Southern Baptist delegates at national meeting overwhelmingly call for banning same-sex marriage
DALLAS — Southern Baptist delegates at their national meeting overwhelmingly endorsed a ban on same-sex marriage — including a call for a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court's 10-year-old precedent legalizing it nationwide.
They also called for legislators to curtail sports betting and to support policies that promote childbearing.
The votes Tuesday came at the gathering of more than 10,000 church representatives at the annual meeting of the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
The wide-ranging resolution doesn't use the word "ban," but it left no room for legal same-sex marriage in calling for the "overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family." Further, the resolution affirmatively calls "for laws that affirm marriage between one man and one women."
A reversal of the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell decision wouldn't in and of itself amount to a nationwide ban. At the time of that ruling, 36 states had already legalized same-sex marriage, and support remains strong in many areas.
However, if the convention got its wish, not only would Obergefell be overturned, but so would every law and court ruling that affirmed same-sex marriage.
There was no debate on the marriage resolution. That in itself is not surprising in the solidly conservative denomination, which has long defined marriage as between one man and one woman. However, it marks an especially assertive step in its call for the reversal of a decade-old Supreme Court ruling, as well as any other legal pillars to same-sex marriage in law and court precedent.
Gender identity, fertility and other issues
The marriage issue was incorporated into a much larger resolution on marriage and family — one that calls for civil law to be based on what the convention says is the divinely created order as stated in the Bible.
The resolution says legislators have a duty to "pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law — about marriage, sex, human life, and family" and to oppose laws contradicting "what God has made plain through nature and Scripture."
The same resolution calls for recognizing "the biological reality of male and female" and opposes "any law or policy that compels people to speak falsehoods about sex and gender."
It urges Christians to "embrace marriage and childbearing" and to see children "as blessings rather than burdens."
But it also frames that issue as one of public policy. It calls for "for renewed moral clarity in public discourse regarding the crisis of declining fertility and for policies that support the bearing and raising of children within intact, married families."
It laments that modern culture is "pursuing willful childlessness which contributes to a declining fertility rate," echoing a growing subject of discourse on the religious and political right.
The pornography resolution, which had no debate, calls such material destructive, addictive and exploitive and says governments have the power to ban it.
The sports betting resolution draws on Southern Baptists' historic opposition to gambling. It called sports betting "harmful and predatory." One pastor urged an amendment to distinguish between low-stakes, recreational gambling and predatory, addictive gambling activities. But his proposed amendment failed.
Andrew Walker, chair of the Committee on Resolutions, said at a news conference that the marriage resolution shows that Southern Baptists aren't going along with the widespread social acceptance of same-sex marriage.
But Walker, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, acknowledged that a realistic rollback strategy would require incremental steps, such as seeking to overturn Obergefell.
"I'm clear-eyed about the difficulties and the headwinds in this resolution," he said.
Whistleblower's death casts pall on Dallas meeting
The two-day annual meeting began Tuesday morning with praise sessions and optimistic reports about growing numbers of baptisms. But casting a pall over the gathering is the recent death of one of the most high-profile whistleblowers in the Southern Baptists' scandal of sexual abuse.
Jennifer Lyell, a onetime denominational publishing executive who went public in 2019 with allegations that she had been sexually abused by a seminary professor while a student, died Saturday at 47. She "suffered catastrophic strokes," a friend and fellow advocate, Rachael Denhollander, posted Sunday on X.
Friends reported that the backlash Lyell received after going public with her report took a devastating toll on her.
Several abuse survivors and advocates for reform, who previously had a prominent presence in recent SBC meetings, are skipping this year's gathering, citing lack of progress by the convention.
Two people sought to fill that void, standing vigil outside of the meeting at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center Dallas as attendees walked by. The pair held up signs with photos of Lyell and of Gareld Duane Rollins, who died earlier this spring and who was among those who accused longtime SBC power broker Paul Pressler of sexual abuse.
"It's not a healthy thing for them (survivors) to be here," said Johnna Harris, host of a podcast on abuse in evangelical ministries. "I felt like it was important for someone to show up. I want people to know there are people who care."
Past attempts at reforms in the SBC
The SBC Executive Committee, in a 2022 apology, acknowledged "its failure to adequately listen, protect, and care for Jennifer Lyell when she came forward to share her story." It also acknowledged the denomination's official news agency had not accurately reported the situation as "sexual abuse by a trusted minister in a position of power at a Southern Baptist seminary."
