How Can Evangelical Christians Love Their Homosexual Neighbors?

What we've had to do as a society is to pass laws mandating that concept with respect to particular categories of people in our society that historically have not had equal human rights. It wasn't necessary to pass a law saying you can't discriminate against white people. Nobody was discriminating against white people.

Let me get back to that Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. I don't know what you're talking about, but as you stated it, it really doesn't make sense to say that homosexuality is not a valid civil rights classification. The whole concept of civil rights classification is not a valid concept. What civil rights laws do is to say these people, which have historically suffered discrimination, you're no longer going to be allowed to discriminate against them. Historically blacks have suffered discrimination. Not only historically, but presently, lesbians and gay men suffer discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation or their perceived sexual orientation. That's why we keep coming back to... I think you were associating yourself with this "special rights" rhetoric which was so important in Colorado. I, too, reject the idea of "special rights." But that's not what is at stake.

Let me give just one little excerpt from Justice Kennedy's opinion. Because that was the crux of his opinion. If he had been convinced, and the other justices who voted with him, that what was being given was special rights, then the case would have come out the other way. What he explained was being done was exactly the opposite. He said, we find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people, either because they already have them, or do not need them. These are protections against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society. He was talking about political processes. They were not talking about the opportunity to get married, which I agree raises separate issues, and we should talk about that separately.

JOHN: I guess my question is, that when I read this briefing on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, they were saying in a Cincinnati case if I remember correctly, that a local ordinance that gave rights to homosexuals...

NADINE: I know what you're talking about. I'm sorry. Lawyer's talk. It's the Sixth Circuit, that's why you threw me off. That was a companion case to the Colorado case. So the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit decision, consistent with its holding of the Colorado ordinance as unconstitutional.

JOHN: They reversed it, and did they say that homosexuals are a valid civil rights class?

NADINE: No. That issue is really a false way of understanding it, and that's exactly what the Supreme Court said. They said this is not a matter of creating a special class. It's a matter of denying the government the power to take away equal treatment for certain people, on the basis of sexual orientation. That leads to another point. I don't think you need to define what homosexuality is or isn't, consistent with your wonderful principle: all people should be entitled to equal rights. It doesn't matter what homosexuality is, or whether one day they're having sex with one person or sex with another kind of person. They're a person, they're still entitled to equal rights.

JOHN: But then the question is, if you have a homosexual rights movement that over and over again in its codifications, domestic partnership laws, other places like that, are trying to create a special law based on their sexual identity.

NADINE: But if all the law says is that, let's start with government, government may not discriminate against any citizen on the basis of that citizen's sexual orientation. That's all the law would say. Let's start with that.

JOHN: But if their sexual orientation is pedophilia?

NADINE: Based on their sexual orientation. Conduct, including some religiously based conduct, you know, some Mormons still believe in polygamy, can't be made illegal because of countervailing societal concerns to protect other human beings, which I totally support. But to say that you cannot just on the basis of a person's orientation sexually, deny them certain basic opportunities. Then, you know, I agree. Maybe you would agree with me that far. I know you're not going to agree with me as far as the opportunity to get married.

But my question is, what about the right that was at stake in the Colorado case and the Cincinnati case, was the right to petition the government for laws banning discrimination. And every other group in our society can petition for those laws except members of...

JOHN: Absolutely, the right to petition. I'm 100% in agreement with that. When you talked about the whole issue of the special rights thing. I didn't like the special rights language to begin with. If I remember correctly, Kennedy said in his opinion that was an animus against a certain class of people. Therefore, he used that language, class of people, speaking about the homosexuals, OK? I didn't like the Colorado Amendment 2 at one level. I don't think it had an animus at all. But I think it had the perception of an animus by using the phrase "special rights."

Actually, I composed this [proposed law] before Colorado Amendment 2. And so I'm interested in what you think about my proposal there. I only have one copy with me. But let me just set it before you so you can actually see the language of it. What do you think about that process of arguing civil rights? I want to come back after you comment on it about the whole question about who is God, and what is the definition of unalienable rights.

