Posted on 06/23/2004 6:23:17 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Things just don’t add up. The polls tell us that a significant majority of American voters oppose same-sex “marriage.” Yet congressmen and senators tell us that their phones aren’t exactly ringing off the hook over this issue. In fact, they’re hardly getting any calls on the subject at all—not even from Christians. What’s going on?
One explanation might be that, for many secularists who oppose same-sex “marriage,” it’s just not that big a deal. The general public often shies away from controversial social issues, especially during election years, and no one wants to seem judgmental, after all, in today’s “tolerant” environment.
But what about Christians? What’s our excuse for staying silent?
I think some don’t really believe this is such a critical battle. To them I can only say—wake up and pay attention. This issue has the potential to redefine and, ultimately, to destroy the institution of marriage in this country—and with marriage goes the family. You can’t ignore this.
But there are other Christians who recognize the importance of the battle over same-sex “marriage” but are still not speaking up. For many of them, I think the problem is a lack of faith.
Now, that may sound harsh, but I can’t think of a better way to put it. A lot of Christians—even some of our most prominent leaders—seem to have succumbed to a “What’s the use?” attitude. They believe that the cultural climate has turned so much against us that we’ll never be able to stop the advance of same-sex “marriage.” And they have heard that we don’t have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment in this session of Congress—so they don’t even want to urge the House and Senate to vote. Some Christian commentators have sounded a defeatist note.
I understand the need to be realistic about the odds we are facing—yes, it’s a tough fight. But it’s quite another thing to believe that because we don’t have the votes today, there’s no reason to fight.
I worked in the U.S. Senate between 1956 and 1960. We fought hard for civil rights bills—against entrenched segregation. Every year the bills were blocked by filibusters. But we kept fighting year after year. So did leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., and others. By 1964 the voting rights act was passed.
And what about Ronald Reagan, whom we honored just weeks ago—the man who led us to victory in the Cold War? He dared to demand that the Berlin Wall be torn down when almost no one else thought it possible. It took years, but it happened.
Remember, too, Wilberforce and his campaigns against slavery. He had only a handful of votes when he started, but he trusted in God. He battled year after year in the Parliament, and twenty years later, an overwhelming majority voted to end that horrible villainy.
The Senate has, I’m happy to say, scheduled debate to begin the week of July 12. Maybe there aren’t the votes there this year to pass a constitutional amendment, but that’s no excuse not to start the fight. We need a great national debate so we can make our case. And maybe we’ll lose this year—maybe next year we’ll lose again. But we’ll come back year after year—until we win. Like the cause of abolition, our cause is just. And if we trust in God, I believe that during the coming public debates, the public will see this as a great defining issue. And when they do, the pressure will be on recalcitrant congressmen to come our way.
I say let the debate begin. Let us engage the battle.
That can of worms would be worse than gay marriage.
And I believe this is a large, but unspoken motivation among the gay activists. It's just covert destruction.
So what? That can happen now. It isn't "destruction," it's life.
Your children could adopt, leaving their estate (and what remains of yours) to people who aren't "blood relations". They might choose to exclude their kids from any inheritance (perhaps, for example, giving it all to charity). They could squander your estate before they can leave anything to their kids. Or your children might even choose not to have families at all.
You only get to control your estate for the one generation. It's all out of your hands after that.
With all due respect, this by itself is a very flimsy excuse to ban gay marriage.
You should tell GovernmentShrinker that. He thinks its the most restrictive contract going.
Welcome home to FR.
I'm sure there were plenty of people saying that in Scandinavia and Holland ten years ago.
Dang straight.
We're not talking about banning gay marriage...we're talking about whether it should be legalized. It's not currently legal.
Well, I'm just one person...I can't be everywhere...
Yep, some state governor needs to clap one of these idiots in irons, and then when he gets press flack, say "So, if these guys make the laws, do individual mayors get to start passing out assault wepons if they disagree with state gun laws?" Then sit back and watch the fur fly...
You're added!
Excellent post, thanks!
Your point is taken, but the bottom line is that we as Christians have a duty to work in the public arena. To point out that duty is not the same as that the Church is fine as is. and it's all somebody else's fault.
Sorry, let's try that again...
Your point is taken, but the bottom line is that we as Christians have a duty to work in the public arena. To point out that duty is not the same as that the Church is fine as is and it's all somebody else's fault.
See my post 193.
Your point about persecution is good, but the rest of your point doesn't follow. If we shouldn't bother trying to get society to do marriage right, then we shouldn't have bothered getting society to end slavery or Jim Crow.
Translation: "This house of sticks really sucks, let's move over to that straw house right quick."
Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.
Results of gay marriage in Holland
Where it will lead sociologically.
Let's be nice, live-and-let-live libertarian types, just like in Canada.
Try it this way: "As a Black man, I'm not really diminished by racism up here in Chicago, because none of my neighbors are racist."
Or even better, "As long as my wife and I believe we're equal, what's the problem with Jim Crow?"
Or better still, "As long as I'm using real money, it doesn't matter how much counterfeit money there is."
There is a big difference between the scenarios you posted here. The fight to end slavery was not based on a moral judgement about the institution of slavery, but on the basis of rectifying a situation in which one group of human beings was denied their civil rights at the expense of another. If someone stood up in 1853 and claimed that he was opposed to slavery because "it is abomination in God's eyes," he may have been right in moral terms but his comment should not have carried any weight in a legal sense.
In the case of "gay civil unions," there is no victim who requires someone to stand up as an advocate for him; the "victims" of this idiocy are the people who engage in this disordered behavior. Once you've told them that their physical health and spiritual well-being is at risk, you no longer have an obligation to "correct" anything at all.
That's Life?!?!
I'm going to guess that you don't have any children. One thing that being a parent changes in people, is that they have more concern for the future. It matters what happens in the world. The most intimate connection a human has to the future of the race is one's own child. Saying that the impulse to influence and protect the future through one's progeny is a "so what"...just tells me you already gave up
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.