Sunday, May 13, 2012


Appearing embittered and embarrassed by the overwhelming passage of Amendment One on May 8th, the Charlotte Observer posted a sharply worded editorial within minutes of the announcement that the amendment had passed. Abandoning any pretense of impartiality and with very little restraint, the editors of the Observer blasted the good people of North Carolina who voted 61-39% in favor of the marriage amendment.

The editorial was entitled, “Same-sex marriage amendment vote is just wrong,” and it began with this indictment: “On Tuesday, North Carolina foolishly and shamefully joined 30 states with constitutional bans on same-sex marriages.” The end of the editorial was no less biting: “The [voting] result doesn’t show love. It’s wrong and disgraceful.”

In reality, it is the Observer which has acted “foolishly and shamefully” and it is the Observer’s editorial that “doesn’t show love” and is “wrong and disgraceful.” But the Observer not only indicted its own home state; it indicted every other state that has had the opportunity to vote on a constitutional same-sex “marriage” amendment – meaning 30 additional states – for their alleged foolish, shameful, wrong, and disgraceful actions.

Are the editors of the Observer so prescient and morally superior that they can make such harsh judgments against most of the nation?

The Observer claims that the language of the amendment “casts a cloud of uncertainty over the rights and benefits of unmarried couples – both gay and straight – and over domestic violence laws, child custody and visitation rights and end-of-life arrangements.”  

Not only is this disputed by a number of prominent law professors and law enforcement officials in North Carolina, but the constitutional amendments passed in at least 12 other states contain similar wording, and yet this ominous “cloud of uncertainty” has hardly been cast over the “the rights and benefits of unmarried couples” in these states. Otherwise, there would have been hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits flooding the courts in multiple states, not to mention a steady stream of horror stories making their way to the media.

Even the Observer admits that “Legal experts are divided on the possible effects,” yet it cannot seem to fathom that people of good conscience, wanting to ensure that activist judges would not redefine marriage in North Carolina (as happened in Iowa) would vote for the Amendment, convinced that the ominous worst-case scenario would not unfold.

The editors of the Observer express their hope that “there is a challenge to this misguided amendment,” claiming that it “unwisely writes discrimination into the state constitution.” Yes, according to the Observer, “The state is on the wrong side of history on this matter,” claiming that “Most Americans are increasingly rejecting this type of prejudice against gays and lesbians.”

The Observer’s editors thus makes the utterly specious claim that everyone who understands marriage to be what it has been throughout recorded human history (until the last 11 years in a handful of locations) is somehow guilty of discrimination. The Observer claims that it is prejudiced to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman (rather than being genderless), that it is discriminatory to say that kids deserve a mom and a dad, that it is bigoted to make a distinction between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions.

As for allegedly being “on the wrong side of history,” the accusation implicitly compares gay rights with civil rights, as if gay was the new black. In reality, it is a complete canard to compare skin color to romantic attractions and sexual behavior. (I discussed this at length in A Queer Thing Happened to America.)

Skin color is innate and immutable, while there is no reputable science that demonstrates that anyone is born gay (no matter how deeply rooted a person’s sexual feelings might be), and there are countless testimonies of those who have experienced a modification, if not a radical change, in their sexual and romantic desires. And no one is advocating for “gay only” drinking fountains or for gays to sit at the back of the bus, nor have gays been carried over to America as slaves, notwithstanding the very real rejection and bullying many gay Americans have endured.

As for American opinion, other polls have indicated that a majority of Americans still oppose redefining marriage. But even if those numbers are wrong, it is only fair to ask how much Americans have been influenced by the pro-gay media bombardment, as Vice President Joe Biden recently stated, “I think ‘Will and Grace’ probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody’s ever done so far.” And we are supposed to celebrate this as a great moral advance?

The truth be told, multiplied millions of Americans are concerned about the relentless encroachment of gay activism on their freedoms of speech, conscience, and religious expression, and they are grieved over the gay activist indoctrination of their children in the school system, from kindergarten to college. (There is actually a pre-school in Charlotte where teachers cannot address the four-year-olds as “boys and girls,” since that would be making a gender distinction.)

