Douglas Wilson, renowned theologian, pastor, apologist and sometimes-debater has taken notice of Russell Moore’s “new tone” on homosexuality. Moore, who first gave us the green light to attend gay wedding celebrations after the service to watch them stuff cake in each other’s mouths and open gifts for their sodomy-centered life together (but not the service itself, because of some inexplicable reason Moore has never fully articulated) and has broken bread with homosexuals to “build bridges and foster relationships” and now waves his wagging finger at Alabama judges refusing to issue gay marriage licenses because they’re told to by a federal court that may or may not have authority to issue such a decree.
Wilson takes on Moore’s lecture to the Alabama judges, and Moore himself, by characterizing him as someone who has “brought a knife to a gunfight.” Wilson’s challenge is, in essence, that Moore clearly doesn’t understand the issue here. The question is whether or not the ruling – which has not yet come from the United States Supreme Court – must be followed by Alabama judges. It’s a complicated issue and is certainly not cut-and-dry. This issue isn’t unique to Alabama, but most judges have rolled over to the judicial tyranny because in the end the good guys are going to lose anyway. It just so happens, there are some judges in Alabama that – true to the Southern ethos – won’t stop fighting until the war is over (and maybe not even then).
But even more troubling than Moore apparently not understanding what the real issue is, or his social-progressive tendency to side with the federal government over state sovereignty, is his chastising edict to the Alabama judges; if you don’t like the federal ruling, resign. What was missing? Wilson writes…
[Moore] says that judges must resign rather than protest in an official capacity, but not that they must resign rather than authorize a same-sex mirage. You may be okay with that. You must not be okay with defying the state.
Indeed, it doesn’t seem that Moore finds the edict to issue marriage licenses to two people who can’t possibly be married (you know, if definitions matter and everything) to be ethically unacceptable. Rather, it seems that disobeying the civil magistrate seems to be the ethical dilemma that must be corrected.
You can find Wilson’s article here. It’s worth a read.
