Will the Supreme Court Reverse Same-Sex “Marriage” Next?

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. So, is the Supreme Court going to re-evaluate the decision to redefine marriage?

Is the overturning of same-sex, quote, marriage, next? It's time for The Line of Fire with your host, biblical scholar and cultural commentator, Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice for moral sanity and spiritual clarity.

Call 866-34-TRUTH to get on The Line of Fire. And now, here's your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome, welcome, welcome to The Line of Fire. Michael Brown, beyond delighted to be with you today. What a joy to be alive today in God's service. What a joy to know him as God and to have the privilege and opportunity of making him known. Welcome to all whether you believe in the same God or any God that I believe in, the one and only God that I believe in in worship, whether you're an atheist, an agnostic, a fellow follower of Jesus, a Jewish person who doesn't believe in Jesus, Muslim, Hindu, wherever you are, welcome.

I'm so glad that you're listening. In fact, I want to say a word about atheists in a moment. But first, let me give you your phone number, 866-34-TRUTH, 866-34-87-884. Anything you want to talk to me about as we get into the show, I'm going to open the phone lines for any subject, Bible, theology, culture wars, you name it. Any subject under the sun that's relevant at all to The Line of Fire, love to hear from you, love to get to your questions, 866-34-TRUTH. There are some comments that I've read by pastors or Christian leaders where I take very, very strong exception to what's been said.

One pastor blasting the Roe v. Wade decision, another former pro-life leader saying that these pro-lifers are not going to do anything about helping families and babies. I'm going to address them as soon as possible, but we've reached out through their websites first saying, hey, would you come on The Line of Fire? I'd like to talk to you, do an interview with you.

If they decline, then I'll be addressing those things. A whole lot going on that we want to talk about, some major things to think through together. We're going to do all that here. But friends, we are here to infuse you with faith and truth and courage. We are here to help you thrive in God, to be so healthy, to be so strong that the yokes of oppression and bondage will break off because of your health.

That's our goal. That's why we're here. What thrills me, though, is that many of you read what I write or listen to this broadcast or watch this broadcast, and you don't agree with me. In fact, some of you may listen because you're very hostile to what I have to say, but you want to keep apprised. You want to know what's going on, or it just kind of sharpens you or provokes you. I used to listen to a guy I really disagree with. My blood was kind of boiled listening, but I would listen.

And some, you just enjoy the discussion or whatever. You're drawing in your secret. But let me tell you something really interesting that happened that has really thrilled me. I'm finishing a book on why so many Christians are leaving the faith. The book's due out March of next year. September of this year, my next major book comes out, The Political Seduction of the Church. How Millions of American Christians Confused Politics with the Gospel. That's a very intense book, and it's going to create quite a stir of controversy, but I'm convinced I'm speaking the truth in love.

That's throughout September. The book I'm currently finishing writing is due out March of next year, Why So Many Christians Are Leaving the Faith. And writing that book, I've been thinking along the way about atheism and atheist objections to the faith. So I wrote an article, Some Honest Questions for Atheists, and I laid out, was it seven different questions? And they were asked sincerely. A few wrote back mockingly and, yeah, right, sure, you care about what we have to say.

But I wrote it sincerely, and I said, I'm going to read what you post with interest. Now, I know that some of the websites that carry our articles do not have a place for comments. Some used to, but the comments would pour in and some people would troll and get abusive and they didn't have enough staff to monitor the comments.

But some, you just can't post comments, or you can only do for like a day and it gets shut down. So I said, if you're reading this and you can't post your comments where you're reading it, feel free to write to our ministry. And I gave our generic email that goes to one of our staff members, and then she filters things on to others that should get them. So to my complete delightful shock, a couple of days ago, I get an email from Christa, who gets these emails and processes them. And she said, hey, I compiled the responses that came in from atheists, not from Christians who used to be atheists, because we got some of those, too.

That was separate. All right. But from those of you who say you're an atheist now, she said, I compiled them. So here it is in one document, 45 pages long of your responses, 45 pages long from atheists who are reading my articles. Well, I get a note this morning from our administrator and she said, we need some advice as to what to do because we got another hundred twenty two responses. And some of these could be longer than a page themselves. Hundred twenty two more responses.

