I am currently working on a new post. Hopefully, it will be posted here shortly. Overdue replies to comments will follow.
Thanks for your continued readership! The counter stats show 141 average hits per day (with a high of 355 one day in July!). I know that isn't as impressive as the "big blog" counts, but I am grateful to God that the Truth of His Word is getting out to some people via this blog!
Have a great day and God bless all of you!
In Christ's service,
Christine
*******
Citizenlink reports that the Battle Over Marriage Sweeps the Nation.
Excerpt:
Massachusetts ready to export gay 'marriage'; California guts amendment wording.
Massachusetts is a step closer to exporting gay "marriage" to the entire country. And California activists are doing all they can to stop a marriage-protection amendment.
The Massachusetts House voted 118–35 Tuesday to repeal a 1913 law that prohibits couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their unions are not legal in their home states. The Senate has already passed the pro-gay measure, and Gov. Deval Patrick has indicated he will sign the bill.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said it's part of a national initiative by gay activists and their political allies to advance homosexual "marriage."
"With the protective barrier removed, out-of-state, same-sex couples who 'marry' here will sue to seek recognition in their home states … further eroding the people's right to define marriage," he said. This is "doing terrible harm to marriage laws across the country."
Please take moment and visit my new blog - Protect Biblical Marriage to read additional important articles and facts on this extremely important issue.
What a frightening scenario it would be if an Obama presidency (God forbid!) combined with Pelosi remaining as speaker of the house:
Pelosi Backs Obama on Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act
HT: CitizenLink
CNS News
*******
Update @ 7:46 a.m. PT
Just received the following email:
Black Leaders Reject Gay "Marriage Rights" on Air in San Francisco
Activist groups determined to destroy marriage have always hidden their anti-democratic agenda behind false analogies to civil rights. By invoking the great legacy of America's civil rights movement, radical activists hope to convince America to let them force their view of marriage and their family upon our children and grandchildren.
California is the latest state to be saturated with claims that marriage is a form of bigotry and legal segregation - in anticipation of the California marriage amendment vote in the fall. This false "civil rights" logic was the basis for the California courts recent decision to strike down marriage in our nation's most populous state.
There is absolutely no legal, social or historical logic behind the claim that marriage is an expression of bigotry on a par with racism. But that has not stopped many in the national media from heralding California-style "gay marriage" as part of the historic progression of civil rights in America. Given this media bias, pro-family groups are often outmaneuvered because they are not able to mobilize communities that can effectively challenge the core argument of marriage opponents.
But the authentic civil rights leaders who are part of the Alliance for Marriage are able to challenge the "civil rights" deception - and to do so in places where support for this deception are strongest.
In a radio advertisement to begin airing in the San Francisco area on Catholic Radio - and soon on Catholic Radio nationally -- Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality, one of the nation's "Big Four" historic civil rights groups, takes head-on the false civil rights analogies foisted by the radical activists.
Here is an excerpt from the ad which should encourage you:
"In the 1960s, CORE organized the Freedom Rides, co-sponsored the historic March on Washington with Martin Luther King, Jr., and participated in the Freedom Summer project in Mississippi, where three CORE civil rights workers were murdered.
But today in California, an elite, well-funded group of activists have hijacked the proud, historic legacy of America's civil rights movement to advance their own radical social cause - "same-sex" marriage.
Same-sex marriage is NOT a civil right.
As the community that endured both slavery and segregation, African-Americans will always reject the lie that radical activists have a "civil right" to redefine marriage. That's because my community - perhaps more than any other - understands in very real terms the consequences of family breakdown. When marriage declines, children and society both suffer.
Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, but they don't have a civil right to redefine marriage for our entire society."
The Alliance for Marriage is proud that our national coalition has - from its very founding - been lead by civil rights leaders with the courage and conviction of Niger Innis. Too often, Americans of goodwill are intimidated by the threat of being labeled as bigots for believing what the vast majority of people - of every creed and color - regard as common sense. But the African-American leaders in the AFM coalition have always proclaimed the widespread view in their community that there is no civil "right" to redefine marriage for all of society.
Thank you for helping us to make their voices heard - in San Francisco and across the nation. Thank you also for your friendship and partnership in ou r efforts to ensure that more children in America are raised in a home with a mother and a father.
