Brody’s Story, Our Story

Photo: LCMS Communications

Some of the best things in life are right under our noses. True to form, one of these most life-affirming stories is happening right here in Southwest Wyoming. When Kemmerer’s Sabrina Montgomery appeared on the Mother’s Day episode of the Today Show (5/13/15), people all over America learned the story of Brody. Let me tell it to you.

The story began at Christmas, 2011. Nobody knew it yet, but the special gift named Brody had already come into the world. As the Mongomery's pastor, I knew of it early on. He did not show his face for the first time until August, the following year. As with all birthdays, his was both exhilarating and emotional. Like all kids, he was cute and cuddly. But he was also something more. 

Nobody could quite place their finger on it. Were his eyes like his mother’s? We weren’t quite sure.

It wasn’t until his 4-month checkup that the Doctor began to see enough signs to say it: Down syndrome. Downs is a diagnosis, not a disease. It is a special genetic arrangement found in about 1 out of 700 children born today. It used to be more common. But just before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, doctors developed a prenatal test for Down syndrome. Since then, about 90% of the people conceived with this condition never make it to birth.

It’s these prevailing and irrational attitudes that made the diagnosis feel like a punch in the gut. With no preparation, no time to adjust, no gradual dawning, the hopes and visions for the future were changed in the blink of an eye. They weren’t changed for the worse. They were just changed. But clarity on that point didn’t come immediately.

Clarity on this point was one of the first gifts that Brody brought to his family and his entire community. Let’s face it. We are conditioned to fear Down syndrome, and treat it like a disease. But Brody has caused all of us who love him to question our assumptions. Who says it’s a ‘disorder’? Different? Yes. Slower to learn some things? Yes. But he is perfectly ordered. Nothing needs to be “fixed.” His body, mind and spirit are a masterpiece in their own right.

Brody is exactly as he is supposed to be. He is not just ‘disabled,’ He is also ‘enabled.’ His cognitive and motor slowness in comparison to his peers only serves to highlight our own slowness to love and laugh. As his father put it, “He has never met a stranger.” If I were given a choice between his physical handicaps and my emotional handicaps, there’s a very real possibility I would trade my abilities for his.

As we learned these lessons, there was still more to come. Soon after the discovery of his Downs, doctors found a life-threatening heart condition. Early optimism about repairing it, gave way to the sad news from the best doctors at Children’s Primary that there is, “nothing we can do.” 

We were told that the strains on his heart would grow more severe until it simply couldn’t keep up with the body’s needs and he would die. He would probably make it to his second birthday. But almost certainly would not live past five. This diagnosis, in itself, was like a death. But in that death we found new life.

While his parents looked for treatments to heal the heart, days were filled with doctors, diagnostics, and decisions. But once every option was cleared from the table, peace replaced anxieties. And in that peace, we all found a new purpose. 

Brody’s life, while short, was given as our temporary gift. He was to be cherished and enjoyed, not fixed, not mourned, not desperately clung to, just enjoyed. Here was his second great gift to us. Because while we learned this lesson about Brody, we immediately saw that it was true of every other person in our lives. 

None of the people in your life are permanent fixtures. Each comes with an expiration date. While we can and should care for them as much as resources allow, we are never in control. Our Maker, alone, has the power over life and death. We are only given to love those He has given.

Once this lesson was learned, Brody surprised us again. Through an unlikely series of connections, a doctor in Boston asked to have a second look at Brody’s heart. This doctor, on the cutting edge of open heart surgery, then announced, we can do something for him after all!

The surgery lasted four and a half hours. And the scar runs from his neck to his abdomen. But his heart is no longer his greatest handicap, but his strongest asset. He pinked up and started growing, learning, and developing like he never had before.

But then, Brody’s story took a new turn. On the very same day that Brody’s post-op exam found him in perfect health, his mother, in another room at the same hospital was diagnosed with breast cancer – stage 3a.

Now the tables were turned. Only months ago, Brody was likely to die before his mother. Now, his mother was likely to die before him. And so, once again began the painful and uncertain task of battling death. Radical surgery, radiation, and chemo-therapy each played their part.

Then, while she was beginning the most intensive and extensive course of chemo-therapy for her cancer, Brody’s story took yet another turn. A routine cold turned nastier than usual. The initial signs of R.S.V. were overlooked. By the time they were noticed, a life-flight from Gillette to Children’s Primary in Salt Lake City was his only hope. 

