Posts

Tanco v. Haslam Final Order and silhouette of a man with a question mark

Meet My Tennessee Political Hero

Political heroes are hard to come by these days. But there is a current officeholder in our state who tops my short list. In a lineup of random politicians, you might never suspect he’d be a political hero. Let me introduce you to him and tell you what he did.

Unlikely Looking Hero

My political hero is 77-year-old Bradley County Commissioner Howard Thompson. His formal academic education ended with his high school diploma (which only matters if your name is Lori Loughlin or Felicity Huffman). He drives a pick-up truck as part of his flea market business, not as a political “common man” ploy.

What makes him a hero is that he was willing to do something out of the ordinary that he knew would be misunderstood by most, including his fellow commissioners, in order to defend what he believes.

What My Political Hero Believes

Lots of Tennesseans and elected officials, including, I suspect, most of his fellow commissioners, believe like Commissioner Thompson. He believes:

• marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,
• both the U.S. Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution should be upheld,
• the dual sovereignty of state and federal governments established and protected by those constitutions is important, and
• the separation of powers taught in eighth-grade civics means courts don’t make laws.

What Makes Him a Hero

But the difference between Commissioner Thompson and other political officials was his willingness to take a measured, strategic, and non-revolutionary state-militia-at-the-courthouse approach to defending those beliefs.

As a “lowly” county commissioner and citizen, he did the only thing he could do to defend his beliefs (and probably those of most of his constituents)—sue his own county’s clerk for violating the Tennessee Constitution by issuing a license for marriage to two people of the same sex.

Before you think that qualifies him for quack status, not hero status, read on. His understanding of basic civics and willingness to act on his beliefs is what separates him from other politicians.

Thompson Understood What Most Didn’t

Commissioner Thompson is a gentle, humble soul who would never impugn the integrity of his local county clerk or his fellow commissioners, but he understood the constitutional gravity of what began taking place the day the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

That decision purported to say that the 14th Amendment prohibited state laws that defined a marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

Even if this conclusion is accepted, Commissioner Thompson intuitively knew that our whole state was acting lawlessly. The lawsuit proved him right, even though the presiding judge dismissed it last week.

Tennessee’s Constitution Is Being Ignored by All but the Commissioner1

Page 2 of the Tanco Final Order and Permanent Injunction, signed by Judge Trauger.

Page 2 of the Tanco Final Order and Permanent Injunction, signed by Judge Trauger.

He was proved right by the Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction issued by federal district court Judge Aleta Trauger after and as a result of the Obergefell decision in the same-sex “marriage” lawsuit that had been filed against the state of Tennessee, Tanco v. Haslam.

The second page of Judge Trauger’s order says, in full:

Article XI, section 18, of the Tennessee Constitution and Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-113 are invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent that they exclude same-sex couples from the recognition of their civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples, when their marriage was lawfully entered into out of state.

The “to the extent” language means the injunction applies only to the provisions of Tennessee’s laws that govern the state’s recognition of marriages “lawfully entered into out of state” when that out-of-state couple moves here.

Thus, the injunction does not apply to the provisions of the Tennessee Constitution and the referenced statute, Tennessee’s Defense of Marriage Act, that govern what laws the state can have for the licensure of marriages, the licenses being issued by Tennessee’s county clerks.

That means those provisions of our state’s constitution limiting the power of the state to license anything other than a marriage between a man and a woman are still in force. And those provisions will lawfully be in force until some judge enjoins their enforcement or the people vote to repeal the amendment.

Since neither of those things has happened, all of Tennessee’s county clerks are going beyond the statutory authority they have been given by issuing a license for a relationship called a marriage that is defined without regard to the biological sex of the parties.

And they are doing so in violation of the still-applicable provisions of Tennessee’s Constitution.

When Did Courts Start ‘Making Laws’?

I know some will foolishly say, “But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. The Court legalized same-sex marriage. You can’t deny same-sex couples their rights.”

Such is foolish because they, including many lawyers and judges, have forgotten what Commissioner Thompson remembered from his eighth-grade civics class, “Courts can’t make laws.”

If a license for this new understanding and form of marriage is to be issued by the state, then the state’s legislative body must authorize somebody to issue it. Judges can’t, and county clerks weren’t.

By the express terms of Tennessee’s Constitution, county clerks’ duties can only be “prescribed” by the General Assembly.

But the General Assembly has never prescribed to our county clerks any duty to issue a license for a relationship defined without regard to the biological sex of the parties, even if U.S. Supreme Court now wants to call that kind of relationship a marriage.

