Posted on 10/26/2004 5:05:21 AM PDT by ruralgal
Barf.
Actually the Marriage Amendment would allow state legislatures to enact civil unions, while it would have barred courts from imposing them as a way to get around a gay marriage ban.
This is a bizarre decision by Bush. This will gain him zero votes from so-called moderates, but very well could alienate many of the Evangelicals who have always been suspicious of him because of his father.
I am a Christian and hold the same view of civil unions for gays as Bush. And I think he is definitely being compassionate.
Please explain how you think that is wrong.
Very simple. It is wrong because it puts a seal of approval on what God clearly calls immorality. Civil unions opens the door for homosexuals to push for recognition of their behavior and it won't be long before "civil unions" become "marriage", despite their claims that they don't want to change marriage. Liberals always work incrementally and "civil unions" is just another small step towards the ultimate goal of total acceptance of homosexuality.
As far as compassion, it is not compassionate to encourage someone to continue in a behavior God condemns. There are eternal consequences for them and allowing them to have their way here only guarantees the second death for them after physical death. As a Christian, to me, that is NOT compassion!
That's the reason why I no longer support civil unions.
Hope that helps.
I disagree. Jesus says that divorce was allowed because the the hardness of men's hearts, even though God hates divorce.
So allowing something does not necessarily equal a seal of approval. At least not according to the Bible.
Secondly we can stand by our moral convictions that homosexuality is wrong, and that there can be no such thing as gay marriage, and still recognize domestic partnerships.
We don't have to like or agree with gay partners to admit they are domestic partnerships nevertheless.
With all the screwed up and insincere marriages that are out there, I don't see where extending "benefits" to partners needs to be a moral judgement on the validity of their partnership.
I see nothing wrong with being charitable and extending benefits of civil unions to people WITHOUT pronouncing some holier than thou judgement on their life-style.
We can make value judgements, and do so without necessarily having to make those we disagree with suffer for their choices.
And I think this is consistant with simple Christian charity.
And I say that there is nothing wrong with that.
That's the reason why I no longer support civil unions.
And the above is my reason for deciding over the past few years that as Christian I can support civil unions without compromising my moral convictions.
The important distinction is between "marriage" and "Civil Union" free people must have the right to contract between themselves and if two gay people want to structure a civil agreement so that they can own property in common and establish rights of inheritance and even make provisions for caring for any dependants, that right must be theirs. Civil Unions are not marriage
Well, that's your opinion to which I disagree. I frankly do not favor anything that sanctions such blatant immorality, regardless of how "compassionate" it sounds. That's my conviction.
Thanks for asking.
Supporting states rights isn't pandering...and his base would expect him to hold that position.
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.