All the Wrong Answers

Political leaders in Washington faced important issues last week. Unfortunately, it seems they settled for all the wrong answers. 

Most visible was the announcement by President Barack Obama that he unequivocally supports the concept of gay “marriage” (see story, page 12). The ironies of the announcement could not be missed. First, the announcement came on the heels of two significant setbacks for advocates of homosexual behaviors. On May 8, the day before the president declared his support for gay “marriage” during an ABC News interview aired on national television, the citizens of North Carolina overwhelmingly approved an amendment to their state constitution declaring that marriage in that state would be defined as a union between one man and one woman. 

The election outcome was expected. What was not expected was the margin of victory. The constitutional amendment received 61 percent of the vote even though pollsters had predicted a vote in the mid-50s.

Only four days earlier, the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, which meets every four years, ended without even voting on whether or not to ordain gay clergy or allow pastors to bless same-sex unions. That was a bitter defeat for homosexual advocates who called the outcome “very surprising.”   

But the gloom of defeat was banished when President Obama officially declared his support for a position he publicly opposed during his campaign for the presidency in 2008. 

Pundits have tried to explain the timing of the announcement by blaming Vice President Joe Biden who earlier that week said he was comfortable with the concept of gay “marriage.” These observers say Biden’s comment forced the president into declaring a position. 

That argument is hard to understand. When Republican Vice President Dick Cheney announced his support for gay “marriage,” as decided on a state-by-state basis, that announcement did not prompt then-President George W. Bush to say anything about the issue. 

It is hard to escape the conclusion that President Obama had an eye toward the political landscape as he decided when to make this announcement.

Another irony is the president’s attempt to justify his support for his position by quoting the Golden Rule. He said, “ … the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing Himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.” 

When Jesus shared the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12, He was referencing the Old Testament teaching of Leviticus 19:18, where God declared, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Only one chapter earlier, Leviticus 18:22, the Bible calls homosexual behavior “detestable.” 

The Golden Rule is not a “live and let live” way of life. All people must be treated with dignity and respect. None of that, however, negates the standards of righteousness outlined in God’s Word. None of that provides excuses for behaviors clearly outside of biblical acceptance. 

President Obama’s position on gay “marriage” is wrong. It is bad social policy and it is inconsistent with clear biblical teaching. The president cannot justify his position by trying to hide behind the Golden Rule. 

Two days later, May 10, the U.S. House of Representatives faced a different moral issue — the national budget. The combination of the second worst economic catastrophe in the nation’s history (the deep and continuing recession) and an assortment of national policies have produced a crippling national debt and unsustainable spending patterns by the federal government.

It was the old “bullets or butter” debate. During Vietnam, the nation argued about whether Americans could afford bullets for the war and butter for people to eat at the same time. When choices had to be made, those backing the war argued for “bullets”; those opposed supported “butter.” 

The Budget Control Act passed in 2011 required equal cuts from social programs and national defense totaling about $109 billion if Congress could not come up with a budget by Jan. 2, 2013. The May 10 House vote was an effort to prevent equal cuts. Unfortunately, the approved budget came down on the side of bullets. 

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said after the vote, “We have protected our military.” He was right. All of the proposed cuts came from the “butter” side of the budget, none from the military.

For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the budget approved by the House would mean 22 million households with children would lose aid to buy food, 300,000 children would be cut from school lunch programs and 300,000 children would lose health insurance.

The Congressional Budget Office also reported that demand for food assistance will continue to grow through 2014. We already know that in Alabama and elsewhere, hunger is a growing problem among the elderly.

America’s military needs to be protected. So do the most vulnerable of our citizens. 

Resolving the nation’s debt crisis is a necessity but no element of our nation’s citizens should be sacrificed in the process. Preserving the nation’s safety net is a moral obligation rooted in the Golden Rule. It does not validate freeloading by anyone but neither does it permit society to respond callously to the needs of others. 

Like with the president’s announcement, there is irony in the House vote. It seems to be more of a political statement than an actual budget. Insiders say the House is staking out strong positions to improve its negotiating position with the Senate. And both have an eye on the November elections.

Evidently President Obama believes most voters will be concerned about jobs in the upcoming election and that makes this a good time to make a dramatic change in the social fabric of the nation. 

The House budget seems to conclude that most voters will be concerned about their own financial situation and not concerned about the welfare of neighbors who may be hurting. 

Both are sad commentaries on leadership. To distract with one hand while doing something else with the other is dishonest. To promote personal selfishness at the expense of others is close to original sin. When leaders stoop to such tactics, it is no wonder they come up with all the wrong answers. 

As a Christian, I long for those who dare to lead this nation to be committed to the moral values of the Bible and to be willing to embrace those values personally as well as in public policy, even in a national budget.