Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Maggie Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
Gay Marriage and the Future of Religious Liberty
by Maggie Gallagher
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Last week the Iowa Supreme Court found a constitutional right to gay marriage, rejecting the arguments for marriage accepted by the state supreme courts of New York, Maryland and Washington.

Thus did the Iowa court -- as my colleague at the National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, said -- "misuse the law to impose an untruth on unwilling Iowans. Same-sex unions are not marriages, and Iowans should not be forced to treat them as such by law."

This week, by one vote, the Vermont Legislature overrode the governor's veto to impose same-sex marriage on that state. It's a breakthrough of sorts for the gay marriage movement: the first state to impose gay marriage through the legislature, rather than the courts. Expect Vermont to figure prominently in President Obama's crusade to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act later this year. The Democratic Party has now thrown its lot against the principles and priorities of the majority of Americans in favor of its richly endowed base of gay supporters. Democrats are the party of gay marriage -- a position opposed by 55 percent of the American people in the latest polls.

But the Vermont same-sex marriage bill was a breakthrough in another way which has received zero attention in the press. For the very first time, a legislature has formally acknowledged that gay marriage poses a serious threat to the religious liberties of Vermonters who disagree with the government's new definition of marriage. And the gay marriage movement has permitted -- if not exactly trumpeted -- that legislature to enact some imperfect yet substantive religious liberty protections, instead of the fake religious liberty protections generally offered to deflect voters' attention from the real issues at stake.

Same-sex marriage is quite different from bans on interracial marriage in one powerful respect: It asks religious Americans to surrender a core belief -- no, not Leviticus (disapproval of gay sexual acts), but Genesis -- the idea that God himself made man male and female and commanded men and women to come together in a special way to image the fruitfulness of God.

Many religious people and groups will bow to, if not exactly endorse, the power of gay activists. Witness Rev. Rick Warren, who on "Larry King Live" this week came very close to recanting his support for Proposition 8. Rick did not quite do so. What he did, instead, is what many good people will do in the face of the massive campaign of intimidation and harassment designed to silence Christians and others of good will who support marriage: He dodged. Rick said, more or less: I am not now and never have been an anti-gay marriage "activist."

Let me be clear. I have enormous respect for Rick Warren. What has happened to Rick, who did nothing more than speak from his pulpit to the members of his own church on Proposition 8, is what lies in store for many good men and women. The deal they will be offered by the government and the culture dominated by same-sex marriage is: Mute your views on marriage so you may continue your other good works. Many good and brave people, to preserve their ability to save lives in Africa or to protect the poor in this country, will take that deal.

I'm not here to criticize him or them -- merely to point out the underlying power of the movement that can get a Baptist minister to recant about marriage on national television.

Take it seriously. On a religion and the law list-serve, the widely respected UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who favors same-sex marriage, took time out to acknowledge that the religious liberty implications of same-sex marriage are not "scaremongering."

"It seems to me plausible that judicial decisions banning opposite-sex-only marriage rules would likewise come to be extended -- by legislatures or by courts -- to go beyond their literal boundaries (a decision about government discrimination) and instead to justify bans on private discrimination," Volokh wrote. "It seems quite likely that they will spill over into diminishing any constitutional (or Religious Freedom Restoration Act-statutory) claims to engage in such discrimination by private entities, including Boy-Scout-like organizations, churches, religious universities and other institutions."

Is Vermont the beginning of a new willingness on the part of the powerful gay-marriage movement to let Christians be Christians? Or is Rick Warren the future of Christians in America?

Time will tell.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.

Be the first to read Maggie Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Father of lies
In the name of Jesus, we command you, Satan, to release the hearts, minds and beliefs of all the innocent ones whose lives are in your grasp. We BREAK your power NOW!!!!

Woe to Warren
Rick Warren is a spineless compromiser and an excellent example of why the Christian Church is suffering from a problem in the pulpit.

What I learned from a lesbian coworker
Cathy's not a bad person. Far from it. I really like her as a friend. She knows I disagree with her lifestyle choice and that I pray for her to become a Christian. She accepts that care and I don't pester her about her homosexual choices. We are friends!

However, in a discussion not too long ago, she told me that she knows activists who want to extend "freedom of sexuality" into private organizations like churches. She doesn't, but she knows those who do. They feel that churches are discriminating against gay people and that, if we actually would get to know them, by having them as our pastors, for ex., we'd get over that whole bigotry. Cathy actually felt that way at first until I got her to look with me at what the Bible says. Now, she still doesn't like it, but she admits that I have a legitimate religious basis for my beliefs and so she doesn't think churches should be forced to hire gays. She does, however, warn that such a requirement is in the works.

Oh, what a tangled web some of us wove when some of us decided to not vote at all, vote 3rd-party or vote Democrat this last election in order to "make a statement". I'm a registered non-partisan and even I knew better than to do that. A moderate conservative government is still better than the far-hard-left gov't we currently have. And, we have nobody to blame for that but ourselves.

What is the big deal?
People of faith, particularly Christians, have learned to compromise their beliefs to adjust to modern life. They gave up stoning, they’ve given up honoring the Sabbath, honoring parents, not committing adultery and of course, they readily divorce. Modern Christians don’t really consider women property of men anymore. I don’t see how getting on board with same-sex marriage is such a big deal.

