« BACK | PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Can Marriage Be a Forgotten Art in NC?

By: roetenks (Diary) | April 28th, 2012 at 01:43 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

Bride and groom at the ruins of Sutro bath.

Photo credit:

Brocken Inaglory

The political decision on marriage made in North Carolina shortly will have aftershocks throughout the nation.

The political upheaval in North Carolina will crest on May 8th. That date is for the Republican primary, and on that date NC will decide if marriage is only between one woman and one man. A relationship envisioned when marriage was originally ordained.

North Carolina will be in the spotlight shortly, and many believe the way NC votes will determine the direction of the country on marriage. Six states have legalized gay marriage, and two more have authorized them, but have not yet issued licenses.

Many privileges exist for all who meet special requirements: voters, airline pilots, professional sports figures, police, firemen, Navy SEALs, etc., etc… There always have been special requirements for certain occupations. In marriage, the requirement has always been one woman, one man. But things began to change about 20 years ago.

So many want to change those requirements for marriage. At least differently than stated by the dictionary Thorndike –Barnhart [Marriage | Define Marriage at Dictionary.com].

If you follow most of the liberal media, one would get the impression any union is acceptable, and should be afforded all the benefits of a married heterosexual couple. Opponents to Marriage Amendment 1 claim it could deny some children health insurance, and weaken domestic violence laws. In fact, nothing will change with its passage. Speculation by the anti-amendment crowd will not change existing laws with approval of Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 would solidify traditional marriage as the only domestic legal union recognized by NC. Recently, law school professors at Campbell University released a paper saying legal benefits and protections for all unmarried people should remain as law as… “long as those couples are not treated as having a legal status resembling marriage.”

On 4/20, there was a crowd rally in downtown Raleigh, NC. At least 3000 people from churches and Christian schools were bussed to the Halifax Mall. The Rev. Ron Baity (President, Return America), reiterated the group had held 3 other rallies previously at that same mall. In those rallies, they begged for a referendum from lawmakers on Amendment 1.

Raleigh resident, Christian speaker, and referendum supporter Anne Graham Lotz, proclaimed support for Amendment 1 at the rally. She is the daughter of the Rev. Billy Graham.

On May 8th North Carolina voters will have the opportunity to protect the definition of marriage as the union of one woman and one man. It is crucial for marriage as we know it to be protected. Primarily because it is an institution created by God, but also because if the idea of genderless marriage is accepted, it will have fundamental consequences on our children and the whole of society.

With requirements necessary for privileges, you don’t hear of a bank robber voting, an airline pilot panicking with an approaching thunderstorm, a baseball player needing glasses to see, or a fat jockey. Let’s hope the NC decision on Marriage Amendment 1 will continue to uphold the high standards of marriage, as well as the men and women entering into this sanctified contract.

North Carolina will likely go down in history as being pivotal in the outcome of the privilege of marriage. It’s hoped that North Carolinians will make the right vote.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

Tags: Amendment 1, marriage, NC primary, privilege, Raleigh

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

zachv

Support for Amendment One has dropped precipitously.

Last year, support stood at 64%.
In March, support stood at 58%.
In April, support now stands at 54%.

Why? Amendment 1 goes so far out of its way to attack gays (who already aren’t able to marriage in NC), that it fundamentally alters NC’s legal landscape to deprive non-married couples, children and families of their legal rights.

A1 so narrowly defines marriage as “only domestic legal union” that the 200,000 one man, one woman civil unions in North Carolina will be invalidated. Children of domestic couples (gay and straight) lose their health care and other domestic benefits. Women who are victims of domestic abuse will lose their protections simply because they are “unmarried”.

It’s patiently ridiculous. Amendment supporters are so zealous to “protect” marriage, that they’re willing to under-the-bus everyone who disagrees which apparently includes every business leader in the state, several big name conservatives and of course the inclusive ‘pro-gay’ Christians.

** Which happy enough, may include Methodists by the end of this weekend, who will be joining Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and evangelical Lutherans in ordaining gay priests and blessing gay couples.

Jack_Savage

The question of “What is marriage?” has been asked, and Amendment One answers it.

No amount of bullying, or yard signs, or intimidation will prevent it from being passed. If you don’t like it and live in NC, move.

Also, when it comes to a complete and total lack of understanding of the religious component of the radical gay agenda, you also win the gold medal. All the mainline denominations will split over this issue, which is your intent, so congratulations. Presbyterians, by the way, do not “bless” gay couples, and the one minister who did has been sanctioned.

Maybe some facts would be refreshing to you.

