Posted on 07/13/2015 12:53:03 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I confess that I do not begin to understand homosexual or transgender issues.
As life would have it, this matter has found its way into the lives of my own circle of friends and family members, people whom I love and respect most dearly. While I acknowledge that I do not fully understand the issues which formed the basis of the case before the Supreme Court, I am comfortable with the decision and fully believe the Court is right in its ruling that laws forbidding same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.
Frankly, I don’t have to understand anything other than that I love all of God’s people and believe that each one of us is his creation. I do, in fact, completely understand that this land — and this Constitution — was founded upon freedom, equality and justice for all people, and that any attempt to deny these rights to any person is a violation of the law of this land.
I believe the Constitution is a living document, as stated by Justice Anthony Kennedy in his opinion, and that it affords the right of equal treatment to all people regardless of sexual orientation or other criteria, which defines the existence of America’s people.
I wish to emphatically state that I do not believe this ruling in any way affects the right of any American to the free exercise of his faith. Those like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz who argue otherwise are wrong, and should be ashamed. They are trying to win the White House by creating hostility among Christians against our government and toward same-sex couples.
Nothing in the decision affects the right of any American to worship and believe as he pleases. Even so, Cruz and Huckabee have called for the states to ignore the ruling and to disobey it. They come dangerously close to calling for insurrection. In doing so they disqualify themselves from the very office they seek.
There comes a time when writing a column becomes an extremely difficult thing and this is so today.
The friends I have in the church are more than important to me. They are my support system when times are tough and this has long been true. I know them and understand they do not often agree with me on matters of political issues but they love me and tolerate my differences with the very grace Barack Obama spoke about in the eulogy of the Rev. Clementa Pinckney. They are concerned this ruling threatens the comfort and joy that is the daily walk of their faith.
My desire is that these good and faithful people will not be discouraged and that they will hold fast to the tenets of their faith and with faith in our country’s commitment to justice for all people.
The good news is that the same ruling happened in Iowa more than six years ago when its own Supreme Court struck down the state law forbidding same-sex marriage. Look at what has occurred in Iowa during these last six years. Has there been any attack on Iowa’s churches? Have the horrors predicted by Huckabee and Cruz happened in the Hawkeye State?
Interestingly, during these six years that same-sex marriage has been legal in Iowa, not a single Christian pastor, nor any church, has been punished or publicly vilified for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.
Iowa has seen no instance of a church being threatened or deprived of its right to worship in its chosen way. There has been no attack on any church’s tax-exempt status for adhering to its biblical definition of marriage, or for other tenets of its faith. Life in Iowa during the last six years has been life as usual. Churches still open their doors on Sunday and the faithful still attend.
I believe the current and severe level of fear and the worry by my conservative Christian friends that this will somehow destroy America, and our freedom of religion, is a surrender to unfounded fear, and exhibits a lack of faith — certainly in our country, and perhaps, even in the God we worship. To continue in this pessimism is unseemly to our Christian faith.
The church in Iowa is as free to worship as it has ever been. The same will be true in every Christian church in the country in spite of the ruling.
The real problem is that Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz show us that the church, especially the Southern church, has become so involved in American politics that it is affected by the success or failure of its candidates and their political agendas.
Has the church become so involved in politics, with the purpose of molding government in its own image, that it has abandoned its real mission?
Political tracts are frequently distributed at church services and sermons have often offered endorsements for the church’s favored candidates. Has this contributed to the loss of the church’s influence in America, particularly among young Americans?
Many believe that the traditional role of the church in society — to care for the poor, the sick, the naked and the homeless — has taken a back seat to politics. During these years of political action, the church’s membership has declined year after year. Is there a correlation? Has this day of the greatest public dissatisfaction with politics in our country’s history been the cause, since the church has so aligned itself with partisan politics?
There are many who believe that the time is at hand when the Christian Church in America reaffirms its role as defined by Jesus’ earthly ministry, thus separating itself from American politics.
Take heart, my dear friends, this same-sex marriage decision does not threaten the church or the Christian faith — but the church’s continued flirtation with the full-contact sport of American politics may in fact do so.