If people would just think about it for a moment, they’d realize that being authorized by statute to issue a license for a relationship defined in terms of the biological sex of the parties is fundamentally and logically not the same as having authority to issue a license for a relationship defined without regard to the biological sex of the parties.

Commissioner Thompson understood these basic constitutional principles and he stood up for them, or at least he did until the judge said he didn’t have a right (“standing” is the legal term) to bring suit to stop this lawlessness.

Not in Vain

But, Commissioner Thompson, don’t despair. In the coming months, I trust you will find that your heroics have not been in vain.

If you now appreciate what Commissioner Thompson did and want to be part of stopping the lawlessness, let me know by sending an email to FACT Director of Communications Laura Bagby at laura.bagby@factn.org and be sure to put “Thompson” in the email subject line. Just don’t expect all your friends to consider you a hero if you do.

NOTES

  1. Actually, Commissioner Thompson’s pastor, Guinn Green, understood and joined him in the lawsuit, as did a couple of pastors and citizens who filed a similar lawsuit in Williamson County. But Commissioner Thompson is the only elected official among them and therefore the only one that risked any political heat.

David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Husband and wife holding baby shoes

Will Legislators Take a Consistent Approach to Abortion and Marriage?

Three bills filed in the General Assembly—two on abortion and one on marriage—point out how hard it is to find a consistent principle by which to govern. Here’s what I think needs to be done.

Two Approaches to Reversing Roe v. Wade

The two abortion bills would make it a crime for a physician to perform an abortion except in limited circumstances. All the legislative sponsors of the two bills want to see Roe v. Wade and its progeny overturned and authority of abortion matters returned to the states.

One bill is called the fetal heartbeat bill because it would make the criminal sanction and the limited exceptions thereto applicable once a child’s heartbeat is detected. The other bill would make the sanction applicable only after the U.S. Supreme Court “overrules, in whole or in part, Roe v. Wade” and its progeny, “thereby restoring to the states their authority to prohibit abortion.”

The fetal heartbeat bill seeks to push for a reversal of Roe by imposing a limit on abortion greater than any the U.S. Supreme Court has had to rule on in the past. The hope is that the new law will provoke a lawsuit that will, in time, wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and arrive at a time when the Court is willing to reverse Roe.

The second bill, known as a “trigger law,” imposes a limit on abortion only if the law of some other state is challenged and the decision, in that case, results in Roe being reversed.

There have been times when I thought the second approach was the only plausible approach. The Court was decidedly more liberal than it is today, the popular culture was not as pro-life as it today, and legislative bodies were not applauding infanticide legislation that outrages the sensibilities of an overwhelming majority.

If you think public sentiment can’t influence justices, then pretend you didn’t ever hear Justice Ginsburg say she thought America was now ready for same-sex “marriage.”

Pushing the Envelope on Roe

While the “trigger law” should be passed, these changes in the court and public sentiment have led me to think it’s also time to push the envelope and precipitate a situation that will require the U.S. Supreme Court to re-evaluate the constitutionally unsupportable rationale employed 40 years ago to support the decision in Roe.

Of course, the Supreme Court may continue to uphold the right to abortion, but it is very unlikely the Court will go in the direction of making it harder for states to enact abortion laws. The standard by which the constitutionality of abortion laws are now judged—Does the law unduly burden abortion?—is as low as it can go without the Court reducing the standard to the lowest possible standard—Does the law have a rational basis?

So, at this point, I don’t see much to lose other than simply losing. But not to try is a de facto loss anyway.

But notice this: Neither abortion bill seeks to “nullify” the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortions or tells prosecutors to ignore those rulings and prosecute abortionists anyway. Legislators know they can’t just ignore a bad decision by the United States Supreme Court.

Moreover, the fetal heartbeat bill is a testament to the fact that legislators know they must come up with some approach to abortion that has not been tested and ruled on yet in order to get a case back to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legislators know that a bill treating Roe as a nullity would be slapped down as unenforceable by a federal district court and the decision upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit faster than Gov. Bill Lee can say to the state’s Treasurer, “Please pay the Planned Parenthood’s legal fees for having to sue our state.”

If legislators really believed they could nullify and ignore a U.S. Supreme Court opinion, surely legislators in our state would have done so any number of times between the 1973 Roe decision and now.

How This Applies to Marriage

But the reasons that lead legislators to look for ways to work around Roe and not just ignore it apply with equal force to the new bill on marriage.

That bill says, “No state or local agency or official shall give force or effect to any court order that has the effect of violating Tennessee’s laws protecting natural marriage.” Thus, it’s a bill purporting to “nullify” the U.S. Supreme Court’s constitutionally unsupportable decision on marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, and it just won’t fly.