NADINE: OK. Certainly, number 2, you won't be surprised, I completely agree with. "No punitive laws shall exist to restrict private association, whether heterosexual or homosexual." Although I would put a caveat there which you already alluded to, which is, if you're talking about harming another human being. I think sex between an adult and a child is harming another human being.

JOHN: Now here's where you as a lawyer can give me an opinion. When I went to the third part and I said, we're all accountable for the public consequences of our private actions, but in no way shall we deprive others of life, liberty, or property. To me I think that includes all those issues. Would you say that?

NADINE: The third part is: "All persons shall accept accountability for the public consequences of their private associations and actions." That's a little bit vague. I'm not sure exactly what it means from your oral explanation, if you're saying that you father a child and then you can't seek welfare from the government to help that child, which is the way I interpreted what you were saying. My note was we shouldn't punish the children for the sins of their parents. I'm very concerned about that.

JOHN: My perspective will be a little bit different there. I would say go after the father with all the gusto that the legal system can do.

NADINE: Fine. And the mother, too. I think both parents have an economic responsibility.

JOHN: Usually it's the father. If it's the mother that's the case. By the same token I think that if you allow, for example, AFDC laws that make it more profitable to have a child out of wedlock than to have a child in wedlock, then you are actually subsidizing. What, Washington D.C. is 96% out of wedlock right now?

NADINE: Actually, it wouldn't be a wise economic choice. My husband's an economist. He would say no rational person would have a child to get the paltry welfare benefits. That's a whole other...

JOHN: But that's an overwhelming social reality.

NADINE: That people are having children outside of wedlock. I...

JOHN: But not only that. When they're looking at no jobs, no hope inside the inner city, and they're seeing X dollars a month if they have a baby.

NADINE: But the X dollars a month not being enough to feed the baby.

JOHN: But it's more than zero. And what I'm saying...

NADINE: But the baby costs more than that sum. So that wouldn't be an economically rational choice.

JOHN: But you're rational. I hope I am rational too. But I think a lot of these choices are not rationally based. When you have a system which underwrites...

NADINE: This is a different subject. But if you move to the system which we have moved to, which says, you have an extra child and you're not getting any extra benefits, you know what kind of coercive pressure that puts. It's not surprising that this is one of the not few issues where the ACLU is working with right-to-life organizations to oppose that kind of coercive pressure on women to have abortions, who otherwise wouldn't have abortions.

JOHN: Right. And there's a deeper issue I'd go into if that were our subject tonight. But anyhow in terms of...

NADINE: "And they shall in no way deprive others of life, liberty, or property." I certainly agree with that.

In terms of the first proposition: "Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in mutual fidelity." What concerns me about that, and what concerned me about a number of your remarks about marriage, is to me a blurring of the line between religious marriage (and whatever consequences it brings within a particular religious viewpoint) and civil marriage; and the benefits that our government attributes only to that government-sanctioned relationship. As a strong defender of religious freedom, I do strongly defend the right of anybody to make a religious choice as to marriage. If you as a minister don't want to sanction a certain kind of union for whatever religious reason, that's completely your right and religious duty, I suppose. The problem from a secular point of view is that there are a number of benefits that are available only through this government-sanctioned relationship. Sometimes that means the government, by withholding those benefits, is denying religious freedom to people who have a different concept of marriage based on religion.

The one gay marriage case that the ACLU has taken, and so far we've won, in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, we brought on the grounds of religious freedom. It was a religious ceremony between two Reconstructionist Jewish women. Their Reconstructionist Rabbi performed a service, their family was all there. They were not seeking any civil benefits. But their religious belief was they wanted God and the Rabbi and their religious community to sanction a commitment that had existed in fact, and that they intended to continue in a faithful, monogamous way for the rest of their lives. By virtue of that ceremony taking place they weren't seeking any benefits from the government at all, just non-discrimination.

Let me tell you the facts. Our client was working for the Attorney General in Georgia. When he found out she had gone through this religious ceremony, he fired her. So she was denied her right to work for the government, you know, the equal protection clause of the Constitution and government shouldn't discriminate against you, because she had carried out a marriage commitment consistent with her religious beliefs.