Matt Daniels, J.D., Ph.D.
Founder and President
HT: Matt Daniels of Alliance For Marriage
Posts
17 comments:
Update @ 7:46 a.m. PT
Just received the following email:
Black Leaders Reject Gay "Marriage Rights" on Air in San Francisco
Activist groups determined to destroy marriage have always hidden their anti-democratic agenda behind false analogies to civil rights. By invoking the great legacy of America's civil rights movement, radical activists hope to convince America to let them force their view of marriage and their family upon our children and grandchildren.
California is the latest state to be saturated with claims that marriage is a form of bigotry and legal segregation - in anticipation of the California marriage amendment vote in the fall. This false "civil rights" logic was the basis for the California courts recent decision to strike down marriage in our nation's most populous state.
There is absolutely no legal, social or historical logic behind the claim that marriage is an expression of bigotry on a par with racism. But that has not stopped many in the national media from heralding California-style "gay marriage" as part of the historic progression of civil rights in America. Given this media bias, pro-family groups are often outmaneuvered because they are not able to mobilize communities that can effectively challenge the core argument of marriage opponents.
But the authentic civil rights leaders who are part of the Alliance for Marriage are able to challenge the "civil rights" deception - and to do so in places where support for this deception are strongest.
In a radio advertisement to begin airing in the San Francisco area on Catholic Radio - and soon on Catholic Radio nationally -- Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality, one of the nation's "Big Four" historic civil rights groups, takes head-on the false civil rights analogies foisted by the radical activists.
Here is an excerpt from the ad which should encourage you:
"In the 1960s, CORE organized the Freedom Rides, co-sponsored the historic March on Washington with Martin Luther King, Jr., and participated in the Freedom Summer project in Mississippi, where three CORE civil rights workers were murdered.
But today in California, an elite, well-funded group of activists have hijacked the proud, historic legacy of America's civil rights movement to advance their own radical social cause - "same-sex" marriage.
Same-sex marriage is NOT a civil right.
As the community that endured both slavery and segregation, African-Americans will always reject the lie that radical activists have a "civil right" to redefine marriage. That's because my community - perhaps more than any other - understands in very real terms the consequences of family breakdown. When marriage declines, children and society both suffer.
Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, but they don't have a civil right to redefine marriage for our entire society."
The Alliance for Marriage is proud that our national coalition has - from its very founding - been lead by civil rights leaders with the courage and conviction of Niger Innis. Too often, Americans of goodwill are intimidated by the threat of being labeled as bigots for believing what the vast majority of people - of every creed and color - regard as common sense. But the African-American leaders in the AFM coalition have always proclaimed the widespread view in their community that there is no civil "right" to redefine marriage for all of society.
Thank you for helping us to make their voices heard - in San Francisco and across the nation. Thank you also for your friendship and partnership in our efforts to ensure that more children in America are raised in a home with a mother and a father.
Matt Daniels, J.D., Ph.D.
Founder and President
HT: Matt Daniels of Alliance For Marriage
Just linked to the story Protect Biblical Marriage ... thanks for posting the information.
Thanks for the link Wayne! I hope you noticed that I have also created a new blog called:
Protect Biblical Marriage
Lots of additional articles and links there!
Linked to that site too.
Thanks for this post and your new blog on marriage Christine!
It has to be one of the most racially insulting things this new millennium and that's for the gay rights movement to equate their struggle to the civil rights movement.
The right to be immoral is so far from the right to EXIST! That is the most disgusting thing about this and sad that government entities don't want to recognize the fact that we blacks can not change their color of our skin, and even if somehow some can, it isn't immoral to be of any specific color! Nor, are we describing a sexual act by the rights we are claiming. But gay rights is all about sex and a sexual preference that can be changed.
Great email from the Mr. Daniels too! Will be checking out the Alliance for Marriage site.
Thanks again Christine!
(adding your new blog to my site as well)
Carlotta,
I think you are confused as to why glbt rights are not civil rights. You claim that it is based on a preference that can be changed. You are a Christian--that most certainly is a choice and is changeable, yet you are protected. Why is something that is changeable is a civil right, but yet you believe that being gay is changeable, but they don't deserve the same rights as you?