That’s not to say that nothing can be done about Obergefell. But the same principled approach to it must be taken as is being taken with the fetal heartbeat bill. I’ve been working on that principled approach and that work is almost done. Stay tuned.


David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

shape of United States filled in with American flag on striped background with words national news

Apple Bans Ministry App for Heralding Biblical Marriage

Apple removed an app from its app store that offers treatment for those with same-sex attraction because it deemed the app “homophobic.” Apparently, Apple was pressured to remove the app after the national gay rights group Truth Wins Out received a mere 365 signatures on its petition, calling the app “bigoted,” “hateful,” and “dangerous, homophobic garbage.”

Texas-based Living Hope Ministries, the Christian nonprofit that created the app, “proclaim(s) a Christ-centered, biblical world-view of sexual expression rooted in one man and one woman in a committed, monogamous, heterosexual marriage for life.”

The app, simply titled Living Hope Ministries, is still available for download on the Google Play store. It offers a selection of audio and video teachings, devotionals, and helps for family and friends.

News Sources:

NOTE: FACT provides links to external websites for educational purposes only. The inclusion of any links to other websites does not necessarily constitute an endorsement.

Get News Stories in Your Inbox Every Week

Get more news snapshots like this one by subscribing to our weekly Five Minutes for Families email.

purple flowers in a basket

Is Mother’s Day an Anachronism That Must Go?

Although my mother has passed into eternity, I will still celebrate Mother’s Day, giving thanks to God for her and honoring my wife because of her own high calling as a mother. But driving into work this week, a radio commercial about buying jewelry for Mother’s Day caught my attention. I couldn’t help but think about how much longer Mother’s Day will still be acknowledged and celebrated.

The line in the commercial suggested that someone buy Mom jewelry “for all those times she didn’t tell Dad when he got home.” I’m sure a lot of us heard something like that from our mothers somewhere along the line.

But the reference to fathers in connection with a day celebrating mothers really grabbed my attention because of what’s happened the last couple of years in connection with the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts, which heartily embraced homosexual behaviors a couple of years ago, opened itself to girls last year, and then last week dropped the word “Boy” from its name. Now the organization is almost unrecognizable to most of us.

For the following reasons, it could be only a matter of time before Mother’s Day will go the way of the Boy Scouts.

The Spirit of the Age: Offense and Victimhood

First, we must begin by recognizing that the spirit of the age in which we live is one in which many look for offense or consider themselves mere victims of something outside of themselves.

On the other hand, our social milieu encourages us to affirm a person’s victimhood and the offense in order to help them feel better about themselves and doing so is supposed to help us assuage whatever guilt we might feel for the alleged wrong, whether there is real ethical guilt or not.

The Lies We Tell Ourselves Must Be Suppressed

This brings me to the second consideration. We have to recognize that our culture is in the process of embracing what we know is a biological lie, that a child can have two mothers (or two fathers).

Given these two realities, what is going to be the response of the two-mom and two-dad families when their kids start asking why they don’t celebrate either Mother’s Day or Father’s Day? What will happen if those two days of honor and recognition cause their child to wonder, let alone ask, if there is something unique and special that he or she missed by not having a relationship with a person of the biological sex that is intentionally missing in their home?

Parents in these two-parents-of-the-same-sex households may then begin to feel that these year-after-year memorial days are offensive and demeaning to their preferred family model. Convincing themselves of that may be preferable to recognizing that their child is simply asking questions concerning their attempt to circumvent either the law of God or, if you will, the obvious laws of nature. After all, our natural tendency is to suppress the truth, because believing the lie somehow, in the moment, serves an end we desire more than that which we fear will come about if we accept the truth.

Those who support same-sex “marriage” and don’t want anyone to be offended or feel victimized will then feel compelled to criticize Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as anachronisms inconsistent with our “enlightened” understandings about human sexuality, marriage, and family.

What Is at the Root of all This?

Those who understand the root cause of what is going on in the blurring of the lines between male and female should not find these thoughts Orwellian. They are a result of denying God as the Creator and all things being His creation and embracing the view that the cosmos is all there is, expressed by the naturalist in the scientific dogma of evolution and by the religious as pantheism.

Theologian Abraham Kuyper expresses well why this is so:

For centuries the Church of Christ has guarded its barrier against every open or cry to pantheism by solemn confession in the inaugural of its Articles of Faith: ‘I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth;’. . . The most distinctly marked boundary lines lie between God and the world; and with the taking away of this line all other boundaries are blurred into mere shadows. For every distinction made in our consciousness . . . takes root a last in this primordial antithesis . . . But every pantheist starts out with the denial of this primordial antithesis, which is mother to every antithesis among creations.

