North Carolina became the center of a national debate concerning gender identity when the Charlotte City Council passed an ordinance allowing certain individuals to frequent bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers that conform to their subjective perception of reality rather than their objective verifiable birth gender. As a result the North Carolina State Assembly passed the HB2 Bill, signed by Governor Pat McCrory that overrides Charlotte’s ordinance.
Responding to North Carolina’s action, President Obama directed a fiat to penalize North Carolina (and any other state) by threatening to withhold billions of federal funds earmarked for the State. The fervor of the subsequent national debate is understandable. The final result will likely be determined by the Supreme Court. There is a great deal riding on the outcome. It will affect the entire LGBT agenda. The question is, “on what basis will the Court make its decision?” Will it be on the ever-evolving arbitrary will of the State, or will it be on the founding truth established by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” held by the Framers?
The problem is twofold. First is the conflict between a biologically based birth gender and a contradictory imagined gender within the mind of the individual. Second is the moral implication inherent in this perceived gender misalignment. This is problematic because whatever the final Court conclusion, the orthodox Christian doctrinal response can never change. A federally mandated affirmation by all citizens to a perceived birth gender misalignment is untenable, past unconstitutional court decisions notwithstanding.
Theocentrically there are only two positions, God’s created birth sex assignment (male or female) with its intrinsic moral implications of opposite-sex sex, or the various contradictions to God’s design by same-sex sex with their intrinsic moral implications depicted in LGBT-ism. Do not be mislead that there is a third option; a Christian moral view that would condone and support the LGBT position. While a number of people who claim to be Christians affirm LGBT-ism, there is not a scintilla of Biblical support for their assertion.
In an effort to build a case for Christian acceptance of LGBT-ism it is necessary to redefine Biblical linguistics. For instance, trying to differentiate “homosexual” from “sodomy” is to “strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” Labeling the former as an individual and the latter as an act discounts the plain admonition found in Leviticus 18:22. It was God who said to Moses, “You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is an abomination.” The meaning of this verse is unequivocal. There is no escape clause for any accommodation for same-sex sex no matter what self-defining term is used.
The orthodox Church has been resolute in its stance on this subject since the writing of the New Testament. It has never contradicted God. To the contrary, our federal government over recent years has challenged God concerning His created order, and it believes it can do so with impunity. History is replete with the consequences of those nations who chose to rebuke God.
George Mason addressed the limits of government four years prior to the Second Continental Congress finalizing the Declaration of Independence: “The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to Him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict His laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey.” If not the legislature much less the Supreme Court. The government has forced the issue; who takes precedence God or the State? Choose wisely!Tags: Faith Politics