I get e-mail from Barack Obama


He’s talking about marriage:

Ed —

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you’ll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I’ve always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I’ve talked to friends and family about this. I’ve thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, I’ve gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I’ve come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn’t dawn on them that their friends’ parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,

Barack

A serendipitous campaign issue.  Something that actually was not planned!

Here’s an ABC-made YouTube clip of the critical part of the interview President Obama gave them yesterday:


More, and Related Articles

41 Responses to I get e-mail from Barack Obama

  1. James Kessler says:

    Where in the Bible, Joe, does God or Jesus say to preach hate, fear and intolerance and to use the government to discriminate against those you don’t like?

    Because I find it curious that you didn’t attempt to answer that question.

    Like

  2. James Kessler says:

    To quote Joe: James, just so you know, yes I do condemn this pastor and the other one who called for the government to kill gays…very strongly! There is a reason I don’t belong to these kinds of churches!

    Well congratulations..you have some morality. The problem is that apparently none of the rest of your fellow conservatives do. No conservative leader has condemned them. No Republican has condemned them.

    In fact last time I checked two more “preachers” just this week made the same exact kind of statements.

    In short, Joe, your side of the political fence is starting to sound an awful lot like a certain group who targeted a hated minority group not so long ago.

    So my apologies here, Joe, your side simply has no moral backbone and no moral authority. You may have some..but even you fall back on hatred and intolerance of gays when it suits your purposes. Even you lack the morality necessary to resist attempting to legally discriminate against a group you don’t like.

    I seem to recall Jesus said that the most important lesson of His was “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Well..I suggest you evaluate your position on gays and then answer this question: Would you like to be treated in the way you and your side is treating them? Would you want to be discriminated against because of what you are? Would you like to be insulted and attacked because of something that isn’t your choice? Would you like supposed Christian leaders condemning you and those like you to death? To genocide?

    Or will you and your side continue to prove Ghandi right when he said “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

    As for this: St. Paul quite clearly and unequivocally condemns unnatural sexual relations in the Romans One passage you referenced.

    Let me make this clear to you: THE PERSON OF ST. PAUL WAS NEITHER GOD NOR JESUS.

    St. Paul was a human and therefor given to human frailities…such as hatred, fear and intolerance.

    We Christians answer to God and Jesus, Joe, not St. Paul. And hatred, fear, intolerance are not of God nor Jesus. In fact those things would be of Satan.

    So I guess the second question you have to ask is this: Are you really a Christian? Are you really a follower of Christ?

    And as the other Jim correctly said..the phrase “unnatural sexual relations” is subject to interpretation and point of view. And the fact that homosexuality appears in every other animal species on the planet that has a male and female gender…your belief on what is an “unnatural sexual relation” doesn’t really comport with the nature that you say you believe that God created.

    Like

  3. James Kessler says:

    Just to correct: Or are you going to bother to show the intellectual honesty necessary to admit that you have no reasons other then religious?

    That should read “Or are you going to bother to show the intellectual honesty necessary to admit that you have no reasons other then religious? Yes yes I know..you can bring up the situation with your best friend, his ex wife, their kids, and his ex-wife’s new female lover….

    But I can point to countless examples of some guy, his ex wife, their kids and either the ex-wife’s new male lover or the husban’s new female lover and it’s exactly the same.

    Conservatives have never, not once, been on the right side of a social issue. Nor have they ever been on the winning side of a social issue. Your side was wrong about miscegnation and your side is wrong on gay marriage.

    Like

  4. James Kessler says:

    And yet, Joe, none of what the Bible says matter. None of what the Bible says applies to US law. The United States is not a Christian theocracy. And as the Bible is so subject to interpretation it’s hardly, to be blunt, a credible source. Really? Homosexuality is bad but Lot offering his daughters up to be raped is a good idea? And what would homosexuals want with Lot’s daughters in the first place? Unless of course they weren’t really homosexuals.

    The “sexual impropriety” that the Bible is talking about isn’t homosexuality…it’s the people wanting to rape the angels.

    The laws of the United States do not answer to the Bible. So would you like to come up with an argument to oppose gay marriage that would actually apply? Or you going to rely on interpreted religious belief that has no actual standing? Because for all your side likes to get themselves all in a tizzy over “Sharia law” your side sure as hell likes to try to force citizens of the United States to bow to supposed Christian law.

    Or are you going to bother to show the intellectual honesty necessary to admit that you have no reasons other then religious?

    Like

  5. Jim says:

    Good morning, LL!

    Permit me to respond to your statement in bold: To “jso”, to say that homosexuality was not in question in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is to ignore the book of Jude and the first chapter of Romans.

    St. Jude’s brief, but blessed, epistle is quite specific — in much the same way St. Paul was in the Romans passage to which you refer. The brother of our Lord insisted that one of the sins of Sodom certainly was sexual immorality. (Which I did not discount…I said Ezekiel also refers to “other detestable practices”,) Jude even remarks that the people of Sodom went “after strange flesh” or — to use the much more accurate NRSV translation — “Pursued unnatural sexual relations”.

    St. Paul quite clearly and unequivocally condemns unnatural sexual relations in the Romans One passage you referenced.

    What is unnatural for you, LL? Probably the same thing that would be unnatural for me, for Ed or for 98% of the people reading this. For heterosexuals, it is unnatural to seek sexual encounters with people of the same gender. And I would agree, it is sinful. Why? Because God fashioned us to be with the opposite gender in sexual congress. (And always in an unswervingly monogamous, self-sacrificing devotion — not in this flippant and self-serving way so popular in today’s culture and so underscored by the shameful 48 hour “marriages” of celebrities or serial promiscuity of the Jerry Springer set.)

    But what is unnatural for my gay nephew?

    According to Paul and Jude, it is a sin for him to behave unnaturally. He is a gay man. He was born that way and never once had the slightest inclination toward women. The thought of being intimate with a women fills him with bile — the same bile I feel in the back of my throat if I try to contemplate my having a sexual encounter with a man. It’s just plain unnatural.