It was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who wrote that, “The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children,” and the vote for the marriage amendment was an act to decelerate the moral deterioration of our society. It was, therefore, an act of love.

History will ultimately vindicate the courageous people of North Carolina who voted for the marriage amendment, while the Observer’s editorial will contribute to a legacy of shame.


  1. Amazing.......Ive been thinking a lot about what kind of world, what kind of nation my children will inherit and the overwhelming thought as a parent is: "they will inherent the one I leave them" ......makes me want to fight now not with sticks and stones but with love for God, His Word and a love for all humanity.....Love in action....Standing strong for Gods values and showing pure obedience to what God says period.

  2. Article spot on. NC joined 30 other states in keeping normal, natural marriage constrained between 1 man and 1 woman. This has been happening now for thousands of years, so NC is not "on the wrong side of history." I've been to NC many times and God bless those who acted to vote for this amendment. What's just as disturbing (or more) is your comment on how four-year-olds in a Charlotte preschool cannot be called girls or boys. What are they called..."it?" Gender distinction is now

  3. Amen to all of this! I listened to you when you interviewed with Matt Slick and agree with you 100%.

  4. My soul cries out in pain as to the direction our nation seems to be taking. When the price of a gallon of gas is more important than the moral direction we are heading in is truly cause for concern. And it should not surprise us when we stand up for morality we are labeled as the ones who hate. I think I read in a book that we are to hate the sin but love the sinner.

  5. It is immoral and wrong
    to outlaw love.
    I think Nc is reverting instead of moving forward with the rest of the nation. There is nothing traditional about marriage in these years. The only truly unadulturated thing is love, and we cannot put barriers on that. Praise to the Charlotte Observer for observing the rights of ALL Americans.

    1. How did they outlaw love? So homosexuals no longer have the freedom to love their partner? Marriage is what marriage has always been, nothing has changed. And when was it the job of the government to legislate love?

  6. I find it rather disreputable of a person in Joe Biden's position to claim to have been educated by a sitcom, to assume that what is portrayed on TV is the truth of the matter. It would be like me saying that the show Cheers educated the American public about how fun loving bars are.
    It disturbs me to no end when a sound, well thought out argument is trampled on and voiced over with shouts of "bigotry" or "intolerant hatemonger" by the other side.
    It's like trying to have a meaningful debate in the middle of a rock concert, it's an exercise in futility. Thank you Dr. Brown for speaking the truth. God bless you!

  7. AMEN Dr Brown!!!

  8. There was a post from Kathy that was accidentally deleted, so I'll post it again here:

    "First and MOST importantly--the civil rights of a minority group should NEVER be put to popular vote. Next, marriage is a civil right and has been determined to be so since 1967. The issue of same sex marriage WILL go to the SCOTUS and that is where it should and will be decided. Unless the state i.e.--the government, finds compelling reason toe withhold the civil right, no groups may be fenced out. Moral disapproval or religious convictions are not justifiable causes to withhold civil rights.

    Christians should NEVER oppose civil rights and lastly--only 20.7% of the registered voters in NC voted for this Amendment. That means only 14% of the registered voters in NC decided on the inclusion of this amendment--hardly OVERWHELMING. "

    1. Re to Kathy:"Moral disapproval or religious convictions are not justifiable causes to withhold civil rights." And what would you consider to be an appropriate basis for saying no to something, anything at all? You say that these are invalid when they have been treated as such throughout history. Also, your concepts of the proper place of the Rule of Law and civil rights seem a bit misplaced. Marriage is a privilege recognized and protected by the Rule of Law, not a right.

  9. Joe Biden is irrelevant and whatever spews out of his mouth is poppycock. Even the great NYC mayor Bloomberg had his $.2 to say at the UNC graduation ceremony linking this to a "civil rights struggle."