Jack_Savage

Here is the ballot language:

Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

From BallotPedia:

“If approved, the proposed measure would amend Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution by adding a new section:

Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

That’s it. Simple as that. Try again, zachv.

ww2nd95

I swear, we keep going down this road, though poll after poll after poll shows a majority of Americans either A) Do not care about gay marriage one way or the other or B) Have come to accept it and/or approve of it. Sure, throw it on the ballet in individual states and it holds true. A majority will vote against gay marriage amendments, but that number is shrinking and starting to go in the other direction.

Personally, I do not have a problem if two people want to marry one another, be they’re gay or heterosexual, I was never raised in a religious oriented family or background, so these types of issues were never a problem for me. I do not hold anything against anyone who does not believe as I do. Where my problem comes from, is we end up alienating sectors or groups of people we should be trying to bring into the fold, so we can get a majority with the power to actually change the current direction of the country. Otherwise we end up with either another Obama term (which cannot happen…) or we get Romney, with a small majority in the Senate and a House both with weak leadership, like we’ve been seeing over the past couple of years, and honestly I’m not exactly sure how Romney is going govern unless we get strong leadership/Majorities in both houses.

Look, I think social change is important, we do want society to function a certain way, but I also think there needs to be a good time and place to choose this battle, and I do not think when the economy is sinking and millions are either severely underemployed or unemployed all together, that this is the right time. Because when we’re out talking about how wrong gay marriage is, while David Axelrod is blasting the air waves with messages on the economy, while Obama is giving stump speeches blasting Republicans for their economic woes (no matter how deceitful both are), we end up on the losing end of that game, especially when Congress, which the R’s currently control, is at a very low level of confidence with the general public, we just need to watch ourselves.

Jack_Savage

You OK with that? Or people who own businesses and have objections to gay marriage being forced to offer benefits, and put in jail of they don’t? How about ministers who are sanctioned or defrocked because they refuse to perform the ceremony? How about two men who aren’t gay but get “married” for the benefits? How about male children who have no father because two lesbians adopt them? No problem, right? Or do you understand that the biggest predictor of a criminal is whether they have a father in the home, not poverty or race?

Do you have the faintest concept of where this leads?

Unintended consequences due to radical societal change. Think about it.
demsaresatanic

to society, it is all about him.
ww2nd95

Please explain to me how anything in my reply to Jack was indicative of me being selfish or uncaring?
demsaresatanic

was zachv, not you. You merely underestimate the importance of traditional Christian values in forming and preserving America.
ww2nd95

I understand where you’re coming from, but again I do not feel it is for me to dictate what two people want to do with their lives one way or the other. As for the supervisor being forced to pay for benefits of two gay people, though they do not agree with that lifestyle? No honestly I do not have a problem with that. If companies and supervisors got to choose who and who not to pay benefits for based on how they felt about that person’s lifestyle, that’s a total slippery-slope we do not need to venture into at all.

I understand your concerns and I see what you’re saying about unintended consequences in the future, However, as I’ve said, look at the polls though and people in generals feelings toward it. All I’m saying is, wait until we have the ability to actually implement change to open the discussion about these unintended consequences, otherwise two things are going to happen.

1. We’re going to either lose this election or not win as much as we should have, which has it’s own set of problems.

2. These societal issues will be brushed aside and who knows when they will be picked up again.
Jack_Savage

But I do not believe you have thought about this. Let me put it this way – if gay marriage is approved and becomes the law of the land, not only will people be dictated to, but we will be traveling down a slippery slope. Both of those things you say you seek to avoid.
zachv

Are you kidding? I’m not allowed to get married by law! Passed down on high by the religious defenders (because mainline Protestantism doesn’t exist) of marriage. That’s a dictate if I ever see one.

And slippery slope? Do I argue that Catholics will start stoning me again if we pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Do I argue that we will re-criminalize gay sex if New Hampshire struck down it’s gay marriage law?

No because those are slippery slope arguments and as such, they are fallacious. Just like polygamy argument. It is NOT a valid argument.
Jack_Savage

“The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose
zachv

Whoever wrote the article doesn’t speak Dutch. It is illegal to have polygamous marriages in the Netherlands and is punishable by 4 years imprisonment. Same goes for Belgium, articles 147 and 184 of the Civil Code.

Article 237 Met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste 4 jaren of geldboete van de vierde categorie wordt gestraft: 1*. hij die opzettelijk een dubbel huwelijk aangaat;
2*. hij die een huwelijk aangaat, wetende dat de wederpartij daardoor een dubbel huwelijk aangaat.

Second, the “arrangement” you talk about was a result of a Dutch cohabitation law passed in the 1980s. It’s called a Samenlevingscontract and is primarily used by Muslim immigrants to get the Dutch government to recognize their polygamous relationships.

Wat is een samenlevingscontract?