    Now, of course — Paul clearly made reference to men going with men and women going with women. He did not talk about gay men forcing themselves to be with women and so forth. Why? If you were writing a letter — not an exhaustive book — to a large group of people, you write with the vast majority of recipients in mind. Of course Paul was emphasizing the “wrongness” of same-sex relations — because the vast majority of his recipients were straight! And for us straight folk, gay sex is a sin because it’s unnatural.

    Likewise, it is a sin for gay men and women to force themselves to do what is unnatural. Yet much of the Christian Church and even secular society still insists that they should try. We keep pushing them to do what is unnatural — in direct defiance of Scripture. I’ve known several gay folk who describe the horror of trying to be straight — living as married or otherwise committed heterosexuals, and all the while knowing they are behaving in a way that God never intended.

    What a relief it has been for some of them to discover that God made them gay for a reason. And God wants them to be gay. It’s what’s natural for them; just as what’s natural for you and for me is to be with a woman.

    If we permitted them to marry, then all the same sexual restrictions apply. They must be monogamous. They must not commit adultery. They must submit to one another in mutuality and total self-sacrifice. Some of them will divorce, tragically. But we straights can’t claim any moral high ground on that count, can we?

    Jim

    Like

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    Also, going back to the 14th amendment, you guys have yet to say why polygamists should not be allowed to marry under the constitution…

    I’m not sure I can think of a good reason for a federal law in this area. Do you have one?

    As a pragmatic matter, a man or woman who wishes to maintain more than one lover (including a spouse) is generally not subject to the forms of invidious discrimination homosexuals face. There are a few cases of heterosexual lovers being banned from the bedside of an ill, injured or dying partner because they were not married — but my limited experience in emergency rooms is that heterosexuals who are not married get a pass more often than not. Why shouldn’t homosexuals get the same rights that philandering or polygamous-without-benefit-of-clergy heterosexuals get?

    If you want to make a case for polygamy, is there any reason to delay marriage rights for homosexuals until the case is made?

    Or are you arguing polygamy is a bad thing? Make your case.

    Like

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    To “jso”, to say that homosexuality was not in question in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is to ignore the book of Jude and the first chapter of Romans. To be sure, gang rape, not caring for the poor, etc. were all in play but to exclude homosexuality from that list is just not Biblically consistent.

    The sexual congress the crowd in Sodom demanded was not homosexuality. I am troubled by the scapegoating of homosexuality and homosexuals for these passages.

    Historically, when one group conquered another in that time, often the conquering side would use anal rape of the male leaders of the losing side as a means of humiliation and denigration, a statement of who was in power. This was not then (and is not now in most cultures) considered homosexuality, but was instead recognized for what it was — humiliation of the conquered.

    Confusing rape with loving sexual intercourse seems to me to be twisting the scripture.

    Like

  8. lowerleavell says:

    James, just so you know, yes I do condemn this pastor and the other one who called for the government to kill gays…very strongly! There is a reason I don’t belong to these kinds of churches!

    There is a lot to respond to on these posts and it looks like I won’t have the time to do so, but there are few important points here.

    One, these Baptists are not being consistent. They believe (rightly) that the church is not Israel and thus is not bound to the same covenant law that God made with Israel at Mt. Sinai. Then they use that same Mosaic law to bind other governments to the same standard when God did not make those same covenants with the US. As a Christian, I am bound by the unconditional New Covenant of grace through Jesus Christ that transcends earthly citizenship, political party, etc. That being said, I have every right to condemn homosexuality as a Biblical sin but also to reach out in love for the sinner as Christ did…just as I would do with a liar, thief, adulterer…well, pretty much every person I encounter including myself.

    To “jso”, to say that homosexuality was not in question in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is to ignore the book of Jude and the first chapter of Romans. To be sure, gang rape, not caring for the poor, etc. were all in play but to exclude homosexuality from that list is just not Biblically consistent. The Bible treats homosexuality so strongly because marriage is a picture of the union between Christ and his church. Christ is not married to another Christ. Church is not with another Church. This is called a “great mystery” in Ephesians 5, but a husband and a wife are a reflection of God’s love for His people and Christ’s love for His bride (i.e. the Church). To ruin this picture (by cheating or through homosexuality) is to violate God’s design and order. That at least is the Biblical side of the argument.

    There is more to be said without invoking Scripture but I have found it so ironic how many are invoking the Bible to defend gay marriage. I have seen no less than four or five articles front and center on CNN.com through the weeks from supposed Christians saying that gay marriage is OK by God. Why fight so hard to justify it by using the Bible if what the Bible doesn’t matter in the argument?

    James said, “Bad crap happens to people. Opposing gay marriage would not have stopped any of the things you listed. It would not have stopped those children wondering why mommy left daddy for another woman. And it wouldn’t have stopped your friend’s wife from leaving him and “rejecting him as a man and men in totality.” ”

    To be sure, justifying “bad crap” in one pile because there are other piles is not helpful to get people out of crap. A husband cheating on his wife is going to terribly wound the wife and kids irregardless of who he cheats with. Yet in our society it has almost been deemed acceptable to cheat if you are “being true to yourself” by cheating with someone of the same gender. This is the problem that I was addressing.

    To be sure, the problem lies deep in our culture, stemming from a love of porn, a love of freedom from restraint and self discipline…shoot, it pretty much just stems from a love of self. This is the bottom line of homosexuality – it is the ultimate conclusion to the love of self.

    Feel free to disagree. That is your right, just as I have the right to disagree with you. Through Jesus, I have the freedom to love and serve my neighbor as myself (gay or straight). That doesn’t mean that I will ever say that homosexuality, especially in marriage is OK by me (or Biblical).

    Also, going back to the 14th amendment, you guys have yet to say why polygamists should not be allowed to marry under the constitution…

    Like

  9. James Kessler says:

    http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981347227

    Gee..another religious right wing pastor calling for the death of gays…

    I wonder if Joe will show the moral clarity needed to condemn this pastor.

    Because we all know Joe’s fellow conservatives sure as hell won’t.

    Like

  10. jsojourner says:

    Hi everyone!