And that only represents only a fraction of people who are reading. How many times have you read an article and then taken time to respond at length and answer seven questions and then have to stop and email it somewhere? So I will be reading each and every one that was sent in. You will be getting a note from our team from me through Christa, thanking you for taking the time to write. So from the heart, thank you for reading. Thank you for listening. Thank you for watching, especially those of you who differ with me, whether it's fellow believers who differ over minor points, whether it's people who differ with my worldview, differ with me on culture, differ with me on faith.

I'm so glad that you're here and I hope I hope you understand that my desire is is to pursue truth wherever it leads. In other words, I am 100 percent sure to the core of my being that God is real, that the God I worship is not a figment of my imagination. It is utterly and completely inconceivable to me that he is a figment of my imagination and that what I've seen him do over these 50 plus years and my interaction and fellowship with him, plus the truth of scripture, that that's just manufactured by human beings. At the same time, I understand that there are weighty reasons that people do not believe in God, reasons of substance, reasons that carry a lot of weight to them. And if we are to have any dialogue of any meaning, I have to feel the weight of your objection. I have to understand why you see the world the way you do the same thing within the faith. I'm very dogmatic on many points, but I don't believe I'm right on every single minor point in detail.

It would be complete arrogance and foolishness. So I'm always looking to be sharpened. I'm always looking to grow and genuinely, for those who see the world differently, I really want to understand why. That's why in my early days, when in 2004, my early days of getting involved with issues of gay activism, what prompted me to get involved was seeing what was happening in the community where I live. We live right outside of Charlotte, seeing what was happening in Charlotte, gay pride events, what was taking place there, businesses vying with one another to say who was more friendly towards gay activists, what was happening in schools. I got very burdened about the agenda, about the stuff, about the issues. But I knew if I was to have God's heart, I needed to care about the people also. So we're dealing with issues, we're dealing with people. So I went out of my way to reach out to local gay activists, like at that time the editor of Q Notes, which was the gay newspaper for North and South Carolina. So the editor then, gentleman probably in his 40s, I would read some of the stuff and he was tremendously hostile to people like me in terms of conservative Bible-believing people.

He bashed us and attacked us, but that was his world perspective. And I reached out to him, I think he was the first I reached out to, and I said, hey, we've got deep differences here, this is who I am. But we do live, you know, in relatively the same city nearby each other, and I'd like to meet with you.

So he was very happy to, very glad to, didn't take any pressure whatsoever. In fact, we stayed in touch on and off in the years that followed. But we went out and had lunch together, just went to a quiet place that he liked to go.

And actually in the back of a cemetery, we got some sandwiches somewhere, he said he just likes to go, it's quiet, he can reflect there. And we talked, and I wanted to know his story. I wanted to know his background. Why, so I could prove him wrong? No, so I could better understand the fellow human being.

So he better understand his life experience and his worldview. And we sat and talked, and I've done that over the years, met with others, met with the subsequent editor of Qnotes a number of times, but once just lunch, just the two of us talking. Met with a local lesbian activist after a gay pride event we met and chatted, she was happy to meet.

Many, a plain conversation, talking when I realized the person I'm sitting with is gay or lesbian, immediately I want to engage, and I want to ask questions, and I want to find out about their life experience, and I want to find out about their beliefs and how they view people like me. So why? Because God cares about those people, so I should care.

And because better understanding their story and better understanding their perspective will give me greater sensitivity in seeking to reach out. And when I'm speaking about issues where we have differences, I realize, hey, I'm going to say this, as I said, it's going to be very offensive to them. I hate that that's the case, but that's reality.

Like when I talk about same-sex quote marriage, that's very offensive to any gay person that's listening, especially to a gay couple. You think, oh, our marriage is not the same as your marriage. Oh, oh, we're not legitimate. Oh, oh, our love is not the same. Oh, oh, we're not really human the way you are. I mean, that's how it sounds. I hate that.

