You can't have it both ways.

There is a cost involved with failing to take up arms against the lies of Satan. According to Chuck Colson, on his Breakpoint broadcast this morning:

In its 2003 Lawrence decision, the Supreme Court overturned Texas's ban on sodomy. Critics, I among them, warned that this precedent would open the floodgates to gay marriage, polygamy, incest, and a whole host of horribles. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a blistering dissent, charging that Lawrence "effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation."

Colson goes on to say that critics of Scalia's dissent at the time said that such a position was hysterical and homophobic. Well, now the Court is having to revisit the Lawrence decision. Why? According to Colson:

The occasion for revisiting Lawrence is the revolting case of Columbia University Professor David Epstein. Epstein is charged with third-degree incest for having a sexual relationship with his daughter. What made this case stand out, apart from Epstein's Ivy League credentials, was that his daughter was 24-yers [sic] -old and, by all accounts, a consensual partner to this repugnant union.

This fact prompted William Saletan of Slate to ask a question many people desperately wanted to avoid: "If homosexuality is okay, why is incest wrong?" Saletan isn't trying to justify incest-he's merely trying to get people to articulate a reason why, in light of Lawrence and similar arguments, society should distinguish between the two.

My question is a bit different: "Where were the Christian soldiers who should have stormed the Court demanding that the wisdom of God's Commandments rule the day, rather than the politically correct nonsense that seems to have a strange hold on our courts?"

Ideas have consequences. Morality is inextricably tied to theology. We either agree with God's design for sexuality, or we abandon all pretense of any sort of moral outrage, no matter how repugnant we find a given perversion.

Spiritual warfare is not an academic exercise; it is not a battle to be fought by clerics; it is not someone's fanciful imagination. It is real. Satan's primary weapon in the war is deceit. In the case of the Lawrence decision, a majority of the members of the Supreme Court of the United States were deceived into believing that we can allow a little bit of perversion, without opening the door to every kind of perversion that the totally depraved mind of man can invent.

Soldier, it is up to you to be salt and light within your sphere of influence. Get informed about what is going on around you. Understand what the consequences of ignoring God's precepts are, so you can winsomely engage in apologetic discourse with deceived unbelievers.

It is my belief that bombarding unbelievers with Scripture references to refute their worldly views is about as effective as reading them a few lines from the phone book. But understanding God's reasons for the boundaries He has graciously provided to protect us from the consequences of our total depravity, will allow you to argue irrefutably against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age.

Failure to be thus prepared may result in your being put in the same untenable position as the SCOTUS finds itself in currently. According to Colson:

Epstein’s lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo, said [as] much in a television interview: “It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home . . . How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”

While defenders of Lawrence purport to be appalled by such arguments, this is exactly what Justice Scalia predicted in his dissent. According to Justice Kennedy in Lawrence, the fact that the majority “has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral” isn’t sufficient justification for outlawing the practice. This kind of disapproval doesn’t justify an “intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

As a result of one bad decision, compromising with moral absolutes SCOTUS faces this dilemma:

If Epstein raises the Lawrence decision in pre-trial motions or on appeal, judges will be caught in a dilemma: apply Lawrence and sanction perversity or tie themselves into knots trying to distinguish what, under Lawrence, is indistinguishable.

It’s a dilemma of the Supreme Court’s making: It usurped the prerogative of the people and their elected representatives and created a hole so big that any kind of perversity could drive through. (Colson)

Remember, soldier, put on the full armor of God, including the belt of truth; the breastplate of righteousness; feet shod with the gospel of peace; the helmet of salvation; the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God; the shield of faith; and above all, intercessory prayer. Know God's precepts and the implications of ignoring them, and then, sergeant, get into the fray.

Dismissed.