There’s been wide-ranging reaction to California’s proposition 8 being passed with overrules the California Supreme Court by providing state constitutional protections for traditional marriage.  Similar measures were passed in Arizona and in Florida, both by a wider margin than California.

I think for some in the homosexual community this isn’t just about “civil rights” (one reason, I think,  these initiatives passed is that the African-American electorate flatly rejected the idea that gay marriage is about civil rights).  This movement isn’t just about equal rights.  It is a movement that desires normalcy and to impose that view on others.  It desires unconditional acceptance and legitimacy.

Even if these homosexual activists achieve homosexual marriage either through judicial or democratic means, they will fail in their ultimate quest toward legitimacy.  Why?  The State didn’t institute marriage.  God did.

Our first insight is in Genesis 1 when God created males and females.  He said to them to be “fruitful and multiply,” (Genesis 1:28).  One, not the only, reason for marriage is the propagation of the human race.  We are to procreate, and God provided marriage as a means to do that.  Gay marriage can not accomplish this.  They can mimic it by fighting to have adoption laws changed or through artificial insemination, but it can’t occur naturally.

In Genesis 2:18 God says, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him,” (ESV).  A helper fit for him… what does this mean?  In the Hebrew the first word in that phrase – “helper” implies, naturally, someone who assists and encourages.  “Help” provides support for what is lacking in the one who needs help.

“Helper” is qualified by “fit for him” – this word in Hebrew seems to be related to the verb meaning “to be plain or visible.”  A related noun refers to an “eminent” person.  So possibly “helper fit for him” means a a person matching his distinctiveness (as one created in God’s image).  This phrase certainly points to one who is fit to stand before the man, opposite him, as his counterpart, companion, and complement.There isn’t a sense of inferiority or subordination, rather this person is one who “like him,” but to give a literal rendering “like opposite him.”

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.  Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.  And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed, (Genesis 2:21-25, ESV).

The removal of Adam’s rib in order to create Even implies that from now on neither is complete without the other.  The man needs the woman for his wholeness, and likewise.  Marriage helps complete.  Again, this can’t happen in gay marriage.

This marriage is a covenant with the Lord being a witness between the husband and the wife of his youth, (Malachi 2:14).  The relationship between a husband and his wife is to be patterned after the relationship between Christ and His Church, (Ephesians 5:22-33).  This covenant has three components to it.  First, leaving, and then cleaving (“hold fast to his wife”), and then becoming “one flesh.”  While leaving and cleaving are important, they really aren’t relevant to the topic at hand.  I do want to conclude here by looking at what is meant by “one flesh.”

This refers to the personal union of a man with his wife at all levels in their life.  It is expressed and deepened through sexual intercourse, but it means much more than that.  It refers to the “oneness” that becomes more and more of a reality over time.  This “one flesh” relationship is also realized in the “one flesh” of children that they have together in this covenantal relationship.

In light of this passage we can see why sex is to be reserved for the one context of heterosexual marriage.  It is a symbol of covenant commitment.  It is to deepen faithful love, and it needs the context of consistency and reliability.  Also we can see why homosexual relationships, and homosexual marriages in particular, can’t be affirmed biblically (at least not with people being faithful to the text).  The “not good” that our Creator God saw in man’s being alone is met with the provision of a woman to complete and complement him.

So even if homosexuals do end up with the ability to marry in all 50 states, it will be a faux marriage.  Instead of being a covenant witnessed by God it will be nothing more than a legal contract approved by the State.

Update 11/14/08: Evidently I struck a nerve with an author of a Daily Kos reader blog.  If you read it just know that my intent was not to present a constitutional case against same-sex marriage, but rather to outline the theological definition.

58 comments
  1. No, it’s about equal rights. When my partner became ill, his estranged family, estranged by their choice not ours, made it impossible for me to see him in the hospital. He came home to die and didn’t see them again after he left the hospital. His family then swooped in and not only took his belongings, but legally stole from me. That you folks who call yourselves ‘Christian’ legitimize that behavior through legal means floors me.

  2. No, it’s about equal rights. When my partner became ill, his estranged family, estranged by their choice not ours, made it impossible for me to see him in the hospital. He came home to die and didn’t see them again after he left the hospital. His family then swooped in and not only took his belongings, but legally stole from me. That you folks who call yourselves ‘Christian’ legitimize that behavior through legal means floors me.

  3. Aquariman,

    This is why I said “some,” I didn’t want to presume this was the view of everybody in the homosexual community.

    I’m sorry that you experienced that. I don’t consider that legal. You seem to be painting Christians with a broad brush as well.

    With what you mentioned it seems as though, legal documents like a living will & power of attorney, would have remedied what you experienced with his family.

    Again I’m sorry for your loss, and I’m sorry that you experienced that with his family.

  4. Aquariman,

    This is why I said “some,” I didn’t want to presume this was the view of everybody in the homosexual community.

    I’m sorry that you experienced that. I don’t consider that legal. You seem to be painting Christians with a broad brush as well.

    With what you mentioned it seems as though, legal documents like a living will & power of attorney, would have remedied what you experienced with his family.

    Again I’m sorry for your loss, and I’m sorry that you experienced that with his family.

  5. No one is asking you accept us, your church can continue to believe as they have always beleived. The only difference would be that myself and my partner of 10 years could go to the justice of the peace, and for 50 dollars get married in the eyes of our (yours and mine) goverment. This would allow me then to have the protections that we need to avoid any number of issues that marriage negates (inheritence, visitation,ect). I beleive that the christian community is being somewhat childish in its stance. And I really love the irony in you telling the previous poster that they are painting the christian community with a wide brush, when the church is doing the same to homosexuals. We need to move past this, and if marriage is a religious term, then our goverment needs to get out of religion and issue civil unions for both heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. This isnt special rights, this is equal treatment to our community by OUR goverment. If we are not a theocracy, then we should stop acting as such and realize that with all of the different types of thinking that is found in this country we need to grow up and realize that while we may not always agree, we are all still Americans. We need to stop having this contest to see who is more American and start treating each other as brothers and sisters who are all citizens of the same nation.

  6. No one is asking you accept us, your church can continue to believe as they have always beleived. The only difference would be that myself and my partner of 10 years could go to the justice of the peace, and for 50 dollars get married in the eyes of our (yours and mine) goverment. This would allow me then to have the protections that we need to avoid any number of issues that marriage negates (inheritence, visitation,ect). I beleive that the christian community is being somewhat childish in its stance. And I really love the irony in you telling the previous poster that they are painting the christian community with a wide brush, when the church is doing the same to homosexuals. We need to move past this, and if marriage is a religious term, then our goverment needs to get out of religion and issue civil unions for both heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. This isnt special rights, this is equal treatment to our community by OUR goverment. If we are not a theocracy, then we should stop acting as such and realize that with all of the different types of thinking that is found in this country we need to grow up and realize that while we may not always agree, we are all still Americans. We need to stop having this contest to see who is more American and start treating each other as brothers and sisters who are all citizens of the same nation.

