Focus director chastises 'earthy King' Obama for basing civil law on something other than God
Carrie Gordon Earll can't believe the President of our church/state-separated nation is basing civil marriage (and specifically tax) law on the constitution rather than the bible:
“While it’s discouraging to see the president use his authority to push the nation further toward redefining marriage, we should remember that the policies of earthly kings ultimately cannot supersede the laws of God,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director for Public Policy, Focus on the Family. “Fortunately, people of faith still have a voice and a vote, and opportunity to raise up both in the defense of God’s design for marriage.” [Focus on the Family]
If the religious right wants to know why it has earned its reputation in American politics, look no further than the above. This is a senior staff member at one of the longest running and larger "pro-family" organizations seriously suggesting, without restraint or irony, that our national policies should be governed by the personal theology that she happens to hold. Even though Ms. Earll, like all of us, obtained a civil marriage license regardless of how she chose to solemnize her union, she wants our national policy as it pertains to same-sex couples to be 100% governed by the restrictive faith view to which she has chosen to subscribe. And she's not just saying this stuff as a personal wish; she is quite literally condemning our President for acting like a President rather than an evangelical preacher.
While I am fully respectful of her faith (and would fight to defend her right to express it), I have complete and utter disregard for the way she is trying to overextend it into our shared body of law. And that, my pals, is the thing that the Focus on the Family staffers of the world never want to admit. They claim we are anti-religion and whatnot because it's easier and scores them more points. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are against is this naked, unapologetic, and completely untenable attempt to say that some sort of agreed-upon vision of God (as if there is such a thing) is supposed to be our ultimate Supreme Court justice. It is unfair to both our body of law and our well of civil discourse.
comments powered by Disqus