How Can Evangelical Christians Love Their Homosexual Neighbors?

QUESTIONER'S VOICE CAPTURED IN MID-SENTENCE: ... but as an act in its destructive consequences on society or children. So I'm wondering how each of you would respond to that observation.

NADINE: I think there is a crucial distinction not only between status and action, and it is true that in many situations in our society, the mere fact of sexual orientation, even without conduct, is the basis for enormous adverse consequences. The example that's been in the news most frequently is the military. Under Clinton's supposedly more tolerant, less discriminatory "don't ask - don't tell" policy, you can be thrown out of the military, no matter how brave and valiant and effective your conduct has been. You can be a decorated war hero without any homosexual conduct, merely stating, "I have a homosexual orientation but I'm a celibate," is enough to get you thrown out. That's one problem.

The second crucial distinction has to do with the distinction between adults and children. I think that only consenting adults are capable of exercising civil liberties by definition. When we talk about people without maturity, without sufficient mental abilities whether because of age or impairment, they're unable to make informed choices, then I would say we have to draw a distinction there and society can protect them against certain conduct.

JOHN: Couple of observations here. William Stayton, a theologian, a philosopher, defined a term called pan-sexuality. To me this is what we see in Sodom [Genesis 19]. What he is saying is people can have sex with anyone, anywhere, anyhow they want to. I think when it comes to physiology that is generally true. I think that homosexual identity is essentially a state of the mind. There are certain reasons for that, not a question of being physically able to have sex with a member of the opposite sex.

When it comes to a self-view of how someone views themselves, versus actions, if I had input into the military situation, I would be stricter and give more liberty at the same time. I would say anyone basing their qualifications as a human being for the military is to be admitted. But if anyone has any sexual conduct outside of faithful, monogamous marriage, they have grounds for dismissal. And therefore, you would not quiz anyone as to their orientations or their feelings. Of course, this would really be a bummer for a lot of heterosexual people in the military, because there's a lot of promiscuity that goes on. But that's what I would do, and the reason I would do that, is when you look at the social costs, the economic costs, the psychological costs, and the wearing down of military readiness, I believe that once you take sex outside of marriage, you are compromising the military's best interest.

In terms of pedophilia, you've got the NAMBLA extreme group. National, oh gosh...

NADINE: North American Man-Boy Love Association.

JOHN: They are arguing that intrinsically of orientation they as older men love younger men, or love boys. And so you see that once you get into subjective definition you get to a point where everything really becomes fuzzy. It's hard to determine based on a definition of homosexual or sexual orientation where civil rights are. That's why in this proposed law I am talking more about "human sexuality and civil rights." If people want to live outside of marriage, they are on their own recognizance. But the government should not have to pay for it.

QUESTIONER: This is really great. I am chairman of the Current Events Committee for the Student Association. I'm so excited we're doing something like this. [exasperated] At last. [laughter] That's enough for my plug.

I was in formal debate in high school and college. I wasn't a very good one but at least I understand some of the rules. The reason I'm not an attorney is because I didn't debate very well. That's why I'm a preacher. [uproarious laughter]

But my question is, it seems like we haven't been so much discussing the question that's actually listed here, "How can evangelical Christians love their homosexual neighbors?" We seem to be, what I'm trying to clarify here, is that actually the topic which we're addressing? Or are we addressing whether or not the civil liberties of homosexuals can be removed. I don't think that any right thinking person, regardless of whether they are a Christian or an atheist, could say that that could be done in an appropriate and ethical way. I don't think that anyone here in this room could say that because somebody is active or oriented in a particular way that goes against the rest of society, that their civil rights should be removed. That would be inappropriate. So are we discussing that question, which is separate from the question of whether or not homosexuality is morally right and wrong. I mean, the questions just seem to be going together...

NADINE: Yeah. You've got people here with two different perspectives. I was told that I was to present a civil libertarian perspective on homosexuality, which is the only perspective I'm qualified to give. I can't say that I'm an expert on Christian theology. I'm far from that. I think it's important for you to understand that the civil liberties perspective really has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of love. I don't know. You're here presenting a theological perspective.

JOHN: As a non-attorney I need to come to your defense. The agency that booked Nadine didn't let her know what the topic was ahead of time.

NADINE: But you wouldn't have invited me, or I wouldn't have accepted if I had been asked to talk about Christian theology. I would have had to learn a lot awfully quick.

JOHN: But the way I've phrased it to the agency, was a question where Nadine from her civil libertarian perspective would challenge us as Evangelicals to think if we are loving our homosexual neighbors, and to bring in the civil libertarian aspect.

NADINE: But I couldn't have done it in any other way, because, you see, the civil libertarian perspective, and I'm repeating what I said at the beginning, has nothing to do with love. It has to do with respecting people's rights, even if you hate them, even if you hate their ideas, even if you hate their sexual orientation, everything about them.

JOHN: This is the perspective I wanted you to bring. My goal has been served. To have us as Christians, those of us who are, think in that context. But I disagree profoundly. I do believe how we love our homosexual neighbors is tremendously intertwined with the issues of civil liberty. And that's why I went through this proposal and I talk about what it is to bring biblical ethics into public policy. Because so much of where the idea or the caricature is of Christians not loving their...

Well, for example, what's the cardinal sin that the religious right is challenged with? Homophobia. So at Yale Divinity School I was told I was a homophobe because I didn't agree homosexuality was a gift of God. And so what happens is, there is all this charge that we're not loving our homosexual neighbors. I wanted to bring in the issue that would interface theology and public policy. So Nadine's done what I knew she was capable of doing, bring the civil libertarian perspective, and I myself in a theological background to try and bring the aspect of love. I think that it is very loving in public policy to do what I've tried to do in this proposed law, which is to say you are free, but we're not going to underwrite what you do. Because the bottom line is, that unless we reap what we sow theologically, we will not know the love of God to repent and say "help" to our Savior. And therefore I am seeking to articulate that balance.

QUESTIONER: It seems to me as we talk about homosexuality and abortion and things like that, that really we have two camps represented here. The evangelical camp tends to kind of paint the picture in a right or wrong aspect. Does that seem to be fair? When we look at the question of, is this issue right or is it wrong biblically. And whereas your organization, it seems to me from your perspective, looks at it not as a right and wrong issue, but as a what-are-the- rights issues involved here. And so I think for us, that makes us think that you don't have a sense of right and wrong about it. Now, I think in a sense you don't have a sense of right and wrong. That's not the question.

NADINE: No. I certainly do. But my views of right and wrong are irrelevant to respecting other people's rights to have completely diametrically opposed views on those issues and yet still be entitled to exercise fundamental rights including advocating very different views from my own. The closest example I can give, because I don't want to violate my personal privacy in terms of my beliefs, but certainly I'm very open about my civil libertarian beliefs. I will absolutely defend the right of people to attack civil liberties principles, and to, you know, exercise all their First Amendment prerogatives to try to lobby the government to undermine civil liberties principles. I think they're wrong, but I think they have a right to do it.

JOHN: And you know, I'm in agreement when it comes to freedom of speech, assembly, redress of grievance and so forth, under due process of law, so long as they don't deny other people life, liberty, and property. However, I think there's a question of the fact I know you have certain senses of right and wrong, that you would not defend the liberty of people to drive drunk, or the liberty to do certain actions. Then there's also the fuzzy line of when speech actually incites violence.

NADINE: To say that you have a right is not to say that the right is absolute. There is no concept of absolute rights under our Constitution. They are all bounded by countervailing societal concerns. But to say that something is a right means that the government has a very heavy burden of proof to justify restricting it. Certainly protecting life is a sufficiently countervailing concern, as in the driving example.

JOHN: Yes. And in terms of abortion, in terms of questions defining human life?

NADINE: In terms of abortion, if I believed that were a full-fledged human life, I would absolutely oppose abortion. I think the difference there is a theological [JOHN: Scientific.] one of when does life begin. And that was one thing that I thought was disingenuous about the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, when they said we're not deciding this issue. I don't see how they could have reached the conclusion they did without implicitly reaching that decision.

QUESTIONER: Well, my question is, with the ACLU under your command, so to speak, is there really a bottom line principle that you would not defend as a human right? Is there something that somebody in society somewhere may put forth as a human right, albeit if it doesn't interfere with anybody else or hurt anybody else, but that you would not defend and say that is a human right? Is there a bottom line?

NADINE: Oh, absolutely. The concept of fundamental human rights is a limited concept, both under our Constitution and from the ACLU's perspective. You want to give me an example?

QUESTIONER: I'm just thinking, what is philosophically that bottom line for you? Certainly there is the idea that you don't want to hurt anybody else. But what else, how could you flesh that out?

NADINE: Well, to make... That's a subject that the Supreme Court has been debating forever and the ACLU national board debates from time to time. How do we decide what is a fundamental, inherent human right? What did Jefferson mean in that great phrase that both of us were quoting? You have to look at history, you have to look at tradition. I absolutely agree that religious principles do feed into our concept of what fundamental rights are. I can give you specific examples that the ACLU has never considered to be fundamental rights, even though we're constantly lobbied by various entities in our society.

For example, we have never said that there is a fundamental right to welfare, or to housing, or to any kind of affirmative government benefit. Our concept of rights is very much the concept that is reflected in the Constitution. It's often called negative rights. The right to be let alone by the government. Not to have the government take care of you. That's something that really differentiates us and our country from many other countries around the world, where there is much more of a positive concept of what I think of as entitlements. Lately we're seeing in other parts of the world, not only a sense of entitlement on a personal level, you're entitled to a job and to an education and to housing and food, and so forth, but on a global level you are entitled to clean environment. That's alien to our concept.

JOHN: I think the bottom line is where I concluded my comments earlier in terms of my questions of you, Nadine. That is the fact that I am waiting to find any exception to my perspective, that there is no basis for unalienable rights apart from the biblical worldview, and apart from its ethics applied in constitutional law. And if that's the case, and if I can be shown otherwise I'm open to being shown otherwise, but if that's the case, then if we depart from the ethics of that worldview, we are looking for the loss of civil rights and human rights ultimately. And so, I think there's a reality...

In fact, what really impressed me about Thomas Jefferson's phrase in the Declaration, was if you look at the God, life, choice, sex paradigm in Genesis, I've never seen that written out explicitly in church history. But all of a sudden one day, after about the 400th sermon on Genesis, I all of a sudden looked at it and saw these issues were there. Then some years later, I all of a sudden realized that's exactly what Jefferson put there as well. And what that said to me is that God, life, choice, sex reality of Genesis is so based in reality that even Jefferson in his rationalization could not avoid it. And therefore there's a certain sense of reality that we have based on the biblical foundation. Therefore, I think when the biblical foundation that it's based on has a view about human sexuality, I think history shows what happens when marriage breaks up. I think societies fall apart.

QUESTIONER: One historical question. From colonial times up through almost the present, there have been anti-sodomy laws in most states. Is it the view of the ACLU that these were all unconstitutional?

NADINE: I'm not sure that your factual premise is correct. I haven't researched that. Certainly if you look at laws in other areas of sexuality which I have, there has been a very checkered history, long patterns where there was no regulation at all. In fact, it's sort of a drift gaining momentum in recent history of governments passing more laws at every level involving private conduct. But even if that were historically true, it would be completely irrelevant to the question that I would address, which is, is there a fundamental human right here? Unfortunately, human beings and our government are capable of passing laws that do violate human rights. Throughout most of American history until shockingly recently, we had all kinds of laws that were racially discriminatory, starting with laws that made certain human beings chattel, that completely denied them humanity, passing on from that to laws that mandated government segregation, and as I mentioned, until 1967 outlawing interracial marriage. Looking at that long history should not have been a justification for saying there is no fundamental human right here. It was a justification for saying unfortunately, our laws have ignored a constitutional right.

JOHN: I do know for a fact you've got in some states anti-sodomy laws that go all the way back to the beginning. Actually, some of them were Puritanical laws, that were written...

NADINE: Let me interject this. When you're talking about anti-sodomy, let's be clear about this. The majority of those laws are written in exactly those terms. They have nothing to do with either the sexual orientation, gender, or marital relationship among the people. So they are equally outlawing certain forms of intercourse among a happily married, monogamous husband and wife.

JOHN: And I agree with you there, but I would also say that those who wrote them, at least in Puritan history... I think sodomy was almost an unknown practice among heterosexuals, married people. It was understood to be dealing with homosexuality. But I think your application is true.

I don't have the time to develop here. I believe that it is wrong to impose theocratic rules upon a pluralistic culture, and that the greatest power we have with biblical ethics, as I've tried to outline them, as the basis of the Declaration of Independence, is a place in which the Gospel can flourish in its preaching, and also underwrite the foundations of the culture. That's why I find it interesting that the Decalogue of the Ten Commandments doesn't deal with fornication or homosexuality. It deals with the protection of marriage. And so accordingly, I seek to do my best to protect marriage legally, and do my best morally to serve it as well.

In terms of your observation about the evils of slavery in the past regarding people as chattel, I mean, I'm absolutely on your side of the equation there as well. What I find interesting is that just as the black man and woman in Dred Scott were treated as subhuman, so too Roe v. Wade has treated the unborn as subhuman. I think that's why you'll find, Nadine, among pro-lifers, a tremendous sense of those who oppose racial discrimination with the same passion they oppose discrimination against the unborn.

NADINE: I have enormous respect for people who consistently show reverence for life. In my personal experience I've worked very closely with Catholics in opposing the death penalty. I have to say that many leaders of that religious faith are consistent. They think life begins at conception and they defend it there. They think it continues even through somebody convicted of a capital crime and they defend it there. I find it harder to understand people who have a very strong view of protecting right to life for a fetus but support the death penalty.

JOHN: Well, OK. I believe that the death penalty... Chuck Colson argues this. He believes theologically as I do in the properness of the death penalty. When someone takes the life of another they forfeit their life, not for retribution, but for accountability. And if people knew they would pay life for a life, there would be far less taking of life. The difference, and this is very consistent, is the unborn child has no will in any matter and is morally innocent and powerless. Whereas someone if by due process is convicted of first degree murder, in this example right here, then I'm being consistent in protecting life by protecting the life of the one who's been killed and protecting killing from happening further on. So whereas you may disagree with that, I will argue biblically and ethically this is a far better protection of life than allowing a murderer not to be accountable.

And the beauty of the Bible as well, that when the death penalty is prescribed, there are always redemptive alternatives, in most cases, but only once people admit that they are accountable for the life they've taken.

NADINE: You wouldn't argue... I don't want to get too far off this subject. But you wouldn't argue that the death penalty is biblically mandated, or would you?

JOHN: Oh yes.

NADINE: You would.

JOHN: Oh yes. In the covenant with Noah, if someone sheds the blood of someone made in God's image, by men their blood shall be shed. You walk through the Old Testament ethics and you see that yes, a life for a life. If someone premeditated murder, for example, they're accountable for their life. But also you see that if people have done that in certain contexts and admit their sin and repent, there are redemptive alternatives to spare the lives of someone who has violated the life of another, but only when they acknowledge that they owe their life before God. And so yes, I would argue... And you read [Pope] John Paul II's "The Gospel of Life" all the way through, and that's the one point where I see him jumping off the Bible, when he gets into opposing the death penalty.

QUESTIONER: One brief question. You made the comment, I believe, that all the gay rights movement wants is equal rights, equal protection. I can't document it now, but I'm pretty convinced that at least some of the political lobbies work very actively to lower the age of consent in various states. Could you comment on that?

NADINE: I have absolutely no knowledge of it. Again, you could imagine just as Christians have different views, including on the issue we've just touched on, certainly people who are loosely within the gay rights movement may well have differing views with each other. But if we get back to that wonderful general principle that John and I agreed on, all people should be entitled to equal rights, in an ideal world, every person would be treated as an individual and we would say, if you as an individual are capable of making a mature choice, then you as an individual should be free to vote, to get married, to go off and fight wars, to all of the perquisites of full citizenship. Obviously we don't have the luxury of judicial resources to make those individualized determinations for every single person in this country. So we have to categorize people by age.

As to what is an appropriate age cutoff, I don't know. I don't know if there are scientific studies that would show that people who are 18 now on the average are more mature than they were ten years ago. I actually have read some statistics to that extent. But to me that would be the underlying question. Is there enough basis for believing that the vast majority of people at that age really are capable of making informed responsible choices that are going to have life-long consequences.

JOHN: I believe that there are many ways in which a core within the homosexual rights movement is really trying to redefine marriage and culture. I think they have an agenda which is deleterious. On the last point that you mentioned, Nadine, I think there is a huge difference in the driving abilities between 16- and 18-year-olds. I say that as the perspective of a father. [laughter]

NADINE: The insurance payer, too.

JOHN: Yes. No, he picks it up next week.

QUESTIONER: Nadine, a question for you. You seem to have made a very brief comment that seemed to have placed polygamy outside the big tent of protected civil rights. It seemed to be you said that briefly. I was just wondering if you're talking consenting adults in the privacy... Is there anything that would prevent you from speaking out in the defense of those civil rights?

NADINE: Many controversial things that the ACLU has done, including quite recently, is defending religious freedom of polygamous relationships. I think our most recent case, it was only a few years ago, was either in southern Utah or northern Arizona. There's a border area there where there are a number of fundamentalist Mormons who strongly believe in polygamy. It's against the law now, and we realistically recognize we have no chance of overturning that law. But the particular case raised the issue of whether somebody who had been in a polygamous relationship could be denied child custody, just on the basis of that.

In the context of examining our position on that case, we were attacked by the National Organization for Women and other women's rights organizations. There was a presumption that polygamous relationships are somehow sexist and detrimental to women's rights. I actually did quite a lot of reading and interviewed some of the women involved. Talk about blasting stereotypes. I must admit I sort of thought, you know, poor benighted women to be in this kind of relationship. We discovered that there were women who were lawyers and doctors and business women who were all happily married to the same man, or living together with him in what they considered to be a marriage, who were saying this is the best thing from a feminist point of view because we don't have to sleep with him every time he wants, somebody else can do it. [laughter] We've got this wonderful women's support group, we take care of each other's kids. It wouldn't be my choice but I do defend their right to make it.

JOHN: That is so interesting because... [laughter] ...because theologically you have some polygamy allowed in the Old Testament the way divorce and other things were allowed, because of the hardness of heart. But by the time you get to the New Testament you are being restored to the order of creation, which is one man, one woman, one lifetime. It is interesting, I have heard feminist arguments in favor of polygamy for some of the arguments that you have just made. It is very interesting.

It's too bad, though, that they have to say that, well, you know, they don't have to sleep with the guy every time he wants to. Because the blessing of a man and woman loving each other fully in Genesis is that a man and a woman are to be one, and therefore he is never imposing his will. It is truly mutual submission as it says in Ephesians [5:21-33]. I think, and I haven't thought about this before, so this is the fun of a forum like this in thinking out loud. I probably would not write laws against polygamy.

NADINE: How about polyandry?

JOHN: Polyandry? Let's see, polyandry, that's the other way around, isn't it. Yeah, I just have no experience in talking about it. [laughter] Exactly. In other words, if you take a positive view to protect marriage and those who live outside of it are accountable, then yeah, I don't know if I would write laws against that. Again, this is thinking out loud, which means it's not a conclusion with confidence. But again, my conviction is that if you underscore and undergird what is in the order of creation and model it, that's the greatest power that we have in this culture. And then civil liberties to be based on the goodness of that. And those who live outside, so long as they're not depriving life, liberty, property, are accountable for the consequences.

NADINE: But you kept using the word... I'm fascinated and encouraged to hear that. But during your earlier remarks you kept using the word monogamy. Somehow this wouldn't be a monogamous, it would be a faithful, but not a monogamous...

JOHN: That's why I said this is a new idea for me to consider.

NADINE: You have to come up with a different word that would convey...

JOHN: No, I would say exactly the same. I would say that heterosexual, faithful, monogamous marriage, those who live outside... Well, if a culture allows multiple marriage by legal contract, well then you have a certain protection. But again, it's a new issue, it's fun, I haven't thought it out. So we'll see what happens.

QUESTIONER: I just hate it when I think out loud.

NADINE: I'm just thinking out loud. What if you combined polygamy and polyandry? You've separately agreed to both of them. Isn't that sort of like group sex? [laughter]

JOHN: And you know, you've seen the bumper stickers. You know, group sex happens. I mean, the bottom line is that you have so many people who are engaged... For example, if a man has serial marriages, or if a man has a wife and he's philandering, or if he's just single and sleeping around? You know, what's the difference? As I continue to think out loud, which I like to do. I think we have difficulties in the issue of protecting those who move into polygamy or polyandry. I think it's far more complex at many levels. So I still have to keep thinking about that. But again, you know as I think those out, the bottom line is the positive nature of marriage. Heterosexual. Faithful. Monogamous.

