Obergefell was supposed to tame homosexuality, but it has precip­itated a regime of more radical queerness. From “Marriage is a human right” to “Marriage is deeply flawed and fundamentally violent”: The sexual left’s long-running dispute about the nature of marriage and its relation to gayness seems to be getting resolved in the direction of the marriage skeptics.

In November 2022, the ACLU’s deputy director for transgender justice came out against gay marriage. “I find it disappointing how much time and resources went into fighting for inclusion in the deeply flawed and fundamentally violent institution of civil marriage,” Chase Strangio wrote on Instagram. Two months later, Taylor Silverman, a female skateboarder who gained prominence after objecting to the inclusion of biological males in women’s athletic competitions, criticized gay marriage from the opposite direction: “I used to think gay marriage was ok until all of the things that conservatives warned us would happen next actually happened. Now it seems it really was the beginning of the dangerous slippery slope.” With the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022, the legal status of same-sex marriage has never been more secure. Public opinion is strongly in its favor, even as, not so long ago, it was overwhelmingly opposed. Yet the ideological case for same-sex marriage seems strangely fragile, subject to challenge on both the left and the right.
It has been eight years since the White House was lit with rainbow colors in celebration of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. Hailed as the enshrinement of a new consensus, the national recognition of same-sex marriage can also be understood as an event that accelerated polarization—leading some on the left to press for ever more changes, and some on the right to doubt the very possibility of liberal governance.
Not all of the effects of gay marriage are obvious, or were anticipated. In the runup to the national recognition of gay marriage, much attention was paid on both sides to such questions as whether children raised in same-sex households could thrive as did those raised by a mother and father. Important as they were, these discussions distracted from another way in which gay marriage would affect national life. Its recognition changed the makeup of the American elite by causing more conservative and religious actors to lose standing while left-wing activists gained power and prestige. For thoroughgoing progressives, there is nothing to lament in these developments. But for figures on the center-left, gay marriage has had an ambiguous legacy.
Gay marriage was the first great triumph of cancel culture. Sasha Issenberg, a historian of gay marriage, has observed that by deploying the novel weapons of “shaming and shunning,” activists “changed the economic terrain on which cultural conflict was waged.” One of the early breakthroughs occurred when eightmaps.com appeared online. The site used information gathered under financial disclosure laws to list the names and locations of people who had donated to California’s Proposition 8, a referendum that stated marriage could take place only between a man and a woman. Suddenly American citizens came under pressure for their political views—not just from their friends and families, but potentially from anyone with an internet connection. Some reported receiving envelopes with powder and death threats.
Donors to Proposition 8 were ­also targeted through their employers. Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, was forced to resign after his colleagues learned that he had backed the referendum. ­Brendan Eich was forced to step down as the CEO of Mozilla in 2014, when his past support of Proposition 8 was publicized.
Those who denounce cancel culture often speak as though it was hatched by radical activists and intolerant students, and see the contest as pitting liberal tolerance against illiberal denunciation. But as the history of gay marriage shows, the reality is more complicated. Cancel culture was pioneered in part by veteran political activists such as the lifelong Republican Fred Karger, who organized demonstrations outside commercial properties owned by backers of Proposition 8. And it arose in alliance with corporate power, as seen when corporations declared “capital strikes” by threatening to pull out of states that guaranteed religious freedom to those who rejected gay marriage.
In recent years, figures such as ­Andrew Sullivan have emerged as brave and eloquent critics of wokeness. They have opposed its particular injustices while exploring its deep origins. They have tied wokeness to the flowering of “illiberalism” on the left and the right. But they have failed to examine how these forms of illiberalism were encouraged by the campaign for a policy they support.