JOHN: I need to parse a couple of ideas here. You started by saying that there are certain benefits that accrued when there is a government- authorized marriage. It's interesting how the Old Testament looks at this. If a man sleeps with a virgin, they're married, and they're held accountable to it by the community. To me I don't know how important the religious or civil side is in terms of a public ceremony, as it is the integrity of mutual fidelity that is to be embraced. There's a lot of room for discussion around what that means. However, I think that as we look at the issue of benefits, you and I perhaps have a very opposing view of what government does, in terms of a concerted view of a limited federal government.

I don't view marriage, when it's authorized when it's required to by the state right now, as giving benefits. I see it as putting responsibilities. A man and a woman promise to be faithful to each other until death do them part. And if they break that promise they have to reap the fruit of what they've sown. They have certain legal and moral and financial obligations. What the law is saying is that we're going to require the fidelity. And I'm convinced that the requirement of that fidelity puts a greater burden upon the married couple than it does on those outside marriage. My whole proposal there does that. It says we are responsible for one to another fidelity, we're responsible for children we raise. And unless we have that type of anchor in place, we're going to see the whole breaking up of society.

In the case you mentioned about the woman being fired, I would be on your side of that issue. Because that would be no issue of mine whatsoever. Whether they had some religious ceremony, because that's happening. I mean, I was raised a Unitarian and I still read their magazine. Two years ago or thereabouts they had a centerfold of about twelve or fourteen gay and lesbian marriages. This is what they were celebrating. Well, they're doing that in a religious community. There's no problem with that for me.

NADINE: Well good. That gets back to my concept, we're not asking for special rights. You're absolutely right. I veered off into a separate point. But for civil marriage there are benefits that don't have to do with welfare or anything like that. Things that those of us who are in happy, heterosexual marriages take for granted, things that I hadn't even realized come with marriage until I started talking to some of my gay and lesbian friends. For example, your partner that you can have been living with for as long as you and I have lived with our wife and our husband, respectively, in as caring and committed and as loving a relationship. And unfortunately, this is a situation that happens a lot in the gay community, it's not hypothetical. One of you is dying of AIDS, and is in the hospital and the other one is not even allowed to go into the hospital room to visit, the companion, because hospitals including government hospitals often have policies, in fact I'm told usually have policies, that visitation can only be by members of the family. That means by state-sanctioned marriage. Doesn't matter if it's a religiously recognized marriage. It doesn't matter if it is personally loving, long lasting, committed relationship. There is an artificial dividing line there. Again, you can call it a benefit, but to me it is lack of discrimination what I'm asking for.

JOHN: You know, at that point hospitals have loosened up a lot. I remember when my brother was born, the surprise to my mother in her mid-forties and thirteen years after me. And all I could do was look through a window. So they wouldn't even let the siblings come in and look at this newborn baby. A lot of hospital visitation rights have loosened up. I think that anyone who wants to visit should be free to visit, based on being human beings, and based on the wishes of the party who is in there. So I have no problem with that whatsoever.

The difficulty we have with the homosexuality issue is, I was doing a forum with Bishop John Spong, the first Episcopal bishop in the country to ordain homosexuals. And he was talking about a homosexual male couple, one of whom was a priest. He talked about their loving, monogamous, committed relationship. I responded to him and pointed out a recent study, this is about two or three years ago, of 152 men who had been united in domestic partnership ordinances in San Francisco and some other cities. They were both asked what the definition of domestic partnership was. Did it include sexual fidelity? Out of 152, they all said it did not include sexual fidelity. They were free to have sex with other partners.

The fact is, if you look at the studies of male homosexuals who are active, you will see dozens if not hundreds of partners over a period of a lifetime. Even among lesbians, far more than one or two. You find very seldom a real monogamy. I really believe the reason for that is because of the sexual incompatibility, because it's like putting a female joint and a female joint together in plumbing terms, and a male and a male. And I really believe...

NADINE: Well, I hate to shock you, but the divorce rates among heterosexuals are extremely high. I strongly doubt that you can show that there is more or less longevity to relationships, on the basis of sexual orientation.