It hurts me. But I don't believe it's valid marriage in God's sight and therefore I have to be truthful. But hopefully if people get to know me well enough, they'll know it's not hatred or homophobia. It's simply saying, look, I play by the rules that God laid out. And this is what I understand.

He laid out that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The philosophy we've operated under since 2004 is reach out and resist. Reach out to the people with compassion, resist the agenda with courage. Friends, it blesses me. It means a lot to me that you listen, that you watch, that you read when you have differences with me. And hopefully in the midst of our differences, you'll find me to be reasonable. You'll find me to be a voice for moral sanity and spiritual clarity.

You may say that guy's totally wrong. But just understand, I do care. I don't just love God. I love people.

And my desire is to be a blessing and help in your life. OK, we come back. I want to talk about the Supreme Court and will it revisit the Obergefell decision? Then we're going to take some calls and then I'm going to talk to you about Senator Elizabeth Warren. Why is she declaring war on pregnancy crisis centers? What are they doing wrong?

What's so bad about them? We'll be right back. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks so much for joining us on the Line of Fire. 866-34-TRUTH. Phones open now for anything you want to talk to me about. In a few minutes we'll be going to the phones. Did you get my email today? The one that we have been wanting to send out for many months now. We finally sent it out. Yes! Announcing our Israel trip.

May 2023. Check your emails. If you get emails from us, maybe you want your junk folder. Otherwise, just go to our website. You'll find it right on the homepage.

Ask Dr. Brown. Askdrbrown.org These Israel trips really are the trips of a lifetime. This one, for the first time ever, we're staying in all five-star hotels. So you just get to enjoy the luxury of it while you're there.

Even better food, even better rest. The tour is just incredible. We'll have a glorious time together. I really believe that you'll be impacted in a way that you'll never forget. So check it out. AskDrBrown.org The earlier you sign up, the better, because at some point there's a cutoff. We don't know exactly the number, but we keep it intimate.

In other words, we're not going to have more than two buses, so it gives us great time to get to know each other, spend time with each other, and just connect before the Lord and connect in the land where Bible history unfolded and where future Bible history will unfold. Okay. President Biden said this, and I'm quoting from my article, Is Same-Sex Quote Marriage Next?

It's on our website AskDrBrown.org and posted on other sites as well. So President Biden said this back in May when the initial decision was leaked that Roe was going to be overturned by the court. And he said this. So again, President Biden has become militantly pro-abortion. His views have shifted much, much further left in recent years. He said it's not just the brutality of taking away a woman's right to her body, but it also, if you read the opinion, basically said there's no such thing as the right to privacy. If that holds, he said, mark my words, they're going to go after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. Now, when I read that, I thought, well, wonderful.

Let it be so. Let it absolutely be so that they go after same-sex quote marriage next because the court completely overstepped its bounds, totally overstepped its bounds by redefining marriage. It should have never been anything that the Supreme Court had the power to do. Could you imagine our founding fathers when they're setting up the separation of powers and everything and saying, oh, yeah. And if the court decides one day that two men can marry or two women can marry, we're good with that.

Not only would that have been completely impossible for them to countenance on a legal basis, but on a moral basis, that would have even been a poor joke for them to hear. Now, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion, argued for the very thing that President Biden warned about. He said, yes, we should reevaluate some of these past decisions, including the redefining of marriage, including the contraception decision, because there were laws against a couple in the privacy of their home using contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and some have argued, especially Catholic scholars and others have argued, no, this is not a person's right to do that, et cetera. So Justice Thomas said those should be reevaluated. Now, Justice Samuel Alito, in his opinion for the majority, said no, no, no, these are not to be compared. Now, he wasn't saying, hey, I differ with Clarence Thomas. He was just saying, for those who say this is going to be, in my words, like dominoes, one's going to go, the other's going to go, the other's going to go, you're going to overturn road, then you're going to overturn this, then you're going to overturn that. He said, no, no, because this involves, quote, potential life.

This is different than other cases. So David French explains it like this, and I quote again from my article, The Same-Sex Marriage Next. In plain English, Alito argues that abortion is dramatically different from cases involving marriage because abortion involves harm to a non-consenting party, the, quote, potential life, to use the language from Roe, of the unborn child. Interracial marriage involves consenting adults because people say, oh, they're going to outlaw that next. So it is gay marriage.