  10. Kathy, marriage is the union of a man and a woman for biblical and social reasons. Any Christian who loves God and knows His Word should acknowledge that. And there is no civil right for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. God forbid! As for the vote, it was representative and quite overwhelming, as most everyone recognizes. The turnout, in fact, was exceptionally high.

    Finally, you don't even believe what you wrote when you say that "the civil rights of a minority group should NEVER be put to popular vote." So, if Muslim polygamists in America wanted the right to have all their wives recognized, the rest of us should not be allowed to vote on that? (Obviously, there are many other examples, but this one proves the point.)

    I've been praying for you in recent days, asking God to align you fully with His will and purpose. I am not pronouncing personal judgments on you, but I am so grieved to see how far you have strayed from God's beautiful truth by your solidarity with LGBT people. There is a higher and greater love, Kathy, and I pray you will discover it for yourself and for those you minister to.

  11. This blog post disheartens me in general, but I would specifically like to address one thing brought up here: the supposed incommensurability of LGBT rights with Black rights. Although you suggest that "skin color is innate and immutable," America's racial politics has had a much more complex history than one based on visible skin tone. The informal "one-drop rule" (and various legislative variations thereon,) which reigned for much of American history and stated that even "passable" Blacks were considered Black if they had "one drop" of African blood in them, clearly gestures toward the social construction of race; an individual that might be considered White through simple observation might be considered Black through a different (and more prevalent) lens, just as an LGBT individual might be considered innately or behaviorally queer through different socio-scientific lenses. Although the LGBT community has never been enslaved, it has experienced pretty consistent historical violence and discrimination, and--as I'm sure you've heard from those (like the editorial board at the Charlotte Observer) who are outraged by North Carolina's passage of the marriage amendment--the refusal to grant marriage rights to gays and lesbians cannot help but conjure up the not-so-distant memory of legislation banning interracial marriage.

    The suggestion that North Carolina might be on the "right side of history" due to the fact that thirty other states have similar legislation is also troublesome, as slavery--or, if that's too extreme of an analogy, state-sanctioned segregation--was at one time legal throughout the United States. You do not have to engage in the gay lifestyle yourself, Dr. Brown, but in a nation supposedly founded on religious freedom (and that includes freedom from the restrictions of a Christian morality by which some Americans choose to abide,) it is simple human decency to extend the rights you enjoy to all other individuals regardless of their own moral choices.

    I agree with Bonhoeffer here, but I interpret him differently from you: the kind of world that I would like to leave my children is one in which the morality or religious convistions of an individual are personal affairs, one in which secular political rights are bestowed on the public equally--both those who believe homosexual acts are immoral and those who do not--regardless of the identities (whether they be racial or sexual) of its constitutive individuals.

    1. Patrick, how can you compare behavior with skin color? And it is invidious to compare interracial marriage, which was marriage in every sense of the word (and even fully sanctioned in the Bible), with fundamentally redefining marriage. The comments in your post suggest to me that you are astute enough to recognize this.

      And do not LGBT people have the same rights I have in terms of protection from violence, equal opportunity, and the like? There are, in fact, plenty of prominent LGBT people in our society (contrast that with the fate of black Americans one generation ago).

      Moreover, as I just stated to Kathy, marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and there is no civil right for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman.

      Finally, as a follower of Jesus, I'm quite convinced that God has a better way than homosexuality, and so from the gospel standpoint, I will reach out to LGBT people with compassion while resisting gay activism.

    2. Let me elaborate on the comparison of skin color to homosexuality a little bit: while an individual might be culturally and visibly white, due to his biological inheritance of "Black blood", he could be oppressed because of his supposedly innate Blackness; conversely, while an LGBT individual may be perceived as "culturally" homosexual (i.e. his behaviors constitute choices independent of his biological makeup and his homosexuality is entirely culturally constructed,) he may just as easily be perceived as "biologically" homosexual (i.e. he is genetically predisposed to homosexual attractions, his brain was organizationally affected by things beyond his control--such as hormones--pre- or post-natally, etc.) Recent and continuing advances in neuropsychology are also increasingly providing materialist explanations for behavioral patterns; in other words, the differentiation between behavior and biology is becoming blurred.