  7. And on that note, if this really is about the protection of marriage, then perhaps language should be added banning divorce, except in very limited and dire situation, as laid out in the Bible. And while we are at it, let us all agree that to defend marriage, we also need to start to imprision people who commit adultery( I am not going to go so far as to advocate the death penalty- as it is laid out in the Bible). The hypocricy of the church never ceases to amaze me, and I would be willing to bet, if this language was added to the amendments, none of them would have passed or pass in the future. Here in Iowa, if this comes up, I am going to do everything in my power to have this language added to the amendment.

  8. And on that note, if this really is about the protection of marriage, then perhaps language should be added banning divorce, except in very limited and dire situation, as laid out in the Bible. And while we are at it, let us all agree that to defend marriage, we also need to start to imprision people who commit adultery( I am not going to go so far as to advocate the death penalty- as it is laid out in the Bible). The hypocricy of the church never ceases to amaze me, and I would be willing to bet, if this language was added to the amendments, none of them would have passed or pass in the future. Here in Iowa, if this comes up, I am going to do everything in my power to have this language added to the amendment.

  9. Shane, by assuming that a living will & power of attorney would have remedied anything you’re spreading the same falsehoods about our law and legal system that so many of the homophobes who abuse the Christian faith to spread their bigotry do. I put Christian in quotes for a purpose: I don’t consider those folks Christian, it’s how they refer to themselves. Let’s create ‘seperate but equal’ civil unions to remedy the legal problems and let the churches that wish to, and there are many, bless those unions as marriages. As is frequently the case, you refer to the text of the old testament. Putting aside that the appearance of Jesus one earth was supposed to negate old testament law, I find it very difficult to believe that you live strictly by old testament text yourself.

  10. Shane, by assuming that a living will & power of attorney would have remedied anything you’re spreading the same falsehoods about our law and legal system that so many of the homophobes who abuse the Christian faith to spread their bigotry do. I put Christian in quotes for a purpose: I don’t consider those folks Christian, it’s how they refer to themselves. Let’s create ‘seperate but equal’ civil unions to remedy the legal problems and let the churches that wish to, and there are many, bless those unions as marriages. As is frequently the case, you refer to the text of the old testament. Putting aside that the appearance of Jesus one earth was supposed to negate old testament law, I find it very difficult to believe that you live strictly by old testament text yourself.

  11. It would be safe to assume that you take the old testament literally when it suits you, and interpret it when it doesn’t.

  12. It would be safe to assume that you take the old testament literally when it suits you, and interpret it when it doesn’t.

  13. While I’m not particularly threatened by same-sex marriage, I do at the same time understand why a lot of Christians (and others, frankly) are not really on board for the concept, as I’m not sure there has ever been a time in history in which a civilization had gay marriage, even if they had no problems with homosexual sex (portions of ancient Greece spring to mind here).

    But I think the bigger problem is that Christians don’t have much foundation to stand for the godliness of marriage, because while it often is in the church, the fact is that it is largely a civil “contract” these days. And worse yet, people have a lousy track record for staying married, so Christians have a huge credibility gap here to overcome when any of them argue against gay marriage.

    While I don’t believe it’s what God wants us to do, I think it’s probably more damaging to fight against the idea of gay/lesbian marriages than it is productive. Preventing it isn’t going to improve the lot of “normal” married couple and accepting it isn’t exactly going to “turn” people toward homosexuality who weren’t already inclined to do so.

    Just my two shiny hunks of copper…

  14. While I’m not particularly threatened by same-sex marriage, I do at the same time understand why a lot of Christians (and others, frankly) are not really on board for the concept, as I’m not sure there has ever been a time in history in which a civilization had gay marriage, even if they had no problems with homosexual sex (portions of ancient Greece spring to mind here).

    But I think the bigger problem is that Christians don’t have much foundation to stand for the godliness of marriage, because while it often is in the church, the fact is that it is largely a civil “contract” these days. And worse yet, people have a lousy track record for staying married, so Christians have a huge credibility gap here to overcome when any of them argue against gay marriage.

    While I don’t believe it’s what God wants us to do, I think it’s probably more damaging to fight against the idea of gay/lesbian marriages than it is productive. Preventing it isn’t going to improve the lot of “normal” married couple and accepting it isn’t exactly going to “turn” people toward homosexuality who weren’t already inclined to do so.

    Just my two shiny hunks of copper…

  15. I understand the feelings some commenters have on this subject and Deacon Blue is right in saying that we don’t practice what we preach on this issue. “Christian” couples divorce at roughly the same divorce rate as anyone else.

    And if I lived my life based on the actions of other fallible human beings that call themselves “Christian” or not, that would be a great argument.

    However, if I believe that the Scriptures are from God and He says throughout them that homosexuality is not part of His plan (yes, homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament too ie. Romans 1), than I cannot condone government sanctioning it anymore than I could support government recognizing as legitimate any other behavior that is contrary to God’s Words. For example, if the government said it was OK to not honor a contract for any reason or that I could steal from a neighbor, I wouldn’t support it.

    Public policy on marriage affects every citizen both culturally and financially. Opening marriage to homosexuals will not only open the door to more and different types of litigation (divorce, annulment, etc.) into an already overwhelmed court system but begs the question: “what next?”

    At some point, a line has to be drawn in order to prevent chaos. It sounds crazy to suggest that people may be able to marry an animal or that polygamy will be legal in 25 years. But so did gay marriage sound outrageous just a generation or two ago. We must also remember that, although Separation of Church and State is a sacred cow these days, the civil marriage was simply a recognition of the Church’s definition. It’s a tradition and worldview that was meant to keep civilization healthy and procreating.

    I have friends and family members that are homosexual and they know I love them very much. But to have the homosexual movement push their public policy agenda on the rest of us is not something I can support economically, spiritually, or otherwise.

    I have heard Christ-followers I respect suggest some form of “common-law” relationship status to prevent visitation and probate issues and I’d love to hear more about that and how it would work out but to equate a homosexual couple’s relationship with a heterosexual marriage is unacceptable for me.

    I can’t stand people who are disrespectful to homosexuals. I hate it when I see seething hatred in some people toward gay men and women. I believe that reasonable justice based on our mutual humanity should prevail when difficult circumstances arise like were stated in some of the comments. But find a different way to achieve your goals. Marriage is what it is. It shouldn’t be redefined or politicized by anyone.

  16. I understand the feelings some commenters have on this subject and Deacon Blue is right in saying that we don’t practice what we preach on this issue. “Christian” couples divorce at roughly the same divorce rate as anyone else.

    And if I lived my life based on the actions of other fallible human beings that call themselves “Christian” or not, that would be a great argument.

    However, if I believe that the Scriptures are from God and He says throughout them that homosexuality is not part of His plan (yes, homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament too ie. Romans 1), than I cannot condone government sanctioning it anymore than I could support government recognizing as legitimate any other behavior that is contrary to God’s Words. For example, if the government said it was OK to not honor a contract for any reason or that I could steal from a neighbor, I wouldn’t support it.

    Public policy on marriage affects every citizen both culturally and financially. Opening marriage to homosexuals will not only open the door to more and different types of litigation (divorce, annulment, etc.) into an already overwhelmed court system but begs the question: “what next?”

