The Next Step for Evolution: Tyranny?

The Next Step for Evolution: Tyranny?

The recent Robin Roberts interview with President Barak Obama illustrates much of what is wrong with Obama, the media, and our culture. The very context of the interview is troublesome. Roberts admits that in the aftermath of Vice-President Biden’s comments regarding legalizing homosexual marriage the White House called ABC News in order to offer an interview. Roberts maintains that there were no boundaries, or suggestions, given as to what questions should be asked. Here’s a surprise: the first question from Roberts was on the issue of same-sex marriage! Obama was prepared for it. Roberts really did not ask any difficult or challenging questions. Afterwards, Roberts expressed that she was moved by the historical interview, saying, “I'm getting chills again.”

There are many troublesome aspects of Obama’s declaration that he has been evolving on the issue of same-sex marriage, especially in the current political and cultural context. These issues are reflective of culture at large, are disconcerting in the context of the erosion of freedoms and Biblical morality, and raise issues concerning where we are headed.

Redefinition of Words

The first issue is that the meaning of important terms is being re-defined. For example, Obama says, “Americans should be treated fairly and equally.” What does Obama mean by this? Apparently, it has something to do with “hospital visitation rights and – other – elements that we take for granted.” But it would seem that the issue of hospital visitation rights could be addressed without a re-definition of marriage itself. Later, he addresses the issue from the perspective of homosexuals experiencing pain regarding being “less than full citizens when it comes to their legal rights.” Huh? Because someone does not have the same legal rights as others concerning marriage, they are not full citizens? So, two eight-year-olds should have the right to get married? Or, three eight-year-olds should have the right to get married? If not, they are not considered full citizens? But perhaps age is an issue: so three twenty-one year olds should have the right to get married? Will Obama call for a change in motor vehicle, drinking, voting, and gun laws in order to accommodate those citizens who feel they are less than full citizens? After all, all are not legally allowed to participate in society in the same way as others!

Obama desires to make the issue about “fairness” and “treating everybody as equals.” Surely he doesn’t really mean this? He says that part of the reason for his change of perspective was that he didn’t want to explain to his children “why someone should be treated differently when it comes to the eyes of the law.” But aren’t distinctions a normal part of life? The law does – and should - discriminate. Certainly, it shouldn’t discriminate in regard to our humanity, that is, our God-given rights. However, it should – and does - discriminate at various levels: the right to vote, the right to carry firearms, the right to operate a motor vehicle, the right to legitimately claim to be a brain surgeon, etc.

But, it isn’t just the issue of marriage that falls under Obama’s re-definition. He also re-defines free market economics. He says, “What I believe is the free market is the greatest force for economic prosperity on earth. But that it only works well when we’re making investments in great education for our kids, when we’re rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our broadband lines, when we are absolutely committed to making sure that we have a tax code that’s fair and that we’re balancing our budgets and bringing down our deficit in a way that is balanced.” So, the free market only works with government investments with the result being the government undergirds the free market? That is not the definition of a free market economy. Further, does he really expect us to believe he is committed to balancing the budget? And, what does he mean by a fair tax code? Does he mean by “equality” the same thing as he means with same-sex marriage? No, the tax code he desires is not going to be the same for all. It seems words mean what he wants them to mean.

Further, Obama re-defines the meaning of the Golden Rule, saying we are to “treat others the way you’d want to be treated.” Francis Beckwith says “The Golden Rule . . . is not a quid pro quo for preference satisfaction reciprocity. Otherwise, it would mean that if one were a masochist, for example, then one should inflict pain on others.” He says, “the Golden Rule is not about merely protecting your neighbor’s preferences, but rather, advancing your neighbor’s good.”

Perhaps the biggest issue is that Obama has not really defined marriage. For a good article addressing the definition of marriage see “Marriage and the Presidency.”

Meanings of words are important. We must examine definitions and hold our leaders accountable for the meanings they assign to words and concepts. This reminds me of Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, where Alice is in a conversation with Humpty Dumpty: “’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master that’s all.’”

Normalization of Sodomy

Second, there is an attempt to normalize Sodomy. Obama says he has friends, family, neighbors, and members of his own staff “who are incredibly committed, in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet, feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is gone, because they’re not able to commit themselves in a marriage.” So, from Obama’s perspective, because this is a normal relationship, it should be legalized.