You say that it isn't immoral to be of a certain color. But history (even in this country) shows that people used religion to state that it WAS immoral to be of a different color. It is good that we have moved on from that wrong belief. We now have to correct the most current wrong belief.
You are also incorrect that it is all about sex. It is about love.
And just because you think it is immoral doesn't make it immoral. That is your own belief. It is o.k. to believe that, but not everyone follows those beliefs.
Kevin, you are believing that homosexuality isn't immoral based upon your "feelings." You feel that as long as two people are in "love," therefore it must be right.
I'm very glad I don't have to depend upon my feelings to determine the right or wrong of something. The bible says homosexuality is wrong, then its wrong. No where in the bible does it say its "wrong" for me to be black.
That's the difference. One is immoral and the other isn't. One's a sin, the other isn't. No matter what our country thought years ago about slavery,and what some may still think today, there is nothing immoral or bad about being a black person.
Gays can feel this "love" thing, but a black person doesn't feel "black."
They just are.
Carlotta--you are basing your ideas on the Bible, which you believe is correct. The Bible, which you believe is the word of God, tells you what is right and wrong. You then believe it to be so. You then follow your feelings, which is based on your belief. I don't share your beliefs, which is why I don't believe that being gay is immoral.
Let me use your own words and change them a bit:
"No matter what our country thought years ago about the glbt community,and what some may still think today, there is nothing immoral or bad about being a glbt person."
And you are under the impression that gays and lesbians can somehow change. Now I find this whole argument interesting. Clearly some people who were outwardly gay are no longer outwardly gay. Some, like Exodus, claim the goal is to believe in Jesus, but not become heterosexuals. Now to me that is just someone who is pretending to be something they are not.
I'm gay. I have been gay since I can remember. I didn't choose that. You may not like that because it messes with your beliefs, but that is just the way it is.
However, you choose to be Christian. Again, I ask: why is it that you believe that being a glbt person is a choice and should not be protected by civil rights, but your choice of being a Christian is protected?
Finally, I am sure you have heard of the Curse of Ham. It was used by Christians to justify making black people slaves. People used the Bible, the very book you believe it, to show that black people should be used as slaves. They used it to make sure that black people could not marry white people. Of course I don't agree with that interpretation, and it has been rejected, but it is a view that has long been held by Christians (even before the founding of this country).
I also don't understand your last sentences: "Gays can feel this "love" thing, but a black person doesn't feel "black. They just are."
I don't feel gay--I just am. So how do we differ?
I don't feel gay--I just am. So how do we differ?
Easy. You can change and I can't.
Kevin, I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you over the same things. You are in complete denial and your refusal to acknowledge God's truth regarding homosexuality is disturbing. Either you ARE going to accept the Bible as God's truth or you ARE NOT. What is the bible to you? A book with inaccurate information or a book to be reckoned with? Sexual orientation is laid out plain for all to understand.
If the bible IS considered inerrant and accurate to you, then you have talked yourself into not believing its words regarding homosexuality. If you don't believe the bible is inerrant, well at least you will appear consistent to me.
As long as you have convinced yourself that homosexuality is moral, then we really have nothing more to share with one another.
"And you are under the impression that gays and lesbians can somehow change. "
This is an interesting point that I have seen people use in defense often. I have to ask, does the changeability of a condition have any bearing on its morality? If a person had an inborn compulsion, immutable to lie, steal, cheat, murder, would that make the action any less immoral? As near as I can tell, everyone has attitudes, urges, etc., in their character that are immoral. If they are inborn, and not a matter of choice, this fits in very well with the Christian doctrine of inherited sin. Far from being an excuse for the attitude or desire, it is a reminder that we need God to overcome. We can pray for his help in overcoming our sins, or we can accept them, or we can embrace them. That is a choice that everyone makes.
"Finally, I am sure you have heard of the Curse of Ham. It was used by Christians to justify making black people slaves."
This is a rather tired argument and hardly worth much. To the best of my knowledge, slavery was an institution over much of the world for a very long time. Christians used the Bible to justify it, but that doesn't mean that it was a "Christian" attitude. Societies across the globe managed to keep slaves with no justification from the Bible. What is more telling I believe is that countries embracing Christian principles took the lead at abolishing slavery at great personal cost. It is not by accident that slavery, either legal or defacto, is still alive an well in many non-Christian cultures, a fact never brought up by those who would condemn Christianity.
