It is one thing to talk about “fairness” when it comes to allowing gays and lesbians to marry; it is quite another to claim biblical authority for such relationships.

President Obama cited the “Golden Rule” about treating others as you would like to be treated, but in doing so he ignored the totality of Scripture and the Lord Himself, who alone gets to set the rules for human behavior.

The president says he is a “practicing Christian.” It is difficult to be one while simultaneously holding a low view of the Bible, which his position on several social issues might suggest.

The same Book that informs him about the Person he told Pastor Rick Warren in 2008 is his “Savior,” also speaks to the beginning of human life (he has done nothing to limit abortions), fornication between adults of the opposite sex (no word yet on his position on that subject), marriage, and adultery, which the Seventh Commandment and New Testament passages condemn.

I recently wrote that it is becoming increasingly difficult for people who believe the Bible is God’s Word to impose their beliefs on those who disagree with them. But it is something altogether different for those who disagree to claim the Bible doesn’t say what it says, in effect calling God a liar. President Obama apparently hopes there are sufficient numbers of biblical illiterates—and he could be right about this—that either won’t notice his sleight of hand, or don’t care.

Thousands of years of human history have sustained marriage between one man and one woman. Even human biology testifies to a natural order.

Genesis 2:24 says “… a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. The two shall become one flesh.” Jesus, Whom President Obama likes to selectively quote when it suits his earthly political agenda, honored traditional marriage at a wedding feast in Cana (John 2:1). He also reaffirmed the Genesis passage in Matthew 19:5.

Paul, the Apostle of Jesus, wrote in Ephesians 5 about husbands and wives, male and female.

Scripture teaches that the marriage union between a man and woman is an illustration of how Christ and the church are one (Ephesians 5:32). It also teaches that since God made us, conceived of marriage, and created sex to be enjoyed within the marital bond, He gets to set the rules and establish the boundaries for human behavior, not because He is a curmudgeon who wants to deny us pleasure, but because He knows what is best for us.

Liberal theologians have tried to modify, or even change, what is contained in the Bible and there are those in our time who are following their example with the issue of same-sex marriage. People are free to accept or reject what Scripture says. What they are not free to do is to claim it says something it does not. In modern times that’s called “spin.” In an earlier time it was called heresy.

The Apostle John warns in Revelation 22:18-19 about the punishment awaiting anyone who adds to, or subtracts from Scripture. Deuteronomy 4:1-2 has a similar warning. The consequences aren’t pretty. There are also warnings not to preach “another Gospel” (Galatians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 11:4; among others).

As he seeks to justify his position on same-sex marriage and other issues that are either questionable at best, or deny Scripture at worst, President Obama might be said to be preaching another gospel. This could possibly lead to a fissure in his solid support among African-Americans, costing the president votes in November. It will also likely galvanize the culture warriors. Minorities mostly vote for Democrats, but they don’t like their faith denied. That could cause some of them to stay home on Election Day, or even vote for Mitt Romney.

The negative reaction the president received from some of the African-American ministers he called last week after declaring his support for same-sex marriage should serve as a prophetic warning.

© 2012 Tribune Media Services Inc.

Barack Obama won in 2008 because of the financial meltdown, the war in Iraq, the opportunity to make a statement about racial equality, and his personality.

Four years later, the only thing going for him might be his personality, but reports of Obama ego unbound are hurting him. Some current blowback: One of Obama’s aides, perhaps obeying instructions, inserted mentions of the boss into official White House bios of former presidents. Here are a few of the examples pulled together by Investor’s Business Daily:

• “On Feb. 22, 1924, Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. … President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls.”
• “President Herbert Hoover signed the bill founding the Department of Veterans Affairs July 21, 1930. President Obama is committed to making sure that the VA, the second-largest cabinet department, serves the needs of all veterans. …”
• On August 14, 1935, President [Franklin D] Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama Administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.”
• “President Truman wrote that government has ‘an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.’ … Today the Obama Administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces.”

