« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Marriage is not a ‘right’

Marriage is a privilege, not a right. No one has the ‘right’ to get married. No one has the right to promote the degradation of society either. We’ve tumbled down some slippery slopes in my lifetime and I’d prefer that we stop before we become an entire nation that resembles Hieronymus Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights.

When I was in high school in the 1970s, only rarely did you hear of a girl who had gotten pregnant. Sometimes someone would just disappear and you’d later find out she was pregnant, was shipped off to live with an aunt or even a home for unwed mothers, like a friend of mine did. The child would most often be put up for adoption and that would be that. If the girl returned to school the next year, she was virtually shunned by the other girls and the guys usually treated her as if they thought she’d be ‘easy’. Even when I was in college, it was pretty much the same, except the couple would end up getting married. Now, as we know, hardly anyone blinks at the thought of a young girl becoming pregnant, it’s so common place, and she most certainly will not end up marrying the guy or even giving the child up for adoption. Instead, she will drop out of school to try to raise the child, with or without help from her family. So much for the sexual revolution…that’s how we ended up with “Julia”. It happened gradually, these things always do. It becomes more and more common and finally, society just throws up its collective hands and gives up under the pressure of those who insist we accept this change in values.

I am, or was, a cradle Episcopalian. I literally grew up in the church. My mom taught preschool and kindergarten at our church’s school, I attended school there through 6th grade. I loved it. When I got older, I attended church with many friends who belonged to other denominations, from Catholic to Southern Baptist. In the summertime, my mom would enroll me in every vacation bible school she could find at various churches on our side of town. I attended church with friends in college too, but I always returned to the Episcopal church. As a denomination, we’d been through quite a few kerfuffles, such as the ordination of women priests, but like most of the pew sitters, I paid little attention to the bigger picture. As long as it wasn’t happening in my parish, things were cool. It wasn’t until 2003 that I realized what was really going on in regards to the gay agenda. That was the year Vickie Gene Robinson was elected bishop in New Hampshire, an openly gay, partnered man who had left his wife and children to live his alternate lifestyle. Little did I know at the time that this was just the tip of the iceberg that had been forming for approximately the last 40 years or so. I was quite shocked – they don’t call us God’s Frozen Chosen for nothing. Then we elected Katherine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop and things really started going downhill. She is very pro-gay marriage and has quite the social justice agenda as well. We’ve had clown Eucharist at Trinity Episcopal Wall Street, Vickie Gene Robinson “married” his partner, there are now several gay/lesbian partnered/not partnered priests and bishops, there was talk of forcing parishes to accept and perform gay “marriages”,  I could go on and on and on.  It has torn our church apart.  At first, I stayed to fight the good fight, but after several years I realized things were getting worse, so I resigned from the episcopal church. It broke my heart. I’m still without a church home – so many other denominations are going through the same thing.

This is what I resent the most about the GLBT movement. I resent anyone trying to force me to accept what I view as unChristian and unnatural behavior. Society as a whole has survived because of tradition and reason regarding what is accepted as normal and natural, even in the secular world. This is yet another slippery slope we are navigating and one slippery slope leads to another. Because of my involvement in the fight for my church, I’ve become aware there are many groups out there biding their time, waiting their turn – not just incestuous relationships between siblings, but between parent and child, unrelated adults and children (NAMBLA), lowering the age of consent (not just for marriage), polygamy and so on. If you think none of this could ever happen, think again. Who would have ever thought abortion would be legal, young girls would get pregnant out of wedlock and force society to take care of them both, same-sex marriage would be accepted anywhere? Where would it stop?

I can understand the desire to have the state get out of the “marriage” business altogether, but I think we are too far down the road for that to happen. I do, however, believe this should be decided by the voters of each state. As was mentioned elsewhere, more than half of the 50 states have decided marriage is between a man and a woman, even California. If you live somewhere that has voted to not recognize the relationship you wish to have, you do have the RIGHT to move to a state that does. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to bully the rest of us into going against our values.

When you give it some thought, it really is no different than the left trying to force conservatives to accept their socialist agenda is it?

COMMENTS

  • westcoastpatriette

    I’m sorry you lost fellowship with your church over the mess. Painful as all of this is, I think God is using it to purify the body and force people to take a stand.

    Remember Jesus said we cannot serve two masters and that true believers would have to pay a price for the faith. I will keep you in my prayers for the Lord to lead you to a new body of believers to fellowship with. Hang in there, sister. :)

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      government should never get to tell the church how to run thing, and the church should stay out of governmental affairs. At least when it comes to passing a certain religions laws over everyone that isn’t of that church.

      • zfwoodward

        As a practicing Congregationalist (United Church of Christ), I respect the right of any church or group of churches to come to their own conclusion over who can be married. Obviously, the whole idea of congregationalism is local control, which is very different than your Episcopal background and I hope and pray you find an amicable solution. We don’t have bishops, we don’t have an official liturgy, and our General Synod is more like a trade association than any sort of binding conference. So it’s not surprising, to me anyway, that different churches within the United Church of Christ have come to different conclusions on same-sex marriage. My local church voted to allow it, even though Maine does not recognize same-sex marriage. It was a passionate debate, but in the end about two-thirds of the congregation had no objection to it.

        Now I know that is not how the Episcopal, Catholic, Methodist or any of the larger churches operate, but I think that is how it should be: if a specific congratulation is ok with same-sex marriage, so be it. If they are not, fine. Marriage is a traditional religious practice, but if some Christians are willing to amend it a little bit, how is that anyone outside of that church’s business? The original congregationalists left England for Plymouth to escape the King dictating religious dogma, so that they could practice their faith in peace. Why should it be different today? I respect the right Evangelicals, Catholics, Pentecostals, and anyone else to define in their church who can and cannot be married, but I ask that same respect be granted to me an my church. How does a small church in Fort Kent, Maine that allows two men to get married affect marriage anywhere else or any other couple’s marriage?

        • Jack_Savage

          And how does that support gay marriage?

        • Wubbies World

          Does your church use the Holy Bible as the source of your beliefs.?