A person consents to using contraception. Prior cases protect conceptual adult sexual activity. But here's what Justice Thomas wrote. So he urged the court to revisit previous rulings on same-sex marriage and the use of contraception. He wrote, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. This is because any substantive due process decision is demonstrably erroneous. We have a duty to correct the error established in those precedents. So in other words, these rulings that have established precedents that were bad precedents, they should be revisited. They should be reevaluated. Because the court made a mistake, for example, the Lawrence v. Texas decision that said that there was a constitutional right to sodomy.

Think of that. Justice Scalia said, you open the door to that, you open the door to X, Y, Z, including redefining marriage, of course. He was right.

That's what happened. The Obergefell decision, redefining marriage, has become a precedent. Thomas is saying wrong precedent. It should be reevaluated. And then the Griswold decision, contraception.

He's saying that should be reevaluated as well. So what do I expect to see? Let me say again that to every gay couple listening to me, what I'm about to say is going to sound terrible and hateful to you, okay? Especially if you're raising children together. You're going to just look at me as a very bad or evil person, or you might.

You might be tempted to. But please understand once again that I'm simply following the manual that was given us. I believe the God who made us male and female, who made us to biologically reproduce, the one who made us so that to this moment, every child born into the world, all the billions and billions and billions of children who have been born into the world, every single one of us, we were produced by a male and a female.

That's just the way it works. And the union of marriage was not just for companionship. Companionship, yes. But also potential procreation. So only a male and female can potentially procreate. A male and male and a female and female. Just leave them alone on an island. Let them be intimate for 100 years till they pass away. They cannot biologically reproduce. Whereas males and females, unless there's something wrong with the male or the female, they can reproduce.

So the purpose of marriage was companionship and the potential procreation, and then having an environment to raise the child with a mother and a father. Because everyone would agree moms and dads are different, right? It's not the dad telling the mom with the two-year-old, Don't throw him up in the air!

You're going to drop him! And the kid's squealing and the dad's throwing him up in the air. You don't have the scenario where the mom's throwing the kid and the dad's like, Be careful, be careful! I mean, that's not the norm. The norm is the dad's tossing the kid and the mom's like, Hey, be careful. That's a baby there. It's not a ball.

It's not a toy. Moms and dads are different. We bring different things. And there's that sacredness of the two different things coming together as one. And the biological compatibility. And the potential for procreation, that that's what marriage is about. And the only reason that the state gets involved with marriage, because the state doesn't tell you who you can date, right? You don't need permission from the state to date someone. You can be dating four people at the same time. It's your business, whatever.

Not a smart policy, but you could do that. But the reason that the state gets involved in marriage is because marriage conveys benefits on the state, and therefore the state conveys benefits on marriage. And in point of fact, the benefits are bringing a new generation into this world and joining them to a mother and father, because that is the best setting for the social well-being of the country. So I do not believe that two men, two women coming together, no matter how much they love each other and care for each other, I don't believe that that is marriage in God's sight. And I believe it's an outrage that the Supreme Court redefined marriage. You say, what are you going to do, make all of our marriages invalid?

I don't know how it would work out. I don't want to put hardship on people, but I don't believe the decision was right or ever should have been made. And ultimately, the way our government's set up, our country's set up, that's for states to decide. That's for states to figure out what they do with and vote accordingly.

And if all the states voted in a way I didn't like, you've got to accept that. That's the legal reality. I still would not believe it's valid in God's sight, but that would be the legal reality. In any case, it's the legal reality now because of Obergefell. Maybe things would be grandfathered in. Maybe it would change from state to state. Maybe some states would immediately say we recognize these unions and other states would say we don't. In any case, yeah, I do want to see the Supreme Court revisited because it's been a bad decision and a wrong decision from day one. Will it happen? Well, there would have to be a case that would go to the court that would then trigger a discussion that could lead to the potential overturning of Obergefell.