Gay marriage changed the character of important institutions in ways that its moderate supporters have not yet recognized. Through the operation of cancel culture, high-profile opponents of same-sex marriage were silenced, fired, or forced out of important institutions. In 2011, Paul Clement, the distinguished appellate lawyer and former solicitor general, was compelled to leave his law firm in order to continue his legal work on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act, a case that his firm had been pressured to drop by the Human Rights Campaign. In 2015, Kelvin Cochran, the chief of the Atlanta fire department, was fired after writing a book that expressed opposition to homosexuality. In 2023, Jacob Kersey, a police officer in Georgia, was placed on leave after writing on Facebook: “God designed marriage. Marriage refers to Christ and the church. That’s why there is no such thing as homosexual marriage.”
Read More
Related Posts:

 There are many days when we daren’t pray, “be gracious to me for I obey your word”. There may even be days where we can’t say, “Be gracious to me because I love your word”—days when we feel we can’t even look at God’s word, and we feel immense guilt for that. But few are the days where we couldn’t at least manage, “Be gracious to me, for I love your name.” Think of your reaction on hard days when you hear someone slandering your saviour—even then you wish to defend his name. It matters to you. That might be all we can manage—we may be able to say little else—but it is enough.

I was preaching on Jesus cursing the fig-tree recently, and the challenge to bear fruit. In conjunction with Jesus’ parable about a fruitless fig-tree there really is quite a challenge. No one wants to hear Jesus’ verdict of “Cut it down”. Or we think of the fruitless branches in John 15 which are cut off and thrown into the fire.
It is easy to preach the challenge in powerfully searching ways, taking aim at those who profess to be Christians but show little fruit—but it is also easy to crush wounded souls in the attempt. And not just wounded souls, but those who by nature are more self-critical.
We might ask the question: what fruit is it that Jesus is looking for? Naturally we turn to the fruit of the Spirit. But when you are a wounded soul, you are often a really bad fruit inspector, and so as you cast your eye over your life, you see little to no fruit. And any that there is, seems to you wizened or rotten in places. There are always areas you could have been more loving. Or more patient. Certainly more joyful. And on it goes, until you are convinced that the axe is at the root of your life.
But those aren’t the only fruit—there are wonderful fruits of repentance and trust. A person may feel a failure, but they are repenting over their failure. Remind them that that’s a fruit. A person may feel fruitless—they do not witness like others, they do not have a breezy confidence which they imagine others find attractive. But they trust—they trust amidst illness and affliction, amidst trials in work and in the home. They need to see that their persistent trust is a ripe and glorious fruit which Christ loves to see as he walks amidst his fruit trees.
But sometimes the fruit seem too high above our heads for us to see. But God has placed low rungs on the ladder of assurance that we might climb out of despair. We may not feel we can scale the dizzying heights of fruit-picking, and we certainly can’t see any fruit from where we are, but we can at least climb on the ladder.
What low rungs am I thinking of?
Read More
Related Posts:

There is a world of difference between identifying our sin so as to mortify it and identifying by our sin as a component part of our Christian identity. Every Christian is called to identify his sin, take it to the cross in faith and repentance, and ask God for an increase of grace to war against the desires of the flesh. Far from singling out our brothers and sisters who struggle with SSA we are simply calling on them to join the rest of us who are no less committed to being renewed in the whole man after the image of Christ.

The approval of Overtures 23 and 37 at the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) General Assembly (GA) in St. Louis, Missouri was a watershed moment in the history of the PCA. To the surprise of many, Overtures 23 and 37 received overwhelming support at GA; Overture 23 passed by a vote of 1438 to 417 and Overture 37–1130 to 692. It wasn’t even close (77% and 62%). Denominational conservatives went home feeling as though they’d scored a game-winning touchdown when, in fact, the encouraging results of GA are more akin to a first down than a touchdown—there is still a lot of ground left to cover.
In order to amend the Book of Church Order (BCO) two-thirds of the denomination’s presbyteries need to vote in favor of these overtures, and the 2022 GA in Birmingham, Ala., will need to pass the overtures by a simple majority vote. So, as important as the 48th General Assembly was, if the overtures are indeed approved by the presbyteries, the 49th GA will prove to be even more pivotal for the future of our denomination.
