Federal judges have been striking down state marriage laws right and left, so it was encouraging to see one judge who understood his role in the judicial process and acknowledged judicial precedents. Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote in his opinion for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that states have the right to define marriage, especially when the is based on basic biology and thousands of years of history and tradition.

He wrote that marriage “has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades.” You have to appreciate a judge who understands the importance of traditional marriage and its place in light of thousands of years of history and tradition.

He went on to say: “Process and structure matter greatly in American government. Indeed, they may be the most reliable, liberty-assuring guarantees of our system of government requiring us to take seriously the route the United States Constitution contemplates for making such a fundamental change of such a fundamental social institution.” You also have to appreciate a judge who understands that a few unelected judges should not overturn laws governing marriage. This should be the action of legislatures or a state amendment process that reflects the will of the people. The judge also acknowledged earlier precedents for traditional marriage.

Judge Sutton also noted that basic biology affirms traditional marriage (they complement each other). In a previous commentary about the book by Sean McDowell and John Stonestreet, I summarized their simple syllogism: sex makes babies; society needs babies, and babies deserve mothers and fathers. These three truths form the foundation for traditional marriage.

Now that there are conflicting decisions from different appeals courts, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will step in to take a case involving the state amendments that were passed to define marriage. We can hope that the justices see the wisdom in the opinion by Judge Jeffrey Sutton.

The TV program, “The Walking Dead” is the highest rated TV program about zombies. As scary as that program might be, there are other zombies that could make your life miserable. I am talking about the Zombie Congress.

In the past, we described a Congress after the elections as a “lame duck Congress.” The term was coined centuries ago to refer to a stockbroker who defaulted on his debts. A lame duck cannot keep up with the flock and is an easy target for a predator.

As descriptive as the name might have been, I prefer the name “Zombie Congress” given by columnists like George Will. These Zombie legislators wander the halls of Congress looking for mischief. The “undead” in this case no longer have to represent their constituents because they were defeated at the polls. So they feel free to pass all sorts of bills that harm our country.

Jim DeMint reminds us in a recent column about all the damage that has been done by previous sessions of the Zombie Congress. While Americans were focused on the holidays “Obamacare was rammed through the Senate on Christmas Eve in 2009.”
Other Zombie Congress sessions gave us a “bailout, debt limit increases, big spending bills, special interest tax breaks, and even an ill-advised arms treaty with Russia.”

Until the last few decades, the threat of a lame duck Congress or a Zombie Congress was not too great. Defeated members of Congress would shuffle home and consider what their next job might be. Today, they stick around and can do significant damage to the country. That is why I think we should be even more vigilant during these next two months.

The leaders in Congress should send the zombies home, but we know that won’t happen. So we will have to pay attention to Congress during this holiday season or else be surprised and disappointed about the bills that are passed while we are focused on food, family, and football.

Yesterday I talked about Brittany Maynard ending her life using Oregon’s “Death with Dignity Act.” I also mentioned how euthanasia is being used in the Netherlands. We can see the problems with physician-assisted suicide by looking at what is happening in Europe.

An article in The Christian Institute warned that the euthanasia rate in the Netherlands is increasing dramatically. “Euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands have risen by 151 percent over the last seven years.” Back in 2006, about 2000 people were put to death. Now the annual euthanasia deaths are approaching 5000.

When you break down the numbers, there are other ominous implications. About 3,600 people in the Netherlands were euthanized because they had cancer. But nearly 100 were put to death because of dementia. And the study also found that many people with psychiatric problems were put to death in this country’s system.

Dr. Peter Saunders, Campaign Director of Care Not Killing, said, “What we are seeing in the Netherlands is incremental extension of the steady intentional escalation of numbers with a gradual widening of the categories of patients to be included.”

In a recent Breakpoint commentary, Eric Metaxas calls the phrase “incremental extension” an example of the slippery slope. In my book, Christian Ethics in Plain Language, I talk about how phrases like “death with dignity” and the “right to die” have evolved into the idea that people with illness or disability have a “duty to die.”

