Posted on 04/25/2015 5:55:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
It is now the “gotcha” question being asked to every Republican presidential candidate: Would you attend a same-sex ‘wedding’ ceremony?”
Rick Santorum said no, since it would be a violation of his faith.
Marco Rubio said yes, even though he disagrees with it as a Catholic, just as he disagrees with divorce and remarriage, but he would attend rather than hurt someone he loves.
Scott Walker said he had previously attended a same-sex “wedding” reception but stated that marriage was the union of a man and a woman.
Ted Cruz wouldn’t answer, but apparently not because of ambiguity on his position, since he has called for pastors to preach about the meaning of marriage this Sunday. Instead, he refused to let the media determine his talking points.
Rick Perry, when asked the question by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt said he “probably would” attend, but, similar to Ted Cruz, refused to get off his talking points, stating that the real issues we needed to focus on were the economy and national defense.
Of course, as valid as this question is, it can be a no-win question, one that caricatures the candidate in the eyes of potential voters (as either a hater or a compromiser) and one that can hardly be put forward as a main question in determining whether a candidate is ready to be president of the United States.
And so I can appreciate what Senator Cruz and Governor Perry did when asked the question, refusing to be backed into a corner, be it by conservative or liberal media, and also emphasizing what they felt was most important. After all, isn’t that what politicians consistently do?
I’m also not minimizing the importance of strengthening our economy and having a robust national defense, especially in light of the many challenges that exist around the globe today.
It’s the end of Governor Perry’s answer that concerns me, and I say this with respect for him as a committed, God-honoring Christian. His exact words were: “I mean, to me there’s two big issues out here in front of us. It’s the economy and it’s national defense, and if you’re not really talking about those two on a regular basis and coming up with solutions on how to get this country back working, how to get this debt under control, and how to put America back into a position of being respected by our allies and being an influence in the world, then you’re spending some time that, frankly, doesn’t need to be spent on some issues that are secondary or tertiary to the future of this country.”
Again, I understand the point Governor Perry was making, but does he really believe that the very definition of marriage is only “secondary or tertiary to the future of this country”?
Does he believe that the larger issues that flow out of the potential redefinition of marriage, which include the meaning and structure of the American family, the home environment in which hundreds of thousands of children will be raised, and the real threat posed to our freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience by homosexual activism, are merely “secondary or tertiary to the future of this country”?
Perhaps preserving (really, rebuilding) the institution of marriage is of paramount importance to the future of our country?
As a fellow-believer in Jesus and a fellow-moral conservative, I appeal to you, Governor Perry, not to capitulate to what is politically correct in our culture today (certainly, that is not how you governed Texas, is it?) and not to sidestep fundamental issues of critical importance to our national wellbeing.
By all means, talk about the economy and national defense, and don’t major on the minor issue of whether you’d attend a same-sex “wedding” ceremony.
But please don’t downplay the importance of the issue of redefining marriage.
There are few things more important to the nation than standing for marriage and family as God intended them to be.
Rand Paul had the right approach when he pushed back on the gotcha abortion question. Go ask [fill in the blank with some liberal] what he/she thinks about making a married couple supporting their 4 children with their bakery having to pay six figures to two women for not baking them a wedding cake. Is that okay?
The media needs to define Republican candidates as mean spirited haters.
The gay question is the new abortion question.
The correct answer is to state your position and indicate it’s a state issue and be done with it.
Why in the world is anyone wasting time Perry and Santorum?! They have about as much chance of getting the 2016 nomination as I do, which is nil.
The "very definition of marriage" was changed between 1969-1973 to a peculiar institution which is not Godly, not biblical, and which has never existed anywhere on the earth before now.
The fact that opposite-sex couples still enact sham ceremonies following the old ways does not create a "traditional marriage", at least not in the way marriages enacted prior to 1969 did.
What we have now is "gay marriage for straights", which is why the barriers to gay marriage for gays are collapsing so fast.
If a marriage between two men or two women were indissoluble and its sexual exclusivity were guaranteed by law, as heterosexual marriage was for most of its existence prior to its abolition in the 1970s, then no gay men and precious few gay women would want to be anywhere near it.
To paraphrase that great American philosopher (/sarcasm off, sort of/) Richard "Kinky" Friedman ... "The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
But for nonbelievers in the possibility of a marriage between two people of the same sex, it is not and it cannot be, a "state issue".
If someone does not believe that such state-sanctioned sexual arrangements are a "marriage", and if he or she transacts business that lies within state commercial codes, then calling it a "state matter" means that the police power of the state in question may be used to force him or her to execute documents, write employment contracts, pay benefits to, etc, a man's "husband" or a woman's "wife".
For nonbelievers, this establishes a tyranny.
Do you agree that, as a "state matter", that this is OK?
Ms. LIV does not know that; all she sees is Straight White Homophobic Bigot Male Who Wants To Keep Me In My Place, and like the old joke about Asians, to a LIV liberal, all straight white males look alike. In 2016, she will see Cruz or Walker, but the words of Santorum or Perry will remain in her head.