    At some point, a line has to be drawn in order to prevent chaos. It sounds crazy to suggest that people may be able to marry an animal or that polygamy will be legal in 25 years. But so did gay marriage sound outrageous just a generation or two ago. We must also remember that, although Separation of Church and State is a sacred cow these days, the civil marriage was simply a recognition of the Church’s definition. It’s a tradition and worldview that was meant to keep civilization healthy and procreating.

    I have friends and family members that are homosexual and they know I love them very much. But to have the homosexual movement push their public policy agenda on the rest of us is not something I can support economically, spiritually, or otherwise.

    I have heard Christ-followers I respect suggest some form of “common-law” relationship status to prevent visitation and probate issues and I’d love to hear more about that and how it would work out but to equate a homosexual couple’s relationship with a heterosexual marriage is unacceptable for me.

    I can’t stand people who are disrespectful to homosexuals. I hate it when I see seething hatred in some people toward gay men and women. I believe that reasonable justice based on our mutual humanity should prevail when difficult circumstances arise like were stated in some of the comments. But find a different way to achieve your goals. Marriage is what it is. It shouldn’t be redefined or politicized by anyone.

  17. You touched on the verse before it, but Malachi 2:15 also speaks as to why God brings MAN and WOMAN together, because He’s seeking godly offspring. He wants a legacy created for His kingdom, something that homosexual unions can’t provide in a God-ordained sense.

    Good article.

  18. You touched on the verse before it, but Malachi 2:15 also speaks as to why God brings MAN and WOMAN together, because He’s seeking godly offspring. He wants a legacy created for His kingdom, something that homosexual unions can’t provide in a God-ordained sense.

    Good article.

  19. There’s a gay couple we know pretty well where we live, and one of the men was talking with the wife and I about the topic. He’s actually of the opinion that “marriage” should indeed just be between men and women. He felt it was too institutionalized and too specifically defined through the ages to be anything but that.

    He’s all for some kind of legal, civil union that would be equivalent to marriage from a legal/medical/financial standpoint but his opinion that any measure that tries to couch it as “marriage” is barking up the wrong tree.

    Not that he speaks for all gays and lesbians of course, but I thought it was an interesting viewpoint considering the source.

  20. There’s a gay couple we know pretty well where we live, and one of the men was talking with the wife and I about the topic. He’s actually of the opinion that “marriage” should indeed just be between men and women. He felt it was too institutionalized and too specifically defined through the ages to be anything but that.

    He’s all for some kind of legal, civil union that would be equivalent to marriage from a legal/medical/financial standpoint but his opinion that any measure that tries to couch it as “marriage” is barking up the wrong tree.

    Not that he speaks for all gays and lesbians of course, but I thought it was an interesting viewpoint considering the source.

  21. I find it interesting that when I am sharing about what the Bible says about marriage, I’m homophobic.

    That’s fine. It’s not true, but Aquariman, Charles, and anyone who reads this post – you are entitled to your opinion.

    I didn’t even make a statement about whether or not Christians should advocate a ban. My thrust in this post is that regardless what happens God’s view of marriage will not change. It matters not what our opinion or the opinion of some judge may be.

    Marriage in society needs repair and I certainly won’t deny that. Even Christian marriages. I think Eric brings up some great points on the consequences of gay marriage.

    Deacon, I too know of homosexuals that feel that gay marriage is a non-starter. Which is why I said “some” not all.

    I, like Eric, am concerned by the potential societal impact. I’m also concerned for my kids and other kids who are being taught (indoctrinated) that this is an acceptable lifestyle and perfectly normal. It isn’t.

    I also, like Eric, am appalled and offended at gay-bashing, name calling and bullying that sometimes occurs. That needs to stop.

    Anyway, back to the original post. Regardless what we decide as a nation or is decided for us, gay marriage is faux marriage.

  22. I find it interesting that when I am sharing about what the Bible says about marriage, I’m homophobic.

    That’s fine. It’s not true, but Aquariman, Charles, and anyone who reads this post – you are entitled to your opinion.

    I didn’t even make a statement about whether or not Christians should advocate a ban. My thrust in this post is that regardless what happens God’s view of marriage will not change. It matters not what our opinion or the opinion of some judge may be.

    Marriage in society needs repair and I certainly won’t deny that. Even Christian marriages. I think Eric brings up some great points on the consequences of gay marriage.

    Deacon, I too know of homosexuals that feel that gay marriage is a non-starter. Which is why I said “some” not all.

    I, like Eric, am concerned by the potential societal impact. I’m also concerned for my kids and other kids who are being taught (indoctrinated) that this is an acceptable lifestyle and perfectly normal. It isn’t.

    I also, like Eric, am appalled and offended at gay-bashing, name calling and bullying that sometimes occurs. That needs to stop.

    Anyway, back to the original post. Regardless what we decide as a nation or is decided for us, gay marriage is faux marriage.

  23. Shane, I wish you could allow your post to be fully entered on the Des Moines Register’s Blog. I think people in the Iowa Blog should see your entry all the way through.
    I live in California. Even though I voted emphatically against Proposition 8, I have no argument with anything you said in your blog. Your theological arguments seem to be quite sound.
    But that is the point. The law is not a theological document. If it were, divorce would be illegal, with only one exception. So would yard work and Pro Football games on Sundays. We do not have an established religion in this country.
    I also understand your point about faux marriage. Some marriages are made in heaven, and some are made for city hall. A Christian would be hard pressed to approve of the second or third marriage of a rich man to a younger and younger series of wives. But don’t many Churches allow their attendance? And their children?

  24. Shane, I wish you could allow your post to be fully entered on the Des Moines Register’s Blog. I think people in the Iowa Blog should see your entry all the way through.
    I live in California. Even though I voted emphatically against Proposition 8, I have no argument with anything you said in your blog. Your theological arguments seem to be quite sound.
    But that is the point. The law is not a theological document. If it were, divorce would be illegal, with only one exception. So would yard work and Pro Football games on Sundays. We do not have an established religion in this country.
    I also understand your point about faux marriage. Some marriages are made in heaven, and some are made for city hall. A Christian would be hard pressed to approve of the second or third marriage of a rich man to a younger and younger series of wives. But don’t many Churches allow their attendance? And their children?

  25. Some thoughts regarding comment #11:

    You mentioned that you are concerned for your children, that if gay marriage is legalized, they will think that it is an acceptable behavior. Leaving aside whether it is or is not acceptable, moral or right, the government’s “endorsement” by way of legalization should not have a bearing on your childrens’ morals. The government allows cigarettes to be sold even though we all know they’re bad for people. Similarly, the government has no laws banning lying to a friend, cheating at card games or being rude to the guy at Starbucks when he messes up my order. For something a bit more serious and relevant, look at the lack of laws banning adultery or premarital sex. On the flip side, there are things that government outlaws that are amoral, such as speeding or using aspestos. My moral views are not determined by what is legal or illegal. Why is it then, that gay marriage is the one major area where children might get confused if the law allowed it and their morals would not. The next generation, and the current ones, have enough of a moral compass to figure out what’s right or wrong even if the gov’t tells them otherwise. They were in the civil rights movement and they are today.

