In the middle of the moral consensus discussion between a Homosexual, an Amish man, and a Presbyterian Pastor, the Department of Defense issued guidance granting benefits to those in the military in homosexual marriages. This creates the perfect segue into an important discussion on consensus as it relates to civil moral liberty.

On the surface, the decision by the DofD seems like one made out of respect to equality and liberty, both of which are protected by the constitution and other similar civil rights documents. However, in the arena of moral consensus, one must be careful to distinguish between liberty and advocacy. The DoD actually gave rights and benefits to homosexual marriages that the heterosexual marriages do not have, such as a 10 day ‘honeymoon’ break to get married. In its actions, the DoD also granted rights to homosexual marriages, marriages which are still illegal in 37 states. In other words, the DoD gave legal rights and financial reward to those who break the law of their state. The DoD is not simply protecting liberty and equality, they are advocating for homosexual marriage.

The problem with Legal Advocacy of one person’s rights is that in the arena of moral consensus, this advocacy impedes on the rights of another group. For instance, if the government states that a person may not speak against homosexuality because doing so would violate the rights of the homosexual, the government is thereby restricting the free speech rights of the other person. It is an issue of liberty to state that people may be homosexual. After all, the US government is not a sexual police force. On the other hand, decisions which seek to promote or advocate for homosexuality often impinge upon the freely held opinions of those believe homosexuality to be immoral. One would be shocked if the US government began advocating for abortions instead of simply allowing them, but the larger culture seems to be okay with the US government being pro-gay, forgetting that justice is supposed to blind and impartial. In many ways, the US government is not content to simply protect the liberties of homosexuals but feels it must actually advocate for them. When a child in a public school is told they cannot speak against homosexuality but may speak against Christianity, that is advocacy which violates another’s liberty.

So how should the DoD address homosexual marriages which do exist in the military? There is actually a fairly simple solution. Military (and other legal) benefits should be available for financial dependents. Marriage has become synonymous in the US tax code (and military benefits proceedings) with “financial dependent.” So why not make this explicit? Eliminate marriage as the deciding factor and instead allow benefits for financial dependents. This would include cohabiting couples, dependent siblings parents or grandparents, and even marriages. This would return military benefits and the tax code to their original purpose of supporting financial dependents instead of weapons of advocacy for moral positions. No one should have a real objection to simply supporting legally claimed financial dependents, but they should object to the US government advocating moral positions that are not based upon consensus.

So what happens when a Homosexual man, an Amish man, and a Presbyterian Pastor all show up at the same gas station in rural Virginia and begin working towards moral consensus? First they have to find a starting point, a foundation, a point on which they all agree in order to begin working towards consensus.

For the Amish and Presbyterians, all morality is based upon the Bible, a Bible which the Homosexual and larger society may completely reject as manmade. Even in cases in which Homosexuals claim to follow the Bible, there is a lack of consensus on how the Bible should be handled in relationship to culture. Evangelicals may view the Bible’s prohibition against homosexuality as an open and shut case, but the growing prevalence of homosexual Christians shows that this is not always the case. While Christians are right to appeal to the Bible, this will prove unfruitful in building consensus within this country.

Natural Law is also often sought as a foundation for consensus, but this too has its weaknesses as natural law is subject to human reason, and humans are lacking in reason. In addition, homosexuality itself is viewed by many as a rejecting of nature, while those in the lifestyle view sexuality as being beyond law. Americans cannot even come to consensus on what is ‘natural’ let alone what is moral, so this too will provide a poor basis.

So what can be the foundation for consensus, that go-to place that serves as the basis of consensus and sets the parameters for the discussion? I would suggest a simple phrase from the US constitution: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Versions of this same idea can be found in the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights from the French Revolution. I would even go so far as to say that for the sake of consensus one might even use the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizen of 1793, also from the same time period in France, this second French document having “equality before the Law” as its distinctive. This is not that novel of a suggestion, given that the constitution was based upon moral consensus at its inception. Upon examination, it would appear that these statements might provide an agreed upon basis, not simply for basic human rights, but also for morality.