          As far as same sex marriage:

          But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. — 1 Timothy 8:8-11 — (NASB)

          I am just curious if this means anything to those who support same sex marriage but belong to a “Christian” church. No offense intended. I am just curious.

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          to adhere to whatever belief system they desire.

          What bristles for Christians is the hollowing out of real Christian faith in churches. It’s not right for putative Christians to put the stamp “Christian” on the outside and do things decidedly at odds with Christian faith and belief on the inside. Consider it dishonest advertising.

          Many UCC churches became in the last 50 years a haven of radical left ideology, and as such have been enablers of some rather loony causes. Case in point: Obama’s UCC black theology church led by Rev Wright. So it doesnt surprise me that UCC has taken this tack.

          But other churches are getting ‘torn apart’ by the insertion of non-Christian ideological goals into the churches.

        • PowerToThePeople

          The Bible is very clear as to God’s stance on marriage and homosexuality, period. Your church has a right to do as it pleases, but when your church sets doctrine that is in clear violation of the word of God, you are no longer a church of God. Just because a “bunch” of churches do something does not justify the behavior or make it right or acceptable, it simply means you have a “bunch” of churches that are failing as churches and in need of some truth.

          Now that being said, way too many churches and or christians preach a ton on the sin yet forget God’s command to love the sinner. They also tend to forget their own sins and for some odd reason excuse their own away with the “my sins are not as bad as so and so.”

          Christ calls us to hold our own to the fire and to throw the wolves in sheep clothing among us out. Sorry, but when it comes to the clear principles in the Bible, failing to abide by these makes a church a false church who teaches a false doctrine and should be shunned by all other Christians. And if your church teaches it to be acceptable before God to practice homosexuality and for two of the same sex to marry, you are not a brother/sister to the rest of us and in fact are not a church of God.

          We can disagree on the drinking of alcohol or how long the dress must be on a woman, but not on the core tenants of the Bible. The Bible clearly states homosexuality to be not only a sin, but an abomination that makes God sick to the stomach. There is no room for argument on this within the faith of Christ.

    • vangoghssister

      Your prayers are much appreciated. It’s been a hard and heart breaking road that will resolve itself, but perhaps not here on earth. :-)

  • runner12

    I am young, but wise enough to know and educated enough to know that the slippery slope argument is not some half-baked concoction developed by paranoid individuals.

    Indeed, we would have to be quite foolish or willfully blind if we did not discuss the ramifications of such a radical shift in tradition and morality (which by the way, pre-dates Christianity).

    It is not “out there” to suggest that changing the definition of marriage could open up all sorts of bizarre scenarios that none of us want or desire. What is to stop the pedophiles from demanding their “rights”? Or the polygamists? The answer is nothing if the Left-leaning courts have their way. When JSob and others have pointed this out on RS, no one has been able to refute the argument, except with the rather lame comment ” Oh that will never happen”. Can I tell you how many things I thought would “never happen” in the US that are now occuring under Obama’s Presidency?

    We are already seeing churches sued for not performing same-sex marriages. Do you think that will increase or decrease if we make marriage a free-for-all? I am leaning towards 99.9% certainty that will increase.

    As Conservatives, we should not be slaves to the politically correct dictates of the Left. Christians and those of other faiths should not be bullied into changing their morals or values nor should they be attacked for expressing them in the public square.

  • Victor_Purinton

    in both Supreme and lower court rulings. See ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL, LOVING v. VIRGINIA, and TURNER v. SAFLEY for starters. Of course all the marriages in question were heterosexual, but to say that marriage is a privilege is just incorrect. It is a right, even for prisoners.

    “Although such a marriage is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration, sufficient important attributes of marriage remain to form a constitutionally protected relationship.” (TURNER v. SAFLEY)

    • naraht

      I think there are still some situations where someone can be viewed as so mentally deficient that can be limited from getting married. If one of the parties is legally judged to have a mind of a 5 year old, I think that is enough.

      Oddly enough the laws have to be changed less for Gay Marriage than for polygamy over the question of whether if a man is married to two wives, do the two wives have any legal relationship to each other…

    • texasref

      The headline of this post is wrong. That is not my opinion; it is simply fact.

      The only question is whether marriage between members of the same sex will be recognized by the government in the same manner the government recognizes marriage between members of the opposite sex. Lacking a rational basis to deny this, government will be forced to treat both types of marriage equally.

      • texasref

        The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

        IT’S A RIGHT!

        What next? A diary on how gravity is merely a GUIDELINE?

  • rob2333

    You claimed:

    “If you live somewhere that has voted to not recognize the relationship you wish to have, you do have the RIGHT to move to a state that does. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to bully the rest of us into going against our values.”

    This is not what freedom is about. Freedom means YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to tell me who I can and cannot marry. I do not prescribe to your religious views, therefore I’m not obligated to follow them. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then don’t get gay married. My marriage in no way affects your marriage. Therefore, by the principles of freedom laid down in the Declaration and the Constitution, you MUST let me get married.

    • shanecroach

      “Marry” has a meaning independent of your assertion here, and has all over the world for the all of known history, and anthropologist have guessed prior to that as well. No one is under any obligation to respect your dishonesty and insistence that we abandon its definition and purpose.

      • rob2333

        You have your history incorrect. Gay marriage has existed for thousands of years, all the way back to the Ming Dynasty and the Roman Empire. Many different cultures have allowed it. Just because your culture and religion forbids it, doesn’t mean that mine does. Please allow me the freedom to practice my religion and my culture as I choose, and I will allow you the same freedom.

        • gekster

          Are you from the Romans, who are now gone,
          or from the Ming, who are also now gone.
          Which are you now from.
          Which culture that is now gone are you from.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            He’s gotta be from Liqiang, Gansu, where according to Rob Gifford’s China Road:

            … some residents, claim that the people who live there are descendants of a Roman legion that came to China two thousand years ago.
            :
            In 1955 … [Oxford professor] Dubs put forward his thesis, that in 53 B.C., when the Romans were defeated by the Parthians at the battle of Carrhae in modern-day Turkey, a group of Roman soldiers was taken prisoner and transported to Central Asia, where they were captured by the Chinese and taken back to China.