On the way, he was placed into a coma and hooked up to machines which would be his lungs for the next three weeks. It was a piteous sight to see this little boy splayed out on bed and hooked up to a dozen or so medications and numerous beeping monitors. 

As his lungs filled with fluid and complications mounted upon complication, hope faded. His heart stopped for several minutes while an army of physicians bustled about to get it restarted. Children in nearby rooms were succumbing to the same virus that was attacking his little body. It looked grim.

But what should we do in the face of life? Give up? Pull the plug? Stop fighting? To do this would be to stop reading the book before the story ends. We learn at such moments that we are not the authors of our stories. If we are reading the last chapter, we will never know it until the final page. And often, what we think is the last chapter is only the beginning. 

Who can say? Our lives lie in the hands of Another. This much is certain. Here is the undeniable reality that brings all of us human beings to the same place: You are not the author of your story. It is being written by Another. Some call the author Fate or Chance, others call it Life, most simply call Him God. But all acknowledge that someone else is in the driver’s seat.

Brody’s parents knew this too. They knew, as the doctors did, that no matter how advanced the medical care, no matter how hard the doctors and nurses fought for his life, no matter now strong or weak his body was, no matter how overwhelming the odds, whether he lived or died would totally depend upon the Author of Life. And because of their Christian faith, they were confident that Brody’s Author would write a beautiful story. 

As it turns out, Brody walked out of the hospital and his mother was pronounced cancer free. After a remarkable recovery, he is as healthy as any other 4-year-old. That’s when his story first went national on the Today Show in 2015. Recently, it just went national again. This time, it is being shared around the internet under the hashtag #eyesoflife. You can see photos and more of the story at eyesoflife.org.

As he celebrates his fourth birthday, we still don’t know whether we are in the opening chapters or the last ones. But, then, we don’t know that about our own lives either. We only know that our story is being written by another. Your life too, no less than Brody’s life, is a beautiful and exciting story. I hope that the lessons we learned from Brody can help you read your own story in a new light.


Further Resources:
Today Show, (5/15/13): Amazing Mom...
Eyes of Life.org: Sabrina

Judge’s Case Raises Troubling Questions

Next Wednesday (August 17) the Wyoming Supreme Court will be hearing a case which has huge implications for each and every one of us.

The case involves Judge Ruth Neely who has served with distinction for 21 years as the municipal judge in Pinedale, Wyoming. Since municipalities have no authority either to issue a license or solemnize a marriage, you would think that she’s unaffected by all the hoopla over same-sex marriage. 

But you would be mistaken. In a chillingly reasoned opinion, the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (CJCE) wants to remove her from her job and disqualify her for service anywhere in the Wyoming judiciary.

The story began on a cold Saturday morning in December, 2014. Shortly after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals declared Wyoming marriage statutes unconstitutional, a reporter from the Sublette Examiner called Mrs. Neely to ask if she was “excited” to perform same-sex marriage.

It was only because she had accepted a second, part-time job as Circuit Court Magistrate, that this question had any relevance at all. In that unpaid position, she was authorized, but not obligated, to solemnize marriages. 

She gave a perfectly reasonable reply. She said that if she were ever asked (she never has been) she would help the couple find someone to do the job. However, she would “not be able to do” it herself.

Based on this solitary exchange, about a hypothetical question, the CJCE has been waging what they call a “holy war” against her for more than a year. They are not content to send her a letter clarifying what she should have done, nor even a letter of reprimand. Instead, they are levelling the greatest possible punishment allowable by law.

Many legal points have been made in her defense. The most thorough and factual would be the two briefs that her lawyers filed before the Supreme Court on April 29 and July 8, 2016. You can find them at www.courts.state.wy.us/ (case #J-16-0001). I’m not going to rehash them here. What I do want to explore here, are a few implications of the CJCE arguments.

One central allegation against Judge Neely is the charge of bias. The CJCE claims that merely by publicly affirming the Biblical teaching on homosexual acts, she immediately and irrevocably made it impossible to judge fairly or impartially in any matter whatsoever. 