Samenlevingscontract met meer dan 2 personen
Een samenlevingscontract kan tussen meer dan 2 personen gesloten worden. Deze personen zijn niet verplicht een gemeenschappelijke huishouding te voeren.

Should the Dutch government recognize polygamy, it will be the result of Sharia law.
demsaresatanic

which is, I believe, that every argument you make for homosexual marriage may equally be made to justify polygamy.
zachv

He points to some “article” as anecdotal evidence that his fallacious ‘slippery slope’ is correct, in which the context is factually wrong enough that someone with even a basic understanding of Dutch + Google + free love pot heads can easily disprove.
demsaresatanic

every argument you make for homosexual marriage may equally be made to justify polygamy. Now we have no Dutch articles to distract us.
acat

Seems to me, polygamy’s been around quite a while.

Clearly, there are problems with polygamous cultures – specifically, what to do with the “surplus boys” and whether women are treated properly – but just what arguments *against* polygamous marriage do you have?

Mew
demsaresatanic

any objections I have to polygamy and I have no argument about it beyond the point I already made to zachv.
acat

That’s interesting.

Mew
demsaresatanic

but I don’t recall any prohibition of it in Scripture, maybe there is.
Jack_Savage

The Weekly Standard says it better than I can, and the takeaway is this:

“This is important because the Dutch campaign for same-sex marriage was famously premised on a “small step” strategy, with each small increment of recognition creating an impetus for further steps. As Israeli legal scholar Yuval Merin tells it in his 2002 book Equality for Same-Sex Couples, the popularity of cohabitation contracts among Dutch gays in the 1980s helped create laws in the early 1990s forbidding employer discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation–including discrimination between married and unmarried couples in the granting of benefits.”

Or is this a fantasy as well?
demsaresatanic

off one piece at a time.
demsaresatanic

addressing it well.
Jack_Savage

“Victor:
acat

If so .. who gave them that right?

Mew
Jack_Savage

It really hasn’t had to define marriage until now. Everyone used to know what marriage was. Now, since the question of “what is marriage?” has been asked, government, which grants certain privileges and benefits according to this legal status, finds itself needing to answer to the question.

Zachv asked the question, North Carolina is going to answer it, and that is where this whole thing started.

Good night to all.
acat

to define what marriage is, and for government to limit itself to matters of inheritance, child abuse, and taxes…

Mew

zachv

North Carolina General Statutes – Chapter 51. Marriages – Article 1. General Provisions

Section 51?1. Requisites of marriage; solemnization.

A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either: ….

Nope. As Jack_Savage says, the question has been asked, this statute CLEARLY doesn’t answer it, definitely got to write it into the state Constitution.

The “religious component of the radical gay agenda” – lol, rich. One of the nice things about being able to observe a lot of denominations from outside their congregation is watching them hit the V8 moment. We’ve had Catholic pastors being applauded for nixing the anti-gay marriage drive, Mormon Bishops being reduced to tears apologizing to the LGBT community and even Jews beginning to ordain gays and lesbians . It’s heartwarming that you’re finally starting to get it!

Jack_Savage

You could maybe explain that to us. Perhaps it is because this amendment will be a teensy little bit more difficult to get a friendly judge to ignore, and a teensy little more difficult for the legislature to invalidate. Actually, it would be impossible for the legislature to do anything about it.

Like I said, you asked, and you’re about to get an answer. As for your really pathetic attempts to build a case for a groundswell of religious support for gay marriage, here’s some advice. You seem like a decent person, and I actually enjoy some of your comments. Don’t make a clown’s ass out of yourself by pursuing your line of thinking there.

zachv

That North Carolina will be the very first state to strike down a Constitutional referendum. I’d rather not that title go to a New England state like Maine. *puke*

In regards to the religious question: No, it’s not hit its tipping point yet. There will be a lot of turmoil before then and hopefully it won’t tear churches apart. Right now, both the UK and Australia are considering same-sex marriage. In the UK in particular it’s been devastating for the Church of England with half of its governing structure on one side, and the other half on the other.

Outside of that, a clown’s ass I will gladly be because I believe that conservatism is a proponent of both straight and gay marriage. Religiosity aside (b/c my church will marry me), conservatives embrace the commitment, promise, fidelity, trust and family bonds that marriage fosters. Given that gays and lesbians aren’t going to drop dead at any point in the near future, a conservative ought to embrace marriage and it’s benefits for everyone.
Jack_Savage

I truly do, but here are some facts.

1) This issue is NOW absolutely tearing denominations apart, because the definition of marriage is crystal clear in the Bible. Crystal clear.

2) Conservatism is a proponent of straight marriage because of the negative effects of radical societal change and the unintended consequences that follow, as well as the fact that tradition represents the best practices of a society.

