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.
Much as I'm opposed to gay "marriage," I've never seen this claim adequately defended (and it's usually not defended at all, but simply asserted).
Well, it will destroy the institution. First, it will re-define it. That fact is obvious. However, marriage can not continue to be re-defined and have the people expect that definition to have any meaning. Note that marriage has been under rather continual re-definition since sometime in the 1960s. Eventually, the word "marriage" will mean whatever the people using the term want it to mean. At that point, the institution is dead.
I submit that this point is when two people of the same sex can "marry." The word will be meaningless and the institution will be dead.
Shalom.
It also hurts the children of those who are smart enough. Maybe your children's marriage won't be hurt, but their children's will.
Shalom.
I agree marriage originally was a religiose practice, the state has no business regulating it.
It is ironic that many of the same people who are pushing for separation of church and removing any Christian reference from public are the same people wanting to regulate marriage a religiose practice, they can't have it both ways!
As for whether the church should accept different types of marriage, different churches have different practices, such as divorce , celibacy ect , There are churches for alternate lifestyles who already hold marriage ceremonies people can go there, we don't need government intervention in this.
Besides I am a widow and a single parent, where are my rights? I want a tax break, and insurance for my codependent such as my parent, and hospital visitation rights for my friends, why doesn't the governemnt care about me !
Let's not give up the fight is what he is saying and wants more fighting to go on. That not enough Christians have called their Congressman/woman with their thoughts.
What is not said and the way I think is that before anything else should happen is that the law breakers that are marring gays should be dealt with forthwith. These attorneys, mayors, judges and legislators who are breaking the law as it stands now not only with the marriage conflict but with other things as well, such as abortion, letting criminals go free and helping criminals escape the law and nothing is done to them is the biggest problem that the U.S. citizens have at the present time. It is right up there with terrorism. Not until the U.S. can bring down these ABOVE the law people will the U.S. be peaceful again. I have seen in the news and elsewhere if it is to be believed where legislators this year alone were in the news with criminal behavior more than all the years of my life put together. It has always been said that a house divided against itself can not stand and it is said as a country as well.
If the U.S. lets itself say that we are a country of laws then something has to be done with the ABOVE the law criminals. If these attorneys, mayors, judges and legislators are not prosecuted, it will only get worst and the U.S. as a free and just country will be nothing but a lie.
This is the best address to this issue I've heard yet. I /highly/ suggest listening to it, no matter what side of this issue one is on ...
Dennis Prager: Defending Marriage
http://www.family.org/fmedia/broadcast/a0032425.cfm
Or here ...
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/Default.asp
For those without the audio accessibilty, here is a summary of Mr. Prager's comments (from http://www.family.org/ )...
* Avoid the "gays are born that way" argument. It's irrelevant to the question of whom we marry.
* "'Studies show' is the mantra of those who don't think," Prager says. Avoid the oft-used phrase, and beware that data can be manipulated to reflect the bias of those conducting the studies.
* It is better to have a loving mother and a loving father than to have two loving mothers or two loving fathers. "Never let that argument go," Prager urges.
* Avoid using the term "gay marriage." Use the phrase "same-sex marriage" instead. Under current law, gays already have the civil right to marry, just like anyone else. The issue at hand is whether a person can marry another of the same sex.
* If you dislike or hate gays, do not join the battle for traditional marriage. Anti-gay attitudes and behavior only provide ammunition for the media to portray conservatives as "bigots."
* Homosexual acts are a sin, but that is irrelevant when making the argument to people who don't care about the Bible as their source of ethics, Prager asserts.
* If it is argued that love should be the criterion for marriage, then raise such questions as "If two brothers love each other, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?" or "If two men and a woman all love each other, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?" or "If a father and son love each other, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?" According to Prager, proponents of same-sex marriage will lose this argument in the public square because "Love is not the criterion for marriage. Man and woman is the criterion."
* Someone may argue, "If you're so concerned about protecting marriage, why don't you push for the passage of laws against divorce?" What does heterosexual divorce have to do with same-sex marriage? Yes, marriages fail, and divorce is tragic. Cars also crash and injure and kill people. This doesn't mean we should stop driving, though.
No, but there is a difference between sacramental marriage and natural marriage. As Chuck says, the family depends on marriage, and society depends on the family. As marriage goes, so goes society.
The redefinition and dissolution of civil or natural marriage represents a death blow to society. In fact, it's historically unprecedented.
Please add me to your Ping list. Colson is a winner.
Colson as usual thinks the answer to this problem lies with government.
I am one Christian who has been silent on this issue because I realize that this problem cannot be solved by government but only by God Himself.
Jer 17:5
Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
For too long Christians have been encouraged by people like Colson to trust in man, to trust in politicians, to trust in judges to solve our social problems.
And where, I ask has that gotten us?
We have great confidence in the flesh and zero confidence in almighty God.
The reason we can't solve our "gay marriage" problem is the same reason we can't solve our abortion problem , or our illegal alien problem, or any of the other problems we have in this country.
All of these issues are signs of God's judgment on a nation that has turned it's back on Him. And don't think that it's because of all those sinner out there.
It's not because of the homosexuals. It's not because of the abortionists. It's not because of the ACLU or the pornographers.