Jeffery
Read the book!What you want and many
others is an ABOMINATION!Get your head out of the sand!All those so called judges will face another JUDGE
AND THERE WILL BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH.Which means they will be in HELL. Rev21:8 kjv

some truth
There is some truth to Gallegher's worry. Not to the idea that preachers will be barred by the government from preaching against homosexuality. But there does seem to be a possibility that pushing such bigotry will become increasingly unpopular as people become familiar with homosexual couples. After all the Southern Baptists split based on their belief in God's support for slavery. It is hard to imagine a southern baptist minister arguing in favor of slavery today. It is not illegal, but it is not going to be done either.

Rick Warren is not responding to any legal requirement that he downplay his opposition to same-sex marriage. But he is someone who can see the writing on the wall. Does he really want to bet his popularity in being a leader in support of bigotry? Apparently not.

Leviticus 18:22 KJV
Thou shalt not lie with mankind,
as with womankind:it is abomination!
Lev20:13 READ THE BOOK!

Get a Grip People!
How is it again that equal rights and equal treatment under the law gets twisted into something to be feared?

This is the latest in a long line of angry and reactionary (and might I add absolutely baseless) articles built on fear posted to TH.

The fear of the Far Right is palatable; you can almost cut it with a knife. Fear does a funny thing with people. It makes rational and normal people act in bizarre ways.

All the reactionary postings, especially #1 above, illustrates this. Now, the minds of the Far Right are running wild with all sorts of fantasy ideas, each one more incredible (and absurd) than the last.

Get a grip people! The world is not ending! The sun will rise tomorrow. You will still be married to your spouse. Your newspaper will be delivered (for a while anyways). It's just that more of your fellow citizens appreciate being treated equally and fairly. That's a good thing for everyone.

Jeffrey from MI
Thanks for making it clear - that gay "marriage" follows naturally from a tolerance of divorce, infidelity, dishonoring one's parents and God.

Excellent...keep it going...........


Another hard slap across the face of HE who CREATED true marriage.....

have at it eggheads!

As for me, I plan to pull up a chair, pop some popcorn, open a cold brewski, and watch the show when SAME CREATOR starts calling in the "marriage" chips!


bwhahhahahhahahahha

Laura61
What I meant was, it's a little cheesy for Christians (particularly) to claim that not being able to condemn homosexuals as part of practicing their faith is unfair. Christians have so often and reliably departed from what the Bible tells them to do that it's not credible to claim that they absolutely must have the right to condemn homosexuals and homosexuality.

I'm not ragging on Christians per se, I'm ragging on the hypocritical selective use of the Bible to rationalize personal hatreds and fears.

It's Already Happening
"OCEAN GROVE, N.J., September 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced on Monday that it was stripping the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of its tax-exempt status for part of its property. The Methodist camp made the news earlier this year after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow a lesbian couple to hold a "civil-union" ceremony at a pavilion on the camp's property.

The pavilion, said Scott Hoffman, the camp's chief administrative officer to LifeSiteNews, "is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869."

Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public.

In June, however, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Pester, a lesbian, filed a complaint with the state attorney general's office on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination, after Ocean Grove refused to allow them to hold their "civil-union" ceremony at the camp's pavilion. A second lesbian couple has also sued Ocean Grove. New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation."

And google "pastor alberta fined" to see how one pastor was fined $7000 for saying that homosexuality was wrong and that there are other cases.

So all the paranoid foolishness you charge us with is actually just paying attention to what pro gay activists are actually doing.

Jeffrey
You are not much of a Biblical scholar, Jeffrey. The Bible is very clear on homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments. The witness against it has been there from the very beginning without a break. This is two thousand years. Besides the Bible, it is present in the first book of church discipline, the Didache, which dates from around 90 A.D. There's no inconsistency in this.

Gallagher has it
exactly right. Our Christian faith and our country's embrace of homosexual sin is on a collision course and has been for a long time.

I can hear the cheers now for the sense that the Church is losing this battle-- like a man cheering the virus as it wins out over his own body's compromised immune system.

aurorawatcher
An excellent post that points out how Christians actually behave towards real life homosexuals in their communities.

I hear a lot of talk about how much Christians hate and fear homosexuals, but don't actually know any Christians (except those 120 nutcases in Kansas or somewhere) who actually are hostile to homosexuals.

However, Christians face plenty of hostility because of their conscientious witness that homosexuality is immoral. Witness the rage by homosexuals over their defeat in the Prop 8 controversy. People had to resign their jobs and houses of worship were vandalized. (By the way, trolls, don't bother to bring up harassment of homosexuals unless you can prove it was by practicing, church going Christians), and hateful rhetoric filled the airways.

Who are the real haters?

Jeffrey,
Jeffrey
Location: MI
Reply # 4
Date: Apr 7, 2009 - 7:35 PM EST What is the big deal?
People of faith, particularly Christians, have learned to compromise their beliefs to adjust to modern life. They gave up stoning, they’ve given up honoring the Sabbath, honoring parents, not committing adultery and of course, they readily divorce."

Ah, Jeffrey, don't you think it would be more fair of you on this and comment 11 to limit your gross generalization to 'some' Christians have learned to compromise. "learned to compromise" is a synonym for heresy, so therefore they're not really Christians.