    The Ezekiel passage certainly does condemn Sodom for more than disregarding the poor and marginalized. It also says God destroyed Sodom because of “other detestable sins”. The passage doesn’t enumerate what those are.

    Tradition, which I generally hold in very high regard, has held that this means homosexuality.

    Unfortunately for those of us who love and honor tradition, including the teachings of the Church Fathers, there is no condemnation of homosexuality in the Sodom story. None. Zip.

    So what WERE those other “detestable” things?

    Well, the men of Sodom wanted to commit an act of gang rape. This mob, which happened to be mostly homosexually-oriented (we presume this because Lot’s guests are thought to have had a male appearance), wanted to forcibly engage in sex with these strange, beautiful visitors. They demanded Lot hand them over.

    Of course, those of us in the 97% who are heterosexual naturally jump to the conclusion that it was the homosexual nature of the crime…and not the intended crime itself…that angered the Almighty. So, in effect, what conservatives are saying is that God would have been much less angry if the mob had been made up of heterosexual men who wanted to rape female visitors.

    Yes?

    So gang rape is not the issue. “The gay” is, once again, the issue.

    I understand the argument. But it falls flat. And it does so in large part because the traditional interpretation seems to be saying God would be fine — or at least less angry — if the men of Sodom wanted to rape women.

    The sins of Sodom were, according to Ezekiel, neglect of the poor and marginalized. And other detestable things. I think gang rape is detestable. Whether one intends to perpetrate it against male or female victims.

    Jim

    Like

  11. Oh look…an example of GOP hatred of homosexuals and a Republican and conservative using the Bible to call for the death of homosexuals:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/andy-gipson-mississippi-gays_n_1528716.html

    Gee..I wonder if Mr. Gipson is going to call for the end of the NFL. I wonder if he’s going to attack farmers who plant two different crops side by side. I wonder if he’ll attack people for wearing clothes of mixed thread types. I wonder if he’ll condemn men for touching the bed of a woman when she’s having her period. And of course he’ll also have to attack people for working on the Sabbath. Of course we’ll have to determine whether the Sabbath is Saturday or Sunday.

    Those are all things that would be condemned in the Bible. Those are all things that, according to the Bible, the punishment is simple….

    ….death.

    Oh and I forgot..according to Exodus 21:7 it’s perfectly alright to sell one’s daughter into slavery. Do you have a daughter, Joe? I ask because I’d like to know what’s the price for her if you do have one.

    Oh in case you were wondering..the NFL would have to be condemned because well..according to the Bible we’re not to touch the skin of a dead pig.

    So tell me, Joe, how much of the Bible are we to legislate?

    Oh wait I forgot..I don’t remember Jesus ever saying there was to be dozen if not a hundred different denominations of Christianity. He said there was one church. And since mine is that church……

    …well I suppose we’ll just have to outlaw all the other denominations.

    Because it seems to me that if our laws are supposed to be based on the Bible when it comes to homosexuality then I see no problem in doing so for everything else just to see how long it takes you and your precious conservatives to…well…squeal like a stuck pig in protest. I’d consider it a warning to the next ten generations of Americans to not be stupid enough to let religious nutjobs and fundamentalists have power.

    Or you and yours can stop being stupid jackanapes and acting like the Christian Taliban in thinking that you get to sit in judgement of everyone else and use the government to beat everyone over the head with the Bible.

    Because other then the propensity for violence I really do see very little difference between your side and the Taliban.

    Oh wait….your side does have a propensity for violence too.

    I take back what I just said…there is absolutely no difference between your side and the Taliban.

    Hell your side even has a propensity for wanting to destroy statues of Buddha since Pat Robertson told one of his listeners to destroy her friend’s statue of Buddha.

    Like

  12. Joe writes:
    Try to be there for a husband who not only has to cope with his wife leaving him, but her rejection of him as a man and men in totality.

    I had to be there for a friend who’s girlfriend, and this is only the short list of the crap she pulled:

    1: Before she dated my friend she broke up another woman’s marriage, ran off to Seattle to marry the guy, was back within the week of marrying said guy…then….
    2: started dating my friend while simutaneously sleeping with, as near as we can determine, four other men. One of the men she was sleeping with is a lawyer who, she claims, she was only sleeping with to get him to help her out of some legal trouble.
    3: got my friend to pay for her therapy
    4: claimed she was pregnant with my friends baby..then claimed there was a miscarriage. Between those two events my friend gave her several thousand dollars for neo-natal care..supposedly. We’re pretty sure she was never actually pregnant.
    5: went to the house of my friend’s father and tried to steal my friend’s dead mom’s jewelry.
    6: she conned one of the other men she was sleeping with to buy her a brand new expensive car. SHe claimed to my friend that her aunt, who just died, willed her the car. It turns out..there was no aunt.
    7: Before the whole thing exploded my friend had proposed to her and she accepted. I, who by this time had come to loathe her guts, point blank told my friend that I would attend the wedding only to stop it.
    8: And then finally thankfully my friend woke up to reality and sent her packing. Of course that didn’t stop her from constantly calling/texting him saying that she loved him and that they’d be together.

    The point, joe? Bad crap happens to people. Opposing gay marriage would not have stopped any of the things you listed. It would not have stopped those children wondering why mommy left daddy for another woman. And it wouldn’t have stopped your friend’s wife from leaving him and “rejecting him as a man and men in totality.”

    Homosexuality is not a choice despite your apparent delusion to the contrary. And denying gay marriage is not going to make one single gay person turn straight.

    So it’s time you drop your stupid and disingenous false standard. Because all you’re being is simply dishonest.

    Like

  13. Tell me, Joe, who was being more Christian when my friend David came out of the closet.

    Me, the Catholic, who told him that no matter what my church taught he was my friend.

    Or his family who on the spot disowned him and verbally attacked him?

    I don’t remember Jesus teaching us Christians to hate, to fear, to persecute, to discriminate against.

    And you can deny it all you want…but you and your precious Conservatives hate gays, fear gays, and seek to persecute and discriminate against gays.