"I don't feel gay--I just am. So how do we differ?"
Your statement makes no rational sense. Any kind of sexual attraction is a "feeling," not a state of being. It comes, it goes, and believe it or not, it can be controlled. Not easily, certainly, but definitely. If not, then all of society would be a constant sexual free-for-all.
"I think you are confused as to why glbt rights are not civil rights."
I'm still confused as to what "civil rights" are supposedly being violated. To the best of my knowledge, the gay community is free to cohabitate as they wish. The cannot get married, but that is not a civil right. Judges and citizens have called it a civil right, but that does not make it one, at least not in America. Under the American (US) legal system, rights not given under the US Constitution are reserved to the states and the people, and the people assert their rights through their elected representatives, not through judges. That's a role that some are working hard to usurp, but it was not given under the Constitution. I am all in favor of equal protection, and to the best of my knowledge, that is intact.
Carlotta--well, I guess we have nothing more useful to say to each other, according to your own words. Remember, that is your choice too. That is unfortunate. But I will say that I cannot change, no matter what you believe.
But I will say that I am not a Christian and I do not believe the Bible is inerrant. I study early Christianity and the process which the book you call the Bible was created. To me, it is impossible that that book is somehow inerrant.
Gary--Carlotta firmly believes that gays and lesbians can change to heterosexuals. She then believes that since we can change, there is no need to give us civil rights. However, as I keep asking her, her religion is a choice which is protected. If she believes that being gay and lesbian is a choice, shouldn't it be protected like her choice of religion? I still haven't heard the answer.
You also state: ""I don't feel gay--I just am. So how do we differ?" Your statement makes no rational sense. Any kind of sexual attraction is a "feeling," not a state of being." I question what you mean by 'rational.' You believe that being gay has everything to do with a sexual feeling. However, that is only part of it. I am a person who happens to be gay. I assume you are a person who happens to be straight. Is your heterosexuality based on a feeling that can come and go? People who are against gays and lesbians believe that it is all about sex. However, life is not like that. We get up in the morning, make breakfast, go to work, come home and go to bed like everyone else.
Carlotta stated that there is no place in the bible that condemns black people. I told her about the curse of Ham. It may be tired and old for you, but nevertheless it is a fact of history. And Carlotta is referring to America as far as I could tell--not every other country in the world where slavery has occurred.
And finally, you are incorrect when you state that gays and lesbians cannot get married. I don't know where you live, but we can and do get married in California and in Mass.
Marriage here in California is a civil issue, not a religious issue. So I am not sure why some are so upset about gays and lesbians getting married. It has nothing to do with religion.
Hi Kevin,
"However, as I keep asking her, her religion is a choice which is protected. If she believes that being gay and lesbian is a choice, shouldn't it be protected like her choice of religion?"
To the best of my knowledge, you are protected and entitled to every civil right. Nowhere in American history has marriage been declared a civil right by those empowered to do so (refer to discussion of rights above). Your "rights" are guaranteed under the Constitution. Of these, freedom of religion, and preventing the interference of, are an enumerated right.
Marriage, as practiced in most countries these days, is a contract between the two forming a union and society. Society at large has agreed to ratify the contract between male and female, and then under certain conditions. No such prior legal history exists for gay people. Again, your freedom of association is good. When the Supreme Court struck down the sodomy laws, I was right there with them. You have the right to conduct your private affairs as you chose. You do not have the right, at least not yet, to force me to accept and subsidize it. You probably will in my lifetime the way things are going, but not now.
"I don't know where you live, but we can and do get married in California and in Mass."
Yes, I realize that. The courts have usurped the legislative branches authority. And if that is not bad enough, they are working very hard to ensure that the issue cannot come up for a public vote in both locations. That's your idea of a "right"? Something that has to be mandated by non-elected officials and all manner of legal maneuvering used to prevent the people from expressing their will?
"Is your heterosexuality based on a feeling that can come and go?"