So, yes, I would love to see it happen. As much as I understand that even saying those words makes me look like more of a homophobe and a hater of gays and lesbians in the eyes of many, I understand that, but you understand my reasoning. It's nothing against you personally. It may feel like that, but it's not it. It's not saying that you're not committed to each other, don't love each other, or you don't love the kids you're raising. I'm sure many of you are deeply in love with each other, want to be committed for life, and deeply care about your kids. I'm not disputing that.

I'm simply disputing what the meaning of marriage is. All right, coming back, I'm going straight to your calls, and then we'll talk about Senator Warren's war on pregnancy crisis centers. So stay tuned. Now's a good time to call 866-342. Your call's next. Feels like Thunder Magic Static Call me a fanatic It's our world They can never have it This is how we rise, oh It's our resistance You can't resist us This is how we rise, oh It's the Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on the Line of Fire by calling 866-342.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Call me a fanatic Thank you, friends, for joining us on the Line of Fire. Boy, I love hearing Skillet music every day on the broadcast. Blesses me. And they're on the front lines making a difference in a lot of lives. 866-348-7884. Let us go over to Athens, Georgia. Seth, you're on the Line of Fire.

Hi, Dr. Brown. I wanted to ask, I am slowly shifting away from the penal substitutionary view of the atonement more toward the governmental view of the atonement, much akin to Charles Spinney and William Booth. Anyway, so my question is sort of multi-pronged related to that, but I think I can make it condensed because it's interrelated. So when Paul says that Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, what was he referring to when he was referring to the curse of the law? And then what did he mean by Jesus becoming a curse for us?

And I guess I say that because I've seen some wild sermons out there from particularly Reformed pastors with a penal substitutionary view, maybe Jesus being the scapegoat analogy or typology from the Old Testament. But every time Jesus is referred to in the New Testament, he's referred to as a lamb. But I also wanted to know, related to that, when I was reading about Passover, Jesus says the Passover lamb, you could bring a goat, not just a sheep. So do the New Testament writers only think of Jesus more in a, quote unquote, sheep sense?

Or is a goat also allowed? I know that kind of sounds funny. Again, the question's multi-pronged, wanted to get your thoughts. Right.

Okay, so a bunch of things to respond to. First, in Galatians 3, Paul's referring to two verses in Deuteronomy. So in Deuteronomy 27, which is repeating the curses for disobedience and recited from Mount Ebal. So the summary is, cursed is everyone who does not uphold all the words of this Torah.

Right? So if you do not uphold these and seek to live these out, that you are under a curse from God. So Paul quotes that, and therefore because all of us fall short, he sees us as all under a curse, and therefore God's righteous judgment coming on us. Jesus becoming a curse for us, he then quotes from Deuteronomy 22, cursed is everyone who's hung on a tree. Now that wasn't talking about crucifixion, but you would kill someone and then hang them on the tree, and then take them down so they weren't hanging overnight, because that was an accursed thing, to be impaled on the tree or be hung on the tree. That was considered a cursed thing. So he took a penalty of cursing under the law, so that we could be freed from the curse, which to me is substitutionary atonement. Even if we leave the word penal out, substitutionary atonement, that he took the punishment that we deserve.

Now it's also governmental, and that is a public display. In other words, it is making a public statement of the penalty of sin, and therefore the Messiah bears that for us. Because that's the first thing. The second thing is, the Israelites would not eat a goat on Passover. That was a lamb that would be eaten and partaken of. And yes, beginning in John 1.29, when John the Immersive sees Jesus, he says, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. And then he's referenced as a lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. For example, in 1 Peter 1, and I think Revelation the 13th chapter. So that image of him being a lamb is there. Isaiah 53, like a lamb going to slaughter.

That's what happened. So there is the innocence of that, and the tying in of the lamb with the Passover offering. However, there's no question that the other offerings, including the scapegoat which was sent out into the wilderness, and the goat that was killed on the Day of Atonement, that all of these images play in as well. In other words, Jesus fulfills the atonement system. He fulfills the sacrificial system.