3) The NC amendment does none of the things that you and opponents say it will. None. The only reason this is a fight to the death for radical gay activists and their allies is because of the permanence of the amendment.

4) Gay activists don’t want tolerance, or justice – they want vengeance. You only need to look as far as Dan Savage’s hateful, profanity laced tirade against Christians during this year’s high school journalism conference. He is a hateful, worthless bastard, and you do yourself no favors by allowing him to speak for you.

That’s it. I’m going to be gone for a while, but you will probably be quite busy. I hope everyone is civil, but this issue is beginning to really, really piss me off, and I was once much closer to endorsing your side than I care to ever admit.

Now I’m not, and I never will be again.
demsaresatanic

“we only want civil unions, we will never demand full marriage,” and of course, that was complete crap. Appeasement only leads to more demands. I have no desire to persecute homosexuals, but I also have no intention of standing by and watching my values trashed.
exitsfunnel

A similar ballot measure in 2006 in Arizona was narrowly defeated though a simpler, less drastic version passed subsequently, two years later.

As someone who is decidedly not a social conservative but does oppose abortion, my only thought on this amendment in particular and the fight against gay marriage in general is to hope that as social conservatives lash out in what is pretty obviously already a lost battle, that they don’t take down too much of the movement against abortion with them.

-exits

westcoastpatriette

You are just helping God separate the wheat from the tares, In case you are too spiritually blind to understand what that means, the wheat represent real Christians and the tares represent fake Christians (I call them CINOs or they are also referred to as wolves in sheep clothing in the scripture.)

So, the joke is on you. And you are not deceiving anyone — just imagining that you are persuading churches to accept your perverted lifestyle. The ones that you claim are going for it are not the real deal. So, I guess you have chosen to laugh your way to hell. You will regret it once you make it there.

In the meantime, I wish you would shut up. Not that I think you will listen. I have never met a homosexual who was not consumed with self-centered, reckless lust and you are no exception. But then, I shouldn’t fret about it because scripture tells us that God himself cannot do anything with you so he “gives you over to a reprobate mind.” You are on your own — by choice.

zachv

“I have never met a homosexual who was not consumed with self-centered, reckless lust and you are no exception.” Uh huh. So while God commands us to find a partner in life (Genesis 2:18), and Paul encourages to do the same (1 Corinthians 7:8-9) …

I’m supposed to curl up in a ball and die? I’m not allowed a suitable partner? You, westcoast, as a straight woman are allowed to be happy and to have a monogamous, faithful and loving marriage whereas I am not? According to your hateful views, I’m supposed to live my life in pitiful misery unable to even ever enter a relationship, because if I do God will smote me. I have to live in constant, unending fear of falling in love and push myself of destroying every connect with humanity I have ever had, because it’s “wrong”.

How absolutely disgusting.

What you fail to realize is that the Bible doesn’t major in homosexuality. There’s 6 (or 7, if you include Adam and Eve) passages in the Bible that can even closely be said to speak of homosexuality. All of them are ridiculously unclear, have been wrongly cited and all are subject to incredibly uncertainty with which numerous Christian Churches have spoken out against.

What I find more important is the fact that Jesus literally spoke nothing of it whereas in your Biblical interpretation, you believe Jesus is the one holding the ‘God hates’ signs.
Jack_Savage

God will “smite” you. Or not. “Smote” is when it is all over and you are a little pile of ashes in the driver’s seat of your BMW 3 Series. At least I think that is it.

But you are arguing two different things here. No one is saying you need to curl up in a ball, or not fall in love, or not have a partner, or disconnect from humanity. At least I am not. I am not arguing about what is normal or what is deviant, because that is not the issue before us with this amendment.

But since you brought it up, and insist on going down this path, we do need to look at what the Bible says marriage is. It has never, ever one time ever said, inferred or hinted that marriage was anything other than between a man and woman. That’s just the way it is. Now we can argue about the Christian response to homosexuality, but you can’t argue that the Bible condones same sex marriage. Because it doesn’t.

OK, I SWEAR I am leaving now.
westcoastpatriette

since you are a piddly 2-3% of the population at large and nature itself testifies to the unnatural pairing of same sex unions.

As to your second paragraph, your victimhood is your choice. If you want to curl up in a ball and die, that is your choice. Your whining is very unpersuasive. Grow up.
zachv

I guess I’ll turn this into an opportunity to share the Science of Sexual Orientation given the “unnatural comment”. I’ll also bold the word ‘rational person’ given that westcoastpatriette told me that I’m a slut that’s going to hell.

Science is firmly on the path of establishing the innate nature of the trait of homosexuality. The preponderance of the evidence would lead any rational person to conclude that biology, not choice, drives sexual orientation
garfieldjl

People have natural urges for things, that may be true, however we also have the ability to choose not to act on them.