Darn straight. Someone asked me once "When did you choose to be heterosexual?" The answer is "Every day." The same way that I choose to be faithful to my mate, not just in action but in thought. The entire atmosphere that we live in is saturated with temptation to do the wrong thing from a sexual or relationship standpoint. For some people it is consumated infidelity. For others it is internet porn or phone sex or whatever.
And as much as I love my wife, I don't feel loving toward her all of the time. That's a human condition. But with God's help, I make the right choice to love her all of the time. Because love is a choice. Attraction comes and goes, but you can choose to love and keep loving no matter what. That's the kind of love God has for us, and that's the kind of love I chose to emulate.
Now, like any person, I can be tempted to desire what I should not. It might be the girl across the counter at the coffee shop or someone I just happen to run into in a restaurant while on a business trip. Gay or straight, the choice is the same: You can choose to respond to what is good and beneficial, or you can choose to give in to impulses that lead to physical and spiritual harm.
"So I am not sure why some are so upset about gays and lesbians getting married."
A fair question, and one I'll gladly answer. Let me start by citing the idea of separation of church and state. In the same manner that the church cannot impose its will on the citizenry, the citizenry cannot impose its will on the congregation. Or, as so many liberals used to say, "You can't legislate morality." Government is equipped to decide legality, not morality.
In this case, however, that is precisely what they are doing. They are not simply trying to declare gay marriage as a right, they are instituting cirricula in public schools, which about 80+% of the kids are forced to attend for lack of an affordable alternative, that declares homosexuality as not just legal, but good. This directly interferes with religious teachings. People who disagree have been denied freedom of speech in schools, student funds in college, etc. In short, to achieve what you claim is a right, people of good conscience are actually being denied bona-fide rights. In Canada and some European countries, it has reached the point where quoting scripture is a prosecutable offense. Tell me: Does this seem like sufficient reason to be upset?
Darn it!! Blogger was down again just as I tried to publish my comment several hours ago!
I'll just jump into the conversation to address this:
Kevin wrote, "Marriage here in California is a civil issue, not a religious issue. So I am not sure why some are so upset about gays and lesbians getting married. It has nothing to do with religion."
Marriage may not be a "religious issue" for you, however, it is a very important religious issue for many practicing Christians.
I wanted to draw your attention to my new blog post. Perhaps it will give you a better understanding "why some are so upset about gays and lesbians getting married" as well as why you are absolutely wrong when you wrote, "It has nothing to do with religion."
The post includes other examples of the world, the flesh, and the devil hating the Creator with a fervent, undying hatred - and why basic social institutions such as marriage, family, and church have come under such heavy attack in our day. This inevitably leads to those who are against Christ (and love ungodliness) standing opposed (some knowingly, others, unknowingly) to the social order that bears the imprint of God's divine nature.
If what I have just written is confusing or sounds foreign to you, there are many reasons why this is so. However, when you read the entire post, you may grasp just what it is that you question: "why some are so upset about gays and lesbians getting married." And, why you are incorrect when you state: "It has nothing to do with religion."
You probably will not agree with the content, nor the conclusions given in the post. However, it might just give you better insight into why Christians take the definition of marriage so seriously and are actively involved in the Prop. 8 issue.
Carlotta and Gary,
Thanks so much for your wonderful input here! I have had several "blogger" problems over the last two days and have not been able to answer many of your comments.
Keep up the GREAT work! You are both doing a WONDERFUL job!
Kevin,
I give you a lot of credit for continuing to dialogue with us in this "battle of worldviews" because that's what it truly is...
"The Truth Project" labels it as the "Cosmic Battle." We see it being played out in the realm of the social order today. Prop. 8 is but one example - but a very crucial one at that.
Hi Christine,
I am off for about a week and not sure if I will have an internet connection or not. So if I am silent for a bit, it is not because I just disappeared. As you can see, I don't mind having a useful dialogue on this subject!
Gary, thanks for your comments. The only two I have time to address now are "Something that has to be mandated by non-elected officials and all manner of legal maneuvering used to prevent the people from expressing their will?" Our judicial branch was set up by the Constitution to keep a check on the other aspects of our democracy. You seem to know the Constitution, so you know how the government was set up. The will of the people can be a good thing. However, it can be a bad thing. When the California State Supreme Court decided to allow interracial couples to marry, a whopping 90% of the populace of California was against it. If left up to the will of the people, more than likely people of different colors would still not be able to marry. This is a good example of where judges did the right thing against the will of the people.