So you find that in Hebrews 9 and 10, including the Day of Atonement, that those were types and shadows of the full reality that would come through the Messiah, and ultimately all those things could bring about was an outward cleansing. It's the Messiah's blood that transforms our lives. And I do find substitution at the heart of the atonement system. It is life for life. So just as the sins of Israel were confessed over the scapegoat, and he then carried those away into the wilderness, that in the same way that the sins of the world are put on the Messiah.

In Hebrews 2, he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we being dead to sin should live to righteousness by whose wounds we were healed. So that's how I understand those things. And again, I believe as long as we keep substitution at the heart of what Jesus did on the cross, that other issues like Christus Victor and his victory over sin and death and Satan, or governmental atonement, the public display of the punishment for our guilt, I believe those are all other aspects of atonement. But to me, substitution has to be at the foundation. So that's my answer.

What does that leave you with as far as follow-up questions? No, I think that's it. I guess I do believe in a substitution. It just seems like a substitution for punishment, but not that Christ took our punishment, if that makes sense. Right.

Well, again, so there's two ways of looking at that. That he symbolically took it. In other words, by dying on the cross, which was the worst, most terrific, barbaric, and humiliating death that anyone could die, so he died the lowest, most horrific death in a public way, that he, therefore, symbolically took our punishment.

Right? Again, what I just quoted. He himself bore our sins in this bottom of the tree, that we, being dead to sin, should live to righteousness. And then there are other verses, Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 and other passages, 2 Corinthians 5, that point to him being that righteous substitute.

The other way of looking at it would be that he actually felt the full judgment of God for every human being who ever lived and every sin that was ever committed, that he felt the full ferocity and intensity of that spiritually and bore that on the cross. So that would be a literal payment of substitution. The other would be a symbolic substitution. Either can be argued scripturally. That, to me, would now be a very much in-house, in one circle, argument. And the question would be, what does the Bible clearly teach?

To me, without doubt, substitution is at the heart of it. Isaiah 53, 6, which I quote endlessly, All of us, like sheep, have grown astray, each one has turned to his own way, and the Lord has laid on him, right? The Lord has laid on him all of our iniquity, right? That's been put on him, and therefore he suffers for our sins. Does he suffer meaning that all the accumulated punishment that we would all get fell on him on the cross, or simply that by bearing our sin and dying in our place, he took our place?

Either of those can be argued scripturally. Let's leave substitution at the heart of it and then build these other aspects around it. Hey, thank you, sir, for the call, and keep digging and studying. Let's go to Dave in Dillon, South Carolina. You are on the line of fire. Yes, hello, thank you for having me on. I know you talk a lot about gay issues and all of that, and I just want to share a little bit about testimonies of some people, real quick. I grew up and I was very afraid of gay people, I was very hard of stone, and God over the time began to give me a heart of flesh towards people.

And I want to share a story that I think will be an encouragement to everybody, I hope it will be. But I was once visiting a gay, and I was passing by an upscale deli, and this guy stopped me and said, I'm hungry, can you give me money for food? And I said, I'll get you food if you want it. And he said yes, so I got a nice lunch and gave it to him, and I gave him some Christian literature, and he went on his way eating. And a couple days later I saw him on the street, and he stopped me, and he thanked me for what I had given him, the food and the Christian literature, he had read it. And we started talking for a while, and I tried to find out if he was a Christian, and it seemed like it was, he was, but I didn't know for sure. But what was clear was he had had a very difficult life, and my heart went out to him. And after talking for a while he was so encouraging I couldn't believe it, and he was like so complimentary and encouraging to me.

And then he dropped a bomb and he said, I want you to know something, I'm sick, I have AIDS. I didn't know what to say to him, but I didn't have a chance because what he did next was so amazing. He put his arms around me and gave me a big hug, and he said words I wish every Christian could hear, because I think it could change your life. He said it to me, and I can't take any credit for it, but he said to me, I love you man, you've shown me Jesus. And wow, it was so amazing to me, and I thought, wow. I mean, it just changed my life, that encounter, and how to respond to people, and wow. I mean, Dave, that's everything to show people Jesus.