  26. Some thoughts regarding comment #11:

    You mentioned that you are concerned for your children, that if gay marriage is legalized, they will think that it is an acceptable behavior. Leaving aside whether it is or is not acceptable, moral or right, the government’s “endorsement” by way of legalization should not have a bearing on your childrens’ morals. The government allows cigarettes to be sold even though we all know they’re bad for people. Similarly, the government has no laws banning lying to a friend, cheating at card games or being rude to the guy at Starbucks when he messes up my order. For something a bit more serious and relevant, look at the lack of laws banning adultery or premarital sex. On the flip side, there are things that government outlaws that are amoral, such as speeding or using aspestos. My moral views are not determined by what is legal or illegal. Why is it then, that gay marriage is the one major area where children might get confused if the law allowed it and their morals would not. The next generation, and the current ones, have enough of a moral compass to figure out what’s right or wrong even if the gov’t tells them otherwise. They were in the civil rights movement and they are today.

  27. @GOPwomandude – I did that mainly for time sake – if someone wanted to comment, I wanted them to comment here. I just don’t have time to be checking various sites comments sections.

    This post also was only meant to be a theological argument, not a legal one. The overarching point is that even if gay marriage is passed it would still be a faux marriage.

    @Brian – I am not concerned about my kids not being able to know right from wrong, but rather how this view is imposed on those who don’t agree. They are a homophobe. They are intolerant. They are a bigot. Etc. One reason why we homeschool. I’m not in favor of their being laws passed against other immoral behavior. This is different. This is wanting to change an institution, and I don’t think the potential impact on society has been fully explored. Eric in comment #8 brings up some excellent points. Also the argument against has many more facets to it than what I present here. I’m just presenting the theological case.

    Also this is a slippery slope. What’s next? Also look at Canada it is considered hate speech to read Romans 1 in certain venues. Is that what we want here as well?

  28. @GOPwomandude – I did that mainly for time sake – if someone wanted to comment, I wanted them to comment here. I just don’t have time to be checking various sites comments sections.

    This post also was only meant to be a theological argument, not a legal one. The overarching point is that even if gay marriage is passed it would still be a faux marriage.

    @Brian – I am not concerned about my kids not being able to know right from wrong, but rather how this view is imposed on those who don’t agree. They are a homophobe. They are intolerant. They are a bigot. Etc. One reason why we homeschool. I’m not in favor of their being laws passed against other immoral behavior. This is different. This is wanting to change an institution, and I don’t think the potential impact on society has been fully explored. Eric in comment #8 brings up some excellent points. Also the argument against has many more facets to it than what I present here. I’m just presenting the theological case.

    Also this is a slippery slope. What’s next? Also look at Canada it is considered hate speech to read Romans 1 in certain venues. Is that what we want here as well?

  29. Okay, you make a valid point in your last point, but I find it again ironic that you should use the word imposed. You do not want acceptance of my lifestyle imposed upon you or your children, and I can understand that. My parents taught me that even though certian things are taught in school, that is not alway the way it is and that I should investigate and make my own descions. I feel that, in many ways this is good parenting and even though my folks and myself have not always agreed on certian issues, that I have always respected their point of view, and justifibly, they have always respected mine. Not to say that there have not been some heated battles or discussions over the years, but this has made my little sister and myself develop our critical thinking skills.

    But back to my point on the word imposed. I ask you, how do you feel about prayer in schools,public life? For those who do not believe as you do, and I know for a fact that there are a lot of them out there, wouldn’t makeing their children be exposed to prayer in a school setting be the same as imposing your ideals on them? Thus this argument, just doesnt hold much for me. Our children are much smarter then parents give them credit for, not that they are always right, as I have found out the hard way in my own life. However, just talking to your kids, on a human level, is more beneficial then saying lets ban something just because it isn’t in my realm of accpentance.

    And by the way, where in my posts did I ever refer to you as a bigot, and yet you lumped me in. I was only pointing out what I see as hypocricy in the church, I.E. marriage being defended from one threat, but being allowed to disinigrate in others. If you are going to base marriage on only your understanding of the bible, then shouldn’t you be as equally boisterous to protect from threats that are already taking their toll on the institution, or would that just not be convenient?

  30. Okay, you make a valid point in your last point, but I find it again ironic that you should use the word imposed. You do not want acceptance of my lifestyle imposed upon you or your children, and I can understand that. My parents taught me that even though certian things are taught in school, that is not alway the way it is and that I should investigate and make my own descions. I feel that, in many ways this is good parenting and even though my folks and myself have not always agreed on certian issues, that I have always respected their point of view, and justifibly, they have always respected mine. Not to say that there have not been some heated battles or discussions over the years, but this has made my little sister and myself develop our critical thinking skills.

    But back to my point on the word imposed. I ask you, how do you feel about prayer in schools,public life? For those who do not believe as you do, and I know for a fact that there are a lot of them out there, wouldn’t makeing their children be exposed to prayer in a school setting be the same as imposing your ideals on them? Thus this argument, just doesnt hold much for me. Our children are much smarter then parents give them credit for, not that they are always right, as I have found out the hard way in my own life. However, just talking to your kids, on a human level, is more beneficial then saying lets ban something just because it isn’t in my realm of accpentance.

    And by the way, where in my posts did I ever refer to you as a bigot, and yet you lumped me in. I was only pointing out what I see as hypocricy in the church, I.E. marriage being defended from one threat, but being allowed to disinigrate in others. If you are going to base marriage on only your understanding of the bible, then shouldn’t you be as equally boisterous to protect from threats that are already taking their toll on the institution, or would that just not be convenient?

  31. Charles

    Just a quick response since I’m going to have to head out soon.

    1. Regarding prayer in schools, etc. I don’t think that should be imposed. Voluntary, student-led, but never imposed on people who don’t want to participate.

    2. I also want to refer to the “bigot” statement. That was a general comment and not directed toward you nor really anyone commenting on this post. That is feedback that has been received in the past. Again, I didn’t mean to imply that every homosexual feels that way. Actually I’ve heard that from straight folks who have disagreed with my position.

  32. Charles

    Just a quick response since I’m going to have to head out soon.

    1. Regarding prayer in schools, etc. I don’t think that should be imposed. Voluntary, student-led, but never imposed on people who don’t want to participate.

    2. I also want to refer to the “bigot” statement. That was a general comment and not directed toward you nor really anyone commenting on this post. That is feedback that has been received in the past. Again, I didn’t mean to imply that every homosexual feels that way. Actually I’ve heard that from straight folks who have disagreed with my position.

  33. Okay, if prayer in school should be voluntary, then so should the Gay-Straight alliances. I agree, that if it is voluntary, and done before or after school, it is a good way to help, especially teenagers, feel more comfortable with whom they are. But yet, when ever the Gay-Straight alliance is advanced in a school, maybe not all, but a vast majority, it seems that the Christians object and do everything in their power to stop it. I say, wether it is these types of orginizations, or ffa, if it helps that paticular student become a better person, then I am all for it, especially if it prevents a young person from the taking of theirs or someone else’s life. I have actively defended christians and their rights to express themselves and do not, as long as no harm is coming to anyone, think that our goverment has any rights to infringe upon anyone’s belief system. That is what a free society is all about. With that said, that is why i do believe that unions of some sort,equal protection under the law, is a RIGHT that the homosexual community should be afforded. I realize that the best we may be able to accomplish is to agree to disagree, however, the very idea that one group gets to impose its will over another, I find that repugnant and anti american.