JOHN: I'll take that as a challenge.

NADINE: If you take into account, because I haven't finished, the enormous additional pressures that are faced in a discriminatory society. We know the kinds of pressures that tend to make marriages go on the rocks, even very strong marriages. Economic hardship is certainly one. Ostracization from family members is certainly another one. Disease is another one. And unfortunately, all of these are situations that the lesbian and gay community are facing in greater numbers. You know, at this point you couldn't make a scientific study that would isolate out only their sexual orientation when there are so many other adverse factors in our society that are challenging the stability of those relationships.

JOHN: But I think if you look at various homosexual newspapers that talk about their promiscuity, and look at the numbers of them, for example, this one study, I'm sure you've heard of it, of 5200 homosexual obituaries where the average age of men dying was 41 years. The average age of someone dying of AIDS was 39.

My father's retired now, but he was chief of hematology at the Hartford hospital for forty years. And to hear him describe the reality of sodomy in terms of one of the most unhealthy acts that there is, and that's not the only act that male homosexuals engage in. But there are physical pathologies that are involved. I also will argue emotionally, in terms of the need for balance between task-oriented nature and relationship-oriented nature between male and female.

I will take the challenge, do the research, and look at the numbers with you that show that, yes, there is far more social pathology in homosexual relationships.

NADINE: To me the pathology is caused by society, not by the sexual orientation.

JOHN: No. Society can add to a lot of pathologies, there is no question about that. But I'm talking about intrinsic reality in terms of what makes a relationship be long term.

NADINE: A lot of diseases can be transmitted and are transmitted by heterosexual contact.

JOHN: If you're faithful in marriage, and a virgin beforehand, there is no sexually transmitted disease.

NADINE: That leads me to another question, John, which is, I understand that your view is... And I have a little bit of briefing from... John knows this, but the audience doesn't, that my Chief Aide is an orthodox Christian. He tells me that theologically he is no doubt more conservative than any person in this audience. He is very sorry that he can't be here tonight. He's a Coptic Orthodox Christian but he's actually teaching at St. Marks church in Jersey City, teaching about the book of Ruth. But he hopes to be here tomorrow.

I hope I'm blasting at least a few stereotypes out here. I don't discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. He considers himself by and large a civil libertarian, although we disagree on a few issues.

He considers any kind of sex outside of marriage to be a sin. One of the questions when I was asking him what I should ask you, he said, Nadine, I think homosexuality is a sin, as I think premarital sex is a sin or divorce is a sin. The Bible actually says that God hates divorce, but I would never call for the elimination of alimony laws, etc. So another way of phrasing the question is, why can we so easily love our divorced neighbors, or I guess I should say neighbors who have premarital sex, and not our homosexual neighbors? What is so special about this sin that it drives so much, what to me is a political movement of singling out these people for special, unfavorable treatment?

JOHN: In the proposed law that I have there, you notice that any sex outside of marriage is accountable for the consequences of its own choices. Marriage should be protected, so alimony, absolutely. You're protecting marriage if someone divorces in an unjust cause. Whether heterosexual or homosexual, if it's outside of marriage I believe there should be no state protection for that because the bottom line is...

NADINE: But you're also saying, no state prohibition of private association.

JOHN: That's right. At that point I put faithfully married heterosexuals and everyone else on the same footing. See, I believe so much, what you reap is what you sow. The nature of marriage, male and female and fidelity together, is so positive in terms of psychological health, economic health, financial health, spiritual health, sexual health.

NADINE: I think stable human relationships are very important. Let me tell you, with my own eyes and for many, many years, some of the most moving, profound, committed relationships I have seen have been between people of the same gender, who care for each other against enormous societal odds and against enormous personal odds in very moving ways. Some of the most destructive relationships I've seen are between heterosexual partners. So I couldn't agree with you more, John.