We also learn that John F. Kennedy began the Peace Corps, but “President Obama celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps with a Presidential Proclamation,” and that “President Reagan designated Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday; today the Obama Administration honors this tradition, with the First and Second Families participating in service projects on this day.”

Etc., etc., regarding 20th century presidents. Meanwhile, President Obama seems intent on showing that he’s brighter than his 19th century predecessors, yet even The Washington Post called him out with a headline, “Obama’s whopper about Rutherford B. Hayes and the telephone.” (Obama asserted that Hayes—backward-looking Republican—thought phones useless, but Hayes tried out one in 1877 and called it “wonderful.”)

One result of this hate crime against Hayes is an internet meme showing a photo of Hayes with the words, “Wouldn’t insert himself into Obama’s biography.” Others have come up with “In 1877 telephones were the future and windmills were the past,” or “Balanced four annual budgets. Didn’t borrow a trillion per year.”

Many more are at Quickmeme. One is sharp but oversimplified: “His election was close because Democrats didn’t let blacks vote.” Another is sharp and personally pointed: “Rode a horse in battle swinging a sharp sword and dodging musket balls. Obama: Can’t ride a bike on a quiet Sunday afternoon without mom jeans and a safety helmet.”

And the beating goes on.

Two distinct events. First, Indiana Republicans will go to the polls tomorrow to decide whether to make Sen. Richard Lugar, who has been a Capitol Hill fixture for 35 years, their candidate for a new six-year term. Second, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam last Thursday vetoed a bill that would cut off some $24 million in state aid to Vanderbilt if the university persists in its plan to force student religious groups to allow anyone, believer or not, into organizational leadership.

The common denominator is that Lugar and Haslam have both received praise for acting in thoughtful ways. The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan on Friday offered “The Case for Dick Lugar.” She called Lugar “sober and responsible. … Right now, and more than ever, we need mature folk involved in our governance. … There is value in the ability to take the long view, and do your best with modesty.”

Meanwhile, The Chattanoogan.com’s David Tulis praised Haslam for adhering “to a philosophy of limited government and a reluctance to use even the most well-intentioned power of the state to overwhelm a private institution’s government and to dictate terms.” Haslam said he disagrees with Vanderbilt’s policy and approved of the legislature directing state universities but not private ones. Even though liberals try to control private institutions that receive some taxpayer funds, Haslam contended, conservatives should not do the same.

Some conservatives disagree. Noonan noted the GOP’s “growing sense that for 40 years, members of the party have sent Republicans to Washington and Washington—its spending, its regulating, its demands—keeps getting worse, not better.” Our human tendency is to fight fire with fire: When the left keeps pushing for more and more, we wonder whether Lugar-like politeness in the Senate amounts to unilateral disarmament.

I don’t have a recommendation for Indiana voters, but I do ask a strategic question: Do liberals keep increasing state power because they know that if gentlemanly conservatives are in charge the increased power will not be used against them? Maybe so, but it still seems to me that conservatives should not act against principle and grow government even when we might gain a temporary tactical advantage.

Tulis appropriately quoted John Calvin: “When tyrants reign, let us first remember our faults, which are chastised by such scourges; and, therefore, humility will restrain our impatience.” That makes sense to me, but I’d also welcome readers’ opinions on this, as I think about a possible future column in WORLD.

The New York Times this morning has a surprisingly positive profile of GOP leader Paul Ryan. Meanwhile, NYT columnist Paul Krugman and New York magazine are scathing in their criticism.

Among Christians a lot of confusion remains, in part because Ryan (as I reported in WORLD last summer) has combined admirable budget analysis with troubling esteem for Christ-hating Ayn Rand. Happily, he has now clarified (or changed) his stance concerning Rand.

