Skip to comments.“Leading from Behind” On Same Sex Marriage:
Posted on 05/10/2012 4:21:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
President Obama is a thorough-going man of the left obsessed with power and thus in re-election, so his decision Wednesday to declare for same sex marriage is hardly a surprise. The only surprise is that his timing was so nakedly political and reflexive. The president was pushed into declaring his support by his Vice President and his Secretary of Education, and no serious person disputes this.
Leading from behind the famous White House description of the presidents Libya policy retailed by the White House to the New Yorkers Ryan Lizza--now has found its expression in domestic politics.
Of course Obama was for same sex marriage before he was against it and before he was for it again. Hes a weather vane on this issue, and his genuine ideological extremism had led him to support same sex marriage long before Gallup announced days ago it had become a preference among a majority of Americans, but the president had abandoned his earlier support when it became an inconvenient truth for him while running for president.
No matter. Every state electorate but one that has been asked to vote on the issue has voted for traditional marriage, and the vast, vast majority of supporters of traditional marriage are not anti-gay or anti-lesbians. They believe, as I do, that marriage between a man and woman is ordained by God for the happiness of humankind and the building up of society, and that it is to be preferred to any other situation for the raising of children.
This is not to say that single parents, or same sex couples cannot be terrific parents. They can be, often far better at it than married couples who are terrible, horrible parents from whose care children must be removed.
Rather it is to say that, as an organizing principle, societies can hold up as the ideal one father and one mother, joined for life in a sacred bond, committed to each other and their offspring. No child of a situation other than that ideal for society is any less a valued member of society born or unborn, ordinary or disabled in some waybut equal love for all life is perfectly consistent with the conviction that the society is best served by keeping traditional marriage as the recognized best situation for the vast majority of children.
Well meaning people can and do disagree with this, but solid majorities of Americans still vote this way, most recently on Tuesday in North Carolina, and, to repeat, the vast majority of those people are not in the least bigoted towards gays or lesbians.
The president has now declared his strong opposition to their political preferences, and this will be an issue in the fall for some voters. Some will vote for him because of his support for same sex marriage despite the havoc he has unleashed on the economy, and some will vote for Mitt Romney despite the fact they support same sex marriage because they know that four more years of President Obama will cripple the country and the West. It is hard to say how the issue will cut in the November election..
What cannot be said, at least by serious people, is that the president is on the right side of history. If that were the case, how could he have casually abandoned Iraq where there are forces gathering that are not merely opposed to gay marriage and indeed for freedom or even life for gays? How can he be inviting the Taliban to sit down and reason together when their return to power will be a death sentence for gays and lesbians in that country? Unless they mean the "right side of history" for privileged elites in the west. That is a very narrow view of history.
Of course the president isnt consistently on any side of history, or on any side of anything at all, except his own side at all times. He is a pure man of the hard left, and his contortions in search of re-election will neither surprise nor shock.
The debate over marriage will continue, however, next in Minnesota, where another marriage measure is on the ballot in November.
If you are not ready to declare that the oldest institution of the Western world marriage between one man and one womanhas been proven obsolete or in need of casual experimentation, then you can contribute to the Minnesota for Marriage campaign via the Act Right button at HughHewitt.com.
If youd like to deepen your understanding of the issue, you can read the relevant sections of Dennis Pragers magnificent new book Still the Best Hope.
If you are on the fence about the issue, it is possible to consult the best writing and arguments on both sides. Jonathan Rauch's Gay Marriage is probably the best case for same sex marriage.
But you cannot trust the president for guidance or leadership on this or any other issue, and you ought not to applaud him for his "courage" on the issue, even if you support his (current) position. If he thought it would get him re-elected, hed switch back to opposition tomorrow.
Whatever the outcome of the debate, understand that there is no predetermined outcome, just as there is not predetermined victor in the conflict between radical Islam and the West. If you agree with my latter statement, by the way, you must agree with my former assertion, though you may have to think about that for a bit.
No matter which way the debate over marriage goes over the next few decades and over the map of the world, however, it will forever be recorded that Barack Obama did not reach a principled decision on the issue, only a political one, a lurch driven be expediency and triggered by underlings. History is indeed unfolding, but it cannot be convincingly rewritten.
"You son looks like a fag to me."
"You better get married again or he's going to wind up with somebody's blank in his blank before you can say Jack Robinson!"
They’d never get away with that scene today.
There's no leadership here from either Dem. They're a joke.
I can see the reaction right now.
"How dare you! How dare you!"
Instead of my 'opinion'; I'll quote Scripture:
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
(Wife; not WIVES)
Were multiple wives SANCTIONED by GOD?
