In response to:

Eric Metaxas at CPAC: 'We Don't Even Know What Religious Liberty Is'

ronrontaiwan Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 8:20 AM
But, there it is: If the Catholic Church doesn't fall in line on that issue, the state will make it pay. There are consequences which are felt. Tangible consequences. Yet, if the state tells the Catholic Church that it can choose to perform gay marriages, and that those marriages will be valid in the eyes of the state, what tangible, negative consequences are felt by the Church? I'd say "none".
ronrontaiwan Wrote: Mar 21, 2013 6:42 AM
It's not all about me, Becca. I'm just pointing out a bit of hypocrisy in what Metaxas is trying to say. He's saying that we shouldn't force others to believe what they don't want to believe. Yet, he feels it's fine to say that the state should force gays to believe that they have no marriage rights. This negatively effects their lives. Yet, in allowing gays to marry, how is this negatively effecting the lives of those against gay marriage?
TommyMaq Wrote: Mar 21, 2013 3:48 AM
It's the job of the government to enforce and adjudicate contracts. Marriage is a contract. Ergo, refusing the right to contract is 1) a violation of the 4th (free assembly) and 2) the 14th (equal protection).

"Civil Unions" are NOT good enough because thousands of laws on the books already use the word 'marriage,' but not 'or it's legal equivalent,' and changing them all is obviously not practical.

Therefore it will be the bigots - that sounds like you, Becca - who are going to fold on the semantic issue.

Also, please share your patent and obvious bigotry elsewhere from now and and for the rest of your life.
Becca in TX Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 11:13 AM
The state isn't telling you how to live your life-when they don't recognize gay marriage, they aren't telling you that you can't have a relationship with a person of the same sex. Why is everything all about you?
ronrontaiwan Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 8:36 AM
Why is one fine, but not the other? Why is it OK for the state to tell someone how to live their personal life, but not OK for the state to tell someone how to run a business? Sounds like hypocrisy to me. Perhaps the state shouldn't be involved in either.
ronrontaiwan Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 8:34 AM
According to Metaxas, this is fine:

State: "No, you can't marry the person you love, the person who also wants to marry you, because of that person's gender. You can't openly live your life loving this person that you love. You will not get the same benefits that other people in similar relationships get (because those people are marrying those of another gender).

According to Metaxas, this isn't fine:

State: You have to run your business the way we see fit.
ronrontaiwan Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 8:27 AM
Around 7:30, he again more than implies that the state shouldn't tell others how to define marriage. Yet, a mere minute or so earlier, he was saying that we shouldn't force others to believe what they don't want to believe. If two dudes want to get married, they just want to be seen as married in the eyes of the state, having the same benefits that a heterosexual couple would have. They're not forcing anyone to believe that gay marriage is good, but they believe it is good. Metaxas seems to be saying that it's OK for some Christians to tell gay people what they should believe, then get the government to force that belief upon them. Is this not hypocritical?

I had the chance to sit down with Eric Metaxas, a writer and speaker who, along with Dr. Ben Carson, addressed CPAC about the importance of religious liberty in America. Metaxas, author of bestseller "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy," spoke at the 2012 National Prayer Breakfast, where he gave a speech that was no doubt a challenge for President Obama and his cohorts to hear. It's worth watching, as he gives a good-humored but deadly serious talk about having true faith in God, rather than simply paying lip service with Scriptural quotes (contrast President Obama's subsequent speech for...