The issue in revolution-era France and in American culture today is not so much the idea of liberty or freedom but how far that liberty and freedom go. Remember again that the three men in the gas station all chose different paths for their lives but all felt compelled to pay for their purchases. Liberty, according to the DHCR document ends as soon as it infringes upon another’s. In other words, my freedom to swing my fist ends where the other person’s face starts. Thus, my freedom to exercise my personal morality ends when it begins to infringe upon another’s. I can choose to be homosexual or non-homosexual until I infringe upon the opposite view. A person’s homosexuality should be limited by others ‘anti-homosexuality’ and vice versa for the sake of consensus.

So what would this look like? In the case of homosexuality, it would look like people being given the freedom to voice their opinions, but none of those opinions being seen as trumping another. The issue in America right now is that culture has slowly shifted to the position that tolerance means promotion. In order to tolerate homosexuality I must now promote the behavior and to do otherwise is hate speech. However, this is in violation of liberty found in the US constitution and the freedom of speech the DHCR and the idea of equality before the law found in the DRMC 1793. The rights of those disagreeing with homosexuality are being infringed upon by such actions.

On the flip side, if this indeed was the conclusion of the consensus, it would be wrong for Amish and Presbyterians to expect the Law to prohibit homosexuality. It would also be against consensus to give tax credits and discounts to heterosexual couples but not homosexual ones, an idea that many on this very blog have pointed out is outdated. Equality before the law means equality before the law, removing preferential treatment for one’s freely expressed views. The United States government should not be a sex police. Instead, they should be preserving people’s rights. Lady Justice is blind, as well she should be. There is equality, an equality that was lost on one side of the coin over the last decades, and the other side of the coin which is being subjugated now.

The real issue is not that the foundation of moral consensus has been eroded as the Bible was never the foundation of moral consensus in the US anyway. What has actually happened is that this country has strayed from its foundation upon the constitution, to the point now that the liberties of one group are subjected to support another’s. This is not allowed by the constitution as its very goal and purpose was to create consensus. In order for the Amish man, the Homosexual, and the Presbyterian Pastor to build moral consensus, they really have to go no farther than the words of their own constitution. The issue is not that they have no foundation consensus, the issue most of the time is that they don’t want to give anything up in order to build consensus.

Our proverbial automobile has returned to the gas station once again as the Homosexual Man, the Amish man, and the Presbyterian Pastor prepare to pay for their convenience store items. Can the three find moral consensus? Will the cashier also find consensus? Will the men’s families in their cars wonder why they are taking so long inside? Stay tuned to find out…

The caricatures of these three men are rather unhelpful in the real world. The Amish are often seen as unyielding to any culture influence or change, Presbyterians just want to talk about head in the clouds theology and gospel transformation, and Homosexuals have no basis of morality but desire. All three of these pictures are quite off the mark, but the use of stereotypes makes humans more comfortable with division and provides excuses for not working towards consensus. The reality of the situation, if one were to take the time to actually engage each of these three men, is quite the opposite.

Most Presbyterians, for all of their talk about theology, do not want to create a Theonomic state with the Bible as the foundation in a Christian version of Sharia Law. The truth is that the Presbyterian Pastor is well aware of the fact that the morals of moral consensus will be looser than his own personal morals and while he hopes the Gospel does indeed transform society’s morals, he understands that there will always be a difference between church and culture. Likewise, Homosexuals do not want a society where morality is simply based on what feels good. While they may argue for personal freedom of sexual orientation, Homosexuals still grow morally outraged over injustice, sexual abuse of children and animals, and anarchy. Both the Presbyterian and the Homosexual would agree that moral consensus is necessary for society to function. The Amish man is not as removed from society as one would think. Many of the social security laws in the US were created after the Amish sued the IRS. Does that sound like the actions of a completely removed and disengaged people group? I think not. The Amish have as much of a vested interest in the moral consensus of this nation as any other people because they benefit from the freedoms and protections of the Law as well. All three in the gas stations, four if you include the cashier who is glad their is consensus on paying for store items, would all agree as a consensus that moral consensus is necessary.

Not to overstate the obvious, but the Homosexual, the Amish man, and the Presbyterian Pastor (and the cashier) all care about America. The Amish man, while having German or Swiss roots wants what is best for America. The Homosexual as well wants the good of the country, and while the Presbyterian prays the country is transformed, he too wants national good. In order to consensus to be created, the three men involved must agree that moral consensus is good for the fabric of this country. The Founding Fathers understood the value of freedom, but also the value of consensus, a liberating but also restraining force upon the inhabitants of this land. For the good of the many, for the good of the United States, moral consensus is necessary and required.