They make much of a private letter in which she discussed a number of Biblically named sins. The CJCE was so shocked that she would agree with the Bible that her religion (Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod) was called “repugnant” in open court.

Let’s think about this for a minute. Note, first, that the idea of “sin” is not a legal category. It is a theological category. Sins are against God. Crimes are against the government. For centuries America has known that something may be a sin without being illegal. Drunkenness, adultery, greed and blasphemy immediately come to mind. This is the very essence of the church/state distinction.

Every judge in America has been perfectly capable of applying the law equitably and fairly to people who engage in all kinds of sins without confusing sins with illegal activity. But now the CJCE wants Wyoming to believe that one sin, and one sin only, can no longer be called “sin” without threatening the entire judicial system.

If this reasoning is true, then it should apply to every judge who thinks something is a sin which the government has declared legal. Do you believe that drunkenness is a sin? Well, since there’s no law against it, you’re fired! You think that adultery is a sin? You cannot be a judge anywhere in Wyoming. Who will be left to sit on the bench? Only those who have no moral compass beyond the letter of the law.

A second major point that the CJCE makes is that Judge Neely, “by announcing her position against marriage equality,” openly spoke against the law of the land. Here is another curious position.

Does the CJCE really mean to say that any public opposition to any law should immediately disqualify a judge from office? The Commission might want to think that one through a bit more. 

The fact of the matter is that prior to October 6, 2014, same-sex marriage was against the law of the land. If the Commission is right, any and every judge who spoke in favor of same-sex marriage prior to then, should have been immediately removed from the bench. 

This would be rather awkward since Wendy Soto, even as the Executive Director of the CJCE, was on the board of Wyoming Equality and agitating for same-sex marriage long before it was legal. More than awkward, the implications of this would be staggering.

Should we drive all pro-life judges from the bench because of Roe v. Wade? Should we remove all judges who speak in favor of gun control because of the 2nd Amendment? While NARAL might favor the first, and the NRA, the second, nobody who understands the importance of free speech could seriously want either.

Ned Donovan - LinkedIn

And this brings up a third point that we should consider carefully. The CJCE goes to great lengths to argue that Judge Neely’s remarks to Ned Donovan were a “public statement.” Presumably, she would not be in trouble if she had said the exact same words in private.

But what exactly constitutes “public speech?” Certainly a judge’s remarks from the bench are official and public. Is a personal conversation with a reporter also public? If he had been seeking to protect his sources, nobody would ever know her name. But Ned Donovan was not looking for a story. He was looking to sack a judge.

The CJCE argues that since he identified himself as a reporter and was writing a story, Judge Neely should have known that this was public speech. What does this position do to the news industry’s right to protect its sources? If the media value their ability to get honest answers, they might want to speak out on this point.

Is the CJCE arguing that Judge Neely has the right to free speech, only as long as not too many people hear it. Does she have freedom of speech but not freedom of the press? This got me thinking. If she had said these things in a Sunday School classroom, would she still be charged with judicial misconduct? What about if she had said them in a restaurant while Ned Donavan was sitting in an adjacent booth? 

What about if she had written these remarks down before same-sex marriage became legal and Mr. Donavan published them afterwards? Should she then be hauled before the Commission and asked to publicly recant? The Spanish Inquisition was a really bad idea. Let’s not try it again.

This may all seem far-fetched, but it is not. In Atlanta Chief Kelvin Cochrane was fired for a self-published booklet that he wrote for his men’s Bible Study. Is Wyoming going to adopt Atlanta’s values?

If all of this sounds like the abridgment of Judge Neely’s free speech, it is. But never fear. The CJCE confidently asserts that this is permissible under the United States Constitution because it applies only to judges. Judges are prohibited from speaking publicly about their deepest held convictions, but no one else. How comforting!

This raises two more questions: First, if judges are not permitted to speak publicly about marriage (unless they are parroting the orthodoxy of the CJCE) what other topics will become taboo in the months and years to come? Nobody is saying yet. But I am sure we will be told when they are good and ready. 

Second, while this draconian abridgment of free speech is limited to judges today, by what legal theory does the CJCE exempt county clerks, teachers, public health workers or any other employee of the State of Wyoming? 

Their absolute silence on this point speaks volumes.