      Although I will admit it has been a while since I've read the Bible, aren't there a number of other aspects in there by which we tend not to abide? The rules set out in Deutoronomy 22 allow for the stoning of a wife who has been discovered to have had sex before marriage. And didn't Solomon have 700 wives as well as quite a few concubines? This seems like the type of polygamous relationship you deplored in your response to Kathy.

      If you do not see marriage as a civil right, the rights allotted a spouse (e.g. hospital visitation rights) seem pretty important to me. The linking of political rights with a Christian definition of marriage is troubling to me, as that is clearly a case of mixing terms.

    3. Patrick, thanks again for your literate post. A few quick comments.

      1) Unless you want to argue that "our genes made us do it" (be it alleged violent genes or gay genes or homophobic genes), you certainly don't want to argue for biological determinism in behavior.

      2) There remains no reputable science that anyone is born gay, and to repeat, there are plenty of people who once were homosexual in practice and orientation but today are not. I know some of them personally.

      3) For your biblical questions, I would refer you to these three recent articles in response to Dan Savage. You can find them together here:

      4) I'm all for hospital visitation rights for whomever the person in question wants to designate. In fact, Amendment One explicitly states that it will NOT stand in the way of private contractual agreements.

    4. Patrick, one last note re: polygamy. It is actually not nearly as far down the slippery slope as is same-sex "marriage" (see here:, and examples such as that of Solomon are in the Bible to expose the why polygamy is wrong.

    5. There conversely remains no reputable science suggesting that homosexuality is not biologically based. And while you may know people that were once but are no longer homosexual, there are countless accounts of irreparable psychological damage done to LGBT individuals who underwent treatment for their "disorder."

      As for the response to Dan Savage, I wonder what qualifies Michael Brown--or any non-divine individual for that matter--to suggest that "it was through a misuse of the Bible that Christians justified slavery (along with segregation and the oppression of women) whereas it is by a proper use of the Bible that Christians oppose homosexual practice."

    6. Patrick, there's actually a mountain of evidence that homosexuality is not biologically determined. Start here: More importantly, are you arguing for biological determinism?

      Re: the alleged harm of counseling to help people with what you call their "disorder," actually, it is no more harmful than scores of other types of counseling, according to unbiased reports.

      As for what gives me the right to interpret the Bible, I have been so as a teacher of God's Word for the last 40 years, and there are right and wrong ways to interpret Scripture. Plus, the Bible says that God appoints teachers for His people, so it is possible that some of us could be gifted and called in this way. But anyone can make that claim, so let's look at specific chapters and verses in depth, in the original texts, and let's explore what they say.

  12. I completely stand by what I say and trust those educated in the Constitution to interpret that document for the citizens. Polygamy has been tested and found to be NOT in the best interest of the state because the state has found it is not an extension of equality to women. The other crazy slippery slope threat raised is marriage to children--this too has been found by the state to have compelling destructive effects to society.

    Thank you for praying for me Michael and I am quite peaceful and feel in the center of His will for my life. We do not say "Any Christian who loves God and knows His Word should acknowledge that." i love God and i know His word and I do not agree with you and I do no acknowledge your dogma as valid. So am I not a follower, do I not love God?

    Marriage in the US is a legal contract within the legal system. There are growing numbers of Christians who do not interpret the verses the way you do, and over 250 denominations, so who gets to pick the way we interpret to set the laws. This is why the SCOTUS is charged with this.

    If forty years down the road, Christians are the minority and Muslims are a voting majority, Christianity will still be protected because ALL gets tested against the Constitution. Marriage is a civil right for all men, for all people, for all citizens. That is the way the decisions each reads. Whether is is restricted to men and women will be decided by the SCOTUS, not in churches.

    The passage of Amendment 1 was done by the smallest majority vote of any marriage restriction amendment/decision in history of the vote by various states. The intensified pushback I have seen from the silent middle of the church in the past 4-6 months is clear. People are absolutely sick of the hatred, bigotry and discrimination. I have not seen this at any point before now. We will have this conversation in ten years with more clarity and history behind us.