    And as to the comments about being labled a bigot, I wonder how your church labels homosexuals. Sinners, fornicators, or any other term is equally offensive when used in the public realm. Personally, I have attended functions from parades to funerals where a vocal group of “christians” have shouted hateful and, in my opinion, dispicable statements. Especially at a funeral. There is talk of respect, but I see little of it exercised. unfortunately, that does seem to be on both sides of this issue and I try my hardest to refrain from that kind of refrences. I choose to believe that eventually, we as citizens of this country will, as we always have in the past, agree to move past our differnces and agree that everyone is entitled to certian rights.

    Lastly, did you over look the last part? I really want to know how you are as actively campaigning against these threats to the “sacred” institution of marriage and the way that they are addressed in our comunal set of laws. I am not trying to call you specifically, as from what you have posted I do believe that you are an intellegent, caring, and commited individual, and I respect and applaud that. But, I do feel that if you are going to advocate one stance, then, in order to avoid being called a hypocrite or bigot, that you should in turn advocate these points as well.

    Again, no disrespect is meant, and if that is, in any way, the impression I have given you about my attitudes to you, I apologize. However, I, like you, have strong feelings on this issue, and see it doing more to tear our country apart then the issues of slavery and civil rights have done in the past. I would also like to mention, that it is ironic that both of these issues in their time were justified by the far right and their opposition to any change of the status quo.

    Thank you for the oppurtunity to have an intellegent discussion here.

  34. Okay, if prayer in school should be voluntary, then so should the Gay-Straight alliances. I agree, that if it is voluntary, and done before or after school, it is a good way to help, especially teenagers, feel more comfortable with whom they are. But yet, when ever the Gay-Straight alliance is advanced in a school, maybe not all, but a vast majority, it seems that the Christians object and do everything in their power to stop it. I say, wether it is these types of orginizations, or ffa, if it helps that paticular student become a better person, then I am all for it, especially if it prevents a young person from the taking of theirs or someone else’s life. I have actively defended christians and their rights to express themselves and do not, as long as no harm is coming to anyone, think that our goverment has any rights to infringe upon anyone’s belief system. That is what a free society is all about. With that said, that is why i do believe that unions of some sort,equal protection under the law, is a RIGHT that the homosexual community should be afforded. I realize that the best we may be able to accomplish is to agree to disagree, however, the very idea that one group gets to impose its will over another, I find that repugnant and anti american.

    And as to the comments about being labled a bigot, I wonder how your church labels homosexuals. Sinners, fornicators, or any other term is equally offensive when used in the public realm. Personally, I have attended functions from parades to funerals where a vocal group of “christians” have shouted hateful and, in my opinion, dispicable statements. Especially at a funeral. There is talk of respect, but I see little of it exercised. unfortunately, that does seem to be on both sides of this issue and I try my hardest to refrain from that kind of refrences. I choose to believe that eventually, we as citizens of this country will, as we always have in the past, agree to move past our differnces and agree that everyone is entitled to certian rights.

    Lastly, did you over look the last part? I really want to know how you are as actively campaigning against these threats to the “sacred” institution of marriage and the way that they are addressed in our comunal set of laws. I am not trying to call you specifically, as from what you have posted I do believe that you are an intellegent, caring, and commited individual, and I respect and applaud that. But, I do feel that if you are going to advocate one stance, then, in order to avoid being called a hypocrite or bigot, that you should in turn advocate these points as well.

    Again, no disrespect is meant, and if that is, in any way, the impression I have given you about my attitudes to you, I apologize. However, I, like you, have strong feelings on this issue, and see it doing more to tear our country apart then the issues of slavery and civil rights have done in the past. I would also like to mention, that it is ironic that both of these issues in their time were justified by the far right and their opposition to any change of the status quo.

    Thank you for the oppurtunity to have an intellegent discussion here.

  35. Charles. You are confusing more than one issue in my opinion.

    You mention gay-straight alliances in schools. Those are legal and voluntary. I believe they have a right to exist if no one is forced or even encouraged by staff of the school to attend it or the Christian one. Very different issue, legally and spiritually from gay marriage.

    However, we have seen in massachusetts that when homosexual marriage is equated with heterosexual marriage, the public schools take the liberty to incorporate the “normalcy” and “option” of gay marriage to children in Science, Health, and Social Studies classes without parental consent or the ability to opt out. At lease one father has gone to jail in Mass. by simply not leaving the school office until they agreed to let their son opt out of reading a book mainstreaming gay marriage. This is indoctrination and and imposition. I will not have my children taught about that at school anymore than I expect them to teach your kid about Soteriology or how to pray the Rosary.

    When confronted on the issue, they simply say, “gay marriage isn’t against the law. This isn’t a parental issue.” Supplanting of parent’s responsibility by the school.

    Frankly, sex ed isn’t against the law either but it’s been long held that parents can opt out.

    Also, you bring up freaks like Westover Baptist spewing hate (which we already covered in the comments above) at funerals but you fail to mention the hate spewed by Prop 8 opponents toward an elderly woman trying to conduct a TV interview explaining her support of the Prop. It even got physical with them swatting a cross out of her hand and ripping papers and signage from her and her friend. So let’s not get in a p!$$ing match about which group is perfect or has an ugly fringe.

    It boils down to this: If we truly believe in equal protection, than anything that blatantly violates my religious convictions shouldn’t be imposed on me by the state. And that is what gay marriage legislation does, imho. It’s happened in Mass. It’ll happen nationwide if we let it.

  36. Charles. You are confusing more than one issue in my opinion.

    You mention gay-straight alliances in schools. Those are legal and voluntary. I believe they have a right to exist if no one is forced or even encouraged by staff of the school to attend it or the Christian one. Very different issue, legally and spiritually from gay marriage.

    However, we have seen in massachusetts that when homosexual marriage is equated with heterosexual marriage, the public schools take the liberty to incorporate the “normalcy” and “option” of gay marriage to children in Science, Health, and Social Studies classes without parental consent or the ability to opt out. At lease one father has gone to jail in Mass. by simply not leaving the school office until they agreed to let their son opt out of reading a book mainstreaming gay marriage. This is indoctrination and and imposition. I will not have my children taught about that at school anymore than I expect them to teach your kid about Soteriology or how to pray the Rosary.

    When confronted on the issue, they simply say, “gay marriage isn’t against the law. This isn’t a parental issue.” Supplanting of parent’s responsibility by the school.

    Frankly, sex ed isn’t against the law either but it’s been long held that parents can opt out.

    Also, you bring up freaks like Westover Baptist spewing hate (which we already covered in the comments above) at funerals but you fail to mention the hate spewed by Prop 8 opponents toward an elderly woman trying to conduct a TV interview explaining her support of the Prop. It even got physical with them swatting a cross out of her hand and ripping papers and signage from her and her friend. So let’s not get in a p!$$ing match about which group is perfect or has an ugly fringe.