First, let’s review the past. Ryan told The Weekly Standard in 2003, “I give out Atlas Shrugged as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it.” In 2005 he told an Atlas Society gathering, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.” In 2009 he posted a pro-Rand video on his Facebook page and wrote, “It’s as if we’re living in an Ayn Rand novel right now. I think Ayn Rand did the best job of anybody to build the moral case for capitalism.”

Now, the problem: Rand actually offered the amoral case for capitalism. As Chuck Colson noted in an article last year critiquing Rand, and Ryan’s advocacy of her work: “What makes this newly renewed regard especially troubling is that Rand’s worldview is explicitly anti-Christian. She once said she wanted to be known as ‘the greatest enemy of religion.’ And when Rand said ‘religion’ she meant Christianity, which she once called the ‘kindergarten of communism.’” Colson was right. It’s striking that Atlas Shrugged ends with hero John Galt making the sign of the dollar instead of the sign of the cross.

Finally, the present: Earlier this month Ryan told National Review, “I reject her philosophy. … It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview.” He said, “I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them. … They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman. … If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. … Don’t give me Ayn Rand.”

I’ve requested an interview with Ryan, but no go so far. In his defense, Rand did create bold characters (although with as much depth as Superman or Lex Luthor). She showed the dangers of both government control and corporate acquiescence. So if Ryan liked those aspects, I can’t fault him, and I’m glad he’s distanced himself from her theology.

UPDATE: Video of the debate between Marvin Olasky and Matt Kibbe is now available for viewing at the Grove City College Center for Vision and Values website.

OUR EARLIER REPORT (April 19): Can libertarians and compassionate conservatives get along?

That’s the question in tonight’s debate between Marvin Olasky, editor in chief of WORLD Magazine and author of The Tragedy of American Compassion, and Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of FreedomWorks and coauthor of the New York Times bestseller Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.

The debate is hosted by Grove City College as part of its annual Center for Vision & Values conference, this year titled “The Challenge 2012: The Divided Conservative Mind,” and will be streamed live at the Vision & Values event website beginning at 7 p.m. EDT. You must first register at the website before watching.

Just days after Resurrection Sunday, we are all no doubt occupied in our thoughts with the risen Savior. The resurrection of Christ changed everything. The pagan world passed from tragedy to hope, while the Jewish hope found its fulfillment. The Spirit of Christ spread love across the Roman world, and the concepts “human” and “society” acquired new significance and depth.

If Christ’s resurrection was the ultimate game changer, then politics should look different this side of the empty tomb. With the advance of the gospel, Christians should see the possibilities for political life the same way we see the new possibilities for personal, family, and community life. God’s redemptive plans for our shared civic life should instruct us in how we shape our world in the confidence of those plans. You might call this “post-resurrection politics.”

In a post-resurrection world, rule can become public service as it ought to be. With the cross in mind, Jesus contrasted His own lordship with the lords of the world:

“You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45).

On the cross, He served and sacrificed, and He showed us what it means to “govern” and what politics can be under the gospel governance of redeemed people.

Post-resurrection government should help people govern themselves. God says that under the New Covenant He will move His people from within by His Spirit to keep His laws (Ezekiel 36:27). That vision is not fully realized until Christ’s return, but after the resurrection every eschatological picture has some present reality. Because Christ is changing people from the inside out, government should secure and cultivate people’s ability to govern themselves, i.e., conduct themselves with restraint, industry, and charity (cf. 1 Peter 2:14).

Post-resurrection public service leaves room for the mutual service of a post-resurrection people. Insofar as Christian people are growing into the image of Christ, they will so overflow with charity for one another that any government tempted to overreach in its activity will be hard pressed to find anything left to do. A government that is conscious of Christ’s victory will rather stir up that Christian capacity in its people for mutual service.

It is true that many citizens aren’t alive in Christ, and some are not even Christians. But wise leaders govern not only in the confidence of gospel life but also in the awareness of the cultural power of gospel influence. God’s post-resurrection people are salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16).

In post-resurrection political life, government should help people do what Christ redeemed them to do: Govern themselves in holiness and serve one another in love.