Not only that, everyone involved would agree that moral consensus means each person will have to give up some of their personal beliefs for the sake of consensus. Moral consensus cannot be reached without such consensus. For instance, the Presbyterian Pastor may not agree that Homosexuals should receive all of the rights and benefits of heterosexual couples, but he would agree that murdering Homosexuals because of their orientation is wrong. The Homosexual disagrees with the narrow view of the Presbyterian on sexuality, but also recognizes the Presbyterian and Amish right to freely speak their views. In light of recent Supreme Court decisions, many may think that Homosexuals would disagree with the last portion of that sentence, but most Homosexuals are smart enough to realize that there can be no consensus with discussion of differing views and the Homosexual in this gas station is very smart. The Amish man, while desiring freedom to practice his beliefs, also understands that all the “English” are not suddenly going to become Amish. For the sake of moral consensus, some behavior which is verboten within the Amish community must be allowed for greater US population. Thus, in order for true moral consensus to exist, there must be consensus that such consensus will require give and take on the part of each involved.

Thus, as the wives in the cars begin honking the horn for their husbands to come out of the gas station, the Homosexual Man, the Amish Man, and The Presbyterian Pastor are prepared to begin creating Moral Consensus, agreeing that give and take will be necessary, but the end result of moral consensus will be good for each and good for the United States as a whole. Agreeing to meet again, each heads back to his own life, realizing that maybe each of these three is not that different after all.

So a Homosexual Man, an Amish man, and a Presbyterian Pastor walk into a gas station…  No, this is not a joke, although it certainly sounds like the start of one! This past Tuesday night I (the Presbyterian Pastor) walked into a gas station in rural Virginia to find what appeared to be an Amish man and a Homosexual man shopping for snacks for the car and paying for their gas. Of course, the fact that one man was driving a car means he was certainly not Amish, and my assumptions of the other man’s orientation were based purely upon his appearance and mannerisms. I am fully aware of the danger of stereotypes, but as I made my way to the facilities, I thought “What if they were an Amish and a Homosexual?” What if they were a separatist and a non-conformist? There are certainly wide ranging differences in our understanding of morality, as would be exemplified by the three of us in a gas station, but also great similarities and possibilities for consensus.

The three of us in my imagined story in the gas station would not be more different. The Amish are an Anabaptist group descending from the 16th century, a group my theological ancestors persecuted, often to the point of death. Praise God we have stopped attempts at consensus through bloodshed! The Amish are best known for their manner of dress, rejection of modernity, conservative morality, and extreme separatism. Conversely, Presbyterians are focused, not on separating from culture but on transforming in through the power of the Gospel. The Homosexual man bases his view of morality upon personal liberty and desires, allowing behavior in opposition to both the Amish view of morality and my own. His view of culture is that we should be free to do what we want. How does one work towards moral consensus in all of that?

Let’s assume for just a moment, ignoring the fact that he was driving a car, that the first man was indeed Amish. And, putting aside stereotypes, the second man was indeed a Homosexual. All three of us paid for our snacks. The Homosexual did not argue with the cashier that he should be allowed to take his snacks without paying because he did not feel like paying for them. The Amish man did not argue that it is wrong for the government to tax his purchases and then use those fees on non-Biblical judicial practices. And I did not argue with the cashier that he should understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and how my paying for my sales tax and my purchases was validating the cashier’s place in our society and creation as a worker. Instead, we all simply paid. We all shared consensus that we were morally obligated to pay for our purchases. We all got in our respective vehicles and drove down the road on the right side of the median. Again, consensus. How did this happen and why does it not happen on larger issues?

