Another Black Robed Bandit Buys the Lie

WARNING: Candid (and at times graphic) adult analysis and commentary to follow. If you are squeamish about reality, I suggest you read no further. If you are possessed of a strong mental constitution and can endure beyond a meme or a sound bite, I encourage you to read on. I believe it will be worthwhile.

I am the father of seven children. I was attendant at all of their births; the designated catcher on the last three, which were delivered at home. As the birth canal opened and the head crowned, my wife and I were intensely involved in the delivery process; more concerned about her body than who was coming out it. But once the baby was out, all that changed. “I had a baby!” my wife would exclaim, followed shortly thereafter by, “what is it?”

What is it? Why, a human being, of course. My wife has never given birth to a puppy, a kitten, or even a rabbit. But you know that, even if you don’t know us. You know that humans give birth to humans. What is it? Why, a Larum, of course. But you knew that as well from my name and the fact that it is our child. What was my wife asking? What any parent generally wants to know: is it a boy or a girl. Did you know that even as dim-witted as I am, I’ve never had difficulty determining the sex of any of my children? I didn’t need any legal decisions or medical advice to make the determination either. All my sons had testicles and a penis. None of my daughters did. Easy peasy.

Sex is simple to determine. Even the State has no difficulty with this. On my children’s birth certificates, their sex is identified; for the girls, SEX: FEMALE, for the boys: SEX: MALE. This ease of identification carries into adulthood. On my driver’s license, my sex is identified as male. And sex, as a biological definition, classifies what part I give to the procreation process. Two males can’t make a baby. Two females can’t make a baby. But in the eyes of U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, same-sex couples should be allowed the legal façade of a procreative, married couple and place their names on a child’s birth certificate as if they had had sex and produced it. But I get ahead of myself.

I would love to persuade the public instead of preach to the choir, but I fear that it is beyond me. Even convincing the choir these days can be difficult. Many Christians, it appears, have decided that evolution is true and Genesis just a story. And once Genesis is just a story, no true defense for traditional marriage remains. Add to that a general belief in the populace that the murder of children is simply an exhibition of personal choice and sexual identity something that can be changed with a new wardrobe, a legal decision, or a surgeon’s knife and I fear I may be screaming into the wind. But scream I must.

On February 14, 2014, US District Judge Allen issued a decision striking down Article I, § 15-A of the Virginia Constitution and the Affirmation of Marriage Act, thus paving the way to make the government of the Commonwealth grant legal married status to same-sex couples wed in other states and allow marriages between same-sex couples in the Commonwealth. It matters not to the judge what marriage means or that the citizens of Virginia sought to codify that meaning in their constitution and laws. To her, it is a simple case of prejudice.

When noise began in our fine state that we needed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, I was against it. What need to define what is? One might as well make a law that said I am a man because I have two testicles and a penis. Government has no need to define marriage because mankind has known this definition for millennia. Men and women make marriages. Men and men don’t. Women and women don’t. Humans and animals don’t. My fear was that the endeavor to codify what simply is would only provide a legal basis to challenge this definition and thus change it. And so it is.

Allen’s decision is forty-one pages long. It is easy to find if not so easy to read.[1] Let me summarize it for you: being gay or lesbian in America is the same as being black in America. Racial prejudice is the same as basic, biological understanding. Or put more simply: Behold the Straw Man and bow before it. From her opening quote of Mildred Loving to her final order finding Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional on the grounds of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, the entire opinion is based on the equating of the gay and lesbian lifestyle to being born in an ethnically distinct household. And her argument resonates with many because it is a bright and shining lie that appeals to a sense of justice, even if that justice denies biological reality. You see, race is not a biological reality. Thus, laws that hinder freedom based on concepts of race have no natural standing. This is not the case with sex and marriage.

Allen holds up the cause of the couple’s represented in large part because of the “stigma and humiliation”[2] they have suffered for want of a legal marriage remedy. I have news for the judge and the couples. The stigma isn’t because they aren’t married. The stigma is because homosexuality has been viewed with opprobrium for millennia. The humiliation is there because the social stigma and, I would argue, conscience as well. And though the conscience may be seared, the social stigma in large part will remain. Marriage will not change that. But Allen’s decision does damage to marriage and leaves profound holes in the hedge of who can attain legal married status.

In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Allen brought her pastor, Rev. Jim Wood. She said that next to her husband, Rev. Wood was “probably the closest man in my life.”[3] Rev. Wood is the Senior Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Norfolk (FPCN). On the church’s web site in the “What We Believe” section are listed the following declarations:

  1. Jesus Christ is Lord God of all and the only way of salvation.
  2. The Holy Scripture is God’s revealed Word, the only infallible rule for faith and life.
  3. God’s people are called to holiness in all aspects of life.  This includes honoring the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the only relationship in which sexual activity is appropriate.[4]

On all these points, I heartily agree with Rev. Wood and the FPCN. Sadly, her relationship with the reverend notwithstanding, Judge Allen does not. Her ideology of civil rights trumps the truth of Scripture. She has denied her faith.