It's through our words, it's through our deeds, it's through our lifestyle, it's through our ongoing conduct, it's through the choices that we make. And sometimes, can I just, thank you, Dave, for being so sincere and open and sharing that, and having the time to call in with that. Look, parents, grandparents, folks on the job, teachers, people that are around other people, coaches, you just never know the impact you make on someone's life. You never know who's watching. You never know who knows you. You don't know they know you. And then afterwards, you find out, hey, I was watching you, because I heard you were a Christian. I heard you went to this church, I've been watching you, and I didn't see your true blue.

You never know. Hey, Dave, thank you for calling in. In fact, Nancy and I were talking last night, and my grandson Andrew, 18 years old, we went on a trip together this week, and was ministering in Fort Worth. He came along, and he's a real positive guy.

People just love him on the job, he works at a grocery store. And we were talking about how we're similar, and just kind of bring life and a smile wherever you go. I said, you know, where I've had a downfall is with bad customer service. I've gotten frustrated with people on the phone and had to apologize. And Nancy said, yeah, think if that was one of the listeners to your broadcast, that that's Dr. Brown.

So, yeah, I said, yeah, I can't just do it and apologize, get frustrated. I've just got to be gracious, no matter how bad the service and how much somebody blew it, because you just never know who's watching. You never know who's listening. So let's shine. Let's show Jesus to the world. All right, we'll talk about Senator Warren and pregnancy crisis centers, and some more calls when we come back. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on the line of fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thank you for joining us on the line of fire. Remember, go to askdrbrown.org, askdrbrown.org to find out about our next trip to Israel. By the way, we've never done this before, but we put together the entire tour package on the ground. So everything from soup to nuts, from your breakfast to dinner, breakfast and dinner every night, to everything on the tour, to where you stay, got all that put together. But we tell you now when you need to arrive, and you can book your own tickets. So you're free to get the cheapest economy or the most expensive first class.

You're free to work with other carriers, as long as you get in by a certain time, when it'll be the night before the tour starts. So we coordinate all that info, but you've got that liberty to work that out, so hopefully that'll be a positive benefit for you as well. So go to askdrbrown.org.

I can't wait to see you, God willing, in Israel in May. Okay, before I go back to the phones, this caught my attention a few days ago, so I wrote about it over the weekend. You can read the article at askdrbrown.org and the other websites that post my articles. And it asks the question, why is Senator Elizabeth Warren declaring war on pregnancy crisis centers? So we've heard about the groups like Jane's Revenge that started vandalizing pro-life clinics after the overturning of Roe. Now remember, these are clinics that are helping women and giving them alternatives to abortion. That's what they are doing, all right? And opposed to the Planned Parenthood clinics and others, which are making so much money doing what they do and terminating the lives of babies in the womb, in stark contrast with them, they are using donations to operate. People are volunteering services.

People are not getting rich off of this. And they're helping women. All right, so we know that they've been under attack.

You say, well, why? So listen to what Senator Warren said. With Roe gone, it's more important than ever to crack down on so-called crisis pregnancy centers that mislead and deceive patients seeking abortion care. My bill with Senator Menendez would stop these harmful practices. So she's going to crack down on, quote, harmful practices?

Are you serious? So I'm going to scroll down on the article. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a major pro-life organization, data from 2019 shows that pro-life pregnancy centers served close to two million people with services and material assistance with a total value of over $266 million given for the care of these women.

Check this out. As of 2019, eight in ten pregnancy crisis centers offer free ultrasounds. There were 486,213 free ultrasounds performed. There were 731,884 free pregnancy tests.

There were 967,251 free consultations with new clients. 810 locations offering STD testing. 563 locations offering STD treatment onsite. 291,230 clients attending parenting and prenatal education classes. 21,698 clients attended after abortion support and recovery sessions.

305 locations offer abortion pill reversal. Then it goes on and on and on. 14,977 paid staff. 53,855 volunteers.

On and on it goes. Why is Senator Warren fighting this? You care about women? You should be thanking God for pregnancy crisis centers. What a gift they are.

What a service they perform. Well, Senator Warren said, actually, actually, in her state, Massachusetts, these pregnancy life centers outnumber abortion clinics by three to one. You say thank God together for that? She thought it was bad news. That's wonderful news. The other thing is it's deceptive. Deceptive.