    Amendment 1 will hurt families AND the church. This will shown to be true. My belief.

    1. Kathy, a colleague just sent me a link to the Truth Wins Out website where the article claims that I wrote my comment to you ("Michael Brown Writes to a Pro-LGBT Christian Activist"), as if I sent an email or letter to you about this issue, which, of course, is completely misleading. Does your claim to be a follower of Jesus cause you to ask them to revise their blog to say that you were commenting on my blog and I simply replied to you and that you failed to reply to me?

  13. Kathy, to use your words, people are "absolutely sick of the hatred, bigotry and discrimination" being shown against Christians in our society today. People have had it with gay activists shoving their agenda down their throats, trying to indoctrinate their children, taking away their religious right and freedoms, and twising the Word of God. You are totally on the wrong side of this issue, and if not in this world, then before the throne of God, you will come to that bitter realization. I will certainly continue to pray for you.

    As to whether you know God or love God, that's for Him to decide, not me, and it is not for me to judge your motives. But as to you whether you are rightly reading and interpreting the Word with regard to homosexual practice, I have no doubt that you are quite wrong.

    With regard to your other arguments, I see no point in refuting them seriatim, since we've both been around these issues time and again, and at this point, I don't believe you're actually open to hear what I have to say. I will only say that redefining marriage is far more down the slippery slope than is polygamy, and with regard to other societal changes brought about by gay activism, we witness the shocking reality of that slippery slope every day of the week.

  14. As far as the "slippery slope", out from the issue of abortion, I read in WORLD magazine that the "Journal of Ethics" put out a paper that effectively states that no one has the right to live merely because they are human. Further on it advocates the right to kill adults on the basis of, when you get down to it, whether they are a comfort or a bother to themselves or others. I believe a country in Europe already has euthanasia as a "human" right that is legally protected.

    How slippery can the slope get?

    How far will the homosexual agenda slide down that slope? I heard there are activist groups already calling out for the "civil" right to have sex with children.

    Now, that's a slippery a slope! No?

    1. Nelson, yes, some of these "ethical" arguments are chilling to the bone. Re: the push for pedophile rights, see here:

    2. I'm on the WORLD website now looking for that story. Do you happen to have a link? The search engine doesnt seem to turn up much. I'd like to have it for future reference and teaching.

  15. If defining marriage as between one man and one woman was immoral, how come no one figured it out until no earlier than 1970?

    If our secular historical moral role models- Voltaire, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, etc., had even hinted this definition was immoral, the sodomists would quote them every chance they get.

  16. Great article. I'm increasingly curious at how accurate those polls about "gay" marriage are. It seems that the claim is that opinion is moving towards the acceptance of homosexual marriage yet that has not yet been shown through the votes whenever it is addressed.

  17. I heard part of your comments on WAVA today.
    It appears that the gay community, and their supporters, MUST appeal to "religious" feelings , convictions, etc. because a purely naturalistic approach would marginalize them at best. How can you look at life from the Darwinist point of view without realizing that being homosexual is a dead end and could not be a viable option for the survival of the species?
    But we no longer insist that we think logically, let alone morally. Witness the individual, you mentioned, who plays guitar in a church band. He does not believe Christ ever existed? Given the historical evidence, he would do as well as to deny the existence of Alexander the Great, George Washington, Plato etc.
    As for Separation of Church and State: that issue will never resolve as long as individuals, who are anti-religion, continue to have the power to interpret our laws. Logic, understanding, etc. were long since abandoned in favor of an agenda.

  18. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman from the begining of time. And that is how it should always be. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Joe.And yes stoning was done in the old testament but in the New Testament Jesus stood before the people and said those who have never sin let them cast the first stone, and finishes with GO AND SIN NO MORE. This world keeps digging a deeper grave for every sin it does. Does it mean i hate them,No I love them and pray that they would repent from thier sins. Marriage should always be between a man and a woman.