JOHN: At that point we just said, I can mostly agree to, OK? What I'm trying to say is that male and female and faithful marriage is the order of creation. I believe all the evidences, from social health, psychological health, physical health, ratifies that. Now there are those who can make a mess of heterosexual marriage big time. There can be those who in certain homosexual relationships, in fact, I know of some where they have far more stability and protection than in abusive heterosexual relationships. I know that that is experientially a reality. But by the same token I know that ultimately the brokenness is going to multiply, even despite the attempt to go against a heterosexual brokenness, because God has made us, and I believe science confirms this, for the balance between male and female.

NADINE: I guess, you know, what do you mean when you talk about the historic family unit? I know this is part of it, it's male and female. Does it also include children? You talked about procreation a lot.

JOHN: What I said there is the historic family unit, rooted in heterosexual, faithful, monogamous marriage, and the raising of children. I believe the most healthy place to raise a child is in the family. I am pro-life. I believe that it is good to have children. And I believe that the best raising of children is with a mom and dad loving each other first. Then they know they will be loved.

NADINE: I guess where I was confused was the extent to which you reason backwards from the importance of procreation to therefore, the sanctioned relationship between adults should be one that could be conducive to procreation. That was one of your arguments as I understood it against homosexual unions. My question is, well, what about married heterosexuals who don't have children, who can't have children, or who are practicing contraception, or beyond a certain age, or have some physical incapacity? Are they somehow second class citizens in terms of the sanctity of their marriage?

JOHN: OK. Very simply, to go back to creation, sin, and redemption. In the order of creation before there was no sin, I laid out for you the order of God, life, choice, sex, male and female. With no sin there would have been marriage, no death, no divorce, no disease, the raising of children. And without the labor pains as Genesis 3:16 points out. Or it says her pain will be increased. My read of that is that before sin, she would have breathed hard and pushed hard, but it would have been satisfying. [laughter] After sin comes episiotomies and other things like that. I've seen four nine-pound children born in my presence. And I respected my wife more each time that happened.

So what I was talking about was the order of creation. Sin fractures. And sin has no justice to it whatsoever. There are those who are infertile against their choice. There are those who are single against their choice. They would like to get married but they don't find a suitable husband or wife to marry. Then there are those who have more or less faith to have children.

Now, I am not against non-abortifacient contraception philosophically. Don't like it, I'm not against it philosophically. I think natural family planning works great because it requires a man and woman to love each other, to know each other intimately. My belief in the face of a broken world is to have as many children as you can have faith for. When my life is done there is no more value I have than the love of my wife, the love of my children. That's the most important value I have. I could leave who knows what kind of legacy behind. Let's say my book sells a zillion copies. That's not worth anything. (That's a plug, you see. [laughter]) That's really not worth anything compared to the love of my wife and children.

So I will say in the face of a broken and sinful world, marriage and having children is good. But there are many things that militate against that. But that still is the goal. That still is the ideal. There are those who are celibate by God's call, as Jesus said, for the sake of the Kingdom; therefore, those who can bless the larger unit. But I'm convinced that society -- and this is my view of limited federal government -- is only as healthy as the integrity of marriage. It's out of marriage, to children, to kinship, to village, to town, to state, to nation, in that order, that allows trust to grow. The other way around does not allow it to grow. And I'm convinced that everyone at our best want, going back to childhood, a loving mom and a loving dad. I will do everything I can to embrace that. [end of tape 1 side 2]

One final question for you, Nadine, real quickly. You're right, we Evangelicals love it despite Jefferson's rationalism in the Declaration of Independence: unalienable rights endowed by our Creator. Who do you understand the Creator to be who endows us with those rights? And do you think that Creator is in favor of homosexuality or heterosexuality?

NADINE: I think that the word "Creator" was used deliberately. They could easily have said God, but as you pointed out, the prime author was a rationalist, a deist. Who knows whether he believed in God. As I have understood his religious beliefs they were quite close to Unitarianism. Everybody has to believe that there is some creative force there. You know, whether you are a scientist who believes in some Darwinian forces of science or evolution, or whether you are an evangelical Christian who has a particular view of God, or another religious person that might have another view of God, there is a creative force there. But the important emphasis is not on who the Creator is, but regardless of who it is and what it is and what our different conceptions of it might be, we are all equal in that we have been created as human beings.