Well, check this out. According to Charlotte Loser Institute, consistently high client satisfaction rates reported to pregnancy centers reflect that women, men, and youth who visit centers feel respected, valued, and well cared for. Client satisfaction reported to two national networks in 2019 continues to validate excellence in care at affiliated pregnancy centers around the country. Heartbeat International affiliated centers equally reported positive client satisfaction of 99.6% on average per center through client exit surveys. This accounts for about 2,100 pregnancy centers. And since 2016, these centers have saved 800,000 babies' lives. Wow.

What grace. What good news. Why is Senator Warren so hotly opposed to these? Because they're giving women a choice not to abort their babies.

That's why. Good business for the pregnancy crisis centers means bad business for the abortion clinics. And I thought this is about being pro-choice. Well, here the women with love, compassion, and tenures are given choices. Well, what if they thought they were going to an abortion clinic? They get up and leave and go to the abortion clinic. That's what happens. So you see the real spirit getting exposed, don't you?

The light is exposed in the darkness. All right, we're going to go back to the phones. Let's go to Andres in La Mirada, California. Thanks for calling the line of fire. And good afternoon, Dr. Brown. Good afternoon.

Thanks for having me. Yes. Yes.

I have a very simple question. It's very clear that the Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex union is run from a moral point of view and from a theological point of view. So the question basically is, from a legal point of view, what was wrong with that?

Yes. So I just want a clarification of that. Yes, so that's the bottom line question for the court, correct? In other words, theological issue, that's not what the court's looking at. Moral issue if it is legal as well. In other words, there are many things that are not moral, but they're not illegal.

You know what I'm saying? Like if I tell you, meet me here on this corner in a half an hour and I'll give you 20 bucks, and I'm lying to you, it's not nice, but I didn't break the law by lying to you. So the things that are just wrong that people do that are not illegal, or in this case unconstitutional. So this is something, Andres, that I actually want to answer in more depth, either with substantial quotes or especially in the dissenting opinion to Obergefell.

Some of this was already raised, or I'll have on a legal scholar with me. But the simplest answer, sir, is that there is no constitutional reason to redefine the meaning of marriage. When our laws wrongly banned interracial marriage, or stain on our past that we did that, but when we wrongly banned them, we were not redefining marriage. We were simply saying, is this person an equal human being? Because marriage always meant one thing, the union of one man and one woman.

That's what it meant. There was polygamy, and then we said, no, that's wrong, but it was still a debate within male-female. So to fundamentally change the meaning of marriage, the court had no right to do that, any more than the court could fundamentally change the meaning of, say, Caucasian, that Caucasian now meant an African American. No, there's no basis for doing it.

So the argument really pushes back and saying, on what basis are you redefining marriage? On what constitutional principle? On what legal principle? And there's really none, just like Roe based on nothing. Now, here's the other side to it, and again, I'm glad you're asking because I plan to dig into this more deeply and share if I was a better jurist legal scholar, which I'm not either, if I was that, I could just be giving you an in-depth answer automatically. Here's something I need to dig a little, put the best quotes together, simplify, and present. But the other side is that once you do this, it is now a fundamental attack on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, which Justice Alito raised and said, the moment you do this, you now codify, my words, you now codify all these Americans who don't accept this, you now codify them as bigots, and you are making them walk in such a way that they cannot openly hold to their beliefs while affirming the law at the same time.

Justice Kennedy is like, well, I hope, paraphrasing, I hope that doesn't happen. Well, of course it was gonna happen. It was self-evident it was gonna happen. The handwriting was all there on the wall.

So this is more a matter of exposing. There is no legal grounds for redefining marriage. There never was.

It's bogus from the start. Hey, thank you for the question, and hopefully we'll answer in even more depth in some of the shows in the days ahead. So once again, thank you for being part of the broadcast. Those that agree with me and love every word, those that wince and get angry, thanks for being here, and let's all pursue the truth with all of our heart, with all of our soul, wherever it leads, regardless of cost or consequence. Hey, next year in Jerusalem. Another program powered by the Truth Network.