According to Catholic doctrine
as I understand it, I am not married. I married my husband by common law, which is legal marriage in Colorado where we got married. Matter of fact, when one acquaintance of mine converted to Catholicism, one of the first things the couple did was marry in the Church because the Church did not view their (Lutheran) marriage as a marriage.
I'm fine with that. No one should make the Catholic church call me married, call my friends married, call a gay couple married. As far as I can see, no one has ever insisted a church marry two people who have not jumped through all the appropriate episcopal hoops. However, marriage is also a secular institution, and the secular institution of marriage should be open to gay couples. (Before anyone comes back with triad marriages or plural marriages, well, I read a lot of Heinlein in my formative years. Enough said.)
However, IF a state will recognize something that does what a marriage does, then they may call it a "civil union" if they want. It gets the job done and leaves the word "marriage" as it has generally been defined. I will not quarrel over a word. And if someone tries to force the Catholic Church to marry my husband and I or a gay couple, I vow to stand up for them. It's what it means to be American.

SkorpioG
SkorpioG
Location: VA
Reply # 8
Date: Apr 7, 2009 - 7:59 PM EST Get a Grip People!
How is it again that equal rights and equal treatment under the law gets twisted into something to be feared?

This is the latest in a long line of angry and reactionary (and might I add absolutely baseless) articles built on fear posted to TH."

Skorpio, why do you just assume that those with whom you disagree do so only from fear? Are you that lame of a debater not to be able to credit your opponent with reasons that persuade him/her, even if they don't persuade you? How do you like it if I say your opinion stems from fear of human history, and the Judaeo-Christian culture on which the West has been based for 2000 years, and America for 400.

Plus, your comment decries the long list of reactionary etc. articles on TH. Why do you subject yourself to this torture by reading them? Sounds masochistic to me.

Poor History
"They gave up stoning, they’ve given up honoring the Sabbath, honoring parents, not committing adultery and of course, they readily divorce." Actually, they never gave up stoning, the real Christians never gave up honoring parents, honoring the Sabbath, and not committing adultery. And they don't believe divorce is a good idea. Do Christians do these things? Some do, sometimes. Big surprise-- nobody's perfect. But that doesn't mean you give up trying to be. Pretty weak argument. You of course live up to all of your ideals all the time.

America is a secular nation
Let's not forget that our nation was founded as a secular Liberal democracy that was tolerant of religious bigotry but was in no way shape of form founded as a "Christian Nation" in the word's of George Washington regarding Tripoli. "the Government of the United States of America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Tolerant of religion does not mean subserviant to it. The state has supreme control of marriage rights and all churches have already acknowledged that right by requiring state-certification before a marriage can be legally enacted.

Similarly, churches have no legal authority to dictate their parochials definitions or parameters to the general public on marriage.

Churches that receive tax exemption are prohibited from meddling in secular public affairs and must now recognize the legitimacy of Gay Marriage and adjust their clocks forward 2000 years to modernity.

Churches do not possess special rights or privegeges to dictate morality to the public.

Especially in light of the sore hypocracy of church leaders over the years who have pretended to be moral upstanding Chritians but have been found out to be the most wicked sinners of all.Exapmples?

Ted Haggard-meth user and gay prostitute
Sweatty Sinner Swaggert-a bloated adulter
Jerry Falwell-tax evader/copyright violater along with his side kick Charles Keating Jr.
Pat Robertson-want-to be assassin of hugo Chavez

along with their public apologists of Jack Abramoff, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Larry Craig, Adulterer Newt, Hypocrite Henry Hyde, Pedophile Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham and many other Conservative Christians.

To Stan in KS
You said:

"Leviticus 18:22 KJV
Thou shalt not lie with mankind,
as with womankind:it is abomination!
Lev20:13 READ THE BOOK! "

Let's not forget that God of the OT actually encouraged and rewarded POLYGAMY.

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
2 Samuel 12:8. "

Christian Polygamy.com
BibilicalPolygamy.com

To interfere with Religious Freedom
Is a crime against every single one of the Bill of Rights.

For sodomites to try and force their sins into a church, is a crime in and of itself.

If they disagree with any Church about their sexual choices, they have the same religious freedom all do to start their own church.

They can call it a Church and call it Christian but their deeds define them for sodomites that the Bible says is sin.

This is no different than any other sexual sin and its like adulterers demanding the church accept adultery and fornication, incest, bestiality or molestation.

But this shows how demented the minds of sodomites are and the depth of evil they project

First
Comes to teach the Bible and has never read it.

He is typical of the unbelievers today, all experts on a book they despise and will not read except to take scriptures out of context to think they can smear it, and only belittle themselves.

First writes:

"Let's not forget that God of the OT actually encouraged and rewarded POLYGAMY."
2 Samuel 12:8



Here is Davids Reward
2 Samuel 12
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, ...

What this refers to
2 Samuel 12:8

Is the wife of Naboth, a man who died first, and David married.

Only a fool would say God rewarded polygamy.

There was never a Law given a man must have one wife, but it is how God had created it in Genesis.
One wife.

Adam never said, I got more ribs Lord, ya got more women?

No law about one wife until the Apostle Paul placed it as qualifications for a Bishop, a pastor, a Minister of the Gospel.

1Ti 3:2 -
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, ...