******
Kenneth Fuller, a retired Rome attorney and former state senator, writes a blog at HomegrownDemocrat.com. Readers may contact him at lawdawg1973@att.net
The Church has had the same teachings for years, however the homosexuals are the ones wanting to change the Church.
Yeah Homosexual marriage is right under that guarantee of abortion.
Tell that to the oregon bakers.
What we are seeing is the left change this country to one which dies not represent the founding of the country and they are taking Constitutional rights away from people , not those made up rights they think the left should have.
Conduct for which people would be hung until dead in 1787 is a protected constitutional right?
Our society is filled with idiots.
You can not fix stupid.
Democrats love the pulpit as long as they are the
ones doing the preaching...
There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose.
That people can “define and express their identity” (Justice Kennedy in Obergefell) however they want in no way means that there exists a right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever reason.
If a group of persons wishes to form a commercial venture they must comply the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern corporations. If a group of persons wishes to form a personal venture they must comply with the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern marriages. This is the process defined by law.
There is a process defined in law for changing law.
Throughout history in every major society marriage has been between man and woman, or man and women. Now comes a novel definition.
The advocates of this novel definition are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. No advocate of this novel definition has followed the laws enacted by the elected legislature to have this novel definition incorporated into the laws, instead they have claimed that they have been deprived of a right.
Again, there is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose. This is no infringement upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights, their ability to “define and express their identity”. The process defined in law for changing law is available to all and no person or group has been denied the process for changing law.
To aid the advocates of the novel definition to obtain what they could not obtain legislatively, judges have imposed upon society this novel definition.
To protect against judicial novelties and to affirm the universal understanding of “marriage” citizens in several states have followed the legal procedures required in that State, procedures enacted by the elected legislature, to have placed before the voters a proposed amendment to the State Constitution. To have such a proposed amendment placed on the ballot is no small undertaking, typically requiring a large number of signatures collected in each district. The proposed amendment must then be adopted by the voters, typically with a requirement that 60% or more voters must approve for the amendment to be adopted.
There is nothing stopping advocates of this novel definition from doing likewise so that their novel definition is incorporated into the law.
Judges are not Legislators. The Supreme Court is not an unelected super-legislature whose edicts are absolute. They are not kings.
For judges to abuse the power of their office, to exercise that power beyond the extent of their authority, to impose upon society a novel definition so to mold society to their personal views is abject tyranny.
Opinions regarding the definition are immaterial, this is a question of rule of law and directly concerns every Person and State. The opinion of these judges can and must be ignored by States. States must protect their citizens and their administrators from this tyranny, by force if necessary. Lawlessness unchecked will grow and devour all.
It just took 250 years to decipher the language
and this is blue 
therefore it must be true. Marriage has always been between male & female but now the Supreme Court declares it is any group, therefore it must be true.
A lie is a lie. Red is not blue and marriage is not any group.
The Supreme Court LIES. They lie and they legislate, which is beyond their power. It is our just right to ignore them.
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Homosexuality is baal worship, baalism.
Which is more loving: (a) celebrating a lifestyle choice that guarantees no children but offers a much higher risk of disease, or (b) encouraging people to follow God's word (or, for Atheists, to follow nature's design of our bodies) and make the choices that lead to a deeper fulfillment than simple carnal pleasure?
I feel temptations to stray from God's word, as I suspect everyone does. The difference is that instead of saying, "I'll follow God's word, but only when it's what I would have done anyways," I say, "I trust God more than I trust myself. I will to the best of my ability follow His word in scripture, especially over my own whims and urges." So far, I have passed up a whole lot of temptations that would have felt great in the moment, and I am 100% certain that I am far happier than I would have been on my own.
I am too loving to celebrate gay "marriage", gay "pride", or any other deviation from God's perfect guidance to us. As for the Constitution, its only mention of gay "marriage" is in the Penumbra, which means it's fictional. I miss the rule of law and pray for the restoration of the written Constitution soon.
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.