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.
Thanks. I'm also adding to my letter how 40 years of government encouraging single motherhood has created social disaster and chaos, which we can no longer afford either.
I agree that gay couples adopting children is an explicit evil and should be fought. I concede that gay marriage and the eventual adoption practices are linked and for the adopted children alone there is a noble fight.
We won't win.
Gays getting government support may not be right but its not wrong either. This is a non issue. Christian marriage is sanctioned by God for his reasons, other marriages are sanctioned by the government for that reason. Wheres the problem ?.. Christian marriage requires NO government action or certification at all to be legitimate, government sactioned marriage does. Both certifications are needed by 'christians", only one certification is needed by others.
A marriage can be blessed by both authority's or only one of them and still be legitimate. The term "marriage" needs definition I think or at least re-definition. There are lots of "gods" and lots of governments. And by the way some "churchs" are merely clubs anyway and not churchs at all. And some governments are merely criminal scams providing a "mafia like, protection racket" like socialism.. no rights, only government granted privledges, which are not rights. Some say money is the root all evil and once money issues are involved in marraige what has GOD to do with "the marriage", anyway ?..
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.
I think Taliesan used his marriage as an example of Christian marriages in general, and that he would reject (as do I) your claim that any Christian marriage will be rendered nonintact by state recognition of same-sex "marriage."
We need a great national debate about important issues, such as getting my taxes down to some level within reason.
Every so often I get a twinge of regret, but honestly I think I've made a pretty good decision.
Personally I'm looking forward to the 2004 elections, and beyond. Perhaps then we can begin to fix the courts. As things stand today it's a waste to spend too much time on them. Recalls are good. The one here in Oregon failed to oust the evil supervisors who approved gay marraige. There is not a consensus against this in Portland, in fact it it probably approved by a majority.
Contraception illega? Really! First call I've heard for that in ages. Care to explain. I am sure many younger readers are unfamiliar with the arguments.
I can't imagine how the free love movement affected anyone who did not subscribe to it.
The biblical view of man's moral is quite simple -- purposefully so, refreshingly so. Man is responsible for his acts, and is responsible to love his neighbor.
We could argue about what love is. I note that from Matthew to Revelation it had nothing to do the state of the world.
Contraception illega? Really! First call I've heard for that in ages. Care to explain. I am sure many younger readers are unfamiliar with the arguments.
Precisely. And I argue that the personalistic ethic of the New Testament produces a Last Judgement wherein fathers are not responsible for how they responded to liberal judges a thousand miles away but will be judged for how they responded to their sons in their own households.
Alright, let's ride the horse analogy just a little further than we should...
A. Nobody decides to marry someone else because yesterday they had a "donkey" sign on and today somebody switched the sign to "horse".
B. I don't care how many horses there are.
The point of the parable is that the status of "brother" must be earned, and must be extended to anyone who has acted to earn it (by serving your needs).
We are our brother's keeper.
It takes a village.
It did? You've taken up the practice of "swinging"?
I'm shocked!
As expounded upon in the political philosophy of "commonism".
Fortunately, your agenda is prohibited by the Second Amendment.
It takes a village.
I'm glad you juxtaposed those two visions, because they are both equally misunderstood.
"It takes a village" is perfectly true, in the homogenous, non-pluralistic culture which produced it and at the scale of a village. To say "village" and mean "laws which effectively remove your children from your care by force" was just a characteristically dishonest liberal euphemism on Hillary's part.
Also, I am my brother's keeper. That means if I happen on your ox in the ditch I have a moral responsibility to get it out and return it to you. If I happen on you by the side of the road beaten and bleeding, I have a moral responsibility not to pass by.
These are all voluntary moral acts of love, and that is the New Testament ethic.
What the socialists in the church and out have done to them is simply the soiling that socialists do to everything they touch.
Selfish as it may seem, in the quarter-century I've been married (to the same lady), I've realized the marriage she and I have is because of the values she and I hold of the institution marriage - not what others nor the government thinks or believes. Thus, my value of the institution begins with me. Same with family, MY family....
BTW, that doesn't mean we'll ever personally accept faggot unions as marriage...
As the now-grown sly interloper understands this new relationship he works his way closer to your plate, your bed and turns eventually into a rolling-roadblock to where he is constantly underfoot, a general nuisance and impervious to such simple commands as MOVE, that you simply give up and outlive him, swearing never again to go through this.
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.