QUESTIONER: I just wanted to go back to the original comments that Nadine was making. I believe you started off with something along the lines of people are familiar with the democratic principles. We're perhaps not as schooled on the principles relating to liberty. It seems to me as I've been thinking about that, there's some sort of dynamic tension. And I didn't hear you mention much about the democratic side. I guess one other phrase that comes to mind, and I'm maybe taking things out of context, but it seemed to me that one of the reasons that they framed the Constitution, one of the reasons was to promote the general welfare. To what extent does a democratic union, a country, a group of people, a town, whatever, have the right, would seem to me to be some sort of a civil right, to define the type of society that they live in? It seems to me that some of these questions relate to that. And so, you didn't talk much about that.

NADINE: The democratic principle of majoritarian decision making, communitarian decision making, which you well articulated, is one that most people are familiar with. I'm often asked the question, why should one person get to go to court and overturn something that the majority of the community has supported? So I didn't think I needed to spell out that side of the occasion.

The question that you raised is a very profound question, I think the most profound question for every human society that shares our values. And that is, where do you draw the line between where the majority power stops and individual and minority group rights begin? It's very difficult, and that's why throughout the history of the United States Supreme Court, these have been the most controversial cases when they try to draw those lines. Often the justices themselves cannot agree and we see five to four decisions, and multiple different opinions, even within those groupings of four or five. It gets back to the question that a previous gentleman asked, and that was how do you decide what is a fundamental right?

One important point I want to make, and here I'm speaking for the United States Supreme Court and the Constitution, and not the ACLU. Contrary to some popular wisdom, there is an absolute unanimity that our rights are not limited to those that are expressly set out in the Constitution. There was fear on the part of some framers who were very libertarian, including Jefferson and Madison, that if we articulated certain rights in a Bill of Rights, it would create what lawyers call a negative pregnant, an inference that rights that were not enumerated were not protected. But they were starting from the opposite presumption, the presumption of limited government, going back to the principle that we are endowed by our Creator, whoever, whatever that might be, with certain unalienable rights. And government only has the powers to limit those rights insofar as the powers to limit are expressly set out in the Constitution. So their view was, we don't even need a Bill of Rights because we're not giving government the power to invade, for example, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

But the move for a Bill of Rights for various reasons was very strong. To avoid this problem of the negative inference, the Ninth Amendment was added, which said the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others. So everybody acknowledged that there are others. Well, what others? How do you define them? There is very healthy debate about that.

But once you decide that something is a fundamental right, either because it's expressly set out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech, or that something that is unenumerated... Let me take a fairly uncontroversial one: freedom of association. The right of people to get together, to organize for political or religious causes is nowhere expressly set out in the Constitution. And yet every...

JOHN: The freedom for assembly in the First Amendment?

NADINE: That's different. Assembly means public meetings. Association means coming together in unofficial, unpublic ways to organize, often in ways where your privacy is expressly being protected.

JOHN: I guess in my mind, when I see religion, speech, press, assembly and redress, I see it covering all possible...

NADINE: But see, that raises another problem which is, even those rights which are expressly set out, how far do they go? But once something is recognized as a fundamental right, then the burden of proof shifts, and the majority cannot take it away from a minority. We can disagree as to whether X is a fundamental right. I hope in this audience I would find some sympathy, for example, for religious freedom. The idea that even though, the case I talked about was in 1943, this was the height of patriotic fervor surrounding World War II, the idea that these people would not say the Pledge of Allegiance was deeply distressing to the communities they lived in. There were laws that were passed everywhere. You know, local units of government, state governments, requiring pledges of allegiance before school began every day. The Jehovah's Witnesses were a tiny, absolutely hated minority. I think the Supreme Court was absolutely right when it said the majority of that community does not have the power to deprive them of their religious liberty to refuse to salute the flag.

JOHN: If I could just add a few thoughts here. I do not speak of our country being a democracy because we're not. We're a democratic republic. I think this is where the balance is to be found. Everyone has the right to vote to elect those who will represent them. Those in representative assembly, whether at the state level, federal level will make rules or make laws, and they are accountable for the recall of whether or not they are kept in office. [end of tape 2 side 1] I do understand what you're saying about the Ninth Amendment. I agree with that.

But I think what is very powerful when I look at the life, liberty, property in the alignment between Genesis and the Declaration of Independence was, I see the interpretive basis for all other rights based on that. I see every other right that you could enumerate being a subcategory thereof. And therefore I think that was the genius of simplicity at that point. In my attempted writing of this law here I'm trying to maintain the same simplicity, because you can overwrite law tremendously.

In terms of the observation, Nadine, about majority power, again, I guess part of this is a definition of power. The definition of power I have biblically, is God's power is the power to give, and that's our power also if we're faithful to our Creator. And therefore, the reason government should exist is to give liberties. You have to define liberties and you have to define what violates those liberties. And therefore it is crucial that the majority... This is why I say I don't want an inch more liberty to say what I believe than I give to those who disagree with me. I realize I think I'm constitutionally in a majoritarian position; I think that socially I'm in a minority position.