    Sorry, Joe, your precious Conservatives simply and bluntly are disobeying Jesus Christ wholesale. Your precious conservatives when it comes to their claimed Christianity and claimed morality, Joe, are nothing but utter fakes.

    Christianity to them is nothing but a weapon to be used to attack those they don’t like and justify their petty hatreds and intolerances. That is the actions of a group of people who are wallowing in moral depravity.

    And that simply isn’t worthy of Jesus Christ.

    Like

  14. Joe writes:
    but surely you do not believe that all conservatives are rich snobs who don’t care a wit about divorce, the poor, or anyone else but themselves, do you?

    Have they repudiated the GOP? Let me know when they repudiate the GOP’s Ayn Randian desires. Let me know when they’re going to condemn the GOP for cutting food stamps.

    Oh by the way..not all conservatives are rich snobs. Quite a lot of them have been snowed by the GOP to surrender whats best for them to the rich snobs.

    As for this “traditional marriage” thing..yeah there is no form of traditional marriage. Marriage has never been this set in stone thing. It’s always changed as society grows and evolves.

    To quote:
    To me, this issue is not just hypothetical. I’ve had to be there to help families pick up the pieces when kids don’t understand why Mommy leaves Daddy for another woman, sons reveal to heartbroken families that they’re suddenly “gay”, working with young men who hate the lifestyle but feel totally trapped because they’re being preached to constantly that they don’t have any choice in the matter. Try to be there for a husband who not only has to cope with his wife leaving him, but her rejection of him as a man and men in totality.

    You think that’s going to somehow change if gay marriage is blocked? Wait..gay marriage isn’t allowed in most states now and that still happens.

    You’d rather those people be stuck in what amounts to fake marriages? How are you “protecting the institution of marriage” if you are in effect telling gays that they can marry..just as long as it’s not someone they actually love?

    Whereas I’ve seen one of my best friends be devastated when he came out of the closet and his entire family save his brother disowned him. But that didn’t stop that family from pretending they were such great Christians. To this day..20 years later they still don’t talk to him and to this day they still think they’re such great righteous Christians.

    I’ve seen my cousin’s kids not understand why Daddy left Mommy for another woman or the kids not understand why mommy left Daddy for another man.

    Sorry, Joe, your examples simply aren’t any worse. And since that crap happens with heterosexual couples who are married, Joe, that is no reason to deny marriage to homosexuals. You are attempting to hold gays to a standard, Joe, that you simply aren’t willing to hold we heterosexuals to. And you think you’re on the side of righteousness? No, Joe, you are on the side of bigotry and discrimination.

    I’ve seen young gay people be conned by the “Homosexuality can be cured” scam. When they come out of it they are just as gay as when they entered but now they’ve been brainwashed to repress themselves and that usually ends in disastrous consequences. Hell I’ve seen the most stridently anti-gay politicians say the most hateful things about gays..and yet they get caught with a “wide stance” in the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport in one of the bathrooms or similar instances.

    I’ve read about a young man who was killed in Laramie Colorado by a pair of homophobic delinquents merely because he was gay. And I watched your side of this argument twist itself into a pretzel in order to defend those two young murderers.

    I have not once heard your side condemn what that so called “Reverend” Phelps says. I have not once heard your side condemn the hatred and the intolerance and the fear that far too many of your side attack gays with.

    Hell your side just blocked a judicial appointment in, I believe, North Carolina, not because the guy couldn’t do the job or wasn’t qualified…..

    ….but because he was gay.

    When Bradlee Dean, favorite friend of Michele Bachmann and several other Minnesota Republicans, say that we should round up homosexuals, imprison them and then execute them…did you conservatives condemn him? No..you were all silent as church mice.

    Hell some conservatives here were behind Uganda’s attempt to do exactly that to their gays. And again..you were all silent as church mice.

    Funny..I seem to recall another country did a similar thing…they ended up putting yellow stars on their target’s.

    Your reasons, Joe, are nothing then utter crap. The bleatings of a bigot who simply isn’t honest enough to admit it.

    Like

  15. You want specifics, Joe? Jesus taught to take care of the poor and the downtrodden. What was that in the Bible? Ah yes..Matthew 6: 19: 19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

    And yet what does the GOP want to do? Screw the poor and the downtrodden over in order to give another tax cut to the rich. Ezekiel very clearly lists the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah and yet your side ignores it. Despite the fact that story is the basis for your sides opposition to same sex marriage.

    And then there is Matthew 25 your side also ignores which says: 31″But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. 36I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.’ 37″Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? 38When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’ 40″The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ 41Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; 43I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’ 44″Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’ 45″Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, in as much as you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ 46These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

    And yet your side wants to pretend that it’s oh so Christian and oh so moral.

    And even now your precious GOP is trying to cut funding to Food Stamps and similar programs..all so it can protect all the tax cuts and welfare your party so loves to give to the rich.

    Your party, Joe, has a view of Jesus Christ that simply doesn’t match the Bible. Your party’s Jesus Christ is a Christ of hatred, judgementalism, fear, intolerance and prejudice.

    As I said before, the GOP’s beliefs are far more in line with Satanism then actual Christianity.

    Like

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    Ironic that you quote a Biblical story that you don’t even believe really happened, but I guess we can go there at a different time…

    We’ve never discussed this before. I wonder why you assume something I have not said?

    Like

  17. lowerleavell says:

    James said, “Oh you mean like revisionists on your side of the fence who blithely ignore what Ezekiel says? And like when your side blithely pretends that Jesus never said what He actually said? Or to put this a bit differently..when your side pretends that Jesus was really “Supply side Jesus” or “Capitalism Jesus” and had no regard for the poor and downtrodden and favored the rich?”

    You’re going to have to get specific James. You like to talk in grand sweeping generalities, lumping everyone together with your claims. What you seem to be describing is a “health and wealth” gospel, to which I do not hold in the slightest. I do not know anyone personally who uses these arguments that you use. Can you name names and together we can denounce the practice of invoking Jesus’ name for selfish gain?