    It boils down to this: If we truly believe in equal protection, than anything that blatantly violates my religious convictions shouldn’t be imposed on me by the state. And that is what gay marriage legislation does, imho. It’s happened in Mass. It’ll happen nationwide if we let it.

  37. Excellent point Eric. I watched that video… dreadful. Like you I also condemn the conduct of Westboro Baptist Church.

    They actually picketed the church I was a member at before becoming an interim pastor at another church.

    That is hate, and they will be judged.

    Like you I have no problems with the existence of Gay-Straight Alliances, just don’t make them compulsory, and stop the indoctrination in the classrooms.

  38. Excellent point Eric. I watched that video… dreadful. Like you I also condemn the conduct of Westboro Baptist Church.

    They actually picketed the church I was a member at before becoming an interim pastor at another church.

    That is hate, and they will be judged.

    Like you I have no problems with the existence of Gay-Straight Alliances, just don’t make them compulsory, and stop the indoctrination in the classrooms.

  39. I have never heard of the alliances being compulsary, and when I was mentioning the prayer thing, it is often mentioned that there should be school sanctioned prayer before the day starts. Honestly, I am all for the pledge of allegiance,either the original version, or the mccarthy era version, either way, we need to pledge our alliegance to our nation. But I do not see the school function of prayer. I think that it is great that there are christian bible study groups in schools, and that is wonderful, as long is, as you stated, it is voluntary and not pushed by the staff. I feel the same way about the alliance thing.

    Truthfully, being gay isnt a top priority of what I consider myself, and I really resent that it has to be such a big deal to some people.

    About the P*ssing contest, I apologize that the old lady got “beat up” and do not in any way condone that action. I personally would not disrespect someone like that at all, and if I were present would have done all in my power to stop it. Just like I would stop it if I thought someone was going to brutilize another person for being ethnic, handicapped, ect. However, this one instance, from the blogs i have read, while deplorable, has been over played considering the history of violence against the gay community, both past and present. this is my opinion, and agian, if I were there, would have tried to stop it. I dont agree with rioting, but I probably would have participated in protesting a church, and have even contemplated it. Wouldnt burst in,shouting, but would have no problem with returning the favor, either on sunday or on a celebratory day, as this has been witnessed by myself on numerous occasions.

    Now, to the school thing. honestly, I really dont think elementary should be the place to introduce this. I personally, hate to beat that one to death-but, would find my child being taught this ugly and repulsive, unless there was an issue. IF, for example, little Johnny has two mommies and the other kids are harrasing this child, then maybe it does need to be addressed. Just like, if little johny’s daddy was an evangical minister and was being harrassed the other kids. NO child deserves that kind of cruel and unrelenting punishment. I would not have them condone either function, as that is not their place. But at the same time, with that said, as I stated earlier, it is also a parents responsibilty to teach their children morals and to teach them to question these kind of things for themselves. Again, elementry is not somewhere that sex ed should be, but middle school on there needs to be some mention of it.

    I commend you for putting your practice where your morals are, home schooling your children. This, I realize, is not an easy task, and with every passing day becomes more and more difficult from the regulation stand point.

    I am not, by any means an expert, but from your argument, then banning or denying people like me would be the equivilant of banning all 25 year olds from driving because a couple of them drive fast, erratic, stupidly. Again, this is where parental participation in their childrens lives are important, and I think that rings true for families on the right and left. I really wish in a lot of ways that they would go back to the basics, the 3 r’s and leave the morals to the parents, but too many parents just dont participate in their childrens lives enough these days. That is sad, for all of us.

    And finally, for now, you still have not, as I have repeatedly asked, given a response to my asking of the protection of marriage as it relates to divorce and adultery. I really wish to know why you feel that with over 50% if all marriages ending in divorce why this is not as much, if not more of a problem then same sex marriage?

  40. I have never heard of the alliances being compulsary, and when I was mentioning the prayer thing, it is often mentioned that there should be school sanctioned prayer before the day starts. Honestly, I am all for the pledge of allegiance,either the original version, or the mccarthy era version, either way, we need to pledge our alliegance to our nation. But I do not see the school function of prayer. I think that it is great that there are christian bible study groups in schools, and that is wonderful, as long is, as you stated, it is voluntary and not pushed by the staff. I feel the same way about the alliance thing.

    Truthfully, being gay isnt a top priority of what I consider myself, and I really resent that it has to be such a big deal to some people.

    About the P*ssing contest, I apologize that the old lady got “beat up” and do not in any way condone that action. I personally would not disrespect someone like that at all, and if I were present would have done all in my power to stop it. Just like I would stop it if I thought someone was going to brutilize another person for being ethnic, handicapped, ect. However, this one instance, from the blogs i have read, while deplorable, has been over played considering the history of violence against the gay community, both past and present. this is my opinion, and agian, if I were there, would have tried to stop it. I dont agree with rioting, but I probably would have participated in protesting a church, and have even contemplated it. Wouldnt burst in,shouting, but would have no problem with returning the favor, either on sunday or on a celebratory day, as this has been witnessed by myself on numerous occasions.

    Now, to the school thing. honestly, I really dont think elementary should be the place to introduce this. I personally, hate to beat that one to death-but, would find my child being taught this ugly and repulsive, unless there was an issue. IF, for example, little Johnny has two mommies and the other kids are harrasing this child, then maybe it does need to be addressed. Just like, if little johny’s daddy was an evangical minister and was being harrassed the other kids. NO child deserves that kind of cruel and unrelenting punishment. I would not have them condone either function, as that is not their place. But at the same time, with that said, as I stated earlier, it is also a parents responsibilty to teach their children morals and to teach them to question these kind of things for themselves. Again, elementry is not somewhere that sex ed should be, but middle school on there needs to be some mention of it.

    I commend you for putting your practice where your morals are, home schooling your children. This, I realize, is not an easy task, and with every passing day becomes more and more difficult from the regulation stand point.

    I am not, by any means an expert, but from your argument, then banning or denying people like me would be the equivilant of banning all 25 year olds from driving because a couple of them drive fast, erratic, stupidly. Again, this is where parental participation in their childrens lives are important, and I think that rings true for families on the right and left. I really wish in a lot of ways that they would go back to the basics, the 3 r’s and leave the morals to the parents, but too many parents just dont participate in their childrens lives enough these days. That is sad, for all of us.

    And finally, for now, you still have not, as I have repeatedly asked, given a response to my asking of the protection of marriage as it relates to divorce and adultery. I really wish to know why you feel that with over 50% if all marriages ending in divorce why this is not as much, if not more of a problem then same sex marriage?

  41. Marriage within any country is up to the country – not the church. If gay people want to have marriage – I am not sure I see the problem if it does get passed (like here in Canada). I think some people are on here are making some great points concerning the issue – and it needs to be discussed inside Christian communities also…with both sides represented (pro’s and con’s).

  42. Marriage within any country is up to the country – not the church. If gay people want to have marriage – I am not sure I see the problem if it does get passed (like here in Canada). I think some people are on here are making some great points concerning the issue – and it needs to be discussed inside Christian communities also…with both sides represented (pro’s and con’s).