On August 17 the Wyoming Supreme Court is going to decide whether to keep Judge Neely on the bench or remove her -- and everyone who shares her convictions -- from our state’s judiciary. Let’s hope that they protect our freedoms to think, speak and act. If they don’t, it will not be the end of the matter. It will only open the flood gates to a million more questions -- and a lot less freedom.

Dear NBA, It's Been Fun

For decades the National Basketball Association has helped Americans come together around deeply felt, but harmless rivalries. Even during the most rancorous election cycles, polar opposites from the political spectrum could be seen cheering together for their favorite team in a winner-take-all contest of skill, teamwork, endurance and artistry. I, myself, will never forget the 1993 match up of the Phoenix Suns and the Chicago Bulls. Michael Jordan was poetry in motion. Charles Barclay, a bombastic charactor of undeniable skill. It made him an opponent we loved to hate. For me, that series will ever be associated with the height of human emotion. My wife and I watched Game 1 of the series in the hospital maternity ward, holding our first newborn child, a beautiful girl. All was wholesome, all was vigor, all was life.

Adam Silver (Getty Images)

Who could have known that 23 years later the very same NBA would be bullying a democratically elected legislature and governor to turn my daughter's world upside down? The NBA brand is now being used as a bludgeon -- a fifth branch of government -- to enforce the agenda of Obama's Education Department. They unilaterally wants to rewrite Title IX protections for our girls, into Progressive policies that make our girls less safe than ever. The spectacle of Adam Silver, a towering white male, issuing diktats to the girls of North Carolina makes me wonder what has happened to the entertainment industry.

It's time for a reality check. And that begins with a reminder that the NBA is an entertainment company, no more and no less. The NBA produces no tangible products. They are not retailers of food or clothing, auto parts or household goods. They produce no medicines and care for no people. There is absolutely nothing that I need from the NBA for my day to day survival. Microsoft, Google and Apple may have a near monopoly on my computing needs, Birkshire Hathaway may have a near monopoly on my engergy needs, Walmart has nearly driven all my retail needs into a one-stop box store. But the only reason for the NBA to exist is to feed my desire for fun and escape. Aside from that, they serve no useful purpose.

So what happens when it is no longer fun to watch an NBA game? What happens when the iconic NBA logo is superimposed on a bathroom icon? You see the image of a graceful athlete flying over the privacy wall in a woman's privy. What happens when all the stars of the NBA are made to serve the LGBT agenda? The mind's eye begins to see a toilet rim in place of the basket rim; and the annual three point competition is imbued with a whole new meaning of the word, "SWISH"! When the NBA was cognizant of their marketing niche, people from across the political spectrum could temporarily drop their rivalries and join together for a couple hours of wholesome, non-partisan fun.  But no more.

Now, for every minute that the NBA is on my TV screen, I am painfully aware that I, personally, am funding an elitist agenda. I could not even think of buying a ticket to see a game in person. Who knows how many of those dollars would be funneled directly to further the irrational and divisive agenda that the NBA now represents. T-shirts, socks, shorts and warm up pants that used to mark me as one who loves athletics and wholesome entertainment, now are free advertising for a juggernaut that is trampling the rights of my daughter and my wife. The fun is gone; and with it, the product.

I am not here advocating a boycott of the NBA. That would be the wrong term.  A boycott is a conscious decision to forego buying what you want to buy, in order to make a point. But my point is that the product has suddenly evaporated. The entertainment that the NBA offered for decades is simply gone overnight. The NBA has made the classic blunder of mistaking the means for the end.

Perhaps you remember a group of singers called the Dixie Chicks. They, too, were at the top of their game. But they took their eye off the ball. They thought that their product was high quality singing. It was not. It was entertainment, escape, fun. When Natalie Maines decided to turn their concert into a political platform, all the air came out of their ball in two seconds flat. It's not that they lost their musical genius, they simply stopped being entertaining. Market-forces did the rest.

Dear NBA, perhaps you think that your product was high quality basketball. You were equally mistaken. Your product was entertainment, escape, fun. It is painful to watch commissioner Silver daily letting the air out of the ball on national TV. The best basketball in the world cannot bring back the fun once a fork as been stuck in it.

I'll always remember the 1993 championship games. It is part of my family history. So, thanks for the memories. It was fun while it lasted. Good luck with the new product that you will be marketing from here on out -- whatever that is.