            Gifford neglects to add that about 1450 years later Emperor Hongwu, alarmed by the Hebrew-like increase of the Liqiang Romans on his northern frontier, finally granted them their long-suppressed petition to … well, do as the Romans do; the enlightened practice then spread across the empire until 1644, at which point there was no one left to practice it.

        • PowerToThePeople

          the most stupid comment ever award. This reply from you has to be the dumbest I have ever seen and that speaks volumes about your ignorance considering I have visited the ignorant leftist sites here and there so I can have a good laugh.

          • rob2333

            Can you explain why my comment was so ignorant? I was simply pointing out a counterexample to the previous poster’s claim that marriage has had a certain meaning “all over the world for the all of known history.” This is clearly false, as different cultures have defined marriage in different ways throughout history. Only recently the Christian culture has deemed marriage to be between a man and a woman. But I’m not Christian, and I’m lucky enough to live in a country that respects religious freedom. Therefore I’m not obligated to follow the Christian doctrine on marriage, and neither is our government due to the separation of Church and State.

          • PowerToThePeople

            why your comment was ignorant and hands down just plain stupid, then they should not waste their time explaining as you will never understand.

            Go back, re-read your comment, pay attention to each stupid point, and if you still do not understand what the problem is, I will try to explain it on a level you may understand.

          • APA Guy

            …you know, our supreme document of rights? Show me where it can be found.

            And no one is forcing you to follow the Christian doctrine on marriage. Marriage has historically been defined as a covenant between a man, a woman and God. You REDEFINE the institution when you alter it in any way, shape or form…which is why state after state is saying NO.

          • Viet71

            The was the famous Madalyn Murray O’Hair case, an 8-1 decision.

            Writing for the majority, Justice Clark said that government at all levels must remain neutral in matters of religion, “while protecting all, prefer[ring] none, and disparag[ing] none.”

            The decision is based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as to which the Court said, “the contention by many that the Establishment Clause forbade only governmental preference of one faith over another” is false.

            Justice Stewart, in his strong but sole dissent, argued that the religion clauses of the First Amendment were not intended by the Framers to create a separation of Church and State.

            Justice Brennan, in a 73-page concurring opinion, countered that the First Amendment needed to be interpreted in light of modern circumstances.

            Clearly, the debate has not ended. But the law, while far from being completely settled in this area, rests solidly on the Schempp case.

          • streiff

            but the fact that the phrase does not exist in the Constitution is a key point. And empirically the interpretation that you impute to Clark is totally without historical foundation.

          • APA Guy

            Come on now, you know the difference between common law and what is clearly written in the Constitution :)

          • Viet71

            Common law is law made by judges not based on statute or constitution.

            When the Supreme Court issues an opinion based on the Constitution, it is adding to a particular jurisprudence — con law.

            Not trying to be a pain. And I agree wholeheartedly with you and streiff about separation not appearing in the Constitution. But the Constitution is not like the Bible, which is the the sole source of Truth for those who base their religion on the Bible. The Constitution is the basis of constitutional law, but constitutional law is what the courts — chiefly, the Supreme Court — say it is.

          • westcoastpatriette

            the way you are wording your argument gives the impression that you believe that interpretation of the Constitution is a jurisdiction of the judicial branch only. Or that they are the final arbiters and somehow supremely endowed to tell us what the Constitution says and means.

            If that were the case, state and federal legislatures would have no basis for legislating. Nor would it be necessary for all public servants to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution if they had to wait for the Supremes to tell them what it means.

            It is the responsibility and duty of every citizen to know what the Constitution says and means so that we can hold all public officials — including the Supreme Court — accountable for upholding and defending it. Allowing the Supremes to function like a judicial oligarchy was not the original intent of the founders and has resulted in much deviation from the limited government we are supposed to have.

          • Viet71

            Not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to show how the law works.

            I disagree with a number of Supreme Court decisions. Especially Roe v. Wade. But to say Roe v. Wade does not represent the law today is wrong.

            To argue Roe was incorrectly decided is another matter, and on solid footing, depending on the argument, IMO.

            As for the Bible, I’m still in Genesis, which is quite a trip. When I finish reading, I’m going to want to read a variety and diversity of texts on the Bible. I’m especially interested in how the New Testament was crafted, given the politics of the nascent Church. Long time ago read St. Augustine’s Confessions. Have a lot of ground to -re-cover. Any suggestions you have would be most welcome.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            I hope you don’t mind if I offer a couple of sites for you. The first is www.apologeticspress.org which is just as it sounds. Lots of research and evidence to support the Bible on a wide range of subjects, including government, from many different contributors.

            The second is www.christiancourier.com most of which is written by a minister from the church of Christ, a non-denominational church. It also covers a wide range of topics.

          • Viet71

            I’ll probably come back to you.

            Thanks again.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Have matters to tend to that can interrupt my day unpredictably.

            And I want to encourage and applaud you again for dusting off your Bible. Studying it is one of may favorite things to do and so I would recommend getting a variety of reliable new translations as well as a concordance to help you in your studies. One of my favorites is the Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible which is a King James Version but includes lexical aids for both the Old and New Testaments so you can look up words in the original languages and see extended meanings as well as cross references of texts. The editor is Spiros Zodhiates.

            Being an attorney, you may be interested in a comment I made yesterday which includes a link you may really enjoy as it will enrich your understanding of the relationship between our founding documents and use of the Bible to form underlying principles of law in America. See my comment here which includes the link.

            http://www.redstate.com/nextgenerationvoters/2012/05/11/thoughts-on-gay-marriage/#comment-318

          • APA Guy

            …regardless of their “opinions”. As I am a strict constructionist, I take the Constitution quite literally.

            Apropos the case you cite:

            I don’t consider justices saying that government must remain neutral regarding religion as the basis for some mythical separation of church and state. That, to me, is simply a rehash of the establishment clause…which does not mandate separation of church and state in the least. It seems to speak of favoring one church over another, but not a separation of interests.