Of late, the National Partnership (a group of progressive-minded elders within the PCA whose members voiced their full-throated opposition to Overtures 23 and 37 on the GA floor) are making something of a goal-line stand. Hoping to dissuade presbyteries from voting in favor of the proposed BCO amendments, the National Partnership released a public document titled, “National Partnership Public Advice for Voting on Overtures 23, 37” (hereafter PA) While I do not share their concerns, I sincerely appreciate the NP’s transparency in making their reservations public. Lord willing, the process of iron-sharpening iron will prepare us all for profitable debate both at the presbytery level and at next year’s GA.
There have already been a number of helpful resources produced that offer reasons to vote in favor of Overtures 23 and 37 (hereafter O 23 & O 37). TEs Dr. Dominic Aquila and Fred Greco provide a dialogue on the merits of O 23 & O 37. Additionally, TE Todd Pruitt’s GA wrap-up at Ref 21 provides information to understand the issues at play in the O 23 & O 37 debate.
My intention for this series is to address common objections raised in the PA and on social media. Since GA, I have had friendly correspondence with several brothers who are opposed to O 23 & O 37. Though we still do not agree, interacting with these brothers has proven helpful to me in assuming best motives and clarifying my own thinking on the issues at hand. These conversations together with the PA lead me to believe that there are at least three primary objections to O 23 & O 37 that undergird all others. I call them the “Three “U”s: The overtures, they argue, are: 1. Unclear; 2. Unnecessary; and 3. Unloving. Each article will address one “U” with the hope of bringing clarity to what feels like a dizzying array of dissent. It is my sincere hope that my brothers in the PCA will receive these critiques in the manner that they are intended—in brotherly love for them and those sheep under their care.
The First “U”—Unclear
The introductory paragraph of the PA aims to erode the reader’s confidence in O 23 & O 37 by suggesting that the language of the overtures is open to “broad interpretation.” “Many in the PCA are divided on the meaning of the overtures…The proper interpretation of the BCO is based on the words as written, not as they may have been intended. The GA did not adopt reasons, much less codify reasons, for these revisions. Any Overture that immediately instigates this much constitutional confusion is unworthy of our Standards.”[1]
Elsewhere the document reads, “The proposed addition to BCO 21 (O37) fails to provide clarity about what constitutes the disqualifying self-profession” (II. 1).
“This creates an ambiguity in BCO 16-4 that no one perceived in the heat of the moment. The ambiguity is caused by the uncertainty of the word “that” after the first parenthesis. Does the “that” which disqualifies from pastoral office refer to what is within the parenthesis; i.e., those who profess an identity “such as, but not limited to, [etc.],” or, does the “that” refer to the explanatory clauses following it: i.e., those who profess an identity “such as but not limited to ‘gay Christian,’ ‘same sex attracted Christian,’ ‘homosexual Christian,’ are disqualified only if they express their identity in ways contrary to the standards?” (II. 2).
Having served on the Overtures Committee (OC) and agreeing to reconvene for the purpose of perfecting the language of Overture 23, the assertion that no one caught the perceived ambiguity “in the heat of the moment” gives the impression that the OC was guilty of a rush job. The fact of the matter is that commissioners debated O23 & O 37 for hours and down to the level of punctation and syntax. There is not a jot or a tittle that was not fussed over by the OC. Hats off to our intrepid OC chairman, TE Scott Barber, for keeping track of all the moving parts!
To answer the question posed in II. 2 surrounding the word “that” and to give the reader a sense of the care and attention given to the language of O23, the exact wording is copied below:
BCO 16-4. Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those who profess an identity (such as, but not limited to, “gay Christian,” “same sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like terms) that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Christ, either by denying the sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction), or by denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or by failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions are not qualified for ordained office.
To clarify, the “that” above does not set up a situation in which it is permissible for a PCA officer to continue to identify himself by his remaining sinfulness (i.e., “gay Christian,” “same-sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like terms) even if he refrains from the behaviors listed thereafter (1. denying the sinfulness of the fallen desire 2. denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification 3. failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory). Why? Because continuing to identify ourselves by our remaining sinfulness necessarily “undermines and contradicts our identities as new creations in Christ.”