If Neely’s Rights Are Not Protected, Whose Are?

Long before Wyoming became a state, the U. S. Constitution declared, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free  exercise thereof.” 

Wyoming’s Constitution likewise is designed to “secure ...our civil, political and religious  liberties” (Preamble). So it declares: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall be forever guaranteed in this state, and no person shall be rendered  incompetent to hold any office of trust or profit, or to serve as a witness or juror, because of  his opinion on any matter of religious belief whatever.” 

These protections were created for people like Ruth Neely.

Mrs. Neely has served as the municipal judge in Pinedale for more than 21 years. In that position, she has served the people of Pinedale with a servant’s heart. She has a record, not only of fairness, but of compassionate problem solving. If you want compassion and common sense in our legal system, Judge Neely is for you.

Consider the time she learned that one of two parole violators was totally illiterate. Filled with compassion and creativity, she gave the young partners in crime an opportunity to shorten their jail time by the one teaching the other to read. In a short time, one young man was given a gift that the system had failed to give. A life was changed in Neely’s courtroom.

But now Wyoming’s Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (CJCE) wants her fired. Her crime? She honestly answered a reporter who asked if she was “excited” to perform same sex marriages. Like most Americans, she has always believed that marriage is about one man and one woman. She believes that children thrive best when they are raised by the two people who conceived them. 

Not long ago, “tolerance” was on bumper stickers everywhere. Today, it is in short supply. Social media is filled with trolls who spew blasphemies and hateful speech to silence and intimidate anyone who dares to advocate basic morality. But today in Wyoming, we are seeing a whole new ball game. Now it is not just an anonymous troll but an entire government commission trying to drive certain religions out of public life. No matter whether you’re religious or not Ruth Neely’s story is chilling.

When Ned Donovan asked a loaded question to Ruth Neely, he knew full well of her Christian beliefs on marriage. That was not news to anyone in Pinedale. But he used the power of the press to place her in an impossible situation. He promised to spike the “story” if she would promise to act against her conscience. When she did not, the story became the excuse for an investigation and a prosecution of Judge Neely lasting over a year. 

Still to this day, nobody has filed a complaint against her. Nevertheless, in a hearing last December, Pat Dixon, the lawyer for the CJCE, said of her commonsense Christian beliefs, “Personally, I find the position of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, which is the opposite of the other synods of the Lutheran Church -- I find that every bit as repugnant as I found the Mormon Church's position on black people” (CJCE Hearing, 12-4-15). Then, his closing remarks at their most recent hearing were, “I submit to you that somebody with that attitude really should not be on the bench” (CJCE Hearing, 2-19-16). 

These are breathtaking statements. As an officer of the state of Wyoming, not only is he insulting two widely different faiths in a single breath, he is also willing to punish one synod of Lutheranism while praising “the opposite synods.” As a pastor of the Missouri Synod, what should I conclude about his own open bias? This is what the Establishment Clause was meant to prevent! 

But, of course, this really isn’t about a single denomination. It’s not even about Christianity in general. Rather, the state of Wyoming is favoring a new religious belief about humanity while rejecting the unanimous belief of ALL major religions held in unison for millennia.
Equally chilling is that fact that the Commission wants to disqualify Judge Neely from being the city judge of Pinedale even though she has no marriage authority in that position. The CJCE unreasonably claims that her life-long beliefs suddenly make her incapable of fairly applying traffic laws and jay-walking ordinances.

But what about her marriage authority as circuit magistrate? Doesn’t her admission that she can’t perform same-sex ceremonies disqualify her? This sounds like a solid argument until you actually read Wyoming Statute 20-1-106, “Who may solemnize marriage?” 

It says, “Every district or circuit court judge, district court commissioner, supreme court justice, magistrate and every licensed or ordained minister of the gospel, bishop, priest or rabbi, or other qualified person acting in accordance with the traditions or rites for the solemnization of marriage of any religion, denomination or religious society, may perform the ceremony of  marriage in this state.” 

That’s it. That’s the only applicable law here.

This law authorizes hundreds, if not thousands of people across the state to solemnize marriages. And if that’s weren’t enough, it even allows for practically anybody else to be given authorization for a special occasion. 

The law is deliberately so broad that nobody is forced to be married by anyone they don’t want to ask, and nobody is forced to perform any marriage they are not “excited” to perform. 