JOHN: Here's my argument. The thing that impresses me about Jefferson was that, though a rationalist, he was biblical in all his ethical assumptions. He had a very biblical view of God as Creator. Now, he veered from that point at several elements in his life. But it's in the historic biblical tradition of Yahweh-Elohim, the God of the Bible, that gives these unalienable rights. If you look at every other creation story I know of, and I've read a broad range, they have petty, jealous gods who have no concept of civil rights. Who use their petty power to destroy us, where God uses his great power to bless us. Therefore, my argument is this. Unless we recognize the historical basis of the ethics -- and that's why I've talked more about ethics than creed tonight -- of the God of the Bible and the power to give, we have no basis for civil liberties. I think we will move toward a Balkanization of civil rights, where we're defined by groups contesting against groups, not by equality.

NADINE: But see, I don't think that's necessary. If the whole world could agree on the one concept that I think you and I agree on, that all people should be entitled to equal rights, then I'm with you. I would favor more limited government, perhaps for somewhat different reasons: the basic concept of government leaving us alone regardless of who we are. Then it's not necessary to come up with classifications. Doesn't matter how many different pigeon holes I could put you in. You're a person. You've been created by the God you believe in; you're entitled to equal rights.

JOHN: But see, I'm not created by the God I believe in because I believe in him. I'm created by the God who spoke the universe into being. And what I'm saying, regardless of our opinions...

NADINE: Yeah, but even people who have a different view of God, or who are atheists, have been created. And they are therefore entitled to unalienable rights.

JOHN: That's a good theological view. I had a good forum with Paul Kurtz, the secular humanist, on that one.

The bottom line I'm saying is this. I believe you will find, and this is where I'll leave it, that if you track civil rights, the only basis for the civil rights much of which you and I agree on very specifically, can only be founded in the biblical tradition. Once we move outside of that... And to me, I'm arguing that the biblical tradition affirms male and female as the social glue. Now we both...

NADINE: But now you're shifting ground. Assume for the sake of argument that our concept of civil rights -- and I'm only assuming it for the sake of argument -- is founded on biblical tradition. It does not follow that the rights that are respected in our political system, including in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, are those that mirror that same biblical tradition. They're certainly not written that way. In fact, to the contrary, we have a number of provisions in the Constitution that expressly say there is going to be no religious test for an office under this Constitution,...

JOHN: I will argue that is a profoundly biblical argument.

NADINE: ...there is a non-establishment of religion.

JOHN: Profoundly biblical.

NADINE: But so what? The consequence of it is, that it doesn't matter what your religious belief is or lack thereof. You're still entitled to equal rights.

JOHN: Here is my argument. When you move apart from the ethics in Genesis, you move toward religion and the state becoming totalitarian upon the conscience. It's only the power of biblical ethics that allows the freedom of dissent. Therefore, in the First Amendment, once we have the freedom to believe, only then do we have the ability to speak what we believe, publish what we believe, assemble for what we believe, and redress against those who are threatening our beliefs. I'll send you my book when it's ready.

[laughter]

NADINE: I'll send you mine too.

JOHN: Good, all right.

[laughter, scattered applause]

NADINE: I'd like to say one thing. The title of my most recently published book is deliberately shocking, because my publisher put it on and I didn't have any First Amendment rights I discovered: "Defending Pornography."

JOHN: Market by controversy, right?

NADINE: But one of the examples I gave, because the epithet "pornography" has been used so loosely to describe whatever it is that people don't like that has anything sexual in it, and partly because of some of the verses you alluded to tonight. You won't be surprised to learn, but people in the audience might be, the Bible has been frequently attacked as pornographic and obscene. One of the cases where the ACLU recently worked with the ACLJ, Pat Robertson's organization, was to defend the Bible against an attempt to censor it in our home state of Minnesota, for supposed obscenity and pornography.

JOHN: If I could just respond to that real quickly. [laughter] What I find refreshing about the Bible is, it is utterly candid about sin and where sin happens, number one. Number two, if you look at it descriptively, it never gets into anything that Larry Flynt would have interest in. It simply points out the fruit of it, and the fruit is ugly.

[applause]