I have voted Republican for many years, but I don't put my trust in a political party

Because the Republican platforms over the years have been much closer to my values than the Democratic platforms, I have voted Republican for as long as I can remember. But when it comes to bringing about moral and cultural change in America, I do not look to a political party. Not a chance. There is moral compromise in both major parties, and the battle we are fighting for the soul of the nation is a spiritual battle long before it is a political battle. The recent House vote to codify same-sex “marriage” was yet another reminder for us.

As reported by Fox News on July 19: 

“A vote to codify same-sex marriage into federal law split House Republicans on Tuesday, with roughly a third of the GOP conference voting with Democrats in favor and the rest opposing.

“In a 267-157 vote, the House passed legislation repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and enshrining protections for gay marriage into federal law. Overall, 47 House Republicans voted with nearly every single Democrat to back the measure, dubbed the Respect for Marriage Act.”

Let that sink in for a moment.

It is bad enough that this bill is called the “Respect for Marriage Act,” seeing that the “marriage” of which it speaks represents a radical and fundamental redefining of the institution of marriage.

And it is to the shame of the Democratic Party that “nearly every single Democrat” voted in favor of the measure.

But it is no surprise that the Democrats voted this way, seeing that they are overtly and proudly pro-LGBTQ+. Perhaps the only surprise is that there were any who did not toe the line.

But for 47 Republicans to vote this way, representing almost 25 percent of all Republicans in the House, is both surprising and shameful.

That’s because the Republican Party is supposed to be the pro-life, pro-family party, the party that upholds traditional Judeo-Christian values. Why else do so many conservative Christians vote Republican if not for these core moral and social values?

The fact is that the redefining of marriage by the Supreme Court in 2015 represents one of the most radical social developments in our nation’s history, fundamentally changing the meaning and purpose of marriage.

In fact, the same Barack Obama who lit up the White House in rainbow colors to celebrate the 2015 ruling is the same person who said while campaigning in 2008 that, as a Christian, he believed marriage was the union of one man and one woman.

Not only so, but Proposition 8, which was on the ballot in 2008 in California and which upheld the historic definition of marriage, was passed with the help of the large turnout of African American voters. They voted for Barack Obama, but in keeping with their largely conservative family values, they voted for Proposition 8. In their mind, the man they were voting for shared their views.

That’s how dramatically and quickly the tide changed in our nation, from candidate Obama affirming male-female marriage to President Obama shifting his views already in his first term.

That’s part of the reason we find ourselves in the midst of such cultural madness today, where the very meaning of “woman” is hotly debated, where medical websites use acronyms such as AFAB and AMAB (meaning, assigned female at birth and assigned male at birth) rather than “female” and “male,” and where even the Merriam-Webster dictionary has expanded its definition of “female.”

The normalizing of same-sex “marriage” simply represented the proverbial camel’s nose entering the tent, to be followed by: 1) the amping up of radical trans activism in the schools, in the workplace, on TV and social media, and in sports; 2) the rise of drag queens, to the point that the American Library Association endorses drag queens reading stories to little children in libraries; 3) the increasing marginalization of those holding to conservative Christian values on both grass roots and legal levels.

In fact, if I provided links just to my relevant articles on these subjects over the last 7 years (since Obergefell), this entire page (literally) would be filled with “see here and here and here . . . .” The list is almost endless. (For the moment, if you want devastating proof of #3 in the list, above, go here.)

Really now, redefining marriage was not even on the radar for leading gay activists just a few decades ago, since under no circumstances was a cultural shift of this enormity even envisioned. Yet here we stand today when 47 Republicans voted to codify this radical redefinition of our most fundamental social institution.

Again, as I have said many times, by saying this, I do not mean that gay couples do not love each other deeply. And I do not deny that many of them are incredibly devoted parents. I simply mean that marriage throughout history, with the rarest and slightest exceptions (like Nero marrying a man who took on female characteristics), has always been the union of a male and female. And from a biblical perspective, the idea of two men or two women marrying would be utterly abhorrent.

For 47 House Republicans to vote to protect this new version of “marriage” is deplorable (in the worst sense of the word), regardless of what Republican Senators decide to do.

And it is another reminder that, while I continue to prefer Republican policies to Democrat policies, by and large, I absolutely do not look to either party to be major agents of righteous moral and cultural change. That remains the calling of the Church and the role of the gospel.

As I argue in my forthcoming book, The Political Seduction of the Church, to confuse the role of politics with the role of the gospel is a fatal mistake. We cannot afford to make it again.