        • streiff

          because otherwise I’m calling BS on this.

          • APA Guy

            nt

        • GregInFla

          But it stops there. When it has implications on the legal aspects of marriage, it stops.

          Mark Davis gave a good description on Monday’s Rush show. Gays can get married now: they can rent a hall, go to a church or some other official, get married, be recognized by friends and family as married. No problems there. To Mark, marriage has three sides: the religious, the social, and the legal.Gays can already get married in the eyes of their church and their family and friends. The question is the legal side, the entitlements, benefits, and downsides of the legal side of the marriage.

          And as someone else said, can two straight men marry too, then? Maybe to get the legal benefits, maybe for inheritance aspects, or maybe just for the fun of it? It would no longer have much meaning at all, and that, I fear, is the goal here. Just what is marriage then, other than a business deal?

    • PowerToThePeople

      bub. The people of this country do have a right to establish boundaries, they will continue to have that right, and regardless of what you want to think, marriage is not a right and is regulated.

      Gay marriage does affect us in many, many ways. But just so you do not come back with some silly “show me one way” response, let me leave one.

      Gay activist in Hutchinson Kansas are working to put a law on the books that would force churches to allow their houses of worship to be used for gay marriages. If they refuse, they can and will be sued and criminally ticketed. This seems to be affecting people.

      By the way, same law is being looked at in the state, Washington State. Seems to be affecting folks.

      Just for kicks and giggles, lets add one more. How about the effort by gay activist groups to have hate crime laws written that would make any comment by anyone, especially a preacher, that states gay activity is a sin and that marriage between two people of the same sex is wrong a crime. Seems to me it is affecting folks.

      You really need to learn more about this country and its rule of law prior to making yourself look more like a fool. We make laws all the time that “limit” peoples freedom. Here are just a few:

      Cant do drugs
      Can not make a living selling drugs
      Can not have sex in public
      Prostitution is illegal
      Can not break the posted speed limit
      Can not kill people that have pissed you off
      Can not force someone to have sex with you
      Can not wank off in public
      Have to pay taxes
      Can not threaten to kill the president

      And so on and so on. Laws are a limit of what one can do and there are tons of laws that make things illegal that do no “harm” to another. Religious views or lack of have nothing to do with the will of the people.

      • rob2333

        Can you explain why my comment was so ignorant? I was simply pointing out a counterexample to the previous poster’s claim that marriage has had a certain meaning “all over the world for the all of known history.” This is clearly false, as different cultures have defined marriage in different ways throughout history. Only recently the Christian culture has deemed marriage to be between a man and a woman. But I’m not Christian, and I’m lucky enough to live in a country that respects religious freedom. Therefore I’m not obligated to follow the Christian doctrine on marriage, and neither is our government due to the separation of Church and State.

        Your three examples of how gay marriage has a negative impact are flawed. They have nothing to do with gay marriage in and of itself. They are examples of gay activists trying to force religious institutions to change their teachings, which is wrong. I am completely against such laws. Religious institutions should have the freedom to ban gay marriage in their churches if they so choose and should have the freedom to speak out against it. My argument is not with religious institutions; they are separate from state and are free to do whatever they choose. My argument is with the state. If the state chooses to recognize marriage (which it currently does), then it should also recognize same sex marriage. Any religious arguments against it are invalid as the state should not and cannot recognize such arguments when forming its policies.

        You also stated the following laws we have that limit freedom:

        “Can not break the posted speed limit”
        Speed limits are necessary to help limit accidents. Breaking the speed limit increases the risk to other drivers.

        “Can not kill people that have pissed you off”
        “Can not force someone to have sex with you”
        “Can not threaten to kill the president”
        These are obviously harmful to others.

        “Have to pay taxes”
        Necessary for a functioning government.

        “Cant do drugs
        Can not make a living selling drugs”
        Most drugs are harmful to society. Drug use typically increases violence and can devastate families.

        “Can not have sex in public
        Can not wank off in public”
        This can have public health consequences and may cause trauma for children.

        “Prostitution is illegal”
        This is because prostitution is generally associated with abuse of women and human trafficking. However, if (in theory) such things did not occur along with prostitution, then there’s no reason it shouldn’t be legalized.

        All of the above laws also have one thing in common: They are applied equally to all citizens. Public sex is illegal whether you’re having straight sex or gay sex. The Constitution demands that laws must be applied equally, regardless of age, race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. That must apply to laws regarding marriage as well.

        • ragstoriches

          to everyone, as has been pointed out earlier in this post.

          No one, regardless of sexual proclivity, can marry a member of the same sex.

          The fact that a heterosexual man would not choose to marry another man is irrelevant. He cannot, and neither can a homosexual male.

          • songspiritusa

            I came back to faith in Christ after my journey in the wilderness. I happened to come back to an Episcopal church, which suits me as I have always been drawn to “high church”. After a few years of learning about the church year and some basics, I wondered why my very cool new minister was retiring. After some internet research, I learned about the history of the church since the 1979 Book of Common Prayer revision, as well as the Affirmation of St. Louis and the Continuing Anglican movement. We use the earlier BCP version – before corruption took over – and the 1940 Hymnal.

            Other denominations – the Lutherans, Roman Catholics for two I know of directly – also have their splinter conservative movements. This attack on religion – and the stealing of church property and goodwill, built by people who are spinning in their graves over the abuses their property, built to the glory of God, is being misused for. The wolves in sheep’s clothing are the new “ministers” – and never once did I hear about these issues being discussed, nor the continuing movement.

            When I go to church, I go to worship God 1st. Worship services, for me, are not self-help sessions nor “feel-good” sessions about social justice or charity. We go to hear the Gospel and the Bible, and give Thanks. In fellowship, before and after service, there is time for discussion.

            To the trolls and naively ignorant who say that the picture is not appropriate, I say I am old enough to remember that which this blog post so well describes. We are IN NO WAY BETTER because of the liberalization of those “terrible” judgemental practices. And there is no promise to stop the liberalization. It never ends.