Aurorawatcher
Oh, what a tangled web some of us wove when some of us decided to not vote at all, vote 3rd-party or vote Democrat this last election in order to "make a statement". I'm a registered non-partisan and even I knew better than to do that. A moderate conservative government is still better than the far-hard-left gov't we currently have. And, we have nobody to blame for that but ourselves.
************************************************
I think almost anyone would have been better than what we have. McCain was certainly not my first choice,but I never doubted he was a patriot,since he fought and almost dies for her.

I was afraid he would be too bi-partisan with the left and he probably would have,but I don't think he would have sold us down the river on an ego trip.

I wish everyone would have seen Obama as I saw him. He is even worse than I had imagined.

For sodomites to try and force
Their sodomy choices in a Church is no different than if Baptists went into a Catholic Church and forced their beliefs on the Catholics.
Or vice versa.
No one has the right to go into any church and force their views, they are criminals and will be treated like criminals

Lemonfemale,
Lemon,

You argue against Catholic doctrine. But neither Gallagher nor any of the commenters argued for it, so you have a straw-person argument. The only religious leader she quotes is Rick Warren, an Evangelical Protestant.


Semantics?



The right to do something

you can't do anyway.

Myself a pro ball player,

I should not ever say.

Can a flock be a herd?

Or a bird is a bat?

Most would agree,

Something's wrong with that.

When things are different,

we give them different words,

Not "whey and whey" Miss Muffet,

there's a reason to say curds.

And claiming to be Gay,

when in fact you are straight,

The nonsense of this,

I doubt you'll debate.

But in the land of make-believe,

California is the name,

We thought we'd pretend,

that everything's the same.

Our language was changed.

To what lengths to be carried?

Those two guys shacked up,

We no longer call married.

Another laugher by First in MA
First states:

"Tolerant of religion does not mean subserviant to it. The state has supreme control of marriage rights and all churches have already acknowledged that right by requiring state-certification before a marriage can be legally enacted.

Comment: Marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion and never have. The state has established rules based on historical and cultural normatives. Homosexuality is not beneficial to the members of society, and neither are other prohibited behaviors. Sorry First, wrong again.

"Similarly, churches have no legal authority to dictate their parochials definitions or parameters to the general public on marriage."

Comment: Doublespeak. Churches have every right to spread their message. It is a free country, people can choose to believe or not, anywhere they choose to do so. First=wrong again.

"Churches that receive tax exemption are prohibited from meddling in secular public affairs and must now recognize the legitimacy of Gay Marriage and adjust their clocks forward 2000 years to modernity".

Comment: Dead wrong.Churches have a message of faith and hope that can not be severed from public affairs or influenced by the politics of the day. And there is no requirement to sever anything from public life. To say different is false. Churches are under no obligation to recognize same sex marriage, or any other inappropriate marriages.

"Churches do not possess special rights or privegeges to dictate morality to the public."

Comment: They have every right to spread their word and offer any message they see fit, in any media manner they see fit subject to the same rules as anyone else. An nearly all of our laws are reflections of morality. Sorry First, another dead wrong arguement.

The rest of your examples are just examples of people who have failed morally at some point. They do not reflect on society as a whole.

Examples of same sex values
Here is an example of homosexual values in practice. If this is what society wishes to call normative and award marriage licenses for, people should view how 100,000 (SF Gate reported) homosexuals in San Francisco celebrated last year.

Take a run through them, and then tell me this is what you want coming to YOUR town soon. All wearing wedding rings. San Francisco PD had a recruiting booth set up at this fair.

http://zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/

Love vs Hate in a Church
I am a straight old lady married to the same man for nearly sixty years. I am also descended from manymanymany Protestant ministers. In my long experience, if a church takes a stand that some of its members don't like, those members may leave the church. Usually they join a different church; sometimes they even start their own. In turn, others who formerly did not belong to or attend the "offending" church may be attracted by the new stand taken by the church and will begin to attend there, eventually joining. Water finds its own level; like is attracted to like. Best not to fuss about these things, which can separate friends and divide a community. Remember the man in Tennessee who, last year, shot up a Unitarian congregation during services because he found it too liberal---it welcomed gays. Love is better than hate. Stan: cool it with the gnashing of teeth.

Robert in AZ
“You are not much of a Biblical scholar, Jeffrey. The Bible is very clear on homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments.”

And you’re not very good at reading. My post is about how Christians are concerned that their faith beliefs will be compromised if they can’t condemn homosexuals and homosexuality. And I’m just questioning their credibility because they certainly take a pass on lots of other stuff in the Bible. Divorce comes to mind. Lots of Christians practice it. No big deal. If Christianity can give a wink and a nod to divorce, which is a far bigger concern, religiously and socially, why can’t they give a similar wink and nod to issues relating to homosexuality?

Easy One, Jeffrey
"If Christianity can give a wink and a nod to divorce, which is a far bigger concern, religiously and socially, why can’t they give a similar wink and nod to issues relating to homosexuality?" Easy, Jeffrey, because they don't just give divorce a pass. Real Christians accept both homosexual behavior and divorce as serious. As I said, you're a poor Biblical scholar.

JMartin
“Ah, Jeffrey, don't you think it would be more fair of you on this and comment 11 to limit your gross generalization to 'some' Christians have learned to compromise. "learned to compromise" is a synonym for heresy, so therefore they're not really Christians.”