  43. Charles,

    I wanted to respond to this:

    “I really wish to know why you feel that with over 50% if all marriages ending in divorce why this is not as much, if not more of a problem then same sex marriage?”

    I think that divorce is a plague on society. Working with high-risk kids I see many of the problems they have find at their root broken homes and absent fathers. That is an issue that is being actively addressed by the Church in many forms… marriage mentors, “Divorce-proofing your marriage” movements, equipping lay counselors to help work with marriages in trouble, and helping on the front-end with intensive premarital counseling and mentoring as well.

    The ultimate solution for this isn’t a political one. There are some things that states can do – some have implemented covenant marriage licenses, some have tougher divorce laws, some require counseling before a divorce is granted.

    Also much has been done and is being done with addressing issues that lead to divorces as well. Tackling the pornography/unfaithfulness issues through accountability groups. Teaching young couples about money management, and how to handle in-laws, etc.

    The main thing that needs to be conveyed to people desiring to get marriage and it is alluded to in this post – marriage is a covenant between a man and his wife and with God. “Let no man tear asunder what God has joined together.”

    So by doing this post I didn’t intend to imply that divorce is not a problem. It is, and I agree with you I think it is a bigger problem than same-sex marriage.

    I think it is being addressed. I may not blog on it, but I have done much to promote healthy marriages within my church and community. As well as personally being committed to my wife of 15 years.

  44. Charles,

    I wanted to respond to this:

    “I really wish to know why you feel that with over 50% if all marriages ending in divorce why this is not as much, if not more of a problem then same sex marriage?”

    I think that divorce is a plague on society. Working with high-risk kids I see many of the problems they have find at their root broken homes and absent fathers. That is an issue that is being actively addressed by the Church in many forms… marriage mentors, “Divorce-proofing your marriage” movements, equipping lay counselors to help work with marriages in trouble, and helping on the front-end with intensive premarital counseling and mentoring as well.

    The ultimate solution for this isn’t a political one. There are some things that states can do – some have implemented covenant marriage licenses, some have tougher divorce laws, some require counseling before a divorce is granted.

    Also much has been done and is being done with addressing issues that lead to divorces as well. Tackling the pornography/unfaithfulness issues through accountability groups. Teaching young couples about money management, and how to handle in-laws, etc.

    The main thing that needs to be conveyed to people desiring to get marriage and it is alluded to in this post – marriage is a covenant between a man and his wife and with God. “Let no man tear asunder what God has joined together.”

    So by doing this post I didn’t intend to imply that divorce is not a problem. It is, and I agree with you I think it is a bigger problem than same-sex marriage.

    I think it is being addressed. I may not blog on it, but I have done much to promote healthy marriages within my church and community. As well as personally being committed to my wife of 15 years.

  45. I commend your efforts through your church and think that is admirable, and do not mean to belittle your efforts in anyway, but my point is that if it is such a problem for gays to marry, then why is the bigger threat to marriage such as divorce not actively being pursed by the church for banning? I mean, if you are going to ban or prevent one thing, then you should also be pushing for this as well.

    And just to clarify, as I have said before, my partner and I have been faithful, committed, and monogamous for more then 10 years now. We support each other to the fullest and look foward to growing old together. And yet, we have to spend thousands of dollars to get a psuedo agreement drafted by lawyers to protect our joint standing together, and then even that is not a guarantee, as some states, such as Virginia, have gone so far as to put language in their “doma” acts that even prevent this.

    I agree, if marriage is a religious act, then it should be left to the churches to administer as they see fit. However, in the civil arena, our goverment needs to address that, like it or not, there are same sex couples that are in every way but one “married”. Protection needs to be afforded on the same level to us as to you and yours.

    My partner, friends, and all that I have spoken to in my community(by this I mean my neighbors as well as other gays) agree that this is something that needs to be addressed. However, the same old rhetoric goes around and around, unfortunately on both sides, and nothing ever gets done. i agree that churches should be left to their own devices, as long as they are not causing harm to people (i.e. advocating violence to oneself, or others for example). My partner and I do not seek to be married in a church as that is not our thing ( no disrespect-as I applaud your beliefs and admire much that the church has done to help the poor and to overall better society) but instead only ask that we be allowed to go before a justice of the peace and get recognized by our goverment so that we dont have to spend unnessiray money on possibly ineffective legal documents that in all reality could be invalidated for any reason by a good lawyer, or future misguided legislation.

    I realize that your belief system is different then mine, and I honestly do not debate this in hope of changing your feelings overall. Yes, I would love to have you accept us, but I also am a realist and realize that not everyone is going to approve of everything you do all the time. Such is life, however, I do believe that we are being regulated to second class citizenship by our goverment in not being allowed to have a basic reaffirmation by OUR goverment (yours and mine) that we are valued as citizens and have the right to a pursuit of life,liberty, and happiness. That is all I and everyone else I know am asking for.

    Now, with that said, I realize that some have this vast, gay-agenda thing, and honestly, I don’t buy it. Not anymore then I buy the idea that the church is out to take over our country and put everyone who disagrees into “re-education” camps. Either way, I would fight to the end if it came to pass as one size doesn’t fit all. I believe that all we are all after is to do the right thing, as we see it. I understand, better then you may be comfortable to know, your belief system as once I too felt the same way. However, the spirit spoke to me, loudly, and unwaivering, that I was not being true to myself or him, and led me to self discovery of what has truly made me happy and productive in society. I am happy and honestly don’t seek your church’s aproval of me, as all I need is his aproval and in some degree my families, which I have received in abundance. I hope you understand that, I am happy and feel fulfilled in both spirit and body by what has come to me. I only want protections afforded to me, either through marriage, or civil unions by a goverment that I believe is actively seeking to be fair. i want, just as much as you do, to see our great country to live up to its full potentiel and be the great shining beacon of hope that it has been in the past.

    Thank you, I appreciate your tolerance in allowing me to post here, on your website, and for having a good discussion of something that I realize runs against your strongly heald beliefs. I also hope, that no offense was given on my part, and I hope that we all can come to some reasonable and thoughtful conclusion to this issue so that, in the end, we can stop this from further dividing our nation and instead we can all work to better our nation. After all, one thing that we all have in common is that we are Americans, and that we only want what is best for our own personal families. What is best for your family, may not be for mine, and visa-versa. Thank you, and may be peace and saftey be with you.

    Charles

  46. I commend your efforts through your church and think that is admirable, and do not mean to belittle your efforts in anyway, but my point is that if it is such a problem for gays to marry, then why is the bigger threat to marriage such as divorce not actively being pursed by the church for banning? I mean, if you are going to ban or prevent one thing, then you should also be pushing for this as well.

    And just to clarify, as I have said before, my partner and I have been faithful, committed, and monogamous for more then 10 years now. We support each other to the fullest and look foward to growing old together. And yet, we have to spend thousands of dollars to get a psuedo agreement drafted by lawyers to protect our joint standing together, and then even that is not a guarantee, as some states, such as Virginia, have gone so far as to put language in their “doma” acts that even prevent this.

    I agree, if marriage is a religious act, then it should be left to the churches to administer as they see fit. However, in the civil arena, our goverment needs to address that, like it or not, there are same sex couples that are in every way but one “married”. Protection needs to be afforded on the same level to us as to you and yours.