            HOLY matrimony used to be that, and those who failed at it had to bear their own shame and cross unless and until they repented. First it was “no-fault” divorce. Then people said they didn’t “need a license” to love each other, or chose to “live in sin”. Now, some people are further attacking HOLY matrimony by saying they now DO need a license! This makes no sense – unless you understand it by seeing the continuing attack on God, the church and all good things.

            Either the Bible is HOLY and true, or it is not. If one does not believe the Bible as written is the HOLY breath of God, then one cannot be a Christian believer worthy of ministering in His Name and in His Church. Women cannot be priests. Divorced men, and unrepentant homosexuals cannot be either, because the Bible records that they cannot be. But because the PECUSA says they can be bishops…

            And therein lies the LIE, of many layers and many steps. Christ is TRUTH. “Bishop Robinson” and those who ordained and support him are abominations. “Gay marriage” as “sanctified” by any group purporting to be a Christian church that believes in the HOLY Bible are all lies.

            It’s not a question of “hating”, but a question of Christian TRUTH. If you wish to throw out the Bible in order to have a gay union, that’s your choice in a free country. But attempts to destroy the plain words are plainly EVIL – and intellectually dishonest.

          • synergist777

            …to marry another man. For example, if an elderly man wants his grandson to move in and help take care of him, he might want to marry the grandson to cement the grandson’s rights. Or, for that matter, his granddaughter. But not only is that currently not allowed, if it was, we’d call it a legal fiction; everybody would see how unlike marriage the relationship is.

          • PowerToThePeople

            I am sure you made a point but I am missing it.

  • shanecroach

    I’ve had very similar feelings as the Methodist church has steadily declined over the past two decades. I was actually falsely accused of harassing a guest speaker at the Wesley Foundation at Lamar University in Beaumont, TX as the forces of liberalism pushed the views of Betty Eadie just because I pointed out her non-Christian views at a meeting prior to her being invited. At the Methodist church at U.T. Austin it finally got to the point where they were promoting the idea that there is no useful distinction between Christianity and Islam. I no longer feel welcome or at home with Methodists.

    The question really is now, where do I go? I avoided Baptists and the like for years for their dishonesty concerning everything from having a beer and dancing to the idea that God, who “foreknew” and “did predestine” His elect, would somehow let people go to hell on accident on a whim because I wasn’t shouting from enough street corners. Non denominational churches tend to be huge and impersonal or as cliquey as any college sorority. Where do I go?

    It’s hard. It’s hard.

    • vangoghssister

      I know exactly what you are going through and I have no answer. I never thought the day would come where I would feel as if I have to interview a priest/pastor to make sure they taught scripture as it is written. I gave long and careful thought to converting to Catholicism, but I would feel like a hypocrite pretending to believe some of what they profess. I checked into some of the orthodox churches, but not being Greek or Lebanese or Russian, it wouldn’t be a good fit. I haven’t found a nondom I really like as they tend to preach the prosperity gospel and that’s not for me either. Plus, you are right, they do tend to be HUGE congregations – some here are the size of small towns.

      Growing up in a classically liturgical church environment as I did makes it difficult to find the right place. So yes, it is hard!

    • Jack_Savage

      I can promise you that.

      I would suggest you consider a new denomination – Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians. Google “John Ortberg ECOP” and listen to his sermon.

      • Bill S

        One of several conservative Presbyterian denominations. They’re solid.

        • Jack_Savage

          Indeed.

          • vangoghssister

            I am well aware of PCUSA going in the same direction as the episcopalians, Methodists and even part of the Lutherans. Amazing how such a tiny percentage of the general population can wreak havoc in so many places, in so many ways.

            I’ll see if there is an ECOP congregation here, as well as PCA.

          • bogornes

            when they allowed female preachers, which certainly wreaked havoc several decades ago.

          • oregon2red

            Though, it does seem like you too are arguing a slippery slope.

            What about morbidly obese people getting married?

            They choose to be obese, and through their vile gluttony, choose to disgrace their temple. It is not natural; they are truly a disguisting sight, and they should first be able to control their appetites before being allowed to marry. Disrespecting the Lord by continually succombing to one of the seven deadly sins for the majority of their lives is no way to honor God. Without any form of repentance, obese people continually defy the temple of the Holy Spirit, and should not be allowed to marry.

            ——–

            More to the point:
            Am I for limited government? Yes.
            Do I want the government looking at any of my choices? No.
            Do I want the government to have different rules and regulations for different individuals? No.
            Do I want the government to have different rules and regulations for choices made by individuals? No.

            And the reason for that is very simple:
            I don’t know what the future holds, and I don’t want the government to have the ability to restrict my life through different rules/regulations in the future.

            ——–

            I think this whole thing would be made much more simple, if the government just renamed their ‘marriage license’ to ‘legal union.’

            * The government wouldn’t need different rules for individuals that make different choices.
            * Everyone would be entitled to the same benefits provided under the law.
            * Social conservatives would get to keep their current meaning of marriage.

            ———

            I don’t understand why we should care what any other indivdual does in their own personal pursuit for happiness. If everyone is consenting to the activity, and no one is hurt, go for it.

            I don’t want the government to start making regulations on what I can do in the privacy of my own house.

            ———

            Just because I personally feel something is disguisting, doesn’t mean that I believe the government should legislate that it is disguisting.

            If two citizens commit themselves to each other, I believe they should be able to:
            * file joint tax returns
            * hospital visitation rights
            * adopt children
            * etc

            ———-

            For those wondering why people keep making the analogy to interracial marriage, it is because it was the last time people challenged the status quo, in which the government provided different rules for different individuals. Remember, it was only 54 years ago that interracial marriage was still illegal in some states.

            Many of the same arguments, including the religious arguments, were also applied at the time.

            ———-

            Lastly, something that made me smile:

            http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BarthR1/2012/BarthR120120509_low.jpg

          • civil truth

            …in which individual churches who view the denomination’s approval of non-celibate gay clergy as a breaking point for their continued communion with the PCUSA are in the process of forming a new denomination.