Fine, some Christians. Some Christians divorce, ignore the Sabbath, dishonor their parents, commit adultery, don’t stone non-virgin brides, etc. In fact, I’ll there isn’t a Christian in America who has ignored at least one of the official “to do’s” or “don’t do’s,” according to the convenience of their circumstances, moral objections, legal barriers, or whatever. Given this, why not just ignore the whole “homosexuality” thing, especially if you’re not a homosexual and therefore unaffected by it? I mean, no one’s for putting homosexuals to death, right?

anderson
"Comment: Marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion and never have. The state has established rules based on historical and cultural normatives. Homosexuality is not beneficial to the members of society, and neither are other prohibited behaviors. Sorry First, wrong again."

You are right but cultural norms change. Today's culture is very different then 50, 100, 250, 2000 years ago. We don't burn witches at the stake anymore, we don't throw Christians to the lions, wives are no longer property of their husband (at least in this country). Society adapts.

In addition there are many non-prohibited behaviors that have no benefits to society. Yet we don't ban them. They far out number the prohibited behaviors.

And your last point is too ludicrous to address.

Robert in AZ
Divorce is as serious as homosexuality? Where’s the Christian-fueled movement to make divorce illegal? I must have missed all the articles on TownHall.com expressing outrage at how divorce is legal, even though Christ specifically prohibits it in all but a few cases. I’ll bet it’s activist judges keeping divorce legal, that’s the problem.

My guess is that heterosexual Christians want to keep their options open. Let’s not make too big a deal about adultery or divorce because, well, I might want to partake at some point. But gosh, I know for sure I don’t wanna do gay stuff, so let’s go big on the homosexuality thing: it doesn’t effect me and maybe by condemning homosexuals I’ll earn enough “heaven” points to offset my two divorces.

Turned Upside Down!
Maggies artical refers to how religious freedom can be compromised because of what the government says is morally and sexually appropriate.

Wake up folks!

Most children attend government schools.

The government has already punished the Boy Scouts because the government thinks gay men should camp with young boys.

It's all about the kids.

Why expose young children to behaviors practiced by tiny minorities of the population?

Gay marriage is about using the government to legitimize a behavior that many find deplorable.

If your child attends a public school in Vermont, Mass. or Conn:

The teacher can hang a sign in the classroom declaring that she is Proud to be a Lesbian.
Her job will not be in Jeopardy, the sign stays and only 2% of the population practices homosexuality.

If the teacher in the next room hangs a sign that says Jesus is Lord, she will be forced to remove it or face termination. 85% of the population practices Christianity.

How did we get here!
Our ideas of what is right and wrong are turned upside down.


Banning What, Yoshi?
What Christian here is talking about banning homosexual behavior? We want the right to say it is morally wrong without losing our right to tax exemption and definition of our sacraments. What we object to is the attempt to degrade the thousands of year old definition of marriage in both Christian and other societies by making it something it is not. What we further object to is interference with our property rights and religious liberty by compelling us to accept gay marriage as the norm. Confirmable examples of both have been given. That's the problem.

I'm ashamed of you, Jeffrey
"My guess is that heterosexual Christians want to keep their options open. Let’s not make too big a deal about adultery or divorce because, well, I might want to partake at some point." Your best shot seems to be that all Christians are hypocrites who want to be adulterous but not homosexual. Dumb, Jeffrey, dumb. And I don't see any Christians wanting to punish homosexual behavior. What we object to is changing the historical definition of marriage and forcing the churches to go along with it with the threat of taking away their rights to use their property as they wish and practice their sacraments as they have decided. You've been given enough examples of exactly this kind of persecution, including fining of pastors who disapprove of homosexuality publicly in Canada and threats to tax exemption as a charity in the US.

Yoshi
I for one have no desire to "ban" any 2 people from making a life-long commitment to each other.

We live in a world in desparate need of more commitments.

But the homosexual community will have to create a new word.
This ones taken.
It has refered to opposite genders since recorded history.
This one is taken.

The gay community created new words for all aspects of their unusual behavior but are determined to hijack a heterosexual term with the express purpose of claiming it to be normal.

Why do you want to confuse small children?

Let's call marriage between two anatomically similar humans narcisdonius or maybe saymonella.

Jeffrey
In response to post #35.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Leave the Kis Alone!
Statistically, homosexuality and pot smoking have something in common. The more children are exposed to the behavior (particularly from adults) the more likely they will experiment with the behavior.

Homosexuality is much more common in counties, states, cultures and countries where kids witness adults practicing homosexuality.

The gay community created new words for all aspects of their unusual behavior but are determined to hijack a heterosexual term with the express purpose of claiming it to be normal.

Small children live in a world of Barney, Goldilocks, Toy Story and Spongebob.

Why would we want to confuse kids (that have no sexual attraction of any sort) by legitimizing a life style practiced by a tiny percentage of the American population?

Leave the children alone.

Elton John was right.

Get your own word.

Court Order Fulfilled
Ten years ago, the Vermont Supreme Court mandated the state legislature either (a) pass a "civil union" that gave the equivalence of marriage, or (b) pass marriage laws that legalised same-sex "marriage".

They went with Option A, but after seeing three state supreme courts go with mandate on B, the legislature decided that B, which was the overall mandate of the court, had to be passed.

Nobody seems to remember that. But, as they say, those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat history again. This legislature was under the gun of the court decision since that forced phase one in.

