Skip to comments.
Why Bother?: Why Some Christians Aren’t Fighting Same-Sex ‘Marriage’
BreakPoint with Chuck Colson ^
| June 23, 2004
| Chuck Colson
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.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: breakpoint; charlescolson; homosexualagenda; prisoners; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-225 next last
To: Aquinasfan
The redefinition and dissolution of civil or natural marriage represents a death blow to society. I don't see a problem here.
If you can find a single quote from the New Testament in which Jesus Christ suggested that Christians had an obligation to protect their society from falling apart as a result of a wholesale rejection of the Gospel.
One of the most sobering Gospel passages is the temptation of Christ after He spent 40 days fasting in the desert. When Satan showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and offered to give them to Jesus if only He would kneel down and worship Satan, the most important thing to remember is not what Christ said in response, but what He didn't say. He never told Satan that the world wasn't his to give to anyone.
41
posted on
06/23/2004 7:36:16 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
To: Taliesan; ArGee
Did you mean to post #39 to ArGee?
42
posted on
06/23/2004 7:39:03 AM PDT
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: Taliesan
Gay marriage is a perversion of God's law. It creates nothing and destroys nothing. Remember that these people will be allowed to adopt children. The welfare of these children hangs in the balance.
These laws also serve to destroy the notion of the natural law with respect to marriage, and reduce marriage to a purely utilitarian, contractual arrangement. This will impact men and women in natural and sacramental marriages, and their children.
We are our brother's keeper, so we must work to prevent the passage of these evil laws.
43
posted on
06/23/2004 7:44:13 AM PDT
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: walden
"If there are NO laws around marriage, what sort of protections will society provide for my daughters and grandchildren?"
Good point -- my daughter is married and we have no grandchildren, so I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. Really, though, the bottom line is that government should have stayed out of it in the first place, but it's too late now.
Carolyn
44
posted on
06/23/2004 7:44:31 AM PDT
by
CDHart
To: Mr. Silverback
Same-sex 'marriage', like feminism, are two prongs of the long-range plan to destroy the nuclear family, decrease population, stunt human development and destabilize society. This is all about making it easier for the totalitarians to control us in the future. Just recently I learned of
Gloria Steinem's roots as a CIA operative. The fact she was in the employ of a U.S. government agency says it all about the supposedly free society we live in.
45
posted on
06/23/2004 7:45:57 AM PDT
by
Middle Man
(No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.~Neil Innes)
To: Alberta's Child
Excellent posts. I find myself agreeing...
To: The Lumster
And I could add to your excellent points that Christians DO, in a way, fight this issue. By homeschooling their children, raising them with morals and telling them the truth (age appropriate) when confronted by the failings of the world. We can't fix the world and the shortcomings of man, but we can pray for them.
47
posted on
06/23/2004 7:55:59 AM PDT
by
two23
To: Know your rights
The State sanction of this ideology will promote its spread within the rest of society, affecting true natural marriages as well. How will it "affect" them? How will that effect be enough to destroy the institution?
We have seen the rise of the utilitarian view of marriage over the last thirty years in the rising divorce rate and all of divorce's attendant social ills.
The promotion of homosexual "marriage" utterly destroys what's left of the notion of marriage as a natural institution. I can only see this legislation as speeding the decline of natural marriage.
Certainly, at least ideologically, the State will have destroyed the institution, at least on the natural level. Marriage will only survive in the churches.
This will represent a devastating blow to the health of society.
48
posted on
06/23/2004 7:56:28 AM PDT
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
Comment #49 Removed by Moderator
To: Alberta's Child
If you can find a single quote from the New Testament in which Jesus Christ suggested that Christians had an obligation to protect their society from falling apart as a result of a wholesale rejection of the Gospel. We don't find an explicit condemnation of insider trading in the Bible either.
But, in this case, I recommend the parable of the Good Samaritan. We are our brother's keeper.
50
posted on
06/23/2004 7:59:58 AM PDT
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: All; Middle Man
Could it also be that they are not collecting the info?
Arlen Specter has liberals working in his office.
The want homosexual marriage.
Where is the list of whose vote is where?
Is there a freeper with inside information on the 7 who we can influence?
It is writing time folks.
Before it was striaght party line.
We need to increase the pressure.
Olympia Snow needs a reminder of her moral family history.
This is the senate and house committees that have the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This is at
http://www.house.gov and
http://www.senate.gov
Write letters of support to all senators and representatives.
These members count the letters of support.
There are now enough states to pass this due to the fact
they individually have DOMA's.
The FMA will take the Federal Gov. out of the marriage
definition game and put it to state legislatures.
This includes Federally making marriage one man one woman for immigration matters.
These members count the letters of support.
Homosexual special interest groups are trying to organize letter campaigns.
This includes internet and (oddly enough) nightclubs.
For those who have not seen it:
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Amendment Text:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.
This is very doable.
BELOW IS THE SENATE COMMITTEE WITH THE COMPANION BILL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lindsey Graham
SOUTH CAROLINA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saxby Chambliss
GEORGIA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BELOW IS A FORM LETTER TO SEND TO THE SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES
RE: Support in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Dear [ Decision Maker ]
I support the Federal marriage amendment. As your constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote.
This amendment will remove the courts from redefining the marriage based on social activist judges. This will also protect our state from any actions taken or will be taken in any other state. Private sexual behavior should not be the standard which defines marriage. Marriage is a public institution which is how we raise and support societies children. This institution needs protecting by putting into the Constitution what we have today.
This is not the first time the constitution has been used for social issues. All of the Constitution is based on various social issues. This only codifies the law which exists now.
This amendment will remove the Federal Government from this issue and return this topic to the individual state legislatures. The activist courts have made this a federal issue. There are no other options.
Any same sex couple has the legal right to make a private cohabitation agreement, they have the right make powers of attorney and have the right to make health care surrogate directives. These form documents are readily available for nominal cost or free on the Internet. Non of these agreements require any special lawyer help. Marriage under the law is one man and one woman. There is no sexual behavior test. Homosexual rantings to the contrary, their opposition is only attempting to impose public acceptance on what should remain a private consensual behavior.
Please support the support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26, amend the Constitution and protect marriage.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]
To: Alberta's Child
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. Judging me on my understanding of Christianity, are you?
While Jesus did intend to change the hearts of His Disciples, He also required them to do good works. Allowing our culture to slip into a sewer without any attempt to engage it is akin to allowing the hungry to starve or the naked to freeze.
The fallen world has rejected heaven. Heaven has not rejected the fallen world. It thrust itself into the world mightily with the Incarnation. G-d has not given up on it yet. We are called to advance heaven while we draw breath. We do so heart by heart, and also by establishing righteousness where we can.
Shalom.
52
posted on
06/23/2004 8:02:10 AM PDT
by
ArGee
(After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
Comment #53 Removed by Moderator
To: Taliesan
No law about someone else's marriage can hurt mine. Forvige me if I ignore the rest of your post. I'm not interested in your selfishness. Your marriage may be intact, but the marraiges of those that follow, including your children's, will not.
Just look at how the free love movement impacted marriage. It did not change my parents'. It did change mine and has had a tremendous impact on my children's, nieces', nephews', etc.
Shalom.
54
posted on
06/23/2004 8:04:35 AM PDT
by
ArGee
(After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
To: Mr. Silverback
BTW Oreily had some nutcase PHD and she basically said opposition to homosexual marriage is merely religious. That is a homo-talking point. Opposition is NOT merely religious. OReily is a homoenabler because of he soft stand on homosexual pandering.
Beware of being "labeled" as opposing on religious grounds. It is not just religion, there are ethical AND moral reasons ouside of religion.
To: CDHart
marriage isn't any of the state's business anyway Yes it is! For centuries it worked fine.
The problem is that the enemy within, 'traitorous liberals', are basterdizing the english language. Anything written in the constitution can become meaningless. It doesn't need to be rewritten, it has to be enforced.
I don't know why W defers to the Congress and the Congress defers to a totally mushed down Judiciary. It should be the other way around! It's gone far enough. W should do what Lincoln did, suspend Habeas Corpus. Traitors who have 'outed' themselves should be shipped off to Gitmo for an atitude adjustment. The next election or the remaining Judges, Politicians etc can then sort it all out. But the next time a judge decrees that a dog is a cat, off to Gitmo he goes.
We are in a serious war and domestic situation and the ship of state and our sovereignty are in jeopardy. Conservatives are losing faith in W. Seems like he jumps at opportunities to gain approval from America's enemies, primarily 'traitorus liberals' and an Islamists supporting silent majority.
W needs to crank it up a knotch or I'm afraid we'll be at the side of another squeeker election.
56
posted on
06/23/2004 8:09:01 AM PDT
by
duckln
To: Taliesan
The American legal system is lost. The battle has shifted.Excellent post! The arguments on this thread can be divided among those who strongly still hold to the Creational cultural mandate which requires Image bearers to be "fruitful and subdue" the earth and our more baptistic FRiends that seek to seperate themselves from the world. Finding the correct balance is subject to knowing the times and being wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
To: Aquinasfan
The parable of the Good Samaritan is an instructive case in point, but not for the reasons you might think. Two points in particular should be noted:
1. In the parable, the "brother" who needed "keeping" was not the predator who robbed the traveler and left him for dead on the side of the road; it was the traveler himself who had been set upon by the predator.
2. Among the various characters in this parable, the absence of any government authority in dealing with the problem is noteworthy. The whole point of the parable is that the Samaritan helped the man himself, and paid the inkeeper out of his own pocket for the man's care. He didn't bring him to the Caesar Augustus Trauma Unit at the Beth Israel Hospital and dump him in the emergency room.
I would also suggest that the underlying message of that parable really has nothing to do with the notion of "we are our brother's keeper." Instead, the parable is a direct statement about the formal termination of the Old Covenant; this is why the two people who passed by were deliberately described as representatives of the Old Law: first the priest, then the Levite (a special group of priests who had been selected to serve as special guardians of the Tabernacle). And the one guy who did his duty for his fellow man was a Samaritan, whose group was ostracized by the rest of the Jews.
58
posted on
06/23/2004 8:14:10 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
To: ArGee
Christ clearly instructed His disciples to spread the Gospel throughout the world, and to "shake the dust from their sandals and move on" whenever a village rejected this Gospel message.
The problem we face today is really quite simple: We are long past the point where we should be shaking the dust from our sandals and moving on; we just don't like to admit it because we don't know where to go.
59
posted on
06/23/2004 8:16:49 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
To: Aquinasfan
Certainly, at least ideologically, the State will have destroyed the institution, at least on the natural level. I don't know what "ideological destruction on the natural level" means. Will men and women still marry outside the churches?
Marriage will only survive in the churches.
So it won't be destroyed.
60
posted on
06/23/2004 8:19:14 AM PDT
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-225 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