            ECO = Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians

            Other similarly-minded churches are trying to get the denomination to approve non-geographic presbyteries to give them an acceptable home. Quite messy at this point, and July’s General Assembly should clarify where things are headed.

            Bottom line, just a handful of churches right now, but numbers may increase if more conservative PCUSA churches find that their colleague shut off other avenues for them to maintain their Christian witness.

            Here’s an April 27th update

            There are currently 47 congregations in the process of seeking release from the PC(USA) to join ECO. This process is different in the context of each presbytery, but always involves careful discernment, discussion, prayer, and several congregational meetings. Trinity Presbyterian Church, Satellite Beach Florida was the first congregation to complete the voting process. This past weekend two other congregations, Indian River Presbyterian Church in Fort Pierce, Florida and First Presbyterian Church of Colorado Springs, Colorado cast their official congregational votes

          • Bill S

            I had no idea this was going on. Thanks for posting that.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            in the late 40s, with the non-conservatives soon coalescing as the UCC, or Nigerian Anglican bishops declaring parts of the U.S. now openly apostate and thus legitimate fields for missionary work.

            Shakes people’s comfort zones, but biblically justified at the tipping point where the Gospel has become distorted, profaned, hidden or ignored in doctrine, or its effects in common practice: Semper Reformanda.

          • Jack_Savage

          • Jack_Savage

            Don’t quite know what to say about this.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Hard to believe they couldn’t find enough commonality with the PCA, OPC or especially EPC.

          • Bill S

            …that ColdWarrior pushes, only within the church. Rather than bail, they’re trying to change things. Not a bad idea, really…

  • Gethan Curtis

    very nice.

  • conservingamerica

    the granting of a state license is is a right and available to the citizenry, and you’re correct that it’s not an absolute right. the state has the authority to withhold the granting of licenses WHEN the state can demonstrate a societal interest for the denial of the grant.

    should society demonstrate an overriding interest in preventing Christian heterosexuals from degrading society by having a state license to wed , I’m sure that you would advise those folks to quit complaining

  • RJLigier

    Gay

    • rightlane1111

      If Gays want to go to a government official and be married by the Justice of the Peace…well…I guess that is where we are headed. I would have thought that civil unions would have been enough..but it was not.

      THIS IS ABOUT THE VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. This is about chipping away at the Constitution with a sledge hammer. First we had Obamacare stating that the Catholic Church and its’ affiliates would have to provide contraception and perform abortions.
      That is a violation of the First Amendment. But…what did it turn out to be…a women’s rights issue. BS…it has nothing to do with women’s rights. If they play…they pay. I am not talking about the life of the mother, incest or rape.

      Now…next assault…and everyone is talking about gay marriage. IT IS NOT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE…IT IS ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT. This is about taking away our Constitution. What do we hear to bolster the argument…Love thy neighbor as thyself. So…give up religion and go with the government ‘THEORY”. Wow…that has been VERY SUCCESSFUL in screwing up everything thus far…hasn’t it??? Proof…they (the government) are now calling it the “pro-marriage” amendment. How many people are going to get that confused that don’t listen closely enough.

      What bothers me more than anything is this: Do our representatives “know” about the Constitution. Do they know what it means? Why are they so mute on the subject?

      This is where society is in just three days. Time magazine’s cover came out with a picture of a much older child suckling on his mother’s teet, all in the name of “women’s rights”. But…oh no…Newsweek was not to be outdone. We now have Obama with a rainbow halo around his head on with the headline stating “First American Gay President”. Wow…Michelle must feel good about that one! Do these newspapers live in the gutter or do we that buy these rags to read?

      People…we already have solutions to these objections. Let’s make our reps talk about the “root” issue…THE VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION and their oath to uphold it.

      They are trying to make the Bible go bye-bye….they are trying to make the Constitution go bye-bye…So…what’s next…OH…I KNOW…FREEDOM