Robert in AZ
Personally, I want to follow 1 Timothy 2:9! Let's pass laws like the Pharises and follow the WORD! I can't wait to go arm in arm with you into churches and arrest all of the EVIL WOMEN wearing gold wedding bands, pearls or "costly clothing"!!!!!!!!! We'll put an end to those people who don't follow the WORD!!!!!

“we’re going to lose.”
In California a key leader of the No on 8 (pro same-sex marriage)campaign has said publicly for the first time that if the homosexual community pursues a new ballot initiative in 2010, “we’re going to lose.”
Kate Kendall, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a member of the No on 8 executive committee told a prominent Bay Area gay newspaper that public polls, including the recently published Field Poll, overstate support for gay marriage. “People lie,” she said. “We're at 42 percent or 43 percent. We could claw our way to 48 percent but we never get past 48 percent."

Even on the Left coast the homosexual community has overstepped what the public will tolerate.

Using the courts and legislatures to force the citizenry to celebrate a life style most find objectionable was the last straw.

Lilly - Great Post
Thank you, your message was crystal clear and was a breath of fresh air in the midst of all the gnashing of teeth.

All this talk just keeps going round and round. You made sense.

Let the government
have our tax exempt status, let them have the church buildings and the land.

Christians should go back to having their services in their homes. They should be called simply prayer meetings and any money collected should be promptly given away. No wealth--no taxes.

Part of the problem is that the church has gotten too tangled up in civil society. They should have realized that this would happen.

Accepting tax exempt status (the church is tax exempt by God, they don't need a government sanctioned status) is accepting favors from the government and those favors always have to be paid back.

By extension the lands and building (kingdoms of man) that the churches have accumulated have also entangled them with the world.

All these things should be let go of so the church can go back to the business of worshiping God, and the government be damned.

School + Church = Destigmatized
Most states (I believe) recognize civil unions. Gays have all the rights they need. What they don't have is 100% acceptability on all levels of society.

Once gays can marry, the schools will be required to teach Dick, Jane, Daddy and Daddy. The majority of Americans are not there. Don't want it. Don't want their kids to "celebrate" Harvey Milk Day (constant pressure in CA for this).

Once gays can marry, there WILL be pressure on the churches to perform same-sex marriages and and recognize homosexuality as equal to hetero.

You will have two guys dancing together at the church Valentine Dance in front of the kids.

Yes, Christians have caved on divorce and there are many Christian adulterers. However, divorce and adultery are not celebrated in the schools nor from the pulpit.

Gays want the churches to cave because churches are the last obstacle to retaining the stigma.

Robert in AZ
“Your best shot seems to be that all Christians are hypocrites who want to be adulterous but not homosexual. Dumb, Jeffrey, dumb. And I don't see any Christians wanting to punish homosexual behavior. What we object to is changing the historical definition of marriage and forcing the churches to go along with it with the threat of taking away their rights to use their property as they wish and practice their sacraments as they have decided. You've been given enough examples of exactly this kind of persecution, including fining of pastors who disapprove of homosexuality publicly in Canada and threats to tax exemption as a charity in the US.”

Easy, Mary. You can still practice your religion. Just don’t discriminate against gay people. How hard is that? My God, listen to yourself: you’re fighting for the right to hate people. Were you this pissed off when you couldn’t hold slaves anymore? Update your religion for the times; that’s my advice.

Again, Christianity is real flexible. You don’t read articles on TH about how awful divorce is and why don’t they make it illegal and those damn activist judges, blah, blah, blah. You can ignore the issue if you want. Yet although Christ was silent about homosexuality, he was quite specific in his feelings about divorce. It’s not possible. So if a person can divorce, and even remarry, without getting a pile of TH articles written about how awful that it, I’d say it’s only fair to let same-sex couples marry.

Jeffrey, What's the Big Deal?
You're probably not still reading this at this hour, but I still feel compelled to answer your post.

You state Christians have compromised their beliefs: “They gave up stoning, they’ve given up honoring the Sabbath, honoring parents, not committing adultery and of course, they readily divorce. Modern Christians don’t really consider women property of men anymore.”

You obviously are not an avid Bible reader. Christianity never endorsed stoning. There are still many, many Christians who honor the Sabbath and believe that honoring one’s parents is a cornerstone of Christian belief. There are also millions of Christians that don’t commit adultery and don’t divorce. Christianity never believed that women were the property of men. The New Testament states that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and GAVE HIMSELF FOR HER. That means men should be ready to lay down their lives for their wives. That hardly puts a woman on par with a horse.

But the most troubling part of your post is that you don’t seem to see any difference between a personal choice of faith and one FORCED UPON THE CHURCH BY THE GOVERNMENT. Each person’s walk with God is individual and people who abandon Gods commands will answer to God for what they do.

I assure you that God has not changed his mind about any of the things you list. If some people have sinned in some of these areas, that is between them and God, but when the GOVERNMENT comes along and tells religious organizations what they must accept and that they must abandon certain core parts of their faith, that is tyranny.

Everyone should fight tyranny whenever it raises its head because the heavy hand of totalitarianism eventually falls on everyone.


Kevlar
I think (and other writers agree with me) that the large Hispanic population in California is what stopped gay marriage in California. Hispanics are predominantly Catholic.

I have raised this point before. Even though I am against illegal immigration, I am thankful that the U.S. does not have the same illegal immigrant problem that they have in Europe. We are not being inundated with a militant, demonic religious cult having its roots in the Dark Ages.