SBC officials issued statements this week lamenting Lyell's death, but her fellow advocates have denounced what they say is a failure to implement reforms.
The SBC's 2022 meeting voted overwhelmingly to create a way to track pastors and other church workers credibly accused of sex abuse. That came shortly after the release of a blockbuster report by an outside consultant, which said Southern Baptist leaders mishandled abuse cases and stonewalled victims for years.
But the denomination's Executive Committee president, Jeff Iorg, said earlier this year that creating a database is not a focus and that the committee instead plans to refer churches to existing databases of sex offenders and focus on education about abuse prevention. The committee administers the denomination's day-to-day business.
Advocates for reform don't see those approaches as adequate.
It is the latest instance of "officials trailing out hollow words, impotent task forces and phony dog-and-pony shows of reform," abuse survivor and longtime advocate Christa Brown wrote on Baptist News Global, which is not SBC-affiliated.
In a related action, the Executive Committee will also be seeking $3 million in convention funding for ongoing legal expenses related to abuse cases.
What else is on the agenda?
As of late Tuesday afternoon, attendance was at 10,541 church representatives (known as messengers). That is less than a quarter of the total that thronged the SBC's annual meeting 40 years ago this month in a Dallas showdown that marked the height of battles over control of the convention, ultimately won by the more conservative-fundamentalist side led by Pressler and his allies.
Messengers will also debate whether to institute a constitutional ban on churches with women pastors and to abolish its public-policy arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission — which is staunchly conservative, but according to critics, not enough so.
Brent Leatherwood, president of the ERLC, said Tuesday he would address the "turbulence" during his scheduled remarks Wednesday but was confident in the messengers' support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
It is politicians – not regulators – who must make sense of the supreme court's gender ruling
It's almost two months now since the UK supreme court ruling on what makes a woman in the eyes of the law, which was hailed as a turning point in the battle over transgender rights. Not long enough for wounds to heal, in other words, but long enough surely to hope for a bit more clarity about what this means for everyday life: which toilets trans people can use, what this means for your local women's running club or gym, how employers can handle sensitive situations at work without outing or humiliating trans staff in front of colleagues and customers. But instead, the waters are getting muddier with every passing week. On Wednesday, Kishwer Falkner, now in the final five months of her term as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) watchdog, was grilled by the women and equalities select committee about the detailed code of practice she is due to submit to ministers next month, translating the ruling into everyday life. Since years of turning this issue into a political football haven't helped anyone, in an ideal world MPs could now leave it all in the hands of a trusted neutral arbiter, and resist the urge to meddle. Unfortunately, by the end of the hearing it was clear meddling may be urgently required. Within hours of the original supreme court ruling in April that 'woman' means 'biological woman' for the purpose of the Equality Act, and to the surprise of some lawyers, Lady Falkner had effectively pronounced inclusiveness dead. The EHRC issued interim guidance saying that trans people should stop using the toilets, changing rooms or NHS wards of their preferred gender – though for trans men who look male enough to be potentially frightening to women in female spaces, that's not straightforward – and only play on the grassroots sports teams of their birth sex. But is that really what the court intended? The former supreme court judge Jonathan Sumption has already warned of the risks of overinterpreting the ruling, arguing that he took it to confirm that single-sex services are entitled to exclude trans people, but not obliged to if they don't want to. Falkner, however, is sticking to her guns. Suppose you wanted to start a women's walking group, the Labour MP Rachel Taylor asked her, but you actively wanted to include trans women. Is that allowed? No, was the eventual answer: of course you can let your trans friend join, but then you'd be a mixed not single-sex group, and would have to also accept any man asking to join or risk getting sued. What the biological women in this group actually want – where they'd draw their own boundaries, or what feels right to them – is irrelevant on this reading, a position that may yet end up being tested in the courts. How any of this might be enforced in real life, meanwhile, seems vague at best. Asked how this imaginary walking group should check that every new member was definitely biologically female, Falkner suggested they might make a judgment on sight, but that nobody was going to be walking around with badges on policing it. Similarly on toilets, EHRC chief executive John Kirkpatrick told the committee that employers would need to provide facilities securing women's privacy and dignity, but that what that meant would vary locally and could be worked out 'on the basis of trust and openness and honesty'. With a large dollop of goodwill and forbearance on all sides, you can see how that might wash – except on this issue, there's vanishingly little of either to be found. The most awkward question, meanwhile, is whether a battle-scarred veteran of the culture wars such as Falkner is now sufficiently trusted to write the peace settlement. Originally appointed by Liz Truss to shake up an organisation seen by the Tories as too close