Unless the Church regains its doctrinal footing by challenging the denial or irrelevance of God as our Creator, which washes over us at every turn, and gathers the courage to proclaim the truth in the public square, we better enjoy Mother’s Day while we can.1

NOTES

  1. Abraham Kuyper, Pantheism’s Destruction of Boundaries.

David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event

silhouette of a head with puzzle piece missing with TN Capitol in the background

Tennessee Legislation Demonstrates Why Liberals Are ‘Mentally Unstable’

I sat in a Tennessee Senate Committee hearing two weeks ago, listening in one ear to a debate over “child marriage” while listening through the earphone in my other ear to a House Committee meeting in which the issue of gender identity vis-a-vis biological sex in locker rooms was debated. It struck me a few days later just how the arguments by liberals on both bills were both irreconcilable and perfectly reconcilable. How could they be both?

How Were the Arguments Irreconcilable?

In the Senate, liberals1 argued that the law should not discriminate in the assigned usage by minors of locker rooms and bathrooms relative to gender and that objective phenomenon like biological sex must always give way to subjective psychological phenomenon.

On the other hand, in the House, liberals reversed the argument. They argued that the law should discriminate between 17- and 18-years-olds in the licensing of marriages and that objective chronological age must always give way to the more subjective criteria of maturity. Some mother, married at the age of 17, was more mature in regard to marriage than Zsa Zsa Gabor with her nine marriages ever was!

I won’t take time to explain how a believer in the transcendent Creator God of Scripture could reconcile opposing arguments of the liberals in both cases, for that is not my point. The point, today, is that the second argument demonstrates that liberals are not, in fact, against all discrimination in the law. They really know that law, by definition, “discriminates” between one type of conduct and another or between one person or another, though they try their best to suppress that knowledge when they want to do something the law prohibits (of course, by “discriminating” against them).

Upon What Basis Will We Engage in Necessary Discrimination?

So the question isn’t whether we should or should not discriminate or whether the law should or should not discriminate. Rather, the question is this: On what basis should we discriminate? How shall we decide between those discriminating judgments that are either good or worth tolerating and those that are bad and should not be tolerated?

This is a question for which liberals who deny God or the existence of any pre-political, pre-governmental law by which human laws can be measured are at a complete loss.
It’s not that they don’t give answers to that question; it is just that, based on their premise of autonomous human beings, they cannot provide a basis upon which to judge the rightness of the various answers. Their whole premise is that there is nothing outside the individual person by which the ideas of the individual person can be judged.

The most commonly accepted answer among liberals is pragmatism—what is best for the most number of people. That answer is great if you are among the larger number of people and not so great if you are in the minority.

And, of course, those enlightened liberals who believe in the sovereignty of man’s reason know that arguments based on authority, popularity, and the like rest on logical fallacies. They are logical fallacies because, absent other evidence, a belief that what is best for the most number of people in a particular situation is just as likely to be false as true.

How Liberals Reconcile the Otherwise Irreconcilable

And therein is the ground upon which I could say that liberals’ arguments in these two situations are reconcilable—their denial of objective truth.

When we deny that there is any objective truth imposed on us or to which we are subject, then we can do and say and think whatever we want. We can be as illogical and irrational as we want to be.

Better yet, no one can say we should not think irrationally or illogically. For that would be a real rule, and the liberal denies the existence of real rules. To be consistent, liberals must say we are free from the rule that reason or logic should be the rule!

The Real Reason Liberals Can’t Insist on Reason and Logic

Here, though, is the problem liberals face. If they allow room for just those two transcendent, imposed rules of determination—rationality and logic—then they have cracked open the door of the vault in which they have locked away God.

Transcendent, imposed rules can only come from a transcendent Creator God, and we are subject to those transcendent, imposed rules only if we are His creatures. But if that’s the case in these two instances, then we are subject to our Creator in all instances for we are, at all times, creatures.

This is a thought too horrible for the liberal. But here is the really horrible thought that the liberal ignores: He or she is, by definition, mentally unstable, for his or her thinking rests on nothing stable.

I think the Apostle Paul put it this way: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).

NOTES

  1. I use the term liberals to refer to the post-modern person who denies that there is any transcendent Creator or any metanarrative that explains reality and the course or direction of history. I do not use Democrat or Republican because those labels are meaningless when liberalism is defined the way I’ve used it. Many elected Republicans are liberals, as so defined, who don’t realize they are liberals or are simply afraid to fully embrace their liberalism because it brings particular results they don’t like.

David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event