For example, when we look at Roe v. Wade we see those who say an unalienable right, or rather a constitutional right to abortion. I don't see anything within the fiction of anyone's imagination from the Constitution to Roe v. Wade. But by the same token I'm going to work within the process as a minority to persuade. I will take the burden of proof upon myself to -- I can't do it myself -- but to hopefully help as a member of pro-life people in this country to win the heart and mind of the country.

QUESTIONER: I was thinking at a very pragmatic level how I'm torn toward people who may be discriminated against. At another level as a Christian, and as a Christian I think we all may feel that we don't like to see anybody discriminated against. But yet as a Christian I think, this is where my question is for you, John, and then Nadine... I lost my train of thought. As a Christian, I think there are social implications of what we may as a Christian see as something deviant in society. And so we would stand up or vote against something. I don't want to say stand up because I don't want to seem like really, really radical. What I think needs to be addressed at this pragmatic level is this word love, too, that I think maybe needs to be talked about a little bit more. But John, I was wondering, you come to the podium and you're saying Evangelical and you're preaching the Gospel. And I'm thinking, is this your imperative, that you come to the table with to talk about this? I knew you threw out the word theocracy, but then you clarified yourself. That was my probably my first question when I was standing in line, but it was answered. It wasn't a matter of theocracy, but it seems more as an Evangelical, how you tied into your interpretation of the Constitution and Jefferson. Can you talk about, just a little bit, the reason why you're doing this? And Nadine, what you think about what he said about his interpretation of Jefferson?

JOHN: I remember when I got involved in pro-life ministry here in Massachusetts, thirteen, fourteen years ago, a friend of mine said, John, why are you wasting your time on politics? Just go out and preach the Gospel. And I said, well, if I did a forum at UMASS- Amherst, which I did around that time, and advertised it to everyone on come and hear John Rankin, whoever he is, talk about the evidences for the resurrection, I was guaranteed of an attendance of 37 -- 35 members of Campus Crusade for Christ, and 2 of their roommates. [laughter] But when you take an issue, such as abortion or homosexuality or separation of church and state, or the pagan revival I've done some forums on, you're touching the deepest core of where people hope and hurt.

And to me, the Gospel, if it's good news, will step into that core and will be clear, be gracious, and have an open-ended invitation. So I would say the very simple reason of why I'm involved is because this is the arena in which the Gospel is not heard. And too often times politics trumps the Gospel, and I'm trying to have the Gospel trump politics with an invitation into the Kingdom of Heaven as the only political identity that really counts ultimately. So the question I'm aiming at is, how do political structures serve religious liberty for the preaching of the Gospel to give all people equal opportunity to say yes or no to God? I'm convinced a cognate of that is the best structure of civil liberties history has seen.

NADINE: Why don't we go on to the next.

QUESTIONER: I think my question is particularly for John and it sort of goes into what you were just saying, I think. My question specifically. How do you respond to the fact, because I want to get back on this issue, because the question was love, to the fact, which has been, I don't know if you're aware. The majority of incarcerated criminals convicted of the crime of gay bashing show less remorse than any other criminal. They justify that because of what they have been taught in their church, in their Bible. Therefore, how can anyone be opposed to the fact that they have been fighting evil? So on two levels, do you feel that the church has failed to love its homosexual neighbor, we as Christians? Because I believe we have, based on that incredibly hard evidence. And secondly, the Gospel has been mentioned again and again. How do you respond to the fact that Jesus Christ had nothing to say about this subject? I think that's very profound that he didn't. Nadine, you may respond to that if you want, but I think the question is more specifically, I'm looking for an answer.

JOHN: What was the first question again? I've got the second one nailed in my brain.

QUESTIONER: The gay bashers.

JOHN: OK, very good. Yeah, absolutely. Judgment begins with the household of God [1 Peter 4:17]. As I talked about the six ethical components, the fifth, "love of enemies." You know, unless we can love those who are against us the way Christ loved us, we're not reflecting Christ. And God judges the household of God first. We are those who are equipped to love our enemies. You know, when it talks about the homosexuals in the same list as the greedy and what not in 1 Corinthians 6, then Paul says, "and such were some of you." [1 Cor 6:11] So I absolutely agree with that. I forgot the second question now.

NADINE: That Jesus said nothing.

JOHN: Oh, yes. OK, very good. Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament law. And what is crucial about interpreting the Old and New Testaments is... For example, the image of God, which is perhaps the most universally ascribed to theological concept within Jewish, Muslim, and Christians traditions, is only mentioned, what, five, six times in the entire Bible in any explicit context? But what happens is, it is so powerfully assumed in Genesis 1, Genesis 5, as the foundation for the rest of Scripture, that the interpretive framework of creation, sin, and redemption is in place. Those, particularly the Jewish audience to whom Jesus is speaking, most of these people have the Scripture memorized. Therefore, Jesus is able to be short hand. So when he's brought to the question of adultery, he says, from the beginning God made man and woman and it shall not be so.

Another element is that though there were laws against homosexuality in the Old Testament, there's almost no prosecution of it through all Jewish history. Apart from no prosecution at Gibeah or Sodom, because they're sort of outside of Jewish history in certain contexts. But it was such a non-issue in the culture. So for example, the two major things that Jeremiah prosecuted Israel for, their sins and why they were led into exile, was worshipping the starry hosts and child sacrifice. Jesus mentioned neither. And yet he was the one coming to fulfill the Old Testament. That's because it wasn't the issue in the Roman- occupation of Palestine at that time. And so what I would say is Jesus bases everything on the order of creation and he fulfills it.

