What a God! What Grace!

The troubling events of the last few days have brought two important ideas to my mind: fairness and grace.  I am amazed at the grace of God!  We Christians regularly intone that gift and claim it as the free gift of God to all men.  Living in a Christian society (at least that is what many Americans believe, despite the increasing number of ), I cannot help but be disappointed at the vitriol I often hear on the street, at church, on the radio, on television and on some print media, toward people of other religions, especially after incidents like the Boston Marathon bombings this week.

First, fairness.  I was also alarmed at the position some politicians took regarding the way the captured suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, should be treated. In spite of the fact that the suspect is a US citizen, several Republican lawmakers are calling for him to be tried as an enemy combatant.  A statement released by the lawmakers said, “It is clear the events we have seen over the past few days in Boston were an attempt to kill American citizens and terrorize a major American city.”  Replace the inference of a Muslim, foreign-born, American citizen with Timothy McVeigh, a white, American born, supposedly Christian, army veteran; would the Senators be making a similar statement or drawing the same conclusions?  Was Timothy McVeigh a "common criminal" which they claim Dzhokhar is not?  Does anyone see a selectivity of outrage here? Without a doubt, I believe the actions of the bombers was a cold, calculated, evil, violent dastardly act of cowardice against innocent civilians. But that does not justify the double standard that Senator Graham and his colleagues now demand.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/lindsey-graham-enemy-combatant-90365.html#ixzz2R3rQNKdj

What about grace?  Many Christians wish the perpetrators would "rot in hell" (or "burn forever" as some believe is the fate of sinners).  But is that what Christ thinks? Did he die for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his murderous brother?  I am going to take the liberty of sharing a post from Jason Hines because he shares my views on this important idea about God's forgiveness for us and his yearning to save the worst of sinners. You can read this and many of his other insights on his blog HineSight. (Full disclosure:  Jason is my son-in-law.)  Mr. Tsarnaev deserves his day in court and punishment to the fullest extent of the law if found guilty.  He must also answer to God for his crimes.  But like each one of us he is a sinner deserving of grace.  I seem to remember that about two thousand years ago a violent perpetrator of crimes was freed while an innocent man was nailed to a cross.  While on the cross, that God-man offered forgiveness to a criminal hanging beside him.  So are we guilty of any sins? Do we deserve God's forgiveness?  As difficult as it is to believe, or to accept, in God's eyes you and I are probably no better than Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  What grace!

A Case of Individual Constitutional Rights

On December 6, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) agreed to hear oral arguments for two cases: (1) An appeal to overturn California proposition 8, a ballot initiative that defined marriage as that between a man and a woman, and (2) the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that makes it illegal for married gay couples to receive certain benefits and rights afforded to heterosexual couples. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in September 1996, is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns. Since its passage, several states have attempted to codify the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, including California’s ballot initiative, Proposition 8 in November 2008, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman” is valid or recognized in California. The proposition therefore overturned a previous California Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. There are two issues of note here. First, what is the legal definition of marriage? Secondly, what is meant by the title “defense of marriage?” The law in California seeks to define marriage as only between a man and a woman and so makes homosexual unions illegal. The Supreme Court has historically been on the side of the right of citizens to determine their own behavior in private matters, previously ruling, for example, that sodomy laws are unconstitutional since they interfere with the choices and behavior of consenting adults. It is interesting however, that although sodomy is defined as sexual acts considered to be “unnatural,” and may include oral and anal sex, the laws were rarely applied to any form of sexual activity between heterosexuals. Sodomy as defined does no harm or hurt to its participants or to citizens who are not engaged in such activity, nor are participants forced to do so. In any case, any forced sexual activity, whether conducted against a juvenile or an adult is illegal. The law therefore appears to target specific individualas rather than the act itself. “Defense of marriage” is an interesting appellation applied to the law. Whose marriage is in jeopardy? Whose marriage is being defended, and against what? Does the law state anything that benefits traditional heterosexual marriages? Having been married to the same woman for more than 30 years, I don't understand how such a bill protects my marriage, or any marriage for that matter. They are many threats to marriages today and statistics suggest that approximately 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. Does homosexuality threaten this epidemic of marriage failures? Certainly not! The bill provides no benefit, tax, gift, or any aid to my marriage or to the marriages of millions of heterosexual couples who strive to maintain and strengthen their relationships on a daily basis. Although it is too early to be certain, recent studies suggest that homosexual relationships are no more unstable than heterosexual relationships, especially when common law heterosexual relationships are included. The causes of most marriage or relationship failures are the attitudes, behaviors, idiosyncrasies, and daily choices made by partners. So, how does this law defend anyone? The law then, is designed to deny the rights of certain citizens - homosexual couples, under the guise of defending marriage? In other words, the law is intended to make moral judgments about same sex marriages under the guise of protecting marriages. Both laws were lobbied and supported by communities and congressmen who traditionally regard homosexuality as immoral and a perverted behavior. Finally, let me state that this essay is not intended to make a case for the morality or immorality of homosexuality but to outline what appears to be a denial of equal protection and the constitutional rights of homosexuals as stated in Article XIV of the US Constitution. I believe that DOMA and California Proposition 8 are unconstitutional and that the SCOTUS should render a verdict as such.