said. “This assertion of government power to enforce the ideology of the state threatens not only the individual exercise of conscience but also the entire constitutional balance of the church-state relationship.”

“Such an aggressive, state-sponsored squelching of the free exercise of religion, as expressed in faith-based dissent, creates a powerful deterrent to free speech and the exercise of conscience,” the CMDA said. “Apart from the intervention of courts and/or a reversal of societal values, faithful supporters of conjugal marriage stand to face a virtual ideological Inquisition of increasing intensity.”

The CMDA statement concluded with a list of policy recommendations that would protect the rights of faith and conscience in law and policy, and in particular safeguard against legal assault of physicians who practice in accord with their conscience.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: “Why even get involved in such a controversial area as same-sex marriage? How does this apply to healthcare professionals?

“A number of medical organizations have officially endorsed same-sex relationships, with sanctions and the censure of dissenting members sure to follow. The administration, through the Dept. of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies, has begun to require assent to its same-sex marriage ideology as a condition for receiving federal grants. As same-sex issues politics takes root in our legal system and professional organizations, you will likely find yourself at risk as a healthcare professional or student if you:

• deviate from governmental or professional organizational same-sex policies when counseling or treating patients regarding their sexuality;
• decline to provide a requested recommendation for a same-sex couple seeking to adopt a child;
• affirm, during a medical school or placement interview, the moral principle of reserving sex for male-female marriage;
• do not fulfill requests by same-sex couples for reproductive services such as in-vitro fertilization (physicians already have been sued successfully for this on grounds of discrimination).

“The church in Germany in the 1930s failed to heed the warning signs, succumbed to state coercion and experienced the absolute disintegration of their religious freedom. The tragic loss resulted in part because naïve people of faith opted for compromise with the rising Nazi regime and failed to confront ruthless oppression as Hitler marched toward absolute power.

America is not fascist Germany, but the principle remains the same: Government tends to increase its own power at the expense of individual freedoms--unless We the People take action. “Now is the time to determine to remain faithful, to defend truth and religious freedom--and also to prepare to take a stand in the face of pressure and even persecution.”

“Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, ‘Do not imagine that you in the king’s palace can escape any more than all the Jews’” (Esther 4:13, NASB).

“But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank...” (Daniel 1:8, NASB).

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great...” (Matthew 5:11-12, NASB).

Action
Use our easy, pre-written form at our Freedom2Care legislative action website to urge your legislators to support the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act--S.1808, which prohibits discrimination because of moral beliefs regarding marriage and sex.

Resources

1. Read the CMDA statements on what marriage is and on same-sex "marriage." The two new, board-approved public policy statements on marriage state support for public policy measures that:
   • Recognize marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman.
   • Accord protections, incentives and privileges that reflect a recognition of the economic, social and child-related benefits to the state of conjugal marriage.
   • Do not conflate conjugal marriage with same-sex relationships.
   • Comport with the original intent of Amendment XIV of the U.S. Constitution.
   • Maintain equal protection of applicable laws for those who engage in homosexual activity without according special status or privileges based on that activity.
2. A Thoughtful Approach to God's Design for Marriage, by Sean McDowell & John Stonestreet.
3. What is Marriage? By Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George.

Court rules that states can define marriage

Excerpted from "Judge Upholds State’s Authority to Define Marriage as Union of Man and Woman," commentary by Ryan T. Anderson in The Daily Signal, August 12, 2014 - Last week a judge in Tennessee upheld that state’s Constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The case involved a same-sex couple married in Iowa that sought a divorce in Tennessee. Because Tennessee does not recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, it was unable to divorce the couple. Last week, Judge Russell E. Simmons, Jr., cited the Supreme Court’s decision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act case, U.S. v. Windsor, as support that Tennessee has the right to define marriage for itself.

When the Supreme Court struck down the federal law defining marriage last year, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that states have “the historical and essential authority to define the marital relation.” Simmons takes Kennedy at his word, recognizing the basic equality of state citizens. Just as the citizens of Iowa are free to adopt same-sex marriage (though it was a state court that redefined marriage there), so too the citizens of Tennessee are free to retain the traditional definition.

What about arguments that claim there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage? Simmons explains that while “marriage is a fundamental right,” there is no right to redefine marriage. Simmons continued: “neither the Tennessee Supreme Court nor the United States Supreme Court has ever decided that this fundamental right under a state’s laws extends beyond the traditional definition of marriage as a union between (1) one man and (1) one woman.”

What’s really at stake in this debate? Simmons explains: “The battle is not between whether or not marriage is a fundamental right but what unions are included in the definition of marriage.” Yes, the fundamental policy question in this debate is “What Is Marriage?”