NADINE: I actually can say something on this subject only because my trusty Chief Aide, the Coptic Christian, was surfing the internet and came across something called, "Is Homosexuality a Sin?," which was a compilation put together by an organization called PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). They asked a number of theologians, a number of whom you've mentioned and you've debated against, but from a whole array of religions including some evangelical Christians, two questions. Number one, in your opinion, does God regard homosexuality as a sin? Question number two, in your opinion, do the Scriptures object to homosexuality? And they're really detailed answers here. I'd be happy to give you my copy of it if you're interested.

JOHN: If I could just add to that. My book, again, goes into all the details about all that stuff. But interpretively, it's back to the question I posed at Yale Div. If we take the Bible on its own terms, the order of creation is what redemption restores us to. It is to be incumbent upon those who believe homosexuality is within God's plan to evidence it in the order of creation.

QUESTIONER: To what extent do you consider the roots of homosexuality to be grounded in an emotional need, rather than a sexual one? If you could give me a ratio of how much of either or each contributes to it. And how would your views relate to the civil liberties of homosexually-active individuals?

NADINE: I really have not paid too much attention to the debate on the first question, because to me it's irrelevant to civil liberties analysis. I disagree with ... that's one of the points we didn't get to cover ... I disagree with John when he's suggesting that if something is malleable about you, it's a malleable identity to use his phrase, somehow you should not be protected in your rights as much as when you are talking about immutable characteristics such as race or gender. I think that's completely irrelevant. The example I noted down was, what about religion? John himself is a prime example of somebody who started in one faith and moved to another faith. I say your right to believe is a fundamental right regardless of whether it changes over your lifetime. I'd say the same thing is true of sexual orientation, whether it's something that is in your genes or in your surroundings, whether it's something that you change at different points in your life. Regardless of what it is, you are still entitled to fundamental civil liberties.

On your second question, if I understand it, I do believe that you should have the right to engage in certain conduct, in particular, adult conduct that is consensual in the privacy of their home. Basically the same standard I would apply, again, regardless of sexual orientation or gender or marriage or lack of marriage.

JOHN: My understanding of the origins of homosexuality is that it is an attitude of thinking more than it is anything else. It is a question of the renewal of mind that is needed to be brought to homosexuals. When I was at Harvard Divinity School I was studying feminist ethics, and three women came up to me at the cafeteria and sat down. And they knew at the time I headed up New England's largest evangelical pro-life ministry. They sat down and said, you know, John, for an Evangelical you're really a nice guy. They had a theory of how I would become nicer if I would read some feminist theologians, realize the Old Testament was full of a patriarchal and chauvinistic God. And so I took them up and did my thesis and degree work on that. The woman then said to me she was a lesbian, her two friends were, and that she knew hundreds of lesbians. Now this is anecdotal but I've seen this over and over again. She said, every lesbian she knows has been physically, sexually, or emotionally abused by mostly a replacement father figure in her pre-adolescent years. Now my visceral response to that almost a decade ago was, has the church ever heard this? Or do we just pillory and dehumanize those who have been through that?

I find also tremendous dysfunction of parental role models for male homosexuals as well. Those involved in ex-homosexual ministries will talk about a love deficit of true male and true female. I believe that all of us, whether we're boys or girls raising up, need a father figure, we need a mother figure and see the love between the two.

I want to say one other thing here, because there's so many things I could talk about. I believe there are many homosexuals who have what I will call a pre-cognizant identity that they think is homosexual. They've always felt that way, or felt differently. I can only respect that. I disagree with a genetic cause.

The second element of what you're saying, again comes back to my proposal here on this law. I am going to say equal civil liberties. In terms of the issue about malleability, what the First Amendment protects for religion is the freedom of the individual to have religious choice. I would also protect the freedom of someone to have their sexual choice, but not to protect those choices over and against others. So for example, not to protect Islam over Christianity or vice versa. By the same token, what I'm really aiming at here is the consequences of those choices. I believe the consequences of faithful marriage is the root of a healthy society. If there are those who want to make choices outside of that, they shouldn't expect the rest of society to underwrite it. I really do believe the homosexual rights movement, at a certain core identity, is looking for social and funding underwriting. In fact, Barney Frank was fairly explicit about that on the floor of the House last year.

NADINE: Underwriting for what?

JOHN: Because Barney Frank was talking about all the benefits, quote unquote, that come from marriage. And what I...

NADINE: But I gave you examples of the benefits. The benefits include being able to visit your spouse in a hospital.

JOHN: But I answered that. I answered that and said...

NADINE: That's the kind of benefit that Barney is talking about.

JOHN: And see, the benefit is not given by same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. The benefit is given by a humanity...

NADINE: Fine, if you could achieve the same result by...

JOHN: But if you give those benefits, and many other benefits, you begin to enshrine homosexuality in a mentor capacity in the culture. I believe that homosexuality is pathological. Therefore, what I am saying is that if we have a positive view of marriage, those who live outside are on their own recognizance.

NADINE: Tsk.