    My partner, friends, and all that I have spoken to in my community(by this I mean my neighbors as well as other gays) agree that this is something that needs to be addressed. However, the same old rhetoric goes around and around, unfortunately on both sides, and nothing ever gets done. i agree that churches should be left to their own devices, as long as they are not causing harm to people (i.e. advocating violence to oneself, or others for example). My partner and I do not seek to be married in a church as that is not our thing ( no disrespect-as I applaud your beliefs and admire much that the church has done to help the poor and to overall better society) but instead only ask that we be allowed to go before a justice of the peace and get recognized by our goverment so that we dont have to spend unnessiray money on possibly ineffective legal documents that in all reality could be invalidated for any reason by a good lawyer, or future misguided legislation.

    I realize that your belief system is different then mine, and I honestly do not debate this in hope of changing your feelings overall. Yes, I would love to have you accept us, but I also am a realist and realize that not everyone is going to approve of everything you do all the time. Such is life, however, I do believe that we are being regulated to second class citizenship by our goverment in not being allowed to have a basic reaffirmation by OUR goverment (yours and mine) that we are valued as citizens and have the right to a pursuit of life,liberty, and happiness. That is all I and everyone else I know am asking for.

    Now, with that said, I realize that some have this vast, gay-agenda thing, and honestly, I don’t buy it. Not anymore then I buy the idea that the church is out to take over our country and put everyone who disagrees into “re-education” camps. Either way, I would fight to the end if it came to pass as one size doesn’t fit all. I believe that all we are all after is to do the right thing, as we see it. I understand, better then you may be comfortable to know, your belief system as once I too felt the same way. However, the spirit spoke to me, loudly, and unwaivering, that I was not being true to myself or him, and led me to self discovery of what has truly made me happy and productive in society. I am happy and honestly don’t seek your church’s aproval of me, as all I need is his aproval and in some degree my families, which I have received in abundance. I hope you understand that, I am happy and feel fulfilled in both spirit and body by what has come to me. I only want protections afforded to me, either through marriage, or civil unions by a goverment that I believe is actively seeking to be fair. i want, just as much as you do, to see our great country to live up to its full potentiel and be the great shining beacon of hope that it has been in the past.

    Thank you, I appreciate your tolerance in allowing me to post here, on your website, and for having a good discussion of something that I realize runs against your strongly heald beliefs. I also hope, that no offense was given on my part, and I hope that we all can come to some reasonable and thoughtful conclusion to this issue so that, in the end, we can stop this from further dividing our nation and instead we can all work to better our nation. After all, one thing that we all have in common is that we are Americans, and that we only want what is best for our own personal families. What is best for your family, may not be for mine, and visa-versa. Thank you, and may be peace and saftey be with you.

    Charles

  47. Charles,

    Thank you for your comments. I really do appreciate your thoughts, and hopefully this post can show that we can disagree agreeably. No offense taken at all as your comments were very respectful.

  48. Charles,

    Thank you for your comments. I really do appreciate your thoughts, and hopefully this post can show that we can disagree agreeably. No offense taken at all as your comments were very respectful.

  49. The passage of prop 8 was anti-American. The judicial branch of government was set up to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The California Supreme Court did it’s job.

    There is no child requirement for marriage. Anyone who doesn’t have kids or are unable to have kids can get married including prisoners, the elderly and infertile.

    Marriage equality for ALL. It’s American.

  50. The passage of prop 8 was anti-American. The judicial branch of government was set up to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The California Supreme Court did it’s job.

    There is no child requirement for marriage. Anyone who doesn’t have kids or are unable to have kids can get married including prisoners, the elderly and infertile.

    Marriage equality for ALL. It’s American.

  51. Adam,

    Everybody already has the right to be married… to the opposite sex.

    And where in the post did I say having children was a requirement for marriage?

    My post wasn’t about the civil definition – my point was that even if same sex marriage was recognized civilly it is still a faux marriage in God’s eyes.

    The judicial branch provides a check and balance with the other branches of the government. They are on equal footing. The other branches also provide a check and balance with them. If a law is deemed unconstitutional, Congress (or a State Legislature) can remedy that. Constitutionally the people have a right to amend the Constitution.

  52. Adam,

    Everybody already has the right to be married… to the opposite sex.

    And where in the post did I say having children was a requirement for marriage?

    My post wasn’t about the civil definition – my point was that even if same sex marriage was recognized civilly it is still a faux marriage in God’s eyes.

    The judicial branch provides a check and balance with the other branches of the government. They are on equal footing. The other branches also provide a check and balance with them. If a law is deemed unconstitutional, Congress (or a State Legislature) can remedy that. Constitutionally the people have a right to amend the Constitution.

  53. Shane,

    In your zeal to get this “problem” addressed, perhaps you should be careful at the Pandora’s box you are opening. Much as your side is constantly saying that this is a slippery slope, so is the idea of amending constitutions, either on the state end or the fedral. As we all know, fashions, and for that matter, prejudices change. One day, you might be on the receiving end of the amendment process, and you may be surprised at how fast that could happen.

    Besides, you and your religion are entitled to your stance that in your eyes this isn’t a real marriage, or as you put it, a “faux” marriage, but in the eyes of our goverment is all we are asking for.

    Besides, just because something is put into the constituion as an amendment, doesn’t mean that it can go with out challenge, especially, as in the case of Iowa, it would violate the equal protection under the law clause. But then that is a point for the lawyers to argue about.

    I still say that if we are going to protect marriage from the “evils” of same sex marriage, then I will, and everyone I have talked to, have agreed to push that banning divorce and stiff penalties for adulters be included. But with the level of hypocricy I have personally experienced in the evangical community, it would probably still pass. Just my estimation of the situation as it currently stands.

  54. Shane,

    In your zeal to get this “problem” addressed, perhaps you should be careful at the Pandora’s box you are opening. Much as your side is constantly saying that this is a slippery slope, so is the idea of amending constitutions, either on the state end or the fedral. As we all know, fashions, and for that matter, prejudices change. One day, you might be on the receiving end of the amendment process, and you may be surprised at how fast that could happen.

    Besides, you and your religion are entitled to your stance that in your eyes this isn’t a real marriage, or as you put it, a “faux” marriage, but in the eyes of our goverment is all we are asking for.

    Besides, just because something is put into the constituion as an amendment, doesn’t mean that it can go with out challenge, especially, as in the case of Iowa, it would violate the equal protection under the law clause. But then that is a point for the lawyers to argue about.

    I still say that if we are going to protect marriage from the “evils” of same sex marriage, then I will, and everyone I have talked to, have agreed to push that banning divorce and stiff penalties for adulters be included. But with the level of hypocricy I have personally experienced in the evangical community, it would probably still pass. Just my estimation of the situation as it currently stands.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

One Struggle

Luke 10:41,42 “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many…

What if the Population Replacement Rate Drops to 2.0. Then What?

Twice in the last couple of months I have been faced with…

A Christ Without a Cross is Not Good News

This week I’m preparing for a sermon that looks at Jesus as…

The Purpose of Preaching

I’m reading a book called Faith Undone by Roger Oakland.  It is…