Peter Saunders raises these questions because the U.K. is considering legislation that would put England on the same path as the Netherlands. He said that the “House of Lords calculated that with a Dutch-type law in Britain we would be seeing over 13,000 cases of euthanasia per year.” He added that might be a low estimate. He also warns that “once you relax the law on euthanasia or assisted suicide, steady extension will follow as night follows day.”

If you want to know why physician-assisted suicide is a bad idea, all you need to do it look at Europe.

Earlier this month, Brittany Maynard ended her life. She had become the public face of the euthanasia movement when she moved to Oregon so they she could end her life using Oregon’s “Death with Dignity Act.” Before doing so, she engaged in a video campaign with the group Compassion and Choices.

The debate over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been taking place for decades, but her publicized choice about ending her life once again brings the debate into the public arena. Wesley J. Smith says: “Compassion and Choices wants to exploit her assisted suicide as a crow bar to pry open California and other states to legalizing doctor-prescribed death.”

Already three countries and five states have some form of physician-assisted suicide. We can see the extreme in the Netherlands. In my book, Christian Ethics in Plain Language, I document the number of people who have been put to death without their consent. Doctors in that country are even allowed to decide if a child with a disability should live.

What about this term death with dignity? In her column in the San Francisco Chronicle, Debra Saunders asks a great question. “If Maynard died with dignity, then does that mean that others who do not choose to choreograph their death lack dignity?” She explains that the language that has been chosen by pro-euthanasia advocates: “death with dignity suggests that there is something undignified about holding onto life.”

What will be the impact on the disabled? Joni Eareckson Tada believes that assisted suicide poses a significant danger to people with disabilities. “Who is to say when multiple sclerosis or ALS is classified as terminal? People who receive a diagnosis of a chronic disabling condition often experience suicidal feelings, but later adapt very well.”

Death with dignity might sound compassionate, but the reality of the slogan should concern everyone.

Today is Veteran’s Day. This is an almost forgotten event and yet it deserves as much attention at Memorial Day. Some of our European allies value it more than we do, but I will get to that in a minute.

Veteran’s Day began as Armistice Day. As “The Great War” (which we today call World War I) was winding down, there was a need to designate an official time for the end of hostilities. The Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919. Fighting actually ended seven months earlier. The armistice ended on the eleventh hour of the eleventh month in 1918. The following year, President Woodrow Wilson designed November 11, 1919 as Armistice Day.

Unfortunately, World War I was not the war to end all wars. By 1954, Congress amended the previous legislation by striking out the word “Armistice” and inserting the word “Veterans.” This day is set aside to honor all American veterans of all wars.

We can learn something from how other countries honor this day. A number of years ago, I was in London’s Heathrow airport on Veterans’ Day. They announced over the loudspeakers that there would be silence at 11 AM. I was a bit skeptical about how obedient the passengers would be. I was surprised. When time came to stop and reflect, the airport was absolutely quiet for a minute or so. We can learn something from the British and their reverence for their war dead.

What can we do this day to honor those who have served us? You might want to visit a military cemetery and put flags on graves. I have been to military cemeteries in Hawaii and the Philippines and have seen what is done there. We need to do the same back home. Those of you who live near the nation’s capitol might visit one of the memorials for veterans. You might encourage your local school to participate in the “Take a Veteran to School Day.” Students need to see veterans and hear their stories of service.

Take an opportunity today to honor veterans, and thank anyone you know who has served this country.

Now that the midterm elections are behind us, we should focus on what is even more important: culture. Many Christians argue that elections are downstream from where real change in taking place. Often politicians and judges are making decisions to “catch-up” with the culture. Mark Steyn understands this.

He writes about this in his book, The Undocumented Mark Steyn. He gives us a preview of some of his insights in his New York Post article, “The real battle for America is over culture, not elections.” His argument is simple. Culture trumps politics. In many ways politics is merely the reflection of cultural change.