MODERATOR: I'm going to be faithful to our time schedule. We've got three more. If you could make those questions fairly quick and go from there.

QUESTIONER: I wanted to come back to the topic of special rights, and whether protecting homosexuals from discrimination in employment and housing constitutes special rights. Isn't there a difference between rights which are truly fundamental, such as the right to vote, the right to a trial by jury and so forth, and so-called rights involving economic activity? Which in effect constitute an infringement on other people's rights, on the rights of free association, on the rights of individuals to come together in the marketplace freely and by mutual consent to engage in economic transactions.

NADINE: That's certainly a respectable position. It's one that's taken by libertarians such as my friends at the Cato Institute. But you have to understand that the consequence of that argument would be to oppose the civil rights laws that now exist. In fact, some people are now saying that those should be overturned, that we should allow private employers to discriminate on the basis of race, and to fire on the basis of race, that we should allow private landlords to not rent to people on the basis of race. To me that's not a palatable decision. And it's not one that I think the framers would have made back in the 18th century.

It's true, the Constitution is written in ways that only protect against government usurpation of equal opportunities. And not in terms of any kind of private entity. But I think the reason for that is a historical one. Back in the 18th century the only institutions in society that were powerful enough to exercise coercive power over individuals were the governments. In fact, the size of the state governments then was trivial compared to the size and power of certain private economic factors in our society. For all practical purposes, if we're going to say that you don't have certain fundamental rights, when you're on the job or when you're looking for a job, for all practical purposes you're not going to have rights at all then.

JOHN: Both Nadine and I from different angles have argued for the rights of those who disagree with us. I disagree with someone who's living sexually outside of marriage. But the point you bring up about property rights I think is tremendous. I think that if you own something, you should be free to be as stupid as you want to in how you use that property. If you're so stupid to be bigoted on the basis of race or religion or something else like that, I think the ethics of the culture will drive you out. What Nadine's pointed out before is that wasn't always the case with Jim Crow South and antebellum South and so forth.

I was doing a radio show in Fort Lauderdale with a homosexual talk-show host who was Republican, again, one of these living oxymorons. He was opposed...

NADINE: I thought there was one in Boston who's gotten quite a bit of notoriety, too.

JOHN: Yeah. Right. Well, this was before that revelation. We were talking about this issue and he pointed out something to a homosexual caller. He said, I want to tell you something. I don't know any homosexual who's looking for a place to live. Go and look at all the rentals that are in the gay papers in Miami or Washington or elsewhere. They've got more places to offer than there are people to rent. I really believe that the open market place will allow people to find what they want. My tendency is in that direction, but I haven't thought it out completely.

The second thing I want to say is this. I would have absolutely no problem hiring or renting out to a homosexual. If a declared homosexual... because I would never ask the question quite frankly. If someone wanted to come and work for me and they were a declared homosexual, I'll tell you something, if they want to work for me, let 'em work for me so long as they do my job right. I'll be the one who's influencing them. That's the confidence I have in the power to give. I really will do everything I can to give civil liberties to those who disagree with me, so long as life, liberty, and property are not violated.

So I do think your argument about property rights is profound and I think we see a reversal. Nadine has a certain instinct at this point where she doesn't like moving in that direction. I share a similar instinct. But if I go back to Genesis, God loved us enough to let us choose to go to Hell if we want to, when you look at it. He gives us the freedom to accept or reject his love. I think the most powerful witness is to give, and let people choose to accept or reject.

MODERATOR: Last question.

QUESTIONER: I would like to direct this question to Nadine. In terms of the policy consequences of accepting and allowing gay marriage... Now, we understand that there are a number of privileges and protections that apply to traditional marriage. For example, the state can not force my wife to testify against me in a criminal proceeding. My question is this. Nadine, would you apply these to a homosexual union? And if you did, how would you define that union in a way sufficiently restrictive to prevent widespread fraud and misuse of these privileges and benefits from essentially swallowing them up?

NADINE: If your concern is that people might get married not because they love each other and want to make a life-long commitment to care for each other, but because of the state-granted perquisites of marriage, that would have to be a concern that we have with respect to heterosexuals as well as to lesbians and gay men. In fact, one of the perquisites that springs to mind that I think is fairly well known is citizenship that accrues to people who engage in marriage. There is plenty of evidence that there are fraudulent marriages that are not really undertaken for legitimate reasons. Not surprisingly I would be very nervous about giving government a great deal of power to investigate the bona fides of people's reasons for getting married because that violates deep seated privacy values. But I don't think the danger of fraud is any greater with respect to same-sex couples than to opposite-sex couples.

JOHN: I think in terms of applying the law, equally to both is true, but I do think there is much greater danger in the homosexual reality. I mean, the homosexual movement years ago hated marriage and never wanted to talk about it. All of a sudden they're changing and talking about it. This study I read about the 152 domestic partners who were interviewed in a homosexual newspaper, asking what their definitions were, none of them said it was fidelity to that partner, that they were free to have sex around as it were. I think, and I can produce the statistics on this, I think the evidence is overwhelming that those who live homosexually do not honor what a heterosexual, faithful, monogamous marriage does or can, acknowledging there are many heterosexual people who don't honor marriage.

Which brings me back to my initial point. Identify heterosexual, monogamous, faithful marriage and protect it. Those who live outside are on their own recognizance.