  • Pingback: gsdfghsdkflhgksdfl

  • Pingback: continue

  • Pingback: Roderick Schreader

  • Pingback: sexy lady

  • Pingback: http://nerdbastards.com/2010/08/23/videogames-make-you-sound-insane/

  • Pingback: Magnetic Tags Detacher

  • Pingback: here

  • Pingback: wholesale nike air jordans

  • Pingback: How to fight

  • Pingback: web site

  • Pingback: Make money online

  • Pingback: jak szybko schudnac

  • Pingback: best appetite suppressant

  • Pingback: diablo 3 gold

  • Pingback: Better sex

  • Pingback: yoga

  • Pingback: Extreme weight loss diet

  • Pingback: lower your Taxes

  • Pingback: Amway Scam

  • Pingback: gemstone

  • Pingback: Marketing Digital

  • Pingback: phen375 pills

  • Pingback: moncler jacket

  • Pingback: sunglasses

  • Pingback: cheap viagra

  • Pingback: adult webcam

  • Pingback: marble polishing

  • Pingback: Download Apple softwares

  • Pingback: Nikon 1 V2

  • Pingback: Electric Mini Guitar

  • Pingback: best spinner

  • Pingback: harbors

  • Pingback: Roderick Schreader

  • Pingback: Chilli Seeds

  • Pingback: Fusevision.com.sg seo training

  • Pingback: make money fast online

  • Pingback: l-tyrosine

  • Pingback: How To Make A Youtube Video

  • Pingback: videocamere

  • Pingback: Go Here

  • Pingback: Full Report

  • Pingback: peasant tops

  • Pingback: Web Site

  • Pingback: KSL Squaw

  • Pingback: Get the facts

  • Pingback: Extreme weight loss diet

  • Pingback: replica goyard bags

  • Pingback: cardio workouts

  • Pingback: paleo recipe book pdf

  • Pingback: Brock Bonning

  • Pingback: Sina Stumme

  • Pingback: gratis online rubrikkannonser liste

  • Pingback: my latest blog post

  • Pingback: leappad

  • Pingback: canon 5d mark II

  • Pingback: mastercard casino

  • Pingback: rank site SEO

  • Pingback: ugg boots pas cher

  • Pingback: swissdent

  • Pingback: Aja Delargy

  • Pingback: top article

  • Pingback: what is google sniper 2.0

  • Pingback: elavil

  • Pingback: sushi catering Somerville ma

  • Pingback: Carina Allmond

  • Pingback: Gail Mulligan

  • Pingback: Weldon Novel

  • Pingback: Colette Nii

  • Pingback: acheter louis vuitton

  • Pingback: read more

  • Pingback: pond 5 promo code

  • Pingback: stables

  • Pingback: Annika Houltberg

  • Pingback: Antoine Greaver

  • Pingback: Clinton Derizzio

  • Pingback: Danette Remy

  • Pingback: seo fabrikasi

  • Pingback: web designer

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: paleo chicken recipes

  • Pingback: monoloop.com

  • Pingback: property in dubai

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: portal randkowy za darmo

  • Pingback: spybubble.com

  • Pingback: tube8

  • Pingback: majorg33k.com/ezweb2go

  • Pingback: buy synthol

  • Pingback: milosc we wroclawiu

  • Pingback: Click This Link

  • Pingback: Markus Stancombe

  • Pingback: http://articles.online-freedirectory.com/article.php?id=186

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: Stuart Iacovelli

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: laptop battery

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: Stan Avitabile

  • Pingback: Errol Bellmay

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: community magic

  • Pingback: Carie Bazan

  • Pingback: angels redefined

  • Pingback: weddings in italy

  • Pingback: Pain in lower right abdomen

  • Pingback: how to astral projection

  • Pingback: gay

  • Pingback: estate agents glasgow

  • Pingback: gay cams

  • Pingback: homes for sale in Downtown Indianapolis

  • Pingback: wrench

  • Pingback: Visit This Link

  • Pingback: You Could Look Here

  • Pingback: Look At This Site

  • Pingback: Extra resources

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: gutters tampa fl help

  • Pingback: supply chain disaster

  • Pingback: pure green coffee bean extracts

  • Pingback: escorts leeds.

  • Pingback: steam showers

  • Pingback: people search

  • Pingback: people search,

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: swissdent

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: dell adapter

  • Pingback: breastactives breast enhancement pills

  • Pingback: Valene Resos

  • Pingback: jeux,

  • Pingback: jeuxjeuxjeux

  • Pingback: junk car milwaukee

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: PPI Claims

  • Pingback: PPI Claims

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: PPI Claims

  • Pingback: ING Direct

  • Pingback: click to visit

  • Pingback: Get More Info

  • Pingback: toronto plumbers

  • Pingback: PPI Claims

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: Fuck you.

  • Pingback: gain followers on tumblr

  • Pingback: velkoborsky.

  • Pingback: velkoborsky

  • Pingback: velkoborsky.

  • Pingback: tas batam

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: Marketta Hibshman

  • Pingback: work from home uk

  • Pingback: garage doors melbourne.

  • Pingback: garage doors perth.

  • Pingback: gryphon garage doors.

  • Pingback: gryphon garage doors

  • Pingback: gryphon garage doors.

  • Pingback: the stables towneley park,

  • Pingback: the stables towneley park

  • Pingback: the stables towneley park,

  • Pingback: Kerry Tatu

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: casino,

  • Pingback: Keneth Serrata

  • Pingback: Rolf Brais

  • Pingback: Rolf Brais

  • Pingback: haccp zachodniopomorskie

  • Pingback: Store Display Installations

  • Pingback: amarillo tree.

  • Pingback: lecteur datamatrix

  • Pingback: amarillo tree.

  • Pingback: facebook blog

  • Pingback: Keshia Coache

  • Pingback: porn

  • Pingback: www.loansandbadcredit.org

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: Trina Hartranft

  • Pingback: ipage complaints

  • Pingback: ipage affiliate

  • Pingback: ipage complaints

  • Pingback: ipage affiliate

  • Pingback: gambling

  • Pingback: gambling

  • Pingback: Carman Parillo

  • Pingback: "????? ????? ????"

  • Pingback: aloe vera side effects

  • Pingback: real active instagram followers

  • Pingback: ipage domain

  • Pingback: Allevamento Rottweiler

  • Pingback: [4]

  • Pingback: mls inmobiliarias

  • Pingback: mold testing

  • Pingback: cv wzór

  • Pingback: Annett Blowe

  • Pingback: Dumpster Rentals

  • Pingback: Coretta Barlow

  • Pingback: startoption

  • Pingback: Betsey Hons

  • Pingback: Kasey Mushtaq

  • Pingback: madamelux

  • Pingback: junk car towing milwaukee

  • Pingback: Youtube Make Money

  • Pingback: annual free credit report

  • Pingback: sc2 build orders

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: pirater facebook

  • Pingback: how to make money online

  • Pingback: pc dial.

  • Pingback: eames dsw

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: Medical Practice Marketing

  • Pingback: karla spice gigi

  • Pingback: xbox 360

  • Pingback: buy facebook poker chips

  • Pingback: phone number information

  • Pingback: Harley Music

  • Pingback: buy my car scam

  • Pingback: texas driver education

  • Pingback: natural depersonalization treatment

  • Pingback: natural hair loss treatment

  • Pingback: Jess Schouweiler

  • Pingback: Jacinto Ramsby

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: distill definition

  • Pingback: Scooters

  • Pingback: Gita Eppard

  • Pingback: snel afvallen

  • Pingback: Kenton Yunk

  • Pingback: kitchen designs

  • Pingback: drive traffic

  • Pingback: portal randkowy za darmo

  • Pingback: mold inspection

  • barleycorn

    Its a right given to men and women by God and it is a right given to free men and women by law so long as they are old enough, not too closely related, or married to someone else.

    I don’t disagree with your main points but I get nervous when conservatives start defining basic human rights as “privileges” granted by government.

