Thursday, October 27, 2005
"A Coalition of Losers"
Gay Law Prof. Renders Verdict on Anti-Prop. 2 Forces
Dale Carpenter is disappointed.
The University of Minnesota Law School professor and homosexual activist recently opined in MetroWeekly that the vote on the Texas Marriage Amendment could have been “an almost ideal circumstance for a marriage vote.” Citing the low turnout of off-year elections and that the supposedly gay-friendly voters of Houston are so numerous, Prof. Carpenter holds that “With a smart campaign, we could be in a position to keep the ‘yes’ vote under 65 percent, which would have to be counted as a moral victory.”
The operative word here is “smart”.
Prof. Carpenter continues,
Of course, Prof. Carpenter is right. Besides Margot Clarke’s contrived and risky campaign to deceive conservative voters into voting against the amendment and the KKK’s ill conceived rally “for” the amendment, the anti-prop. 2 forces would have nothing giving them any hope.
They can’t even get the website right. Says Prof. Carpenter,
What the prop. 2 vote is really about is whether the voters of Texas ever want to allow alternative definitions of marriage to be legal. So, why don’t advocates for same sex marriage publicly condemn spurious tactics like Margot Clarke’s autodial deceit as a distraction from this question? Why aren’t they using the media attention of this issue to educate us on the ostensive benefits of legalizing alternative forms of marriage?
Dale Carpenter is disappointed.
The University of Minnesota Law School professor and homosexual activist recently opined in MetroWeekly that the vote on the Texas Marriage Amendment could have been “an almost ideal circumstance for a marriage vote.” Citing the low turnout of off-year elections and that the supposedly gay-friendly voters of Houston are so numerous, Prof. Carpenter holds that “With a smart campaign, we could be in a position to keep the ‘yes’ vote under 65 percent, which would have to be counted as a moral victory.”
The operative word here is “smart”.
Prof. Carpenter continues,
"Start with the campaign director, Glen Maxey. In the 1990s, Maxey served a few undistinguished terms as a Democratic state representative from a liberal district in Austin. He was the first (and so far only) openly gay person to serve in the state legislature. But whatever laurels he earned from that status have long since wilted….Ouch! That’s gotta’ hurt!
Maxey and his friends among the Texas gay civil rights establishment are fond of coalitions. In a conservative Republican state, here's the coalition they have put together to defeat the amendment: Among the eight ''featured sponsors'' of the anti-amendment campaign are three partisan Democratic groups, two leftist groups that promote ''social justice,'' one statewide gay group that barely pretends to work with Republicans, and another that was founded by the daughter of former Democratic governor Ann Richards. This is, to be sure, a ''coalition.'' It is a coalition of losers."
Of course, Prof. Carpenter is right. Besides Margot Clarke’s contrived and risky campaign to deceive conservative voters into voting against the amendment and the KKK’s ill conceived rally “for” the amendment, the anti-prop. 2 forces would have nothing giving them any hope.
They can’t even get the website right. Says Prof. Carpenter,
"Go to the No Nonsense website and you find a confused, unattractive jumble of logos, icons, and blinking mantras. Click ''talking points.'' There, the very first argument against the marriage amendment is one that practically cribs from press releases of the state Democratic party. No Nonsense argues that instead of passing a marriage amendment, the Republican-dominated state legislature should have concentrated on ''real solutions'' like child healthcare and equalization of public-school financing.That last paragraph contains the most damning assessment not only of No Nonsense in November, but the whole cause for legalizing same sex marriage: They heretofore have not convinced voters anywhere in this country why legalization is such a good idea. (Interestingly, Prof. Carpenter does not print or link to his own reasons in this story).
There is not one word under ''talking points'' arguing that gay marriage itself is a good idea. An opportunity to educate people about gay marriage is being lost. And so is another amendment campaign."
What the prop. 2 vote is really about is whether the voters of Texas ever want to allow alternative definitions of marriage to be legal. So, why don’t advocates for same sex marriage publicly condemn spurious tactics like Margot Clarke’s autodial deceit as a distraction from this question