At the UnMute Podcast, John talked with philosopher Myisha Cherry about homosexuality, “traditional” marriage, religious liberty and discrimination, being out in academia, and more. Listen to the broadcast here.
Both Czech and Spanish subtitles are now available on my “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” video. Just click on the little gear symbol on the lower right of the screen (to the right of CC), click on “Subtitles/CC,” and click on “Czech” or “Spanish.” Many thanks to David Koranda for the Czech translation and to Pedro Michel, Dr. Paula Oliva-Fiori, and Dr. Roxana Zuniga for the Spanish translation.
U mého videa “Co je morálně špatného na homosexualitě?” jsou nově k dispozici české titulky. Stačí kliknout na tlačítko s ozubeným kolečkem ve spodní liště přehrávače (vpravo od obrázku titulků), najet si na “Titulky” a vybrat “češtinu”. Za překlad mnohokrát děkuji Davidu Korandovi.
Subtítulos en español disponibles en mi video “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?”. Haz clic en el ícono de la parte inferior derecha de la pantalla (a la derecha del CC), clic en “Subtítulos/CC” y selecciona “Spanish/Español”. Muchas gracias a Pedro Michel, a la Dr. Roxana Zúñiga y a la Dra Paula Oliva-Fiori por la traducción.
On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, I discuss the recent “bathroom bill” in North Carolina. From the interview:
The idea that this is about safety and security, it’s kind of like when somebody says that they ate all the ice cream in order to make room in the freezer. I mean it’s just obvious that that’s not the real reason. This is about discrimination, particularly against transgender people.
It’s a quick interview, and by the time I start getting warmed up, it’s over. But you can watch the full segment here.
I’m excited to return to the University of Texas at Austin–where I received my Ph.D. in 1998–to participate in a public panel on the “Freedom of Religious Expression.” It’s on Thursday February 4th at 5:30 pm in the College of Liberal Arts Building (CLA) 1.302B; my co-panelists are Prof. Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia and Prof. Marci Hamilton of Cardozo Law School at Yeshiva University. More information here.
Yesterday at the Detroit Free Press I argued that supporting Kim Davis’s religious liberty doesn’t mean tolerating her refusal to do her job as county clerk. “Religious liberty does not entitle the bearer to line-item vetoes for essential job functions,” I wrote.
In passing I mentioned that she has been divorced multiple times, which shows how inconsistent she is in enforcing Biblical law. Others have made the point more sharply, noting that she became pregnant with twins from husband number three while married to husband number one, in Maury-Povich-worthy twists. Husband number two, who adopted the twins, is also her current, fourth husband.
In response to revelations about her marital history, her Liberty Counsel attorneys have rushed to her defense. According to U.S. News and World Report:
[Attorney Mat] Staver says “it’s not really relevant, it’s something that happened in her past” and that her conversion to Christianity about four years ago wiped her slate clean. “It’s something that’s not relevant to the issue at hand,” he says. “She was 180 degrees changed.”
Her colleague Casey Davis makes a similar point:
Casey County Clerk Casey Davis, who is not related to Kim Davis, tells U.S. News he believes there’s a difference between getting a divorce and then repenting and living in a same-sex relationship.
“I don’t have any problem with that whatever, how she was before. If the Lord can forgive her, surely I can,” he says. “That’s something that’s forgivable just like any other sin, but if you continue in it and live in it, there’s a grave danger in that.”
Apparently these people are no better at interpreting the Bible than they are at interpreting the Constitution. For Jesus himself says quite clearly:
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10: 11-12).
Notice that, in Jesus’ words, divorced and remarried people are not people who did sin (past tense) and then had their slate wiped clean. They are people who are sinning, as persistent and unrepentant adulterers. Why isn’t there “grave danger in that”?
I recognize of course that divorce is sometimes the best option for those in a bad marriage. On the other hand, unlike these folks, I don’t go around trying to substitute “God’s law”–or my own self-serving interpretation of it–for the laws of the state.
Read my full Freep piece here.