On page two of her opinion, Allen states “the ultimate exercise of our freedom is choice.” Though perhaps not an intentional allusion to her embracement of Roe v. Wade at this point, its intention is blatant by page thirty-nine where she proclaims that a woman’s murder of her unborn child is a celebrated and hallowed choice.[5] Yes, hallowed, as in holy or sacred. Murder is sacred, marriage is homosexual, down is up, wrong is right. Reason has left us.

Her opening salvo is an appeal to the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.[6] Do you remember the language of our founding document? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Jefferson appeals to the Creator for the Founders’ authority to declare independence from the British sovereign. Allen cites Jefferson, yet denies the Creator he appealed to.

“So God created man…male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply…” Genesis 1:27-28.

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh?” Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 19:4-5.

I hold this truth to be self-evident, that marriage was instituted by the Creator between a man and a woman and that that union was blessed to be fruitful and reproduce. The bench’s penchant to warp the word marriage into a new meaning will not change what marriage is. Confer the state’s legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities on a same-sex couples all you want, they will never be married in the eyes of the Ultimate Judge.

What has Allen done in striking down this portion of Virginia law? She has opened the door for legal marriage to simply mean a “loving, intimate and lasting relationship.”[7] What if that relationship happens to be with my sister? I couldn’t marry her under current Virginia law even if I were single. But since “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence”[8], why should I or any other consenting, incestuous couple not be allowed to marry?[9] I’ve heard that there are some who have had intimate relations with their dogs. Shall those who are sexually oriented toward canines not be allowed to marry them? Who can deny the loving and lasting relationship between a man and his dog?

I am a minister authorized to celebrate the rites of marriage in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Rest assured; I will never officiate a same-sex wedding. But if Judge Allen is to have her way, I would be forced to do so. In a judgment on a different kind of case, she told the defendant “your beliefs, if they clash with American laws, are going to get you in trouble.”[10] Though Allen paraded her faith to bolster  her Senate confirmation, it was pure window dressing. Government reigns supreme and the government says same-sex couples can marry. It was in part to defend faith that the Affirmation of Marriage Act was introduced, the legislators fearing that churches whose teachings do not accept homosexual behavior as moral would lose their tax exempt status.[11] Allen poo-poos these fears by claiming that the redefinition of marriage isn’t a radical departure from tradition, but she spills no ink regarding the fate of faith’s tax exempt status.

To my fellow ministers I say: get ready, they’re coming for you. The homosexual lobby has proven itself to be tenacious, aggressive, and militant in imposing their lifestyle as one that must be accepted and legally protected. They will target churches with a published position against same-sex marriage and demand a ceremony. When the ceremony is denied, they will sue in court for state or federal protection. The government will step in and demand “equal opportunity” for this poor couple. If the church stands its ground, its tax exempt status will be revoked. This is where it is ultimately going.

To the lawyers defending traditional marriage, I plead with you to stop appealing to Scripture, tradition, reason, or common sense. It has become blatantly obvious that the black robed bandits care naught for any of them. I would appeal instead to the incisive humor of Monty Python.

In the movie The Life of Brian,[12] there is a meeting in the arena of the People’s Front of Judea.[13] In this scene, John Cleese would be the lawyer for the defense in Bostic v. Rainey, Eric Idle (playing Stan/Loretta) would be the plaintiff, and Sue Jones-Davies (playing Judith) would be our Judge Allen. Stan, you see, wants to be a woman because he wants to have babies. John Cleese declares that this is ridiculous because Stan, being a man, can’t have babies. Judith declares that the People’s Front of Judea will fight for Stan’s right to have babies.

When I first saw this scene in the early 1980s, I laughed with juvenile glee. The idea that people would band together to fight for a right that is against nature was the height of hilarity. When I watch it now, I laugh still, but more as a madman who knows that reason has left us.

[1], accessed 2/16/14. Hereafter referred to as Allen followed by page number.

[2] Allen, p. 13-14.

[5] Read the opinion, follow her footnotes and you will catch my drift.

[6] Allen, p. 2

[7] Allen, p. 22

[8] Allen, p. 22

[9] Please do not misunderstand me, dear reader. I have no incestuous relationship with my sister or any other relative. I raise the issue for illustrative purposes only.

[10] As reported by the Virginian-Pilot,, accessed 2/16/14.

[11] Allen, p. 25.

[12] As always, any mention of a movie is not an endorsement thereof. The Life of Brian is highly irreverent. If you view the entire film (which I have not in over thirty years), you do so at your own risk.

[13] You can find the scene on YouTube if you follow this link:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s