One side of the political aisle claims that requiring American citizens to show a photo ID to elect other Americans to positions of power presents a hardship to “the poor,” blacks, and Hispanics. The claim is absurd on its face and even more so when you consider that people have to show photo ID throughout their lives, including when cashing a check, boarding a plane, or even entering the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which opposes voter ID laws.

Voter fraud doesn’t have to be rampant to pose serious problems. One fraudulent vote is one too many, especially in close contests. In a stunning and ironic display of potential fraud, James O’Keefe, who released undercover videos of ACORN employees advising operatives on how to break the law, released this week an undercover video that revealed how easy it is to commit voter fraud in the nation’s capital.

During the April 3 primary in the District of Columbia, an operative entered U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s polling place in northwest D.C. and gave Holder’s name and address. The poll worker searched the records, found it, and asked the operative to sign “his” name. The operative said he left his ID in the car. The worker said he didn’t need it. The operative said he’d feel more comfortable showing his ID and left.

The DOJ downplayed the sting. “It’s no coincidence that these so-called examples of rampant voter fraud consistently turn out to be manufactured ones.”

Manufactured or otherwise, doesn’t the sting expose the potential for fraud? The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics thinks so. The agency has launched an investigation into the incident.

Columnist and author John Fund notes that absentee voting also is open to fraud. Most states don’t require ID for absentee ballots. In Jamie Dean’s WORLD cover story on voter ID laws, she paraphrased Fund on the issue. Absentee ballots tend to favor Republicans. Just as Democrats oppose voter ID laws because the people likely not to have photo IDs tend to vote for Democrats, Republicans “often downplay serious abuses of mail-in ballots.”

The right to vote is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, but it’s not absolute. States are authorized to set voter qualifications. For example, they may require an age minimum and residency, but they may not require poll taxes or literacy tests. No laws prevent “the poor,” the elderly, or racial and ethnic minorities from voting. Any citizen qualified to vote may vote. Even if one is poor in the true sense of the word, one can obtain a state-issued photo ID at no cost. All it takes is going down to the local DMV—which can be an equal opportunity nightmare.

The best way to prevent voter fraud is to require in-person and mail-in voters to verify their identity. Politics is contentious by design, and common-sense voter ID laws will help ensure the integrity of the voting process. Ask yourselves what sort of person would object to accuracy and honesty in choosing men and women to positions of power.

WASHINGTON—The White House said it was coincidental that President Obama held his first press conference of the year on Super Tuesday, when primary and caucus voters go to the polls in 10 states, but reporters focused on the rising threat of Iran, not domestic politics.

“Now, I understand there are some political contests going on tonight,” Obama began, to chuckles. “But I thought I’d start the day off by taking a few questions, which I’m sure will not be political in nature.”

The press pursued questions mainly on whether Israel and the United States are moving toward war with Iran. Obama ratcheted back talk of any military action, saying that the new economic sanctions the administration has imposed need time to work, with new oil sanctions set to take effect in July. He also said the Iranian government has shown openness to diplomatic talks.

“We have a window through which we can resolve this issue peacefully,” Obama said. … COMPLETE STORY >>

Read Emily Belz’s complete Web Extra report.

The hysteria over the news that the Virginia General Assembly is on the verge of passing a law requiring women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound and to have an opportunity to see the images went national over the weekend.

Opponents of the bill have been complaining that to find and monitor the heartbeat as the law requires, the ultrasound may involve a “transvaginal” probe (rather than an external abdominal procedure) because in early weeks the child is still so small. This, say opponents, such as some protesters at the Virginia Capitol who were quoted in a lengthy Associated Press story over the weekend, is “state-mandated rape.”

The AP story was widely picked up across the country, Saturday Night Live mentioned the Virginia ultrasound and “personhood” bills in a “Really?” skit mocking conservative positions on abortion and the Obama administration’s birth control mandate, and today The New York Times has a long, Section A piece on the ultrasound controversy. Now that the Times has weighed in, we can expect the national networks to pick up on it today or tomorrow.