It's because of God's people. Those of us who are called by His name. We are the ones who must repent. We must repent of our trust in man. We must repent of our pursuit of material wealth. We must repent of our love of the world and worldly ways.
Look in the mirror Christians it's our fault!
2 Chron 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
The USSC ruling against the legality of Texas' anti-sodomy law was an abomination, morally and legally. I think the state(s) ought to be seeking solutions to nullify that filthy reprobate ruling, and the US Congress should be working to curb the courts, and cement the Constitution as the law once written, and amended (and penumbred) with great trepidation and sobriety.
A federal marriage amendment will ultimately be another tool, or should I say weapon, in the godgov arsenal for REGULATING powers and rights that belong to the PEOPLE. For freedom-loving conservatives it should be obvious: that this DOES NOT belong on the federal ballpark, but at home in the states. It would be just one more stupid law...
The decision overturning the state of Texas' law against sodomy is the only reasonable solution. I don't understand why there's no discussion along that line. Our problem really isn't even homosexual activists, really: IT'S THE TYRANNY OF THE COURTS AND LAWYERS.
Also, all the descriptions and drafts I've seen, reveal a paper tiger anyway. They can't have marriage, but they can have "civil unions" that give them all the priveleges and properties that marriage conveys. NO should mean NO, or don't waste my time, Mr. Congressperson.
Therefore, this Baptist is against the federal semantic amendment.
So long as men and women continue to enter into real marriages, I don't see how the institution is destroyed. As Taliesan posted, "Calling a donkey a horse doesn't hurt the horses."
Any Christian who believes this doesn't truly understand the very nature of Christianity. When He walked on this earth, Jesus Christ very clearly stated that His followers could expect to be persecuted, and that the basic premise of Christianity was that these followers would always be seeking the "narrow gate." As such, we should approach the world with the expectation that the culture in which we live will reject everything we stand for.
You want to know how to strengthen marriage among Christians? Have the government outlaw it entirely.
The equation of sodomy with marriage destroys what's left of the idea of the natural law with respect to human sexuality.
Rather than seeing the marital and familial roles of men and women as reflecting the design of Nature and Nature's God, marriage is reduced to an absolutely utilitarian transaction. The State sanction of this ideology will promote its spread within the rest of society, affecting true natural marriages as well.
Admittedly, this contractual conception of marriage has been in ascendancy since the sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies, but the institution of State-recognized homosexual "marriage" represents the triumph of marital utilitarianism and the rejection of the natural law.
I figure it this way, if gays want to experience the joy and wonder of divorce, marriage tax, etc etc etc....let em have it.
Just call it "civil union" not "marriage" and I don't care one way or the other.
Behind all this hand-wringing is the concept of that booger-man "influence". Even Christians, especially those who are raising children, know that the culture can "influence" us and children especially are susceptible. They fear that degrading legal institutions will degrade the general cultural influences and thus degrade their children's lives.
There is obviously an "influence" from the culture, and children are obviously more susceptible than adults. But the New Testament thinks differently:
The culture is ASSUMED to belong to the devil, and it is ASSUMED the believers will not let themselves or their families follow it. It is simply part of the expectation of the Christian walk that you do not live like "they" do . End of hand-wringing.
Also, many freepers suffer under the delusion that the evolution of law in America does not reflect the underlying evolution of culture. The legal debate is the tip of the iceberg of the degradation of culture. You do not change cultures by arguments.
Wilberforce is a bad example. In his case, the culture that was passing away (Christianity) and the culture that was coming to be (modern liberalism, in the classic sense) BOTH contained assumptions which indicted slavery. The two cultures were adversaries in certian ways but allies on that issue.
We are now a stage beyond Wilberforce, and the culture which is still passing away (Christianity) and the second culture (classical liberalism) which is now ALSO passing away -- BOTH face a supplanter with a level of hostility neither of them have seen before in hedonistic, pagan pragmatism.
We need to understand the times. The historic pattern is cycling over again. You do not win arguments with hedonistic paganism. You bear witness-- by superior virtue, seal it by the blood of martyrs, then send in the apologists to backfill the cosmological explanation for the moral force which has stunned the pagans.
This is about to be a time for the confessing church. The time when the hostility of the world will cull out of the church all the nominal believers. The battleground will clarify: there will be some test, in some form, of who is lord: is it Jesus, or the State?
The American legal system is lost. The battle has shifted.
I don't see anything there addressing the claim that same-sex "marriage" will destroy the institution of marriage.
And I believe this is a large, but unspoken motivation among the gay activists. It's just covert destruction.
The State certainly has a compelling interest in the well-being of the family, since all future generations pass through the institution of the family, and the first principle of the State is the promotion of the common good. Therefore, it is the duty of the State to promote the welfare of marriage and families.
This is especially obvious in the case of adoption, which obviously must be regulated by the State.
Today marriage in some states like Florida is treated as one of the most voidable contracts there is.
Which is tragic.
This is true right now. It matters nothing for my marriage, or for my son's eventual marriage. It won't matter two whits to him and his future wife if they let dogs "marry" each other.
Good grief. You can call yourself a Christian now and deny that Jesus rose from the dead. Does that do ANYTHING to my faith?
Nothing.
How will it "affect" them? How will that effect be enough to destroy the institution?
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.