God does work in mysterious ways.

Imaginary Christians
Jeffrey says, "Easy, Mary. You can still practice your religion. Just don’t discriminate against gay people. How hard is that? My God, listen to yourself: you’re fighting for the right to hate people" By discrimination, you mean accepting gay marriage and approving of homosexuality. Forget it. Christians don't hate homosexuals. They recognize them as fellow sinners. They also recognize divorce as a failing of what should be a lifetime commitment. Your view of Christianity is so twisted I can't recognize any actual living Christian I have ever known in your descriptions of what we allegedly believe. I know a lot of Christians. I don't know any who hate homosexuals or think divorce or adultery is just fine. You're welcome to your imaginary Christians. Just don't expect any real Christians to acknowledge their reality.

By the way, Ms. Kelly, your post was excellent and far more patient with Jeffrey than I have been able to. Your statement "But the most troubling part of your post is that you don’t seem to see any difference between a personal choice of faith and one FORCED UPON THE CHURCH BY THE GOVERNMENT," was especially cogent. Thank you.

Jeffrey
You're in way over your head here with your statement "Update your religion for the times; that’s my advice". Christianity does not need nor will it ever need to "update". We Christians are governed by laws given to us by our Savior. Unfortunately, you have never really read or understood the Bible and Christianity in general. You take snipets from the internet (like most libs) and regurgitate them over and over again.

The Word of God is not updatable. It is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Maybe you should update your own afterlife by seeking out the Truth.

What Church Do You Go To?
Mike, "Personally, I want to follow 1 Timothy 2:9! Let's pass laws like the Pharises and follow the WORD! I can't wait to go arm in arm with you into churches and arrest all of the EVIL WOMEN wearing gold wedding bands, pearls or "costly clothing"!!!!!!!!! We'll put an end to those people who don't follow the WORD!!!!!"
Why do secular people immediately think in terms of laws when the NT talks about voluntary compliance? And I don't see any fancy jewelry or costly clothing in our church. You must go to a pretty weird church! Or do you actually go to any church at all?

The Jeffrey fantasy
This so deep I had to wear hip waders to read it:

"Easy, Mary. You can still practice your religion. Just don’t discriminate against gay people. How hard is that? My God, listen to yourself: you’re fighting for the right to hate people. Were you this pissed off when you couldn’t hold slaves anymore? Update your religion for the times; that’s my advice. "

Comment: This means agree with Jeffrey or be labeled as a hater. The trouble is this small problem, Jeffrey is the hater , the intolerant and the enemy of socety. Jeffrey wants to redefine marriage and the only obstacle is religion, so he villifies it. Jeffrey has no qualms about lying, distorting or making it up. He does it every time he posts.

Christians have been the most tolerant faith on the planet towards homosexuals. Ask Jeffrey to take a vacation in Iran if he wants to experience intolerance. Or any of the other 9 or so countries in the world that execute homosexuals.

Jeffrey practices intolerance, Christian hating bigotry, and lies about who he is.

Ms Kelly
Yes, I’m still up. Only God knows why LOL. You’re too dramatic. Christians being forced to do something by the government? Please. The government gives churches a tax break, for no good reason. Plus personal contributions to churches are tax deductible. Nix the persecution complex, ok? Homophobia is a “core part” of Christianity?!?!

Look, if Christians can accommodate adulterers, divorcees, etc., in their churches, what is the big deal about homosexuals? I mean, that stupid church in New Jersey that people keep citing. Would they object to a social club composed of divorced people looking to date or remarry using their pavilion? Of course not, they’d look like fools. But they certainly could claim that their religion prohibits consorting with divorced people because divorce is prohibited by Christ. Can you imagine anyone in a position of leadership in a Christian church condemning divorce and people who have gotten divorced? He’d lose half his flock LOL.

When Christians stop forcing their religion on government and the public, I’ll be thrilled. No more creationism in public schools, no more Ten Commandment monuments in courthouses, etc. It’s a two-way street.

Hi Ms Kelly
Ms Kelly, you wrote:

"But the most troubling part of your post is that you don’t seem to see any difference between a personal choice of faith and one FORCED UPON THE CHURCH BY THE GOVERNMENT. "

What I find strange about this discussion is that there are several churches that will perform marriage rites for homosexuals. Unitarians do, I believe. I know my church does.

So when you say "The Church" you really mean "My Church," which gets to the root of the problem. Que sera, sera - whatever you choose to believe and participate in is your business.

But denying fundamental rights to citizens is not the business of the US govt. Surely there's a true conservative out there who can hear this argument?

Who Am I Thinking Of? Hint- Big Hat
Jeffrey sez, "Can you imagine anyone in a position of leadership in a Christian church condemning divorce and people who have gotten divorced?" Actually people aren't condemned for their shortcomings, as any Christian will explain. The sin is. And continued affirmation and practice of the sin is not part of the Christian life.Incidentally, the person who has a position of leadership who condemns divorce is called the Pope. Also, there is no religious leader that I am aware of that says divorce is just fine, don't be worried about it. But I forget-- the only Christians you know are your imaginary friends.

Jeffrey
Again you don't really have any real Biblical knowledge. Divorce is not forbidden by Christ! The bible does tell us that Christ/God hates divorce, but nowhere does it say it is forbidden. It actually does give examples of when divorce is ok, but I wouldn't expect you to find that in your talking points bulletin.