Homosexuality may have a biological factor, however people choose to act on that urge.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all consider homosexuality to be a perversion, that is part of their religious beliefs which date back into ancient Judaism before Christianity and Islam even existed. Forcing gay marriage onto them is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Nobody here is suggesting that homosexual people be imprisoned, forced to lose their jobs, etc.

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian (sp?) principles and values, not on the religious and moral viewpoints of polytheistic ancient Greece.
zachv

Catholics, Baptists and evangelicals do not hold exclusive rights to the word ‘Christianity’ in American. This similarly goes for conservative Jews and Judaism.

Secondly, I also believe in the 1st Amendment. We don’t force Christian churches to marry atheists, Buddhists or the like. Neither shall we force them to marry gays.

What’s your response, however, to banning gay marriage in my Lutheran church? Your religious views trump mine? You have the freedom to be anti-gay marriage but my religion does not have the right to be pro-gay marriage?
powertothepeople

law was just passed days ago in Oregon I believe that does force churches and religious organizations to allow a gay marriage to happen in their church.

Lets not play semantics here zach, there are a large portion of the gay community that have an agenda to end the ability of faith based groups to deny marriage to a gay couple. This was demonstrated in Hawaii when gays came out in force against the proposed bill allowing gay civil unions. If all they wanted was to legally marry another individual so they do not have to curl up in a ball as you put it, they would have passed it easily. It failed because it did not destroy the establishment of marriage.
powertothepeople

specifically Hutchinson City Kansas that is trying to pass the law I mentioned. They are modeling it after a similar law in Washington State.
aesthete

Christianity is difficult — this is part and parcel of the religion. The proscribed relationship for fulfilling God’s plan for sexuality is a monogamous, heterosexual and chaste marriage. Most heterosexual relationships fail by this standard. All homosexual ones do. The Bible doesn’t mention many sins more than in passing, nor is it meant to be a comprehensive list of dos and don’ts. It is wrong of Christians to attack homosexuals on a personal level, and many of the comments on this issue on the part of Christians do unfortunately come from that place. That doesn’t mean they’re incorrect; merely that they’re unloving and that their approach to the issue might not be as comprehensive as it should be.
JX12

It says that a man shall cleave to his wife. It does not in any way condone gay marriage. In fact, not only does it not condone it, it expressly condemns homosexual activity (“married” or not) in no uncertain terms (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, Rom 1:26-27, 1Cor 6:9) – period.

Referencing the Bible to make an argument in favor of gay marriage will gain you no credibility with anyone who knows and/or reverences its teachings. If you want to make a secular case for gay marriage, have at it – although, since the concept of marriage itself is widely held (at least in this country) to have originated in the Bible, I’m not sure how far you will get with that argument either.
exitsfunnel

I may be banned for this comment (I’ve had a good run!), but honestly the kind of bigotry and hatred demonstrated in this post is really unfortunate and this attitude is going to do a lot of damage to the Republican party. You could at least try and dress it up a little bit; pretend that you don’t hate gays, it’s only protecting marriage that you care about.

-exits
Jack_Savage

Got it. Thanks.
demsaresatanic

That was clever.
zachv

As harsh as I am towards opponents of gay marriage, I want to make it clear that I don’t want to put myself in the group of intolerant people in the LGBT community (Dan Savage, Barney Frank, etc.). Dan Savage’s recent speech was wrong on so many levels that I’ve been hoping it wouldn’t be mentioned on this thread.

Attacking a faith is wrong. Calling someone a b* is definitely wrong. Speaking for inclusion and tolerance and then turning your back on it is wrong. If I do put inexcusably put myself in that group, I hope you’ll take my apology as sincere on some level.
demsaresatanic

is not much of an accomplishment. You misunderstand and gratuitously insult Christianity with no recognition whatsoever that homosexuals receive far more tolerance in Christian societies than in non-Christian ones, and with equal lack of regard for the fact that you make common cause with the sort of Leftist trash who routinely use the same sort of rhetoric as you do.

Cultures develop sexual codes which are obviously uncomfortable for those who fall outside, in your case you fall outside through no fault of your own. You should be able to realize that an assault upon one of our culture’s core values is destructive to the entire culture.
10ab

Congratulations! This is one of the most hateful posts I have ever read on this site. It is most jarring to read your judgmental words above the Psalm scripture.
Zachv….my apologies to you….we may not all agree but we should agree to be civil!
demsaresatanic

get your rhetoric right, it’s bigoted and hateful at a minimum. Intolerant also works.
westcoastpatriette

and you are just as deceived as zachv. I make my point from the first couple of chapters in the book of Romans which make clear that many people ultimately reject God and God himself cannot do anything with them.