    James said, “See the difference, Joe, is this. We know what the BIble says. But the fact that the Bible can’t get its story straight means it wasn’t written by God which your side of the fence so loves to claim. God simply wouldn’t be so scatterbrained.”

    I don’t know how the Bible didn’t get its story straight. You really haven’t made your case on this one. You jumped to “B” (it wasn’t written by God) without demonstrating “A” (it can’t get it’s story straight). You’ll again have to get more specific.

    James said, “Fact 1: The Bible was written by humans and is ergo no more the literal and inerrant Word of God then I am the King of Norway.”

    A fact that Jesus Himself (in the Bible) does not hold. For one, He regularly quoted the Old Testament as completely authoritative, even calling it “the command of God” (Mark 7:8-13). Jesus quotes each section of the Old Testament and in each one claims they are the words of God. Secondly, Jesus promised His disciples that the Holy Spirit would guide them and teach them additional truth that He had not yet told them (John 16:13) which tells me that Jesus believed the New Testament would be given by the Holy Spirit (a fact that 2 Tim. 3:16 and other places back up). So, if you’re a Christian (i.e. a follower of Jesus), your Master takes serious issues with your statement. There is more here, but suffice it to say that one cannot be a Christian (i.e. a follower of Jesus) and pretend to know better on the subject than Jesus Himself. If you do, you are no longer a follower but a teacher of Jesus. Tread lightly….

    James said, “Fact 2: No matter what the Bible says there is no requirement that US law follow it. In fact there’s specific injunctions against US law being based on the Bible.”

    This one I totally agree with. We are not a theocracy nor should we be. Yet this does not mean that we as a society cannot learn and affirm the truths of the Bible. The Bible says in one Proverb, “the ringing of the nose brings forth blood.” This means if you ring someone’s nose really hard it’s going to bleed. Do we have to deny this truth because it’s in the Bible or can we affirm it? We do not have to do the direct opposite of what the Bible says just to maintain the separation of church and state.

    James said, “Which leads us to fact 3: This claim that “homosexuality is against nature” is utter bupkus.”

    What are you talking about? I didn’t make this argument. James, once again you’re not discussing this issue with me – you’re discussing it with the entirety of the religious right! That’s not a conversation, that’s a platform. You’re soapboxing, not conversing.

    I’m assuming that you’re talking about Romans 1:26 which says, “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.”

    For one thing, what is natural for human women to do and for female animals to do is not the same argument. This is where evolution comes into play, but unless you believe that women are created by a loving God who has given them “natural” affections towards men, all you HAVE is humans being another animal in nature. This being the case, we also observe a large portion of nature that is dominated by alpha males who have large harems (i.e. polygamists). This practice is illegal in the US and you’ve already said it should be. If we’re talking nature, make your case again about marriage being excluded to two consenting adults please. The 14th amendment (i.e. the constitution) does not expressly forbid it and seems to defend it, so should we not allow polygamy?

    Beyond this, even from an evolutionist mindset, what happens to the genes of animals who practice homosexuality? They go extinct. From an evolutionist’s perspective even, homosexuality is not a positive thing in that it would lead to the extinction of the species (i.e. it goes against natural selection). So whether you’re coming from a creationist’s perspective or an evolutionist’s perspective, homosexuality is not seen as a positive thing.

    James said, “Sorry, homophobia…fear and hatred and intolerance of gays is a sin and yet there your side sits..hating and fearing and being intolerant to the point that your side wants to legislate discrimination.”

    Really James…sigh. I’ve worked side by side with gay’s for years in the workplace. I have been thanked for loving them and not condemning them. They understand that I disagree with their lifestyle choices, but they also know that I disagree with my co-workers who live together. I believe we ALL stand condemned before God for our own rebellion against Him. This is why Jesus did not come to condemn the world – it already stood in condemnation. The world needed saving. People need to repent of their rebellion to God and turn to Christ as the one who took their condemnation on His shoulders. This applies to liars, cheaters, greedy capitalists, lazy socialists, and every other person on the face of the planet. The same Gospel I teach to someone who is gay is the same Gospel I teach to my own children. How is this discrimination?

    James said, “In fact there is no place in the Bible where Jesus specifically mentions homosexuality.”

    In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus actually raised the sexuality bar so high that he equated looking on a woman with lust as an act of adultery of the heart. Jesus also gave his stamp of approval on the Old Testament Law, calling it the “commandments of God.” So while not specifically addressing homosexuality, Jesus did not address bestiality – does this mean He gave his stamp of approval on it? No – He endorsed the Bible, giving His stamp of approval on God’s Law which shows us our sinfulness and our need for Jesus.

    Jesus said, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47.)

    If you do not agree with Moses, according to Jesus, you do not believe Him either. Tough to claim to be a “Christian” if you don’t agree with Jesus.

    James said, “In the end..your side loses.”

    A law being passed is not “the end” my friend. When we stand in judgment before a Just and Holy God – that will be the end of it. He will/does have the final say. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess to Christ’s Lordship. By His grace, I’m bowing now. I pray many will do the same.

    Like

  18. lowerleavell says:

    I think it’s a bit disingenuous to move the discussion to the failings of conservatives and the religious right, don’t you? To be sure, hypocrisy is a discussion worth having but not really one that will advance the cause of Barack Obama’s repealing of DOMA and his support for gay marriage. Perhaps the argument can be used to destroy the credibility of those who hold to a traditional view of marriage, but surely you do not believe that all conservatives are rich snobs who don’t care a wit about divorce, the poor, or anyone else but themselves, do you?

    To me, this issue is not just hypothetical. I’ve had to be there to help families pick up the pieces when kids don’t understand why Mommy leaves Daddy for another woman, sons reveal to heartbroken families that they’re suddenly “gay”, working with young men who hate the lifestyle but feel totally trapped because they’re being preached to constantly that they don’t have any choice in the matter. Try to be there for a husband who not only has to cope with his wife leaving him, but her rejection of him as a man and men in totality. The pain that I’ve had to help broken families through on this issue is real. People like to dress it up and make it glamorous, but it’s not. Shoot – take even Brokeback Mountain for example. People say it’s a great triumph of romance. You know what I see? Two broken families and two heartbroken women who have to try and understand not only why their husbands don’t want them as individuals, but as women.