Twice, our lawmakers used the word, “may,” not “must.” Our elected representatives wisely wrote a law that allows anyone to get married without infringing on the free speech of anyone authorized to do it. The reason is clear. Wyoming wants to avoid forcing any ministers, bishops, priests or rabbis to act against their religious convictions. And they wanted judges and magistrates to have the same protections.

Marriage is a religious matter, as even Mr. Kerry Drake admitted (Drake’s Take, 5-13-16). He thinks it’s Ruth Neely’s obligation to “sanctify any same-sex marriage.” 

These are religious words with specific content. It is not just that Drake and the Commission want same sex couples to be married—that would be easy. They also want all people, regardless of religion, to make or declare such marriages “holy.” This is consistent with what the CJCE said in the Feb. 19 hearing. They claimed the Commission is “fighting a holy war” on behalf of Wyoming’s taxpayers. 

Mrs. Neely, and millions of Christians with her, decline to call something holy just because the state establishes it as the new religion. Now the CJCE thinks it is doing God a service to use your tax dollars to persecute her. If the Wyoming Supreme Court agrees with the commission’s recommendation, it would communicate to the public that some professions are off limits for people who hold certain religious beliefs—a profoundly demeaning message to people of faith who share those convictions. 

If Judge Neely’s rights are not secured today, our Constitutional protections have become meaningless and no one’s liberty will long endure. The Supreme Court of Wyoming will soon have the opportunity to reject the commission’s prosecution of Judge Neely and reaffirm that, in this country, speaking about one’s religious beliefs does not disqualify a person from holding public office.

If Neely's Rights Are Not Protected, Whose Are?

Ruth Neely, Pinedale, Wyoming

Long before Wyoming became a state, the U. S. Constitution declared, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free  exercise thereof.”

Wyoming’s Constitution likewise is designed to “secure ...our civil, political and religious  liberties” (Preamble). So it declares: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall be forever guaranteed in this state, and no person shall be rendered  incompetent to hold any office of trust or profit, or to serve as a witness or juror, because of  his opinion on any matter of religious belief whatever.”

These protections were created for people like Ruth Neely.

Mrs. Neely has served as the municipal judge in Pinedale for more than 21 years. In that position, she has served the people of Pinedale with a servant’s heart. She has a record, not only of fairness, but of compassionate problem solving. If you want compassion and common sense in our legal system, Judge Neely is for you.

Consider the time she learned that one of two parole violators was totally illiterate. Filled with compassion and creativity, she gave the young partners in crime an opportunity to shorten their jail time by the one teaching the other to read. In a short time, one young man was given a gift that the system had failed to give. A life was changed in Neely’s courtroom.

But now Wyoming’s Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (CJCE) wants her fired. Her crime? She honestly answered a reporter who asked if she was “excited” to perform same sex marriages. Like most Americans, she has always believed that marriage is about one man and one woman. She believes that children thrive best when they are raised by the two people who conceived them.

Not long ago, “tolerance” was on bumper stickers everywhere. Today, it is in short supply. Social media is filled with trolls who spew blasphemies and hateful speech to silence and intimidate anyone who dares to advocate basic morality. But today in Wyoming, we are seeing a whole new ball game. Now it is not just an anonymous troll but an entire government commission trying to drive certain religions out of public life. No matter whether you’re religious or not Ruth Neely’s story is chilling.

Ned Donavan

When Ned Donovan asked a loaded question to Ruth Neely, he knew full well of her Christian beliefs on marriage. That was not news to anyone in Pinedale. But he used the power of the press to place her in an impossible situation. He promised to spike the “story” if she would promise to act against her conscience. When she did not, the story became the excuse for an investigation and a prosecution of Judge Neely lasting over a year.

Still to this day, nobody has filed a complaint against her. Nevertheless, in a hearing last December, Pat Dixon, the lawyer for the CJCE, said of her commonsense Christian beliefs, “Personally, I find the position of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, which is the opposite of the other synods of the Lutheran Church -- I find that every bit as repugnant as I found the Mormon Church's position on black people” (CJCE Hearing, 12-4-15). Then, his closing remarks at their most recent hearing were, “I submit to you that somebody with that attitude really should not be on the bench” (CJCE Hearing, 2-19-16).