Do Not Eat With Such a One?-I Corinthians 5:11
JANUARY 19, 2011 / WESLEY /
There is a tendency amongst humans to find loopholes to difficult challenges. We want an easier way and we attempt to create that easier way by making exceptions that benefit us. One such exception that I’m seeing happen more often is in the case of 1 Corinthians 5:11. Let’s look at the verse.
Contextually, Paul is instructing, in a rather pointed way, the Corinthians to stop ignoring sin in the congregation. Specifically, the sin of one who is having a sexual relationship with his father’s wife. The congregation not 0nly tolerated the sin, but seemed to be proud of themselves for doing so. Paul makes it clear that their boasting is not good, and tells them to remove the man.
Continuing Paul lays out other examples of individuals from whom the church needs to disassociate. The word for disassociate means “to not keep close company with.” He gives a list that includes the sexually immoral, greedy, idolater, slanderer, drunk, and cheat. Individuals who have no desire to change their behavior, but still want to be seen as brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul’s command is that they disassociate from and not even eat with such a one.
So the application for us today is that if someone within the church is habitual practicing sin, without earnestly trying to stop, but yet still wants to be seen as an a faithful brother or sister in Christ, then the church is to follow the command of Paul here. The church is to not associate themselves with the person, even to the point of individuals not sharing a meal with him/her. It is a hard teaching, but our goal is the person will repent and other Christians within the church will not follow after that person in pursuing sin.
To be honest a lot of churches do not practice this at all. Whether it is fear of lawsuits or upsetting members or other reasons, individuals, who would clearly fall into the 1 Corinthians 5 category, are treated as if nothing is wrong. Once again this is a way to make God’s command easier on us. We rationalize that God would not want us to have a lawsuit, or that it would upset people and we do not want disharmony, or find some other exceptions. If you read 1 Corinthians 5 you quickly realize Paul was not concerned with any of those things and neither should we be.
However, even amongst those who do practice this, I am finding another exception being added. The exception is that this does not apply to family members. It is argued that it is okay to maintain close relationships with family members, even if the teaching of 1 Corinthians 5 applies to them. I understand the sentiment behind it, but I think it is another example of softening what is being said. To me it is a reminder of Jesus statement that sometimes a relationship with Him will cause division amongst families. Jesus wasn’t concerned with keeping harmony in families, He was concerned with making disciples.
1 Corinthians 5 is addressing people who practice sin habitual, but still want to be seen as faithful brothers and sisters. Paul makes it clear that the church cannot oblige them. Although we wish there were exceptions, in God’s wisdom there are not. And if I have to choose between my wisdom or God’s wisdom, then I will go with God’s.
Ted Cruz fights like Gen. George Patton
TED CRUZ has gravitas.
Cruz would have sounded foolish however he answered as he took 250K plus in 2008 from contributors pushing gay marriage and he and his wife just met with two flaming fags who own hotels in NY for another fundraiser. Sorry, I would not knowingly accept money from gays period much less meet with them and their friends and bring my wife along to come home with more donations. A person who brags about being a Christian and fails to rebuke such behavior is not getting my vote.
The answer should be “I would not, because I can think of nothing I could contribute to or derive from the experience.”
I think the “state” (whether that is Federal or Local) should get their nose out of the marriage business. I married my wife in front of God and our families. It is an oath and contract that I take very seriously.
But, that is my heritage and my religion. I come from a part of the country where religion is a personal matter between myself and God.
I believe that the “legal” part of the process is the business of the state in terms of the benefits that it bestows on the couple. That part of the process should be available to two people no matter their religious background. And I guess this means those who engage in a civil union.
If it were left up to the people, most people would respond as you and I do—where a marriage is a contract between God and the couple (m/F).
The issue is semantics: What does the word marriage mean? I see it as a religious union. But what does it mean to an Atheist? Or a gay couple?
I do know gay couples who have had more solid commitments than a lot of hetero relationships. They had to spend thousands of dollars to get the same legal protections that I have through a $35 marriage license. That does not seem fair and equitable.
The solution is to have a two stage process: The religious process if you believe in that. And a civil registration.
I know and you know that God blesses our marriage. The Commonwealth recognized my marriage thirty years ago. But, as in most things, I do not really care what the Commonwealth recognizes.
Good post. We are also instructed to rebuke those who sin. There are many places in the Bible where we are told to rebuke the likes of gays and other sinners. I am glad you posted this.
So you are stating that you will not support Cruz for president?
No matter who the media asks this question of, it is a gotcha question. That is why they ask it.
I think Cruz got it right. It really is them asking his position on same sex marriage being the law of the land. His response was that it’s a states rights issue.
I don’t think it is wholesome for any state to approve of deadly behavior being treated as if it’s a right, but let them be the experimental lab that will prove once again over time how this behavior is debilitating biologically and socially. They really don’t need any more evidence.
Isn’t it really odd that the supremes have to think more than a second about whether a deadly behavior is a ‘right’?
What are they...idiots?
The proper response:
“No, because calling it “marriage” doesn’t make it “marriage”, and I’m under no obligation to pretend otherwise.
“This has nothing to do with “hate” and everything to do with refusing to cave to the latest attempt to redefine our culture.”
No way. He is a loose canon who will pout like Obama and he will not get the Rep nomination. He is the divisive type who will run as an Independent or as a tea Party type.
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.