The pressure is now on Gov. Bob McDonnell to amend and tone down the ultrasound bill should it arrive on his desk. As The New York Times reporter assured readers, “The bill has drawn intense public attention, and a spokesman struck a more muted tone over the weekend, a shift that opponents said could mean that the governor might amend it before signing it.” It added that political analysts say that “he is seen as a possible contender for vice president on the Republican ticket and could be calculating how the bill will be perceived by a national audience.”

Very subtle.

We’ve argued before that not signing this bill—and other conservative measures—is exactly the wrong approach if the governor wishes to maintain his viability as a potential candidate for vice president. If he wants serious conservatives to continue supporting him, they should reasonably expect his continued support on the issues that matter most to them.

And as the backlash over the Obama administration’s birth control mandate and the close attention now given to Rick Santorum’s pro-life and pro-family positions show, social issues are not something that a potential national candidate can hope to duck in the coming months.

The Virginia House may well vote today on the ultrasound bill and is very likely to pass it. If Gov. McDonnell really is pro-life, there’s no point in trying to hide that now.

This column originally appeared at WORLD Virginia.

When one writes about moral convictions, it’s probably a good idea to consistently live up to them. That way people can still disagree with your convictions, but they have a difficult time accusing you of hypocrisy.

Last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, I failed to live up to one of my highest principles. Here’s the background. The story about the Obama administration’s attempt to force Catholic and other faith-based institutions to offer employees free contraception in their healthcare coverage was still fresh. I was asked to be on a panel before what looked like a crowd of about 1,000 conservatives, hungry for “red meat.”

A clip was played from Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program. It featured her commenting on the subject. I stupidly said before thinking, “I think she’s the best argument in favor of her parents using contraception.” I then added, “and all the rest of the crowd at MSNBC, too, for that matter.”

It didn’t matter that far worse things have been said in print and on TV about me. I am not supposed to behave like that. I co-wrote a book with my liberal Democratic friend Bob Beckel called Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America. We also write a column together for USA Today. One of the principles in which I believe is not to engage in name-calling, which, to my shame, I did.

The next morning I felt bad about it, so I called Ms. Maddow to apologize. It wasn’t one of those meaningless “if I’ve offended anyone …” apologies; it was heartfelt. I had embarrassed myself and was a bad example to those who read my column and expect better from me.

Maddow could not have been more gracious. She immediately accepted my apology. On her show she said publicly, “I completely believe his apology. I completely accept his apology.” To be forgiven by one you have wronged is a blessing, it’s even cleansing.

Politics has always been a contact sport. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went at each other like the worst of enemies, using some of the most outrageous and slanderous language. I don’t have bona fides equal to their founding of America, so there is nothing of similar magnitude on which I can fall back.

Maddow also accepted my invitation to lunch and we will soon meet in New York. I am looking forward to it. Since the incident, which, of course, garnered a mini-tornado of media and blogosphere coverage, I have watched a couple of her shows. Without engaging in any qualifiers, she is a strong and competent advocate for her position. Why do so many of us only watch programs that reinforce what we already believe? Where is the growth in that? Whatever else she may or may not be, she is my fellow American.

I have many liberal friends acquired over the years. They are impossible to avoid in the media, but I don’t wish to avoid them. They became my friends because I stopped seeing them as labels and began seeing them as persons with innate worth. That is what I failed to do in my first response to Rachel Maddow. One might expect a pro-lifer like me to support the birth of fellow human beings and not suggest they should never have been born.

I expect to like Rachel Maddow because my instinct is to separate the value of a person from his or her political position. For some strange reason (demon possession, perhaps) I failed to do that at CPAC.

So, apology delivered and accepted and lunch will soon be served. I’m trying to decide whose career might be hurt more should someone take a picture of us enjoying a meal and—it is to be hoped, at least by me—each other.

© 2012 Tribune Media Services Inc.