# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S126 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) discrimination ordinance. Remember that phrase: sexual orientation and gender identity. The acronym is SOGI. Those are the laws that say if you believe we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other, you’re discriminating. You’re either discriminating on sexual orientation or you’re discriminating on gender identity. And so in all those jurisdictions, Catholic and Lutheran adoption agencies can no longer do the important work they do. And frequently, it’s these religious agencies that have the highest track record, the best track record, at placing the hardest-to-place children into loving homes. Many people want to adopt newborn babies. They’re cute, and they’re cuddly. Not as many people want to adopt an 11-year-old boy who spent the past several years bouncing around from foster home to foster home. What’s remarkable is that, in Boston, Catholic Charities had one of the highest success rates at placing the hardest-to-place kids. Chalk this up either to Catholic guilt or to grace. But one way or the other, the religious agency was able to do something that the government-run agency couldn’t do. They got more people to open up their hearts and their homes to more children. If you’ve ever renewed your driver’s license at the DMV, then you know what that experience is like. It might give you a reason to think that the DMV of child protective services might not provide all of the services that a family could want during an adoption process. Religious agencies can minister to the entire person and minister to the entire family, both the material needs and the spiritual needs of welcoming a new human being into the home. Religious agencies can no longer do this in those jurisdictions. Then we’ve seen schools come under assault. And we saw that for the past year, Gordon College, an evangelical school outside of Boston, was under investigation by its accrediting agency as to whether or not it will retain its accreditation as a four-year liberal arts college because they had a campus policy that said we expect chastity from all members of the Gordon community. So both faculty and students were expected to reserve sexual behavior for marriage. And the complaint that was lodged with the accrediting agency was that this discriminates against gay stu- 126 | UPON THIS ROCK dents and gay faculty members because they can never get married and, therefore, never have sex. This is discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, they say. And it was only after a year’s struggle with the president being very prudent in how he responded to this investigation, and with the media placing pressure on the accrediting agency, that Gordon prevailed. The accrediting agency said we see no reason at this time to revoke Gordon’s accreditation. Brigham Young University, the Mormon school out in Provo, Utah—its law school is currently being investigated by the American Bar Association. And during oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito asked the solicitor general of the United States, “What’s going to happen to the nonprofit tax status of Christian schools who continue to teach that marriage is the union of husband and wife? Will they be treated the way that Bob Jones University was treated?” Recall that the IRS stripped Bob Jones University of its nonprofit tax status because it had a campus policy against interracial dating. So the question from Alito is, “Are you going to treat traditional Christian schools the way that the IRS has treated racist schools?” And the answer from the solicitor general was somewhat chilling. He said, “I don’t deny it, Justice Alito, that’s going to be an issue. I don’t deny it, it’s going to be an issue.” He repeated himself. The easy response, especially when you are trying to get the Supreme Court to vote in your favor to redefine marriage, is to say, “Of course not, Justice Alito. We’ll never treat Orthodox Jews and Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians and Latter-day Saints and other people of faith who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife, we’ll never treat them as if they are racists.” He could have said that. He didn’t say that. And so whether that’s for the remaining months of the Obama presidency, whether it’s for the next eight years of a potential Hillary Clinton presidency, he left that card on the table to be played should the moment become opportune. And in fact, California is voting as we speak to decide whether or not to play that card. It has passed the California House. It’s now in the California Senate. It’s a bill that would deny Cal grants—the state’s version of a Pell grant, which gives the student up “Special Presentation”