Churches get tax breaks because of the amount of money they pour into communities.

We don't force our religion on anyone. When was the last time you were tied down and forced to pronounce Jesus and Lord and Savior?

Jesse
Hi, Jesse. You wrote

"The Word of God is not updatable." meaning that there's no reason to reconsider articles of faith based on new circumstances.

I don't know what your relationship is with the Bible, but I wonder if you're aware of the long amount of time it took to compile that document - the many revisions and rewritings, the editing out of extant material, the insertion of new phrases.

How do you reconcile your statement with that fact? It seems to me the Bible (revealed by God or not) has been in a constant state of flux, up to and including this very day. Does that not suggest that true spiritual wisdom is also flexible in light of novel situations?

paranoid
Ms Kelly is referring to Christian churches, not cults like the one yo attend.


paranoid, my man.
The total number of churches that affirm homosexual marriage is less than 1/10th of one percent of all Christians, so they can hardly be said to be normative. They are also incorrect, according to more than 99% of the remaining denominations.

Why do you think having the Federal Government coerce churches to accept homosexual marriage is a good idea, let alone constitutional? The First Amendment is very clear about the Federal Government not interfering in religion. Or is the Constitution another tired old relic of the past that needs to bow to the whims of the times?

Robert in AZ
“By discrimination, you mean accepting gay marriage and approving of homosexuality.”

Yes, or at least be neutral. We’re talking about other human beings here. Pretend gay people are divorced people. You certainly don’t want to block divorced people from pursuing their happiness and place in society, do you?

“Your view of Christianity is so twisted I can't recognize any actual living Christian I have ever known in your descriptions of what we allegedly believe.”

My view is of the practice of the Christians I have seen, read about, and whose posts I read on TH.com. They are completely accommodating of divorce, wouldn’t dream of making it illegal or stigmatizing in any way a divorced person. They wouldn’t dream of prohibiting a divorced person from remarrying. And yet Christ hated divorce. If homosexuality must be abhorred (churches can’t even rent a pavilion to homosexuals!) and gay marriage stopped, why so tolerant of divorce?

Paranoid
How is the Bible in a state of flux? The Bible has been rewritten in different languages but the content is the same. Only in cults do bible verses get omitted and/or added.

paranoidmystic writes:
Jesse
Hi, Jesse. You wrote

"The Word of God is not updatable." meaning that there's no reason to reconsider articles of faith based on new circumstances.

Comment: Correct.

I don't know what your relationship is with the Bible, but I wonder if you're aware of the long amount of time it took to compile that document - the many revisions and rewritings, the editing out of extant material, the insertion of new phrases.

Comment: Spoken like an atheist and someone who has never read the manuscripts dating from the first century, and the testimony and history since then. Unsupportable statement.

How do you reconcile your statement with that fact? It seems to me the Bible (revealed by God or not) has been in a constant state of flux, up to and including this very day. Does that not suggest that true spiritual wisdom is also flexible in light of novel situations?

Comment: Your facts are not facts. Simple as that. A leap of irreconcileable conjecture. Your description is an atheistic one, written to diminish the actual facts.

Robert in AZ
I'm still waiting to arrest all those women! (See Reply #43) By the way, how about Leviticus 11:10? Let's burn crosses in front of Red Lobster! How about Leviticus 11:7? Let's burn down the Hormel plant in Minnesota! The passages in the Bible are meant to be intepreted in light of the times. If you want to follow something, I would suggest following JESUS in Mathew 23:39 in which he gives his Second Commandment: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Which also comes from the Lord in Leviticus 19:18.) If people followed this commandment they'd have a lot less room in their hearts for the hatred I see in these comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

paranoid mystic, Bible Scholar
"How do you reconcile your statement with that fact? It seems to me the Bible (revealed by God or not) has been in a constant state of flux, up to and including this very day. Does that not suggest that true spiritual wisdom is also flexible in light of novel situations?" Actually, the Bible in its present Christian form was solidified with no visible changes by AD 150. There was some scholarly discussion over what to include or exclude, which was all settled by about 350 AD and hasn't been changed since. It was written by AD 90, and the earliest manuscripts (many recently discovered) agree with the later ones. The Hebrew Scriptures were composed by about 400 BC and have existed in their present form since then. The earliest text we have for them is from Isaiah, and is dated in the first century. It is practically identical with the Hebrew language Isaiah of today.

While it is true that societies change over the centuries, people haven't changed very much at all. Your argument for 'flexibility' is to reduce all scripture to whatever the individual wills. This has never worked out, somehow.

Robert in AZ
“Actually people aren't condemned for their shortcomings, as any Christian will explain.”

Well I guess I need additional explanation. Because I thought a church in Ocean Grove, NJ refused to permit the use of its facilities to homosexuals. Isn’t that “condemning the sinner”? I mean, they weren’t using the pavilion for sex, were they?

“Incidentally, the person who has a position of leadership who condemns divorce is called the Pope.”

Don’t get me started on that guy.

“Also, there is no religious leader that I am aware of that says divorce is just fine, don't be worried about it.”

Nor are you aware of any religious leaders that want to make divorce illegal, as many seem to want to do with same-sex marriage. Why is that? Why can divorce be perfectly legal, yet same-sex marriage cannot