    To be sure, the argument is often made, and has already been made here about the pain of any divorce, etc. Conservatives do preach on the subject. I know I have as have many that I have heard. Yet to think that the best argument that can be amassed is to justify one behavior over the failings of another is scary. If a man leaves his wife for another woman or for another man, both are going to cause pain and devastation. Selfishness manifests itself in many ways. There is a lot more that could be said, but let’s not defend gay marriage over the failings of heterosexuals, shall we? Both are indicators of heart issues that are talked about in the Ezekiel passage that Ed quoted earlier and should serve as a warning to our society as a whole.

    Like

  19. Joe writes:
    To quote the Ezekiel passage to say that those cities were destroyed with no regard for their “sexual immorality” is to leave out a lot of the Bible, which revisionists tend to do often

    Oh you mean like revisionists on your side of the fence who blithely ignore what Ezekiel says? And like when your side blithely pretends that Jesus never said what He actually said? Or to put this a bit differently..when your side pretends that Jesus was really “Supply side Jesus” or “Capitalism Jesus” and had no regard for the poor and downtrodden and favored the rich?

    See the difference, Joe, is this. We know what the BIble says. But the fact that the Bible can’t get its story straight means it wasn’t written by God which your side of the fence so loves to claim. God simply wouldn’t be so scatterbrained.

    Fact 1: The Bible was written by humans and is ergo no more the literal and inerrant Word of God then I am the King of Norway.
    Fact 2: No matter what the Bible says there is no requirement that US law follow it. In fact there’s specific injunctions against US law being based on the Bible.

    Which leads us to fact 3: This claim that “homosexuality is against nature” is utter bupkus. In no small part because nearly ever other animal species on the planet has instances of homosexuality and somehow I really doubt you’re willing to claim that they’re making a concious choice. Not to mention that other cultures of humans have far less of a problem with homosexuality then Christianity supposedly does.

    Sorry, Joe, the sin your party likes to commit by screwing the poor and favoring the rich at every turn is far far worse then whatever supposed sin homosexuality is. Sorry, homophobia…fear and hatred and intolerance of gays is a sin and yet there your side sits..hating and fearing and being intolerant to the point that your side wants to legislate discrimination. I don’t remember Jesus ever saying to do that. In fact there is no place in the Bible where Jesus specifically mentions homosexuality. It’s all interpretation…opinion of others who simply weren’t there.

    And last time I checked the 14th amendment to the US Constitution does not say “But this doesn’t apply to homosexuals” and despite your sides delusion that “This is a Christian country and our laws are based on the Bible” that simply isn’t the case. The claim that “this is a Christian country” is an utter farce and the following claim that “our laws are based on the Bible” are nothing more then a theocrat’s delving into outright treason.

    Conservatives in the end never win any social issue. They always lose. Always. Hell they’re already starting to lose this one. And yet there your side sits…like Sisyphus pushing the rock uphill over and over only to have it fall back again and again.

    In the end..your side loses. That is the natural order of the world.

    Like

  20. lowerleavell says:

    Ed said, “I think there’s a better line from the Bible on the topic: Ezekiel 16:49-52:

    49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. 51 Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. 52 Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous. (NIV)

    Ironic that you quote a Biblical story that you don’t even believe really happened, but I guess we can go there at a different time…

    Jude 7 (a verse that people like to ignore) also says, “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

    Romans 1:27 is another verse on the subject, where you need to read the entire chapter to really appreciate the context: “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

    To quote the Ezekiel passage to say that those cities were destroyed with no regard for their “sexual immorality” is to leave out a lot of the Bible, which revisionists tend to do often. The Ezekiel passage is amazing because it demonstrates that what conservatives elevate in our culture as the worst abomination, it really is only the manifestation and culmination of other deeper sins. As Ezekiel demonstrates, homosexuality is a symptom of a greater problem of the heart (arrogance, self serving, prideful, etc.) and not the root.

    Yet Jesus also mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah on multiple occasions making the point that it would go better in the judgment for those two cities than for those who He visited and rejected the message of Christ. However, to say that the Bible does not indicate that homosexuality is a sin not accurate. Whether or not that actually means anything to anyone is another matter…

    Kevin DeYoung says it much better than I could:
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/16/what-the-bible-really-still-says-about-homosexuality/

    Like

  21. To quote:
    See, despite being shown over and over and over that the Bible (and Jesus) clearly assign a role (*A* role, not *THE* role) to government in caring for the poor and marginalized, most conservative Christians refuse to believe that it does. They persist in the mistaken idea that individual charity alone can solve all our problems, mathematically impossible though that be. There are no free market fairies…there is no philanthropic fairy dust. It’s part of the equation, to be sure. But it’s not a panacea and it was never meant to be anymore than pure government control was meant to be.

    Hence why I said that conservative fundamentalist Christians and their Republican allies have more in common with LaVeyian Satanism.

    Like

  22. jsojourner says:

    Nick says, And I seem to recall that Jesus frowned upon being rich..something about how difficult it would be for a rich man to get into heaven.

    And yet I have not heard any sermons about the sinfullness of being rich while your neighbors suffer and starve.

    It’s your last sentence that really captures the essence of Jesus’ teaching. He never said it was intrinsically evil to be wealthy. He never even said money was the root of evil. He just taught that the love of money was. There are biblical examples of wealthy and powerful people who did what was right in the sight of the Lord. King Josiah comes to mind immediately. He used the government treasury and his own wealth to pay workers a just wage, see to the needs of widows, orphans and aliens and to be a blessing to the community — not just his own personally aggrandizement. It’s all in Jeremiah 22.

    As to sermons, there are LOTS of them. I know. I preach them. So does Tony Campolo and so does Jim Wallis. Ron Sider “preached” a real barn-burner in his book, “Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger”. But those sermons and books don’t get heard or read. I wonder why, Nick?

    None of us have a television empire. Christian radio almost universally refuses to give a minute of airtime to those of us who preach both spiritual conversion AND social justice. Books like Sider’s are burned by some churches and labelled “Marxist” by others.