And I quote: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen! For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not becoming.” Romans 1:22-28

So, if you want to accuse someone of being hateful, it looks like — from the above scriptures — it should be God himself.

Personally, I have no greater powers than God himself and I am not responding to zach to try to change his mind as I believe he has made a choice and God is allowing him to go his way. I do object to him trying to give the impression that any part of the body of Christ is accepting and embracing the lies about homosexuality that he is spreading here. So, for that reason I spoke up — in defense of the church and to make clear that not every one who says they are believers are really believers.

And as far as being civil goes, scripture also makes clear that we are to separate ourselves from people in open rebellion against God. So, I feel no need to accommodate zach whatsoever. And that, my friend, is the love of God speaking.
Xasteius

God said it, not us.

demsaresatanic

Christian-hating trash. Those bible-thumping gun-toting hicks in NC that you hate are worth a million zachv’s.

zachv

Don’t flatter yourself, hun. I only take issue with using the Bible to degrade other people. Mostly I stand with the Lutheran church’s teachings : http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/JTF-Human-Sexuality.aspx

Invited to answer the question, “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” Jesus answered, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36

Jack_Savage

Which lost 270,000 members last year, and since 1987 has lost more than a million members along with more than 1,000 congregations?

1987 5,288,048
2010 4,272,688 -270,349 -5.95%

Looks like your message is really resonating there, zachv. And you really, really need to take my advice.

Dave_A

The fight between liberalized Protestants and their conservative counterparts… Essentially, you have your mainline denominations on the liberal/social-justice side of everything (not just gay issues) – think ‘Church for Christian Democrats), and your conservative/fundimentalist offshoots (Non-denom/Evangelical, Southern Baptist, Etc) on the other….

Past spats have been rather minor – and just faded into denominational differences, but this time the gay issue has become a far more polarizing one… Perhaps because unlike past culture-wars phenomena, homosexual acts actually ARE condemned directly in the Bible (both OT and NT), whereas gambling*, alcohol*, dance, and rock music are not….

It’s part of a much bigger issue, and by and large the liberal denominations are losing the battle, because the argument of ‘If we tolerate everything, then how is Christianity different from secularism – and are we not practicing ‘Burger King Religion’ (eg, ‘having it our way’ and editing out Biblical proscriptions we don’t like)?’ tends to stick to their position quite well….

And before someone brings up veiled women or other similar things, there is a difference between Biblical instructions pertaining to conduct in society (eg, follow the law, pay your taxes, don’t be ‘radicals’ on solidly established cultural issues of the Roman era (eg slavery & women’s status)), and acts that have been proclaimed a sin, period, throughout the whole text…

To answer zachv’s ‘curl in a ball and die’ comment, the Bible is not ‘human-comfort-friendly’ in it’s standards for sexual conduct regardless of orientation.

There is no Biblical ‘ranking’ of sins, and thus homosexual conduct is seen no different by God than impermissible heterosexual conduct (or non-sexual sin for that matter).

The Biblical instruction for all prohibited sexual practices is abstinence – the act itself is the sin, and we all have our temptations to fight… God expects you not to engage in proscribed sexual conduct, including but not limited to homosexuality – even if you are born with the desire to do so. In similar fashion, God expects a heterosexual man to confine his sexual activities to marriage, even though many may have the ‘natural’ desire not to.

* The Bible condemns excess/addiction/drunkenness, not the mere consumption of alcohol, or playing games of chance – unless these things are illegal where you live (since the Bible commands us to obey the law).
JSobieski

The Bible does not rank sins. However, human reason can be applied to such questions.

If a person cannot use reason to concude that the sin of murder is more aggregious evil than the sin of lust in one’s heart (which admittedly can lead to murder), it is challenging to take that person seriously.

Conversely, the sin of sex outside of marriage is the sin of sex outside of marriage regardless of the precise details (same sex or opposite sex).
http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

There are six things that the LORD hates,
seven that are an abomination to him: (Prov 6:16 ESV)
Dave_A

The NT makes it clear that all sins lead to equal condemnation, and even one in your life places you in need of redemption.

God condemns all who do not ask for forgiveness, and forgives all who do no matter what their sins…

The only truly fatal sin, is to be so proud as to deny a need for forgiveness…

As for human reason, yes, that is true – which is why we punish murder with death (or life in prison), and we punish the theft of a candy bar with a shoplifting ticket.

However, to God, the unrepentant are all judged the same… Regardless of weather they had a little, or a lot that needed forgiving.
http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

The Bible speaks of greater punishments, and greater rewards, based on certain types of actions. I’d go into it more, but this isn’t the proper forum.
CincoSolas_del_Bronx

Not sure where you’re standing, but since you posit Biblical instruction it should be noted that the standard view among churches holding to Sola Scriptura goes much deeper than you do here:

The Biblical instruction for all prohibited sexual practices is abstinence

demsaresatanic

tripe with cleverness. Your elevated impression of self-worth above the general welfare of society tells me about all I need to know about you.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

Opposing this:

“Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”

… is opposing marriage.

“It

zachv

I mean, this is probably a silly point because it looks like you live in TX, but domestic partnerships of opposite-sex couples will be outright eliminated in NC because the language of the bill is too restrictive.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

I would say it is you who is ill-informed or deliberately spreading disinformation, because the same old BS arguments that somehow an amendment defining marriage would outlaw the same has been used in other states … including Texas.

Texas marriage Amendment:

rightlane1111

I don’t know if you have ever read any of my blogs but I offer just some .. well it isn’t kitchen table sense…but maybe…shop talk. Everything that “works” has a purpose. I am going to use an analogy. Two bolts cannot really perform much of anything…neither can two nuts. However, nuts and bolts together…work to secure whatever. It works.

Gay civil unions…for the sake of allowing legal transactions to be on par with marriage, I do not have a problem with. However, I have a mega problem with gay marriage. Marriage is a sacrament. God created man and woman to procreate. To date…gays have not been able to do so without the necessary “opposite” fertilizer or receiver to begin a human being in a petri dish.

Finally, for the sake of argument…what do Gay people provide society? I am not being mean…I just want to know. Is their idea of sexuality deviant? I think so. It might be based on friendship…but there is a sexual component that doesn’t work….and why 10% of the population is dictating policy is beyond me.

Viet71

You ask, “…what do Gay people provide society?”

Good food and theater in places like NYC, L.A., and Atlanta. Some great literature — e.g., Oscar Wilde. Some great music — e.g., Maurice Ravel.

Not here to promote or defend gay marriage. But do believe gays always have greatly enriched society. Am hetero.

aesthete

that *groups*, rather than *people*, provide something to society is really quite silly. In truth, there is much that individual gays have provided society. At any rate I don’t see how a group that was until recently ostracized and legally penalized under the auspices of “society” is obligated in any way to “give” to said group. As a heterosexual male, I do not feel that I am compelled to “give” to society (whatever that means). What I do in service of other people is a *favor*, not a *social obligation* — perhaps if people better understood this, we wouldn’t have the perpetual legal marginalization of groups like Jews, “the rich”, proprietors, and gays.

exitsfunnel

I think that to the extent that social conservatives really care about the religious institution of marriage, their focus should be on getting the state out of the marriage business altogether. Have the government recognize only civil unions for all couples and leave the definition of marriage to the churches.

The most recent gallop numbers put support for gay marriage amongst 18-34 year-olds at 70%. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how the fight as it’s currently being waged is going to turn out. There are a lot of people like myself who have nothing against gay people or gay couples, but still do care about the idea of religious liberty so what I propose above has the advantage that it might actually be a winnable strategy.

-exits

Viet71

n/t
Jack_Savage

It would be an easy way out. Your solution leaves intact all the societal disadvantages of gay marriages, while forcing those who do not distinguish between civil and church unions – because there is no difference – to abide by laws which they disagree with due to religious principles. This is the religious liberty you say you care about, but it would be abolished if even civil unions were allowed.

Crap. I’m late now, but this is going to be a fascinating discussion.

exitsfunnel

Yikes. Expecting that civil law which applies to all citizens should comport with the tenants of your particular religion is religious liberty BROADLY defined. In any case, my comment wasn’t directed at you.

If your position is to oppose even civil unions, then I don’t know what to tell you except that that boat has already sailed. The most recent numbers for support for at least civil unions I saw had crept above 60% for all adults and there is no reason to believe that it’s crested yet. And even if attitudes were to freeze right where they are this instant, support would still rise with time due to the extent with which support skews with age. Whatever happens in this particular ballot initiative, the no recognition at all position is in its death throes. I’m not saying that to taunt you, I just don’t see how you can look around at the popular culture and at the sea change in attitude towards gay people over the last 15 years and not see that as obvious.

I was really responding to rightline111 whose objection isn’t to the civic recognition of gay couples but to the word marriage itself and the sacrament. I have no idea what portion of self identified conservatives hold views similar to rightline111 but having been a regular reader / poster here for several years, my impression is that it’s fairly common. I think that my solution is the most realistic road forward for such conservatives. As a libertarian I would certainly be happy to get behind any fight that takes any kind of power away from the government, even if it’s only the power to call something marriage.

Jack_Savage

And you are correct about the popular attitude toward civil unions. I am not so sure I disagree with it, since it is basically a legal contract between two adults. I can say, however, that it is part of the”small step” strategy that the left has employed on this and many other issues, and because of that I have problems with it. In other words, if it ended there I would be fine with it, but it won’t, so I’m not.

In terms of the religious liberty argument, my concern is mainly for those who do not accept this arrangement – either marriage or a civil union – but are forced to by the government because of its acceptance / legalization by society. This issue is not about tolerance, it is about forcing widespread acceptance of a marital arrangement that some find deeply disturbing from a religious standpoint.

Best
JS

aesthete
powertothepeople

government has to be in this fight, especially at the federal level. Just days ago in Oregon, an order was passed that will force religious churches to allow gay couples to use their church to hold the wedding.

We have to make a law defining marriage, or else the Christian community and other faith communities that do not believe in gay marriage will be ran over roughshod.

There has to be a legal distinction between civil union and marriage. There has to be legal precedent so that churches and religious organizations can decide who will marry in their church without fear of being forced to do otherwise.

In Hawaii, gays came out against the proposed civil unions in mass this last election period. Why? Because being able to be married is the least of their goals, they want to end the ability of churches to chose not to marry them. It is a war, like it or not and it has to be settled in a way where gays can have their unions but faith based groups can refuse to participate.

Jack_Savage

What?

demsaresatanic

particular argument;
http://www.redstate.com/roetenks/2012/04/28/can-marriage-be-a-forgotten-art-in-nc/#comment-402

Maybe it is a quote from Aristotle.
aesthete

that sodomy was illegal in the US until relatively recently, and that it still is in much of the world? That being either openly gay, or “outed” by someone else, often carries with it immediate jailing or execution in much of the world even today?

How about Jews, who are still discriminated against in much of the Middle East?

What about proprietors in any Warsaw Pact or one-party socialist state?

What about “the rich” in the history of anywhere, anytime?

For all of these categories, social value (and an errant, often erroneous definition of value) of these groups is used to justify the various persecutions that they have had to face.

Jack_Savage

And that you were arguing that those practices took place here.

Although we are awfully close to smiting “the rich”…
demsaresatanic

A little vague, wouldn’t you say?

garfieldjl

We have a Religious liberty issue and then we have a Government issue.

Many Religious consider homosexuality to be a perversion, a sin. Whether or not some animals do it is immaterial, said animals didn’t eat from the tree of knowledge if you look at genesis. We do know about good & evil, right & wrong, so we are held responsible for our actions.

Marriage has a religious component, and it’s purpose is to sanctify the joining of one man and one woman.

The Government runs around and throws marriage into a secular unit though, which throws everything into a mess. From a secular standpoint with tax law for starters, there is discrimination taking place.

However forcing homosexual marriage onto churches for example is also discrimination and a violation of the first amendment.

There was an easy fix, civil unions, which bypassed the situation, but that got canned, maybe it should be looked at again.

rightlane1111

There is going to be a very important vote coming up in North Carolina Tuesday. I hope that they will vote that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Concerning what Garfield said….and looking at my “elementary analysis” above, man and woman were created for a purpose and that purpose can only occur naturally with a man and a woman. However, further to the point…we first have the Government telling the Catholic Church that it will perform abortions and distribute contraception…a CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. But…did we see this coming? Ask the shareholders at GM who were deemed subservient to contract law in favor of the union. The government DICTATED a previously held contract in favor of Obama supporters, i.e., unions.

Then we have the aforementioned…dictating to the Church. I am using that word for a specific reason…because that is what this has become: a dictatorship. Of course it was so obvious…that they trotted out Fluke and the women’s rights issue so the sheeples could buy the whole dog and pony.

Now, we have the government trying to tell the Church that the sacrament of marriage and its vows are inaccurate and that they must “include” unnatural sexual practices on par with the purpose of man and woman (As Most Judeo-Christians believe).

For legal purposes, let them have their civil unions so they can inherit or make decisions for their significant other…but do not get into the Church business…otherwise known as FREEDOM of RELIGION.

I ask this: Has the morality of our society gone down the tubes in recent history? Has our Constitution been continually violated? Have we entered into behavior of the great civilizations of the past…the Greeks…The Romans…what did we learn from them?

Have Gays been contributors to the Arts, to Writing, etc….Yes. However, when their demands dictate government policy and diminish the Church….We, as a moral people, have a problem, LEGALLY AND SPIRITUALLY.

conservativerock5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaJ2iF9oLi0

I believe government marriage is possibly a violation of the first amendment.
Melody Warbington (rwm52)

(actually my agreement with the author of these articles) on marriage…
Pingback: Resource

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Can Marriage Be a Forgotten Art in NC?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL