Due in part to Republican Evangelical defections we get a Democratic Senator in an overwhelmingly Republican state. He’s pro-abortion, pro-transgender, and pro-gay-marriage. He is also opposed to religious liberty when it comes to advancing the “gay” and “transgender” agenda. And he loves judges who legislate leftwing policies from the bench.

Evangelical Outrage over Moore’s Resistance to Gay Marriage

Many influential defections happened before the November allegations against Moore. Some Evangelical Republicans complained loudly of Moore’s resistance to Obergefell. The Obergefell decision was the lawless imposition of “gay marriage” on the country. How does peaceful resistance to naked judicial tyranny count as lawlessness? Obstructing a quintessential case of lawlessness is itself the abandonment of the rule of law? Does that make sense?

There are only a few SCOTUS decisions as ludicrous as Obergefell (Dred Scott; Roe v. Wade? Plessy?). People have known for millennia that marriage is grounded in the biology of two complementary sexes. Male and female are compatible anatomically, physiologically, and even psychologically. Moreover, for over two centuries no one imagined that the Constitution established a right to “gay marriage.” Indeed, no one who ever had a hand in shaping the Constitution would have countenanced such a right. Then in June 2015 five rogue justices bypassed the constitutionally mandated process for amending the Constitution. By sheer judicial decree they wiped out the historic foundation for marriage.

Yet many Evangelicals showed less outrage at Obergefell than at Moore’s courageous resistance to it. One group of Evangelicals even chastised those outraged by Obergefell. Some of that same group then turned around and expressed outrage at Moore’s resistance to Obergefell. They became even more incensed by Moore’s candidacy. This happened before any allegations of misconduct surfaced. The attacks on both Moore and his supporters were often vicious.

“NeverMoores” Ducking Responsibility for Electing Jones

Then the same folks told us that not voting at all or writing in a third candidate was not an effective vote for Jones. They said that it was not a binary choice. But it was. Add the write-in votes to Moore’s tally (not to mention those who stayed home) and Moore would have won the election.

The Washington Post and New York Times, Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign and the SPLC couldn’t be happier.

The Deeply Flawed Candidate

After the election was over, one Facebook friend chastised me for not “trusting” the citizens of Alabama in electing Doug Jones. I responded that I trust roughly 50 percent of the people of Alabama (more specifically, 48.4 percent). He stated that, between Jones and Moore, Moore was the “deeply flawed candidate.”

Think about that. Roy Moore, not Doug Jones, was the “deeply flawed candidate.” Moore was a somewhat flawed candidate, though Christian and courageous. The media and its minions relentlessly abused him. Yet his opponent was much worse.

David French listed some of Moore’s embarrassing gaffes in an editorial. Yet these were nothing compared to the deliberate nonsense preached by Jones. While the left-wing media gleefully pilloried Moore’s statements, the same media wholeheartedly propped up Jones’s absurdities. Many Evangelicals were eager to see Moore lose. And so, they gave Jones a pass.

A Biased Media Bombarded Alabama

Jones thinks that you can change your biological sex by simply wishing it so. He also believes the government should penalize you if you don’t make a host of concessions to “transgenderism.” You must use the politically correct names and pronouns, even though they are biologically insane. You must allow a male-to-female transgender in women’s restrooms and showers. Was that mocked by the media as un-American and unscientific?

Jones thinks that Obergefell was one of the great decisions in Supreme Court history. It was a responsible “interpretation” of the Fourteenth Amendment even though everyone who ever had a hand in forming and passing that amendment would have fainted dead away if they thought it could be used to establish a right to same-sex marriage. Did the media challenge that wrongheaded view?

Jones believes that a right to life does not begin until the baby emerges from the birth canal. Before that time, the baby is just a blob, a mass of cells. Then too he thinks that Roe v. Wade was another piece of judicial brilliance. Did the media ever challenge him to show where the Constitution says that you can kill a child in the womb and force others to subsidize the act?

Jones so disrespects religious liberty that he thinks that the government can force bakers to write a message on a cake that celebrates a “gay wedding.” The government can make a freelance photographer take pictures at a “gay wedding.” If you don’t comply you can lose your business and life’s savings. That’s how little he respects religious liberty. Did the media challenge that?

Jones thinks the state should be able to indoctrinate your children to accept homosexual relations and transgenderism. Did the media challenge this use of tax dollars to corrupt children at an early age?

Jones believes that if you refuse to kowtow to “LGBT” indoctrination in the workplace, indeed if you even speak against it in social media, you should be fired from your white-collar job. Did the Media ever note that such coercive propaganda would make the old Soviet state proud?

So why should anyone “trust” that Roy Moore was a worse candidate? Why should anyone “trust” a decision rendered by half the voters in a state bombarded by media propaganda?

I’m not going to “trust” what I know to be false. I would rather face the truth as it is than call down up and up down.

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., was formerly professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon), among other works.