    See, despite being shown over and over and over that the Bible (and Jesus) clearly assign a role (*A* role, not *THE* role) to government in caring for the poor and marginalized, most conservative Christians refuse to believe that it does. They persist in the mistaken idea that individual charity alone can solve all our problems, mathematically impossible though that be. There are no free market fairies…there is no philanthropic fairy dust. It’s part of the equation, to be sure. But it’s not a panacea and it was never meant to be anymore than pure government control was meant to be.

    I suspect conservative Christianity’s rejection of this is because they don’t want to count the cost of discipleship. For them, following Jesus is about criminalizing abortion, discouraging or even criminalizing homosexuality and requiring everyone — regardless of religion — to accept that America is not only a Christian nation, but a fundamentalist Christian nation.

    All of that is easy. There is no cross in any of that. It’s just a matter of voting a certain way, disapproving of certain things and people (very loudly, preferably) and maybe making a donation to someone or something IF “the Spirit moves”.

    For them, that is the cost of discipleship.

    In his book, “The Cost of Discipleship”, Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die”.

    I think the vision of Tony Campolo, Ron Sider, Jim Wallis and other such Christian leaders is far more in touch with and connected to the spirit of Bonhoeffer than is the Dobson-Perkins-Robertson cabal. See, while Bonhoeffer actually DID die a martyr’s death, Christ’s call is for death to self. Most of the conservative Evangelical church prefers Ayn Rand’s call to shrug. She not only wrote the embarrassingly bad “Atlas Shrugged”, but another little ditty entitled, “The Virture of Selfishness”.

    Based on Ezekiel 16:49, I will agree with the fundie preachers on this much: America certainly has become another Sodom. I just don’t think it has anything to do with “the gay”.

    Like

  23. Not the census. The American Community Survey. You know..they want to get rid of something they deem unconstitutional even though it’s been done since the days of Thomas Jefferson. They claim they’re worried about privacy but I somehow suspect it has more to do with the survey helps government spend its money more wisely which is what they really don’t like. That and since when have the Republicans actually been worried about privacy?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/house-votes-cut-census-survey_n_1504748.html

    Like

  24. Ed Darrell says:

    Somebody is still trying to get rid of the census? Or is there a particular part of the census at risk here? I confess I’m unaware of this controversy.

    Like

  25. Ed, just a suggestion, but there should be a thread on the GOP’s infinite stupidity in trying to get rid of the census survey. And the rather obvious reasons for that desire of theirs.

    Like

  26. And I seem to recall that Jesus frowned upon being rich..something about how difficult it would be for a rich man to get into heaven.

    And yet I have not heard any sermons about the sinfullness of being rich while your neighbors suffer and starve.

    And in a time where the Roman Empire was in its full power with all the riches and decadence of its leaders as well as all the suffering and the starvation of its poor and wastrels does anyone honestly think that Jesus wouldn’t have criticized the government of Rome for not doing a thing about it?

    And that Jesus would want the US government to not do a thing about similar occurrences here in the United States?

    When did Jesus Christ become the Messiah “for the rich, by the rich, of the rich”? To turn a phrase.

    Like

  27. jsojourner says:

    I will have more respect for the Biblical literalists on the matter of homosexuality when I hear at least as many sermons advocating a literal interpretation of Jesus on the matter of divorce. I speak, of course, as touching only the ecclessia.

    As to imposing Christian values on secular society, the argument that we cannot let gay people marry because their “lifestyle choice” is sinful is intriguing. In my 46 years as a Christian, I have not once heard a sermon, read a book or tract or listened to teaching tape that insisted we cannot permit bank robbers, drug dealers, white supremacists or even heterosexual pedophiles to marry.

    After all, their “lifestyle choices” are sinful.

    Jim

    Like

  28. You’re right. That’s also a good one. I especially like Verse 49-50…since it so completely describes today’s conservatives and the GOP.

    Hell their Presidential candidate has openly said that he simply doesn’t have any concern for the poor.

    Like

  29. Ed Darrell says:

    What was that line from the Bible?

    I think there’s a better line from the Bible on the topic: Ezekiel 16:49-52:

    49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. 51 Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. 52 Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous. (NIV)

    Like

  30. Now, I have another question for you. Exactly who decides whose religious/moral view applies? The anti-gay crowd wants to apply a subjective standard…theirs..and compel everyone else to live by that standard whether or not everyone else agrees with it or not. Now I suppose you can make the argument that the pro-gay rights crowd is seeking the same and there’d be at least a certain amount of truth to it. Which is why you need an objective standard…hence, in this case, the 14th amendment or more broadly the US Constitution if you want.

    If conservatives can legislate the denying of some group’s equal rights then can the rest of us start stripping the rights of those conservatives?

    As for what that guy said..yeah he conveniently ignores that…wait for it..homophobia is as much an idea as racism. But if sexuality is sacred..that includes homosexuality.

    Then there is the fact that the anti-gay crowd ignores that homosexuality appears in quite a lot of the other animal species. Sorry, it’s not a choice.

    Oh and as for your question..I do have one answer to it. But it has to do with the application of tax laws and inheritance rights.

    But like I said, my only concern is that the law is applied the same to everyone and that everyone has the same rights.

    Oh also the 1st amendment’s separation of church and state applies.

    If the Catholic church doesn’t want to marry gays I’m fine with that. I think that should be the church’s right under the separation of church and state. But I also think the Catholic church has no right to have the government tell every other church what to do. I also think the Catholic church has no right to legislate it’s religious beliefs…legislate it’s desire to discriminate. I also think the evangelical Protestants…the religious people that so love to support your party, Lower, have no such right. The separation of church and state works both ways. It protects the churches and other places of worship from undue influence from the government..but it also is supposed to protect the government from undue influence of religion. And last time I checked, marriage in this country first and foremost belongs to the government. What was that line from the Bible? Ah yes…Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto the Lord what is the Lord’s.

    Oh..also the arguments used to fight the miscegnation laws also apply here.