Our federal Constitution is silent on what marriage is. Judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and declare them to be required by the Constitution. The courts should uphold the freedom of the American people and their elected representatives to make marriage policy.

Commentary

“As the links to a research controversy below (see Resources) suggest, anyone wading into the marriage debate these days needs a double coat of armor. But that's hardly unexpected or new for Christians whose convictions counter the culture. If we can demonstrate love for those who practice homosexuality while courageously offering a reasonable rationale in defense of marriage as between a man and woman, as my colleague Ryan Anderson does, then perhaps reasonable people will consider our message.

“For millennia, societies have recognized marriage as a consensual, exclusive and lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, expressed in a physical union uniquely designed to produce and nurture children. The universal recognition of conjugal marriage by virtually every civilization throughout history, arrived at from both secular and theistic perspectives, testifies to the natural evidence for marriage, its objective structure and its significant contribution to human flourishing and societal stability.

“But now some would replace marriage with a subjective notion based on emotional relationship, divorced from the natural and objective marital elements of physical union and procreation. The abject subjectivity of this approach offers no rational parameters that would exclude further redefinitions of 'marriage as between multiple partners, related persons or even persons and pets.

“With people of good will on both sides of the marriage debate, we all do well to focus on respecting and listening to each other, presenting a reasonable rationale and letting the democratic process play out to express the will of the people. Courts have a tendency to short-circuit that process by imposing personal views from the bench, and conflicting rulings in lower courts appear bound to return this issue to the Supreme Court in the near future.

“In the meantime, consider reading some of the resources below on this issue. As we commit to remaining true to convictions founded on Scripture, may God give us the courage to live faithfully in the midst of a contrary culture--just as the biblical Daniel, Esther and a "great cloud of witnesses" have done throughout history.

Action
Use the easy, editable form at the CMA Freedom2Care legislative action website to voice your support for:

House bill: Marriage and Religious Freedom Act - HR 3133

Senate bill: Marriage and Religious Freedom Act - S 1808

Resources
What is Marriage? by Ryan T. Anderson, et. al.

Research and controversy:

• "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study" research publication by Mark Regnerus
• "Homosexual Parent Study: Summary of Findings," article by Peter Sprigg
• "Study of Gay Parenting Draws Criticism" - ABC News
• "Mark Regnerus: Defending my research on same-sex parenting" - Dallas Morning News
• Social Scientists Defend Mark Regnerus' Controversial Study on Same-Sex Parenting - Christianity Today

Administration moves to enforce same-sex "marriage" ideology

Excerpted from "Freedom2Care blog posting," "Jackbooted 'Tolerance,'" by Jonathan Imbody, June 6, 2014 - The Obama administration appears prepared to enforce its ideology regarding same-sex marriage with trademark inflexibility and atypical efficiency. Administration officials have begun inserting into federal grants notices and other official policies sweeping new requirements and definitions of marriage.

While the new policies cite as their rationale a need to implement the Supreme Court's recent Windsor decision on same-sex marriage, the way agencies are applying that viewpoint to grants appears aimed at eliminating from the public square any groups that disagree with the administration's ideology.

Exactly what this flood of apparently inflexible new policies means to groups with values that differ from the Obama administration will play out in the upcoming months and meanwhile requires legal analysis. The broad, sweeping language of the new policies make it difficult to determine precisely how and in what specific areas the Obama same-sex doctrine will be applied.

Meanwhile, the outlook appears ominous, for example, for:

• Faith-based organizations that maintain fidelity to Judeo-Christian sexual norms in their policies and personnel practices.
• Sexual education programs that emphasize the benefits of saving sex for (traditional) marriage.
• Adoption agencies that recognize in their policies the benefit to children of having a father and mother.
• Health organizations that emphasize the health benefits of male-female monogamy.

Policies enforcing the administration's marriage ideology (conveniently couched in the context of Windsor) are cropping up across federal agencies, including this one from the Health Resources Services Administration:

Federal Recognition of Same-sex Spouses/Marriages
[A]ll grant recipients will be subject to a term and condition that instructs grantees to recognize any same-sex marriage legally entered into in a U.S. jurisdiction that recognizes their marriage....

Within days, the Supreme Court will announce its decisions in cases involving the Obama administration's trampling of religious freedom in its drive to enforce its ideology regarding contraception and abortion. The administration's new policies enforcing its ideology regarding same-sex marriage will make good summer reading for the justices, since they can expect a raft of related cases next term.

Resources
CMA’s Freedom2Care website on freedom of faith, conscience and speech
CMDA Human Sexuality Ethics Statement
CMA commentaries

Action
Use our easy pre-written customizable message to support H.R. 940 - Healthcare Conscience Rights Act (House bill) and S. 1204 - Health Care Conscience Rights Act (Senate bill)