In fact, according to Obama, this is a generational thing. If you want to keep up with the times (“the whole country is evolving”) you will accept the legalization of same-sex marriage. He says, “the winds of change are happening. They’re not blowing with the same force in every state. But I think that what you’re gonna see is states coming to the realization that if a soldier can fight for us, if a police officer can protect our neighborhoods, if a firefighter . . . ” - then upon this realization we will grant homosexuals the legal right to marry.

Obama says there are some “who feel strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as between a man and a woman.” He states that he respects them and they just “have a different understanding” of “what the word ‘marriage’ should mean.” But concerning same-sex couples, Obama sees “how caring they are, how much love they have in their hearts – how they’re taking care of their kids.” In fact, to answer those who are concerned with the breakdown of the family, Obama says that perhaps “they haven’t had the experience that I have had in seeing same-sex couples, who are as committed, as monogamous, as responsible, as loving of a group of parents as any heterosexual couple that I know. And in some cases, more so.” In fact, these are the very values “we care so deeply about when we describe family, commitment, responsibility, looking after one another . . . it’s consistent with our best and in some cases our most conservative values, sort of the foundation of what made this county great.” In other words, if those opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage will only become enlightened to the similarity of same-sex marriage to heterosexual marriage and the similarity between homosexuals and heterosexuals, those opposing same-sex marriage will gladly evolve into willing acceptance of this wonderfully progressive aspect of marriage!

Obama assures us that he doesn’t desire to federalize this marriage issue. One wonders if he is telling the truth here, since he seems to desire to federalize nearly everything else. Perhaps this issue, if nationalized, would not benefit him politically at this point? Or, is this a strategic position, with Obama believing that this idea of legal Sodomite marriage eventually will be legalized at the state level? If not, there is the judicial option. Pat Buchanan, in the article, “The Antietam of the Culture War,” argues that Obama’s strategy on this issue is a second-term appointment, or appointments, that will grant a five-four decision on the High Court in favor of homosexual marriage, thus enshrining it as a constitutional right.

Privatization of Religion

The third issue concerns forcing Christianity out of the public square. Obama praises the work of New York in legalizing same-sex marriages, saying the effort made “it absolutely clear that what we’re talking about are civil marriages and civil laws.” He says, “they’re respectful of religious liberty” and that “churches and other faith institutions are still gonna be able to make determinations about what their sacraments are.” However, as with the contraceptive issue, so with homosexual marriage, we can see the erosion of religious liberty. Further, there is a fundamental issue at stake here – the complete separation of church and state with the result that the brand of Christianity that would disapprove of Sodomite marriage is restricted to the privacy of the church. But once the church’s influence is restricted to the church itself, and not the society in which Christians reside, how much longer will it be before the privacy of the church itself is threatened? Will statements, publications, education, and even sermons, that critique Sodomite marriages, be declared illegal and forbidden? After all, such an approach by churches could be seen as attempting to undermine a law and thus forbid people their constitutional rights.

In the interview, Roberts asked Obama if he would “ask your Justice Department to join in the litigation in fighting states that are banning same-sex marriage?” Obama did not directly answer the question, but implies that he would: “My Justice Department has already said that it is not going to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we consider that a violation of [the] Equal Protection Clause, and I agree with them on that. You know? I helped to prompt that move on the part of the Justice Department.” He implies he will fight the states, if it is expedient for him to do so. This raises the question concerning whether he would also fight churches and Christians who fail to acknowledge Sodomite marriage.

Next Step: Tyranny?

All of this raises the dreadful prospect of a further step in this evolutionary journey. When the values of a culture are relativized to a certain tipping point, it is then left to those in positions of power to make moral determinations that may be at odds with strongly held, and cherished beliefs, of others. In our time, it is likely such determinations will be based on relativism. At that point, rule is exercised on the whim of those in control. With the consolidation of power and restriction of freedom, the likely result is tyranny. Tyranny is fearful because it is not just an issue of political power, but of unjust and unchecked rule.

Potentially, a perfect storm is developing in America. In many ways, a shift from a Christian worldview to one at odds with deeply held Christian values is occurring. There are substantial numbers of Christians who reject the legalization of Sodomite marriage. On the other hand, the current President is in favor of such marriages and he has implied using legal persuasion against those who oppose it. Further, there is an erosion of religious liberty, as well as other liberties. The stage is being set for a dramatic clash of worldviews. When all of these factors are brought to gather, the potential result of such a clash is tyranny.

Will such a storm produce tyranny? Is even raising the issue legitimate? Or, is all of this concern only drama? We will have to wait for history to manifest the answers. But we do know that when tyranny is manifest, it is one ugly scene.  History has already shown us that.