We must be clear, there is a world of difference between identifying our sin so as to mortify it and identifying by our sin as a component part of our Christian identity. Every Christian is called to identify his sin, take it to the cross in faith and repentance, and ask God for an increase of grace to war against the desires of the flesh. Far from singling out our brothers and sisters who struggle with SSA we are simply calling on them to join the rest of us who are no less committed to being renewed in the whole man after the image of Christ.
According to the PA, O23 is guilty of introducing “magic words” into our tests for ministers and officers. But this is not the case; forbidding men from identifying themselves by their remaining sinfulness is simply bringing the words of Scripture to bear in our examination process.
Consider the words of the Apostle Paul, “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:9b-11). To the Ephesians Paul wrote, “But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints” (Eph 5:3).
Furthermore, as our Confession of Faith teaches, when we are adopted by God we are “taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God; and have His name put upon us” (WCF 12). What a precious privilege, to have God as our Father, to be called by his name! In light of such a privilege, why then would we sully this new identity by continuing to identify ourselves by the sins for which Christ died? Paul wrote, “such we were some of you” not “and so you will remain forever.” Therefore, Christians ought to steer clear of terminology that gives the impression that Christ’s blood hasn’t cleansed them from all their sin. “Gay Christian” and like terms do exactly that.
But, what about the Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality (hereafter AIC)? The PA quotes the AIC, “In practical and plain terms, the issue of terminology is more likely a matter for shepherding in wisdom, and not in and of itself grounds for discipline” (p. 30). Does this sentence make our objections to one identifying himself by his remaining sinfulness litigious? Are we looking to trap examinees in their words? Certainly not.
To better understand the AIC quote above we need to keep in mind its original context. This quotation falls under the AIC section titled, “Biblical Perspectives For Pastoral Care—Discipleship, Identity, and Terminology.” This section offers practical advice to shepherds on how to effectively care for sheep who struggle with SSA. The context is pastoral care, not theological examinations nor the language that ought or ought not to be used therein. In the paragraph immediately preceding the selected quote, the AIC states:
There is an understandable desire among some celibate Christians who identify as gay to utilize the common parlance of our culture as a missional or apologetic tool, hoping to redefine for our culture a way of being gay that in fact submits those desires to the lordship of Christ. However, there is a substantial corresponding risk of syncretism in such an approach. This potential danger toward syncretism can manifest as an over-identification with the LGBT community (over and against a primary identification with the church) or even the formation of an LGBT subculture within the church. In view of the twin dangers of misunderstanding and syncretism, we believe it is generally unwise to use the language of gay Christian.
Here’s my logic. If the AIC’s recommendation to shepherds is for them to dissuade their sheep from using unwise identifiers like “gay Christian,” then how much more should we expect a man who aspires to be a shepherd to refrain from using these same identifiers? If a man refuses to shed a sinful self-conception in the interest of safeguarding against, at best, misunderstanding, and at worst, syncretism, does he really embody the spiritual qualities laid out in 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5 for those who aspire to ordained leadership (e.g., temperate, not quarrelsome, being examples to the flock)? Wouldn’t he be guilty of using unclear language and sowing seeds of confusion among the flock, and not those of who object to his unwise use of terminology?
I argue from the lesser to the greater as I do because James reminds us that all those who rule in the church will be held to a higher standard. James wrote, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1). Notice that James writes this in the context of Christians needing to tame their tongues. Words mattered to James and they ought to matter still, especially to those entrusted with the ministry of the Word and prayer (Acts 6:4). We must be careful not only in what we do, but also in the way we communicate who we are in Christ.
In this post I have dealt with only one side of the “Unclear” coin. In the next article I will maintain that neither O 23 or O 37 as written necessarily disqualify a man who struggles with SSA from being ordained in the PCA.
Stephen Spinnenweber is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Westminster PCA in Jacksonville, Fla.

[1]Please note that all directly quoted statements are in italics, all those underlined are my own.