Pat Dixon

These are breathtaking statements. As an officer of the state of Wyoming, not only is he insulting two widely different faiths in a single breath, he is also willing to punish one synod of Lutheranism while praising “the opposite synods.” As a pastor of the Missouri Synod, what should I conclude about his own open bias? This is what the Establishment Clause was meant to prevent!

But, of course, this really isn’t about a single denomination. It’s not even about Christianity in general. Rather, the state of Wyoming is favoring a new religious belief about humanity while rejecting the unanimous belief of ALL major religions held in unison for millennia.

Equally chilling is that fact that the Commission wants to disqualify Judge Neely from being the city judge of Pinedale even though she has no marriage authority in that position. The CJCE unreasonably claims that her life-long beliefs suddenly make her incapable of fairly applying traffic laws and jay-walking ordinances.

But what about her marriage authority as circuit magistrate? Doesn’t her admission that she can’t perform same-sex ceremonies disqualify her? This sounds like a solid argument until you actually read Wyoming Statute 20-1-106, “Who may solemnize marriage?”

It says, “Every district or circuit court judge, district court commissioner, supreme court justice, magistrate and every licensed or ordained minister of the gospel, bishop, priest or rabbi, or other qualified person acting in accordance with the traditions or rites for the solemnization of marriage of any religion, denomination or religious society, may perform the ceremony of  marriage in this state.”

That’s it. That’s the only applicable law here.

This law authorizes hundreds, if not thousands of people across the state to solemnize marriages. And if that’s weren’t enough, it even allows for practically anybody else to be given authorization for a special occasion.

The law is deliberately so broad that nobody is forced to be married by anyone they don’t want to ask, and nobody is forced to perform any marriage they are not “excited” to perform.

Twice, our lawmakers used the word, “may,” not “must.” Our elected representatives wisely wrote a law that allows anyone to get married without infringing on the free speech of anyone authorized to do it. The reason is clear. Wyoming wants to avoid forcing any ministers, bishops, priests or rabbis to act against their religious convictions. And they wanted judges and magistrates to have the same protections.

Marriage is a religious matter, as even Mr. Kerry Drake admitted (Drake’s Take, 5-13-16). He thinks it’s Ruth Neely’s obligation to “sanctify any same-sex marriage.”

Kerry Drake

These are religious words with specific content. It is not just that Drake and the Commission want same sex couples to be married—that would be easy. They also want all people, regardless of religion, to make or declare such marriages “holy.” This is consistent with what the CJCE said in the Feb. 19 hearing. They claimed the Commission is “fighting a holy war” on behalf of Wyoming’s taxpayers.

Mrs. Neely, and millions of Christians with her, decline to call something holy just because the state establishes it as the new religion. Now the CJCE thinks it is doing God a service to use your tax dollars to persecute her. If the Wyoming Supreme Court agrees with the commission’s recommendation, it would communicate to the public that some professions are off limits for people who hold certain religious beliefs—a profoundly demeaning message to people of faith who share those convictions.

If Judge Neely’s rights are not secured today, our Constitutional protections have become meaningless and no one’s liberty will long endure. The Supreme Court of Wyoming will soon have the opportunity to reject the commission’s prosecution of Judge Neely and reaffirm that, in this country, speaking about one’s religious beliefs does not disqualify a person from holding public office.

First Annual WPN Conference

Standing together for Marriage

November 10, 2015

What is Marriage? - Everyone is a proponent of marriage equality. But before we can understand how to treat all marriages equally, it is necessary to know what marriage is. Is there an objective way of answering that question? Does it matter? Ryan addresses these questions as he digests the book that he co-authored with Robert P. George and Sherif Girgas.

After Obergefell - Now that Obergefell v. Hodges has opened the door to nation-wide same sex "marriage," what will be the consequences for America? In this presentation, Anderson discusses religious liberty as a concept. Then briefs us on various cases before the courts today.

Four Lessons from the Pro-Life Movement - In his final presentation of the day, Ryan previews a book he is currently writing that discusses how modern marriage defenders can take up the lessons learned from the 42 years of experience in defending human life after Roe v. Wade.



PRESENTER

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and the founder and editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, New Jersey.

He is the author of When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment and Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, and he is the co-author of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination.
Anderson’s research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, in two Supreme Court cases.