He acknowledges: “You can’t have conservative government in a liberal culture, and that’s the position the Republican Party is in.” He goes on to explain: “Liberals expend tremendous effort changing the culture. Conservatives expend tremendous effort changing elected officials every other November — and then are surprised that it doesn’t make much difference.”

Try this as a thought experiment. Imagine that some of the candidates you supported who lost their elections actually won. How much difference do you think their election would make as the culture has become more secular and anti-Christian? There might have been a few less assaults on religious freedom, but the impact of a single candidate on many of these cases might be negligible. What would be the impact on a culture that seems to be embracing homosexuality and same-sex marriage? Again, there might be a small impact, but the culture trend continues.

Mark Steyn concludes that: “If the culture’s liberal, if the schools are liberal, if the churches are liberal, if the hip, groovy business elite is liberal, if the guys who make the movies and the pop songs are liberal” electing a particular candidate “isn’t going to make a lot of difference.”

This isn’t to say that elections aren’t important. Elections do have consequences. But the lesson here is that culture trumps politics.

Os Guinness has been reminding Christians of the need for civility in the public square. He made that case in his previous book, The Case for Civility. And the theme surfaces once again in his new book, The Global Public Square. He talks about the concept of “soul freedom” and laments the loss of the first liberty (religious liberty) here and around the world. He sets forth a constructive vision for how society can address the issue of human dignity and justice for all.

In the course of the radio interview, we talked about the need for civility in our public discourse. I added that often people think civility means that we must be “wimps for Christ” and never make a strong, robust argument. We talked about one illustration that Os Guinness uses to illustrate how a robust but civil debate can and should take place.

Up until the 19th century, boxing was a brutal sport. In 1867 the Marquis of Queensberry lent his name to regulations that today are known as a Queensberry rules. Boxers touch gloves to begin and don’t punch below the belt. They still fight until someone loses, but the rules changed the sport.

During the interview, Os Guinness used the example of William Wilberforce. He entered the ring in 1787 by arguing for the abolition of slavery. He was defeated every year for 20 years. But he was willing to continue to enter the ring of political opinion and fight with everything he had to persuade until he was able to prevail.

Through it all Wilberforce was gracious. He was humble and loving. Twice his opponents attacked him in the streets of London. Nevertheless, he remained strong but gracious.

Wilberforce is a model for speaking truth in love. He had strong opinions. He was an eloquent debater. But he was also gracious and civil. We need to adopt Wilberforce’s model of civility today, especially since so many in the political arena have become shrill and contentious.

Whenever one of us complains about what is being shown on television these days, we are likely to hear the favorite cliché: “If you don’t like it, just change the channel.” Melissa Henson of the Parents Television Council took on that tired cliché by explaining how meaningless it really is.

What started the discussion was a blog post by a mother complaining about what she saw on Good Morning America at breakfast. They aired what could only be considered a soft-porn ad for a program called “Betrayal.” The ad depicted a man and woman fully nude and having sex. This is not exactly what you expected to see over a bowl of oatmeal while trying to get everyone out the door.

The cliché (just change the channel) rings very hollow as an appropriate response. The mother and her children weren’t watching a primetime soap or a cable mini-series. They had no reason to expect such content on a morning show they were watching to catch up on the news or to check the traffic and weather. Her son’s innocence died a little bit on that morning.

Melissa Henson rightly observes that the “just change the channel” mentality puts the burden on the parents and relieves the networks of any responsibility. Incidents like this require parents to be constantly on guard even at time when you would never think such an image would be shown. This mentality also gives networks a green light to air whatever they want whenever they want.

Melissa Henson says that the “just change the channel” crowd might as well be saying “throw out your television sets.” That is a more realistic solution than the one they are suggesting. And I am not surprised that I am hearing from more and more of the listeners to my radio program that they decided to get rid of their television sets. It is easy to understand why people are doing that. The “just change the channel” cliché implies you should have no say in what is pumped into your home through the television set.