to Stonewall, Falkner survived both attempted mutiny inside her organisation and vicious personal abuse from outside, as she dragged it into line with what would later end up being the supreme court's settled position: that trans women are not, in law, quite the same as biological women. She wouldn't be human if she didn't feel vindicated, and she was visibly emotional when the gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield (who has been through something similar) reminded her about the placards reading 'the only good Terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] is a dead Terf' or when protesters in 2022 dumped 60 bottles of urine on her office doorstep. But the legacy of those brutal years is that, fairly or unfairly, many trans people no longer trust the EHRC to defend their rights (as it's mandated to do for all protected groups). Falkner brushed off the committee's questions about that, saying she didn't see why people 'should become so fearful' when they haven't lost any rights (technically speaking, the court merely defined what the limits of those rights were). Yet where people do and don't feel welcome in society is determined by social norms as well as rights, and the former have swung from one extreme to the other in recent years; you don't have to disagree with the supreme court's ruling to see how that could be wildly disorienting. Though Falkner suggested it would be 'wise for space to be given to the regulator' to handle this – in other words, that parliament should back off – some Labour MPs are rapidly reaching the opposite view. A law that doesn't work in real-life scenarios is a law that doesn't work, full stop. On this evidence, parliament should prepare to roll up its sleeves. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court rules for girl with epilepsy in opinion that could affect education access lawsuits
The Supreme Court sided with a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy on Thursday in a unanimous ruling that could make it easier for families like hers to go to court over access to education. The girl's family says that her Minnesota school district didn't do enough to make sure she has the accommodations she needs to learn, including failing to provide adequate instruction in the evening when her seizures are less frequent. But lower courts ruled against the family's discrimination claims in court, despite finding the school had fallen short. That's because courts in that part of the country require plaintiffs in lawsuits against schools to show officials used 'bad faith or gross misjudgment,' a higher legal standard than most disability discrimination claims. The family appealed to the Supreme Court. The district, Osseo Area Schools, said that lowering the legal standard could expose the country's understaffed public schools to more lawsuits if their efforts fall short, even if officials are working in good faith. The district also argued that all claims over accommodations for people with disabilities should be held to the same higher standard — a potentially major switch that would have been a 'five-alarm fire' for the disability rights community, the girl's lawyers said. ___
NBC News
4 hours ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court revives FBI 'wrong house' raid lawsuit
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday revived a lawsuit against the FBI in a damages claim arising from an incident in which agents raided the wrong house in Atlanta. The ruling marks a narrow win for Toi Cliatt, his former girlfriend Trina Martina and her son Gabe Watson, who were all present during the house during the October 2017 encounter. The unanimous decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch means they can continue to press claims alleging assault, battery and false imprisonment under a law called the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), one of the few avenues to hold federal officials accountable. Litigation will now continue in lower courts. The case highlights the problem of law enforcement raiding the wrong house, which has happened in several high-profile cases. A district court judge and the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the government. The legal question touched upon on whether a particular provision of the law, which allows claims concerning the actions of federal law enforcement officers, is trumped in this instance by another provision called 'the discretionary function exception,' which protects certain judgment calls from liability. The court did not resolve that question, but did remove a barrier to the plaintiffs being able to argue it in lower courts. "We readily acknowledge that different lower courts have taken different views of the discretionary function exception," Gorsuch wrote. "We acknowledge, too, that important questions surround whether and under what circumstances that exception may ever foreclose a suit like this one." In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that "there is a reason to think" that the discretionary function exception should not bar the plaintiffs' claims. Her opinion was joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. During the raid in question the agents had guns drawn and used flag-bang grenades as they entered the house. Cliatt was handcuffed and thrown on the floor. Martin wanted to rush to her son but wasn't allowed to move. Watson, then aged seven, woke up to see agents with guns in his bedroom. The agents quickly left the house upon realizing their error and a supervisor returned later to apologize. The Justice Department in court papers said that a Garmin GPS device that FBI special agent Lawrence Guerra used to lead the team to the house had indicated the agents had arrived at the correct location. The FBI was seeking to arrest a man called Joseph Riley, who lived nearby. After they left the wrong house, the agents raided the correct home. Riley was arrested and later convicted.