1 Kings 11:1-3 reports,
But King Solomon loved many foreign women, as well as the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites; from the nations of whom the LORD had said to the children of Israel,
You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you. Surely they will turn away your hearts after their gods.
Solomon clung to these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart.
The story of Onan is about the closest thing I could find in the OT that mentions another wife. But I could not find that the practice was institutued at GOD's command.
And is there a specific Biblical command that polygamy shall now be banned, and only monogamy recognized?
In the Bible and also in the Book of MORMON we find:
1 Timothy 3:2-3
2. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3. not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHICHAPTER 224 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
Try to find a show on TV that does NOT have a fag in it!
With that kind of attitude, you can see the (twisted) logic of gay marriage: it's the same as straight marriage because it's all about two adults and their mutual satisfaction. Nothing there that could pull them beyond egotism-for-two, nothing pregnancy-related going on here. And as a bonus, they don't even need plugs, rubbers, sprays, jellies, jams, pills: they're already flawlessly contracepted! Perfect DINKs! (Double Income, No Kids.)
Even serious polygamy would be better than this. It did not use to be considered declasse for a king, say, to have children through concubines as well as through the queen.
It’s a New Testament ideal. (The book of Mormon borrows New Testament concepts and casts them in an Old Testament style.)
I absolutely agree with monogamy, but --- as I'm sure you know --- there are some Sripture-alone people who say Scripture doesnt forbid polygamy..
This is not my argument, it is theirs:
The first polygamist mentioned in the Bible is Lamech, whose two wives were Adah and Zillah (Gen 4:19).
Abraham's three wives were Sarah, and concubines Hagar and Keturah, who are also referred to as "wives" in other parts of the Bible. (Gen 25:6).
Jacob's first two wives are the sisters Leah and Rachel (Gen 29:28) and despite an oath with their father Laban to not take any additional wives, he took Bilhah (Gen 30:4) and Zilpah (Gen 30:9).
Moses' two wives were Zipporah (Ex 2:21, Ex 18:1-6) and an Ethiopian woman (Num 12:1), who Moses was permitted to marry by God, despite ALL the rest of his people being forbidden to take a foreign wife (because foreigners were pagan). Interestingly enough, Aaron and Miriam were punished for disapproving of Moses' forbidden marriage.
Gideon "had many wives" (Judges 8:29-32).
Davids five named wives were Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, Eglah, and of course, Bathsheba. David also took "more wives and concubines" (2 Sam 5:13) The prophet Nathan, confronting David with the murder of Uriah, said that God would have given David more wives if he had wanted them.(2 Samuel 12:8)
In support of polygamy, the Bible gives rules concerning the taking of multiple wives; noting that "If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights,(Exodus 21:10) and making it an obligation for men to marry the widow of a deceased brother.(Deuteronomy 25).
And even though Genesis says that a man cleaves to his wife (singular) and they become one flesh, it doesn't say he can't be one flesh with more than one woman. Otherwise you'd have to say that the women called "wives" of David and Jacob and so forth weren't really wives, which raises the question of, is the Bible mistaken when it calls them wives?
In the Bible marriages to additional spouses are considered valid. If this is not true, then there is a theological problem with the lineage of Jesus Christ which does not always go through the first wife. For instance, his genealogy in Matthew's Gospel says he was he descendant of David from Bathsheba.
The Jews themselves didnt see Jewish Scrupture as requiring mongamy. Polygamy was not banned in the Jewish community until about 1000 A.D. by Rabbi Gershom. They knew what Genesis said about "one flesh," but they thought a man could be "one flesh" with a number of wives. Neither does the New Testament explicitly ban polygamy. The job-descriptions you quoted from the Epistles don't say that the one-wife requrement is for everyone, just for deacons, overseers, and elders.
Once again, this is not my argument. I am strictly pro-monogamy. Polygamy disappeared wherever Christianity was established. Why? Because Tertullian, Augustine, and other early Fathers of the Church, interpreted the Scriptures differently than than the Jews of their own time, and differently than Moses and David did. I am a monogamist because of the Church.
I can't approve concubinage, but at least it wasn't straight out perverted. And it was better than Henry's later policy of beheading one wife so he could ("legitimately") marry the next one.
That's the truth. Even my beloved Tudors had THREE of them in it (albeit very briefly, thank God).
A historical drama, circa five hundred years ago, and they would have had you believe it was the Castro District.
I always liked Catherine :o)
But not at the same time.
MORMONism LIES and says that GOD told Abram to take HAGAR as a wife. The bible CLEARLY shows that Sari pushed her onto Abram. (and a guy is gonna say "no!"? wink-wink).
Sari ran her off into the desert.
Some time later; Abraham married Keturah after the death of Sarah.
I am one because I want to live longer!!
Did SOMEone mention BEHEADING???
LOL, very kind of you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.