And "Darned straight. Someone asked me once "When did you choose to be heterosexual?" The answer is "Every day."" I don't understand this answer. You mean every day you have to decide whether to be homosexual or heterosexual? When I said being gay isn't a decision, I literally meant that I cannot be heterosexual.
Kevin, I did mean to answer your question about the curse of Ham. I do realize you don't have a question about it per se, but making the point about the use of the bible to justify racism towards blacks.
I have to pull out my notes on that but it was my understanding that all of those cursed under Ham did die. This was eloquently taught to me by a former white pastor (but still great teacher) David Hocking.
The point of that is to say, all one has to do is truly read dissect the truths of the bible and the answers are there. No where in the bible is there justification for the cruelty of slavery and racist acts of today - by anybody!
As soon as I get my notes together, I will be making a complete post on "The Curse of Ham" as it pertains to us black people.
Although people have tried to use the bible (and some still do) as an excuse for racism, the biblical support is just not there. You would hope so because then it would make sense to you that the bible just can't be trusted by what it says of homosexuality. But nope, the bible is consistent throughout and there is nothing wrong about it!
And I don't mind carrying on talks with you as long as its going somewhere. And that you have seen on my own blog with our discussions.
Take care and have a restful non-Internet week!
(No problem about your blogger issues Christine! As long as your blog is still here, I'm happy!)
Hi Kevin,
"When the California State Supreme Court decided to allow interracial couples to marry, a whopping 90% of the populace of California was against it."
I'm very sad that so many people were against it, but the example that you are using is not applicable. In the case of interracial marriage, couples were barred from executing a commonly recognized practice based on race. Despite arguments to the contrary, homosexual marriage has never been a commonly recognized practice in any society. Will that change this century? Probably, but the existing legislative history is not there.
You are perhaps familiar with a legal and historical term: Consent of the governed. The basic idea is that we, the governed, ratified the laws through our representatives. That means that the consent was given for laws under the definitions when first adopted, not as modified by current standards. At no time when any laws concerning marriage were passed was marriage understood to be anything but the legal union of a man a woman. You are not asking for the same practice. You are asking for an entirely new union, and society has not consented.
"Our judicial branch was set up by the Constitution to keep a check on the other aspects of our democracy."
Close, but incorrect. All branches of government are given powers to serve as a check against each other to prevent a tyranny by any branch. The idea was to maximize the liberty of the people, not to override it. And, while the judiciary can nullify a law by the legislature WITH PROPER LEGAL GROUNDS, they are not empowered to order the legislature or executive branch to write laws, which is essentially what they did in both California and Massachusetts.
Many in America were against slavery in the 1800's. Nevertheless, neither the Supreme Court of the President had the power to abolish it because it was legally recognized in the Constitution. Contrary to popular belief, the Civil War did not end slavery. It was an amendment, which is the only lawful way to overturn a Constitution law. As to California and interracial marriage, 90% may have been against it, but had it been recognized in their Constitution, it should still be standing until canceled by amendment.
"The will of the people can be a good thing. However, it can be a bad thing."
Think very carefully about what you are saying. Your premise could be restated as "Sometimes the people must be forced to accept the views of a small number of unelected officials."
Question: What's the difference between that and monarchy? How far can they go before it becomes tyranny? Do you really want to open the door the that, because that's exactly the direction many of the courts are going. Many tyrants in history took power by responding to a desire for populism to override law. It would be foolish to think that we can avoid the same fate and still go down the same path.
Now, I am against recognition of legal marriage for gays. I make no secret of that. Nevertheless, I am not your enemy. I will not try to abuse, or threaten you, or shut you up because I believe that our Constitution is one of the best, if not the best, secular documents ever written. If you want to affect change, then use the system. Put it out there in the marketplace of ideas. Any battle that rests solely on a judicial fiat will never really end. If you don't believe that, then you haven't been paying attention to the results of Roe V. Wade. And remember: What one judge can give, another can take away.
Post a Comment