He received his bachelor of arts degree from Princeton University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude, and he received his doctoral degree in political philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. His dissertation was titled: “Neither Liberal Nor Libertarian: A Natural Law Approach to Social Justice and Economic Rights.”

Anderson has made appearances on ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and Fox News. His work has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, the Harvard Health Policy Review, the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, the Weekly Standard, and National Review.

He is a member of the James Madison Society at Princeton University, a Fellow of the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America, and a Visiting Fellow at the Veritas Center at Franciscan University.

Follow him on Twitter at @RyanTAnd and for his latest essays and videos you can follow his public Facebook page.

The NCAA's Silent Sermon

Early Sunday morning, July 22, the church of college football preached a sermon without words. At Penn State University a work crew fenced off, covered, and  then removed a life-sized statue of the winningest coach in the history of college football. Next day, we learned that the removal of this icon of Joe Paterno's achievements foretold the removal of the achievements themselves. In an unprecedented step, the NCAA expunged  fourteen years of his coaching career from the record books. 111 wins are no longer wins. They are, rather, failures. Failure to defend children too weak to defend themselves.

What did Paterno do to deserve such a draconian punishment? Not enough. That's the problem.

Paterno is not a sexual predator by any account. No doubt he would be utterly appalled to learn the results of his inactivity. But that matters nothing to Sandusky's victims. The Louis Freeh Report is unequivocal.

The most saddening finding by the Special Investigative Counsel is the total and consistent disregard by the most senior leaders at Penn State for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims... Four of the most powerful people at the Pennsylvania State University -- President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley and Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno -- failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade. (p. 14)

As a result, their lives were damaged in irrevocable ways.

By the removal of an icon, the message was articulate and clear. You ARE your brother's keeper. And this silent sermon resonates in every human heart. The details of the punishment may be debated. But the outrage itself is beyond debate. The right thing was left undone. It should have been done. There is no excuse.

All of us are truly saddened. All of us truly hope and pray that the sanctions of the NCAA might help these victims heal a little bit. Finally their screams have been heard. Finally someone stood  up to acknowledge their existence and the pain they have endured in silence. Finally someone has  publicly said: You needed our protection. You deserved our care. We could have protected you. But we  did not. I pray God's peace and blessings on their recovery.

All of us are also looking toward Penn State University. We want them, and college football generally, to learn an important lesson. No entity, no program, no way of life is so important as to absolve  you of your responsibilities to even the smallest person. Mark Emmert, President of the NCAA, made  this plain: “Our goal is to not be just punitive, but to make sure that the university establishes an athletic culture and daily mindset in which football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing, and protecting young people” (Press Conference, July 23).

All of us should also be looking to ourselves. This lesson is not only for programs and institutions. It is a lesson for each and every one of us. You are your brother’s keeper. When your brother needs protection, no social program, no political loyalty, no peer pressure is a legitimate reason to fail him. Whatever the cost, whatever the inconvenience, whatever the sacrifice to success, reputation, friendship or social standing, every human being, no matter how small, is your brother; and you are your brother's keeper.

So, who exactly needs your protecting? Every reader of this column will be able to name certain people smaller, younger, more vulnerable than you. Their cries for help move you to action. There are also the nameless and voiceless. Every day 3500 new victims - people - are killed without being able to scream for help. Ignorance of their names and inability to hear their screams does not lessen our responsibilities. Nor do your personal feelings about abortion matter to the victims. Powerless victims are not helped by your affirmations. They need your voice. They need your care. They need your protection.

When a decade of coaching achievements are counted as nothing, it is a sermon we all must take to heart. To paraphrase Mark Emmert: "Our goal is not to be just punitive, but to make sure that our society establishes a culture and daily mindset in which partisan politics, personal ambition, or peer pressure will never again be placed ahead of defending, caring for, and protecting even the weakest of people."

For Sandusky’s victims, it is too late. Opportunities lost can never be regained. But, by God’s grace, this tragedy can open our eyes to the countless opportunities still before us. It is not too late for these people. We have our voice, we have Jesus’ compassion and, now, we have this lesson to spur us on. Today we see with the clarity of hindsight: Those unable to defend themselves must be defended by those who can. The right thing can be done. It should be done. We have no excuse.