  • trimulchio

    to decide what marriage is . . . or isn’t . . . with legal recognition thereof. Let states register “households” and people (as individuals, groups or Faiths) decide what marriage is. To paraphrase Jefferson, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say . . . [gay people should marry or not]. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    because there has always been this garden. Banning gay marriage won’t even fix what some think is the problem, it only causes people to be louder about it. I agree, our morals have degraded big time in this country. People don’t stay together, but this is a result of people going with there feeling rather than hindering them. The stigma of getting divorced 70 years ago would force people to stay into a bad marriage. Now, through the changing of attitudes, people have decided to search for happiness. We do not need to go back to the days of wife Beaters.

    What I don’t get is this, if your churches changed, it must of happened with the majority allowing it to. Its not like a new church cannot be formed.

    What really is shocking is you think gay marriage is going to lead to society excepting incestuous relationships. That’s not going to happen. Now none of the things you mentioned is new, they were hidden before. The Catholic Church had hid from their scandals for years. Now I argue that gay marriage is not attuned to forcing Christians to except the lifestyle gays, only to stay out of it. You have every right to marry, so should a gay person.

  • Flagstaff

    if this is true,

    You have every right to marry, so should a gay person.

    is this not also true:

    You have every right to marry, so I should be allowed to marry both the woman and the man whom I love and who want to marry me.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    well said.

  • vangoghssister

    Once you begin to change the definition of marriage from one man to one woman to include man and man, woman and woman, it logically follows (given the world we live in) that those involved in all kinds of unacceptable relationships will begin to clamor for their rights as well. There would be no way to refute their claims as the precedence (precedent?) would have already been set.

    The Garden of Earthly Delights (painted between 1490 and 1510) represents what happens when we deviate from that which is ordained by God or, if you prefer, nature. You correctly point out that society has degraded itself in many ways and yet you ask us to accept even more of that degradation. Just because a behavior has always existed does not mean it should be accepted by all of society. Some here insist that the majority of America approves of SSM, but that has once again been proven to be a false narrative. When confronted by another person about supporting SSM, many folks will say they support it because they don’t want to offend the person asking (or the pollster or whomever it is), but once they get in that voting booth, they vote with their heart and what they know to be right.

    As for churches, you are absolutely correct – the majority of what I call ‘pew sitters’ have allowed this to happen, myself included. I’ve found that most congregations turn a blind eye to what is happening in the rest of their denomination because it isn’t happening right there in the church they attend. These same congregants are the very ones who are totally flabbergasted when they discover what’s been going on right in front of their collective noses, but have chosen not to see.

    It is not easy to plant a new church and why should we abandon what we have? That’s tantamount to telling the radical Islamists that ‘hey, we’re tired of fighting with you, come on in and take over America’. If you’d like to know what kind of division this controversy has generated in the episcopal church, I invite you to visit the archives at StandFirmInFaith.com and you will see exactly what kind of devastation has taken place in many parts of the country, from Texas to New York to Washington State to California and pretty much everywhere in between. You will find those in the EC who support SSM to be very familiar, their nastiness is identical – if not worse – to that you find on the DailyKos or any other liberal/progressive secular site. In fact, if you do choose to check out SFIF, do a search for the user name of episcopalienated. He is a fine writer and terrific person with a unique point of view.

  • shanecroach

    The point is that marriage has been an institution to hold couples responsible to one another and to their offspring. That has been the purpose for all of history. Changing the definition to open it to gays makes it essentially useless to this purpose, and there is no logical reason not to apply it then to anyone who happens to want to have sex and live together for an extended period of time.

    You may as well make the ceremony an orgy for all the difference it makes once you turn it into a party to celebrate any two people who want to live together and have sex.

  • Eminent Threat

    What many miss is that there is already ‘equality’ where marriage is concerned.

    Two straight men cannot get married, therefore two gay men cannot.

    This is the USA. No one gets special treatment. All MUST BE equal under the law. We cannot make policy based on how someone sexually gratifies themselves.

  • Viet71

    I’m coming at this straight as a lawyer.

    Around 100 years ago, a legal doctrine prevailed that went like this: you have a constitutional right to free speech, but you have no constitutional right to be a policeman.

    The doctrine grew out of a Supreme Court case involving a Boston cop, who made some political comments and was fired therefor. Justice Holmes uttered the famous words of the doctrine, which is the high-water mark of the doctrine of privilege, which is that if you seek some “favor” (job, license, etc.) from the state, the state can set up whatever conditions it damn well pleases to either deny or revoke the favor (privilege).

    Fast forward: Over the past 100 years, there has grown up a large body of case law dealing with the notion of state-granted privileges. The clear trend, particularly in the last 50 years, has been toward treating such privileges as rights. The legal doctrines used to convert privileges into rights have been primarily

    – due process,
    – equal protection, and
    – the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions.

    IMO, this works well for conservatives. For example, in Ricci v, DeStefano (2009), the Supreme Court held that a Connecticut city could not deny promotion of a white firefighter who had a superior test score based on his race. Under the old doctrine of privilege, Ricci would have been out of luck.

  • http://DefeatTimKaine.com Thad Hunter

    My wife and I were reflecting yesterday on how far we have declined over our 55 years after listening to Barack Obama’s decision. Pregnancy, homosexuality, relativism, etc. were not issues or jammed into our faces or preached in our schools. We were focused on getting married, raising a family and living the American life.

    The demise of the Church has been stunning and heartbreaking. Modern liberalism is a secular humanist and anti-Christian virus that infects all that it touches: entertainment, government, charity, education, quality of work, law, parenting, and theological teaching.

    Francis Schaeffer outlined in Escape From Reason the demise of European and American society. It starts with art and ends with theology. Now we have reached the final stage in which churches have rejected biblical standards, even natural law, and surrendered to the culture. Even though the Church should redeem the culture, elevate the human condition, and be an antidote to the human failing man exerting power over man.

    Sadly we are past the tipping point and a collapse grows more likely. Perhaps that is what we must endure to save the country in the long run. I know, most people think America is too big to fail, but I take my counsel from history on these matters.

    But even while the battle goes badly we must stay engaged – we owe it to those who died for this country and for our children who must endure what my generation has done to them.