It would seem that the problem lies in our recognition of differences. I said three men, all Virginians, all driving in automobiles, all stopped at the same gas station in rural Virginia, all purchasing gas and snacks for the road. We were all American, and I would add, all roughly the same age. And yet, the fact that I noticed first was that one appeared to be German Anabaptist and the other a Homosexual. We as humans are naturally drawn to differences rather than similarities. And yet, when our forefathers created our constitution, they did not focus as much on differences as on similarities, on consensus. Consensus is not always found by debating our differences until we come to a solution but often in finding where we already agree and then using those agreements to discuss the differences. There is a point at which the Amish, the Homosexual, and I all agreed in that gas station: there are limits on personal freedom. We all sacrificed liberty to pay the cashier and protect his liberty as a store owner. When we focus on differences, we are focusing on division. When we focus on already shared consensus, we begin from a position of unity. There is already much consensus to build upon that would be helpful in the debates currently swirling around Washington, consensus very similar to our acts in that gas station, and a point which I will attempt to prove in the second half of this thought in my next post.

The recent decision in the Zimmerman trial in Florida left many shocked and angry as the neighborhood watchman was ultimately found ‘not guilty’ for the murder of Trevon Martin. In many ways, the fallout after the Zimmerman trial is a reflection of the overall situation in America: what is considered “right” is not based on facts or foundational principles but simply upon what Americans as a group want.

The American justice system is far from perfect. Many have been acquitted who are guilty and many have been found guilty who are actually innocent. But consider the genius behind the jury system. The assumption of innocence is maintained throughout trials, forcing evidence and the prosecution to prove guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ The accused must stand before a jury of their peers, who must reach a unanimous decision of guilt or innocence. The entire process is overseen by an appointed judge who acts, not as judge and jury, but as the supervisor of proceedings, ensuring that the trial is fair and objective. The judge is given the rare authority to overrule a jury’s decision or declare a mistrial and retrial. Any outside tampering or influence upon the system is grounds for such a mistrial. In as many ways as possible, the jury trial system is as objective as is humanly possible. And that does not even include the appellate system or the larger judicial system which contains a series of checks and balances, methods for choosing jurors, and opportunities in subsequent trials for an individual to prove their innocence. Although far from perfect, the jury trial attempts to be objective.

The jury system is also a system of consensus. Citizens and government each agree to submit to the decisions of the jury, using whatever legal avenues are available for arguing their point of view. Each gives up rights for the greater good. The government gives its citizens the right to decide the case. The citizens give up the right to enforce their own brand of justice.

What occurred in Florida was an objective trial, held before Zimmerman’s peers, overseen by a judge, watched by the Attorney General of the United States, with all the objective safeguards possible. It took place under the consensus of the American people and the state of Florida. And yet, despite all of that, many Americans are upset at the results. Never mind the fact that Zimmerman received a fair trial, the jury reviewed all of the evidence, the prosecution prosecuted the case to the best of their ability, and the judge allowed the verdict to stand. Never mind the fact that the judicial system relies heavily upon citizen and government abiding by the decisions of the jury. What Americans appear to want is not an objective trial of persons accused of crimes, but subjective trials in the court of public opinion. The result of such mob mentality would be the removal of objectivism and the condemnation of those we want to be declared guilty rather than those who are actually guilty. If the objective consensus of the judicial system is removed, what would stop the American form of justice from becoming lynchings or totalitarian dictatorship?

It should really come as no surprise as America has already established that subjectivism, not objective truth, rules the day. Our current culture’s stance on what is right and wrong is based on subjective ideas of what we want rather than any foundational principle. The mass demonstrations simply show that many Americans do not care what an objective court determined; they want their perceived ounce of flesh. What is most scary about the fallout from the Zimmerman case is that now many Americans are not simply attempting to remove a universal foundation for the law, but now they wish to remove the law itself when it prevents the desires of the masses. Most Americans do not even realize what they are really saying when they argue against the results of such judicial proceedings? The results of a system lacking objectivity or consensus would be disastrous.

Such a system would have little foundation and little bearing on the future. Citizens would be left to wonder from one case to the next what the dictator or mob would decide. Previous decisions by the court would have no bearing and the consistency of justice would be eroded. Justice itself would become subjective. In a word, what has happened to American morality would would occur to American justice. Without an objective foundation, and left to the whims of the people, justice would become as wishy-washy as morality. Wish means that as we see the result of the Zimmerman trial, whether we agree or disagree with the results, we should rejoice that here in the judiciary jury trials, objective truth still rules the day. May true objective fairness and consensus continue (and maybe even spread back into American morality!)