    Like

  31. Lower writes:
    James, can you make the case that according to the 14th amendment that marriage should be restricted to two consenting adults? That was my question.

    Nope. Not how I was applying it. I was saying that restricting it to two consenting nonrelated adults is not discrimination. WHereas restricting it to a man and a woman is discrimination.

    All I care, Lower, about is everyone having the same rights.

    Like

  32. lowerleavell says:

    James, can you make the case that according to the 14th amendment that marriage should be restricted to two consenting adults? That was my question.

    I will have to answer yours tomorrow or later. In the meantime, I think that Ravi Zacharias does a great job of sharing my perspective of why this is a big deal from a religious/moral perspective.

    Like

  33. Lower writes:
    James said, “Well..saying that marriage is between two unrelated consenting adults is not discriminatory.”

    I’d like to hear your case for that. What is your moral/practical/ethical basis for saying that marriage should only be between two adults and saying otherwise is not discriminatory?

    The 14th amendment. The only thing in this debate that actually matters.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The “equal protection of the laws” part.

    As long as the law treats everyone exactly the same then what’s your problem? As long as everyone is granted the same rights then there’s not a problem. As opposed to this “Some of you can marry but you others over there…you can’t” that your party wants to maintain. Coupled with this “Yay lets use the US Constitution and the state constitutions to deny people their equal rights” that your side also wants to engage in.

    As for “moral and ethical” yeah sorry, I decline even acknowledging that as a basis here. Because everyone’s morals and ethics are different.

    Now I have a question for you and understand I ask it of you because you actually give intelligent responses. You know..unlike Morgan and Anon who couldn’t find 20 braincells between them.

    On what moral, ethical or political grounds does the, say, Catholic church and its conservative allies base their arugment that they should get to determine that gays can’t marry and that other churches or people who disagree with that position have to abide by it? Or if you want this a little more simply…the Catholic church doesn’t want to marry gays. What right does it have to tell, just for example, the Unitarian church that it can’t? What right does the Catholic church have to force a completely different church to abide by Catholic church law?

    Like

  34. lowerleavell says:

    James said, “Well..saying that marriage is between two unrelated consenting adults is not discriminatory.”

    I’d like to hear your case for that. What is your moral/practical/ethical basis for saying that marriage should only be between two adults and saying otherwise is not discriminatory? This goes back to a fundamental issue in our country for the government refusing to recognize the practices of any American as valid and acceptable. Why can we say “NO!” to marriage and legal rights of a polygamist family (like for insurance, tax deductions, etc) and it not be discriminatory and yet saying “No!” to the marriage between two men or two women is seen as discrimination and a civil rights issue? I’m not saying that polygamy should be legal (as the Bible says, “No man can serve two masters” – a bit of Mark Twain there), but I am saying that there is an inconsistency here. These two issues are related, which is why they are usually brought up together.

    Ed said, “Unless Joe Biden gets another interview and waxes at length about polygamy, I’ll bet the issue doesn’t come up in the campaign.”

    Totally right. Yet the mantra is being given concerning equality for ALL Americans. What gives the government the right to “discriminate” against those who have enough love for more than one wife? Why not one woman with two men so that no one is accused of sexism? Shoot, why not two plus men and two plus women in an open marriage between all in one communal marriage? If the press is doing their job (which would be a shock), they should at least approach the President and/or the Vice President with the question.

    Like

  35. Ed Darrell says:

    You can be on a first-name basis, too . . .

    Like

  36. James Hanley says:

    Wow, you’re on a first-name basis with the Prez! (Or at least he’s on a first-name basis with you…I guess that’s not quite the same.)

    Like

  37. Lower writes:
    …I wonder what he thinks about polygamists not getting a fair shake under the 14th amendment.

    Well..saying that marriage is between two unrelated consenting adults is not discriminatory.

    Like

  38. Lower writes:
    Being conservative, Republican, and “religious”, I can’t say that I’m having a conniption fit. The president’s view is not far from a majority in this country and as such reflects a large portion of the population. I don’t think anyone on either side was surprised by this news.

    Well I congratulate you for your sense and I do mean that. Of course at the moment you’re a rare example in that case.

    Meanwhile my local Archbishop, who was one of the ones screaming “The President is impugning on the religious rights of Catholics” over contraception is leading the charge to make Minnesota ban gay marriage with a constitutional amendment. Apparently the Archbishop doesn’t have a problem when he’s the one impugning others religious beliefs and rights to thereof.

    Like

  39. Ed Darrell says:

    I wonder if the Supreme Court today would allow a federal anti-polygamy law. I think the views of most Americans have turned quite libertarian in that regard, especially with respect to chasing down polygamists and prosecuting them. As a pragmatic matter, the issue tends to arise ONLY if there are minors involved who are below the age of consent, AND abused, as in the Texas prosecutions of polygamous cult leaders, or if there is a violation of other welfare laws (Utah polygamists have been prosecuted for welfare fraud, claiming benefits for children other than those of the “first” wife), or when the polygamous relationships are hidden from others involved, leading to fraud (bigamy).

    Prosecutions of polygamists have stepped up since the drive for same-sex marriage got some steam, quite to the contrary of the fear-mongering predictions of opponents that letting homsexuals marry would lead to a general breakdown of society.

    Unless Joe Biden gets another interview and waxes at length about polygamy, I’ll bet the issue doesn’t come up in the campaign.

    Like

  40. lowerleavell says:

    Being conservative, Republican, and “religious”, I can’t say that I’m having a conniption fit. The president’s view is not far from a majority in this country and as such reflects a large portion of the population. I don’t think anyone on either side was surprised by this news.

    Yet as the President said, “I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines.” At least his verbalized respect should be a model for others, don’t you think?

    …I wonder what he thinks about polygamists not getting a fair shake under the 14th amendment.

    Like

  41. Of course Conservatives, Republicans and the religious right wing will have a conniption fit and claim that the President is waging war on marriage or the Bible or some other stupid nonsense like that.

    Because they want to pretend that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution somehow says “This doesn’t apply to gays…they’re icky”

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: