It's sacraments vs. rights

Boston Globe ^ | 3/4/2004 | Ellen Goodman

[rface]

I UNDERSTAND the compulsion to "energize the base," but couldn't Republicans have found something a little less toxic than this brew of Gaytorade?

When President Bush came out in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he was stirring up a cocktail to keep the cultural warriors in the party. It's assumed that this elixir will give them a sugar high all the way to the election.

[commonerX]

How is the horse going to consent, say "I do" Marriage is predicated on Love the man may love the horse but there is no way to say the horse loves the man. I don't know any gays personally, at least ones that I know of. But the last time I checked, I think they are still humans. Incest is another matter and has more to do with health and genetic problems that can occur.

If a boy is adopted and grows up and has sex with some girl and it turns out to be she is his sister is it incest and should they be punished? In many states you do not need a blood test. So I suppose it could be possible to be married and be related.

[rface]

How is the horse going to consent, say "I do" ...

I dunno - maybe stomp on the ground three times or something

[commonerX]

When my dog is happy he wags his tail.
But, then again he does that when he has gas too.

[rface]

on a serious note:

I know several homosexuals - and some of them are my good friends and relatives. I do not look down on them: I do not place myself on any kind of higher moral level than homosexuals because I know my sins are as great as any other's..... BUT - there is a definition of marriage and it is not going to change because a minority of people want it to. (if I can help it)
Homosexual couples can have a relationship outlined by a legal contract if they so desire - and if others want to recognize this contract by offering insurance or other benefits, then that's fine with me. That's what lawyers are for. If they want to call it marriage - then I

[unspun]

I'm going to have to take more time for reading! ;-)

[commonerX]

Personally IMO this issue is of little importance in the big picture. My life will not change if two guys get married. How the court wants to label it is not all that important to me. My wife and I love each other so we got married. I didn't get married to have the right to insurance benifits. If gays are getting married for insurance benifits than that is not what marriage is really about. If it for love then who am I to say otherwise.

[rface]

you can just call me Mr. President then.

words have meaning

[unspun]

I hate the idea of being driven to such measures by the progressive left which hates America and most Americans. But the fact is, a federal amendment is the only thing that can keep the "Full Faith and Credit" issue from rearing its head at some not far-off time....

Appreciate the thorough treatment, your letter from behind the enemy lines in Massachusetts.

This defensive struggle to maintain America is a bit like fighting cancer, isn't it? One has to work to support the entire immune system, while fighting each perverse spot along the way, with all the tools that don't kill the patient.

--------
Here's a line from a homosexual poster trying to campaign in IllinoisLeader.com:

"I can only speak with 100% certainty of my OWN life and I knew that I was gay at a very young age, even before I knew what the word was. I knew I felt more attracted to the same sex than the opposite sex.."

Response:

I also knew at a very young age that I had sins of habit and attitude, just different ones. To overcome them one must admit to them, and become renewed (which actually and thoroughly comes from receipt of the forgiving and loving relationship with God which Jesus Christ offers to those who choose to become obedient to Him).

"Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ."
--------

If political history, cultural analysis, philosophy, science, and foundational truth are used interchangeably, I think we can be pretty effective. It becomes a combination of shedding light, dispensing heat, and delivering throw-weight.

[lockeliberty]

Here's the bottom line. We all have to get over the idea that America is a "Christian" country. Sure our country was founded on Biblical principles but those priniciples have been effectively washed away. The real battle is in the Churches. Church discipline needs to be enforced. The State is not the Church. That being the case, if the State wants to allow contracts between persons of the same sex which is covered under the free association clause then I could care aless. What does bother me is so-called Christian Churches allowing gay marriages. These Churches should be treated as apostate and all associations between Bible believing Churches and those Churches must be eliminated. The battle will be for the rights of true Christians to exist in the State. Discrimination is sure to follow. The Churches rights to its own beliefs will be fought. We have seen this already with the Boy Scouts. The battle will be over the Churches right to exist.

[freedumb2003]

If it for love then who am I to say otherwise.

You damn fool. This is not about two people who love each other. This is about the fabric of our society.

Marriage as recognized by the state is to support the now thousands-year-old concept that the nuclear family -- 1 mother, 1 father and children -- is the best way to raise children into well-adjusted adults. The state has a compelling interest to promote this for the good of the entire country. Even if some people don't have kids and other divorce too quickly, the underlying principle still represents everyone's best interests. If Marriage is merely a legal contract that can be redefined at a whim, thus cutting the cord to the underlying interest then it has no meaning at all!!!

Once you remove the basis, then it doesn't matter who gets "married" or why. If "love" is the basis, then every aspect of marriage is up for grabs. If gender is arbitrary, so is number, familial relationship, species, etc.

You might as well get rid of any laws related to marriage, since they have no meaning anymore -- it is all open for debate. No more tax benefits, no more estate planning (except perhas for progeny). The fabric upon which we BUILT this society is torn asunder. I shudder to think what the next generation will face -- no commitment, kids who are born into groups who may or may not care for them, artificial insemination to create kids for father-father-father-grandmother "marriages."

God help you all.

[betty boop]

Here's the bottom line. We all have to get over the idea that America is a "Christian" country.

Dear lockeliberty, but IMHO that is the very idea that America must never get over. For it is her birthright, her inheritance, her foundation in truth -- and the only way she can survive in a world that involves implacable enemies determined to hate and to kill Americans -- not to mention Christians and Jews (and as it turns out, Hindus and Muslims and just about everybody else, just for the fun of it) -- just for spite....

But here's the problem: Christians are called to love, to live in love -- not hate. So now I gather we Christians have to delve into the meaning -- assuming there is one -- of that trite expression, "tough love."

I certainly understand and empathize with your deeply felt reaction to the increasingly exposed corruptions of the organized churches, locke. I think you are certainly right to conclude that too often, the institutional churches have fallen into the typically modern habit of wanting to be "up-to-date" with the spirit of the age.

And yet we know that, as repositories and confessors of eternal truths pertaining to God's relations with Man and the Universe as proclaimed and established by God and communicated in the Holy Scriptures, the various churches have no authority whatsoever to chase after modern fads and fashions. To the extent that they do this, they are derelict in the execution of their "prime directive," so to speak.

House cleanings are needed all over the lot. Or surely we Christians will find ourselves in Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "churchless Christianity" pretty soon.

God's revealed Truth -- His Son -- is eternal. He was never born -- in the language of the Nicene Creed, the Son was "begotten, not made" by the Father. And He will never die. He is the very Light unto Man and the world, the Redeemer of sin, and ultimate judge of sinners.

But if the candlestands of that life-giving and redeeming Light -- the churches -- should prove ineffective, or worse, counterproductive to their divine calling as Light-bearers, then it's time either to repair the candlestands, or ...

That's a HUGE "or." I'm not prepared to discuss hypothetical sequels because, frankly, I'm no fortune teller.

I hope you will pray with me for the spiritual revival of the churches, the religions of man, of whatever denomination.

You probably think I'm some kind of crazy liberal to say such a thing. But I think of it this way: May God's Will be done, here on earth as it is in heaven.

For all you or I know, God might have a hankering for a Unitarian or an LDS or a Buddhist or even the occasional Muslim. Perhaps maybe even a Plato. Who are you or I to say He "shall be prevented" from loving them, saving them, if that is His heart's desire? Who is to say that Christ's sacrifice does not pertain to all men -- past, present, and future?

I am convinced that God loves man. And not just in the "abstract," if you get my drift. Though there are times when I sure do feel perplexed about why He chose to love -- US, faithless that we ever seem to prove ourselves to be.

Thanks for your lovely post, locke.

[lockeliberty]

IMHO that is the very idea that America must never get over. For it is her birthright, her inheritance, her foundation in truth

Hmmm...it seems to me that was the exact same attitude of the Israelites. The false sense of birthright is what sent the Isrealites into captivity. Instead what God demands is obedience. God will not protect this nation because a majority of Americans are Cinos. True religon is what God demands. I encourage you to review the narratives of the Old Testament. Again and again the Israelites fell captive to the false religons of its neighbors and it was this idolatery that sent them into captivity. America's inheritance is traced directly through the Dutch and English revolutions and the Reformation in general. These revolutions were firstly religous in nature and the emphasis was on the reformation of the Church. The historical evidence of this is irrefutable. Before the culture can be reformed first the Church must be reformed. Cultural reformation always follows Church reformation.

But here's the problem: Christians are called to love, to live in love -- not hate. So now I gather we Christians have to delve into the meaning -- assuming there is one -- of that trite expression, "tough love."

C'mon now Betty. This "love" that you describe seems to float in the air without meaning or substance. What is this ethereal, ubiquitous, hippie-like, universalist love? Let me pose some qualifiers to this love that I think will provide some meaning. First, what is the object of our love. If the object of our love is, as Scripture demands, the love of God what does that entail? I would suggest, and Scripture would demand, that love of God is obedience to his Word. Love for fellow man is meaningless unless attached to the love of God and his Word. If we make the love of man equal to the love of God we have essentially made an idol of humanity. It must be asked, whom first do we serve, God or man? It has nothing to do with "tough love" but rather in whom is your love placed. If placed correctly then the obedience to God is the light that attracts men. Love toward man is the natural outflow of this love of God. But if we follow a false god any love towards man is a false love.

The second aspect of this love is the quality of this love. This love must be always geared toward Truth. Again, a love for a false "truth" is a false love. Those who worship God will worship Him in spirit and in truth. Speaking truth and leading those outside of the truth toward the truth is true love. Affirming a false "truth" to those outside of the truth is the worst kind of hatred leading to damnation.

Betty, I think you have a wonderful spirit and God has given you many great gifts. But unless we in the Church put away our "Baals" and begin to worship the true God any efforts toward cultural reformation is fruitless. Our inheritance? I'll leave you with the words of the Reverend John Witherspoon in a sermon on the eve of the American Revolution:

Suffer me to beseech you, or rather to give you warning, not to rest satisfied with a form of godliness, denying the power thereof. There can be no true religion, till there be a discovery of your lost state by nature and practice, and an unfeigned acceptance of Christ Jesus, as he is offered in the gospel. Unhappy are they who either despise his mercy, or are ashamed of his cross. Believe it, "There is no salvation in any other." "There is no other name under heaven given amongst men by which we must be saved." Unless you are united to him by a lively faith, not the resentment of a haughty monarch, the sword of divine justice hangs over you, and the fullness of divine vengeance shall speedily overtake you. I do not speak this only to the heaven-daring profligate or grovelling sensualist, but to every insensible, secure sinner; to all those, however decent and orderly in their civildeportment, who live to themselves, and have their part and portion in this life; in fine, to all who are yet in a state of nature, for "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God". The fear of man may make you hide your profanity; prudence and experience may make you abhor intemperance and riot; as you advance in life one vice may supplant another and hold its place; but nothing less than the sovereign grace of God can produce a saving change of heart and temper, or fit you for his immediate presence.

While we give praise to God, the supreme Disposer of all events, for his interposition in our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of an arm of flesh. I could earnestly wish, that while our arms are crowned with success, we might content ourselves with a modest ascription of it to the power of the Highest. It has given me great uneasiness to read some ostentatious, vaunting expressions in our newspapers, though happily, I think, much restrained of late. Let us not return to them again. If I am not mistaken, not only the Holy Scriptures in general, and the truths of the glorious gospel in particular, but the whole course of providence, seem intended to abase the pride of man, and lay the vain-glorious in the dust.

From what has been said you may learn what encouragement you have to put your trust in God, and hope for his assistance in the present important conflict. He is the Lord of hosts, great in might, and strong in battle. Whoever hath his countenance and approbation, shall have the best at last. I do not mean to speak prophetically, but agreeably to the analogy of faith, and the principles of God's moral government. I leave this as a matter rather of conjecture than certainty, but observe, that if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts.

If your cause is just, you may look with confidence to the Lord, and intreat him to plead it as his own. You are all my witnesses, that this is the first time of my introducing any political subject into the pulpit. At this season, however, it is not only lawful but necessary, and I willingly embrace the opportunity of declaring my opinion without any hesitation, that the cause in which America is now in arms, is the cause of justice, of liberty, and of human nature. So far as we have hitherto proceeded, I am satisfied that the confederacy of the colonies has not been the effect of pride, resentment, or sedition, but of a deep and general conviction that our civil and religious liberties, and consequently in a great measure the temporal and eternal happiness of us and our posterity, depended on the issue. The knowledge of God and his truths have from the beginning of the world been chiefly, if not entirely confined to those parts of the earth where some degree of liberty and political justice were to be seen, and great were the difficulties with which they had to struggle, from the imperfection of human society, and the unjust decisions of unsurped authority. There is not a single instance in history, in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage.

[commonerX]

""You damn fool. This is not about two people who love each other. This is about the fabric of our society.""

It is about two people who love each other. I didn't marry my wife to support the fabric of society.

Calling someone a damn fool doesn't support your point either.

"""Once you remove the basis, then it doesn't matter who gets "married" or why. If "love" is the basis, then every aspect of marriage is up for grabs. If gender is arbitrary, so is number, familial relationship, species, etc."""


People like you always try to stretch what people are saying
Marrieage is between two people that love each other. Marriage between family members is wrong not because of religious or even in some cases a moral ones. It is wrong, do to genetics and inbreeding problems that could develope. If an adopted man meets a girl and falls in love and gets married, and it is found out later that she is his sister, was he morally wrong for marrying her.

And the reference to species is absurd.


"""No more tax benefits, no more estate planning (except perhas for progeny)."""


You have poor reasons for getting married.

I got married for love. Tax benefits and estate planning was never a factor or a concideration.

[unspun]

Hoping to catch up in this, later in the day.

BTW, I think if there is a false sense of birthright, one may assume there is a valid sense, as well.

In any case, in America, our Christians as all the others are "Caesar." Therefore, we don't wield the sword for nothing, but to carry out God's will (and God's will is specific will) each of us having to give an account for what we did as the People, Sovereign Rulers of our Nation.

I think that may shed some light on the matter.

[commonerX]

""you can just call me Mr. President then.
words have meaning""

I can call you whatever you wish but it does not make you the President. I didn't vote for you nor did the majority of the electoral college. When they do you will be president, not just called president.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[sweetliberty]

"the same folks who refused to fiddle with the Constitution "merely" to extend equal rights to women, now want to amend it to deny rights to homosexuals."

That is a grossly outrageous statement! Queers have NO right to get married....at least not to each other!

[rface]

I can call you whatever you wish but it does not make you the President married. I didn't vote for you recognize your marriage nor did the majority of the electoral college people. When they do you will be president married , not just called president married

.

I am so glad you now understand

[EdReform]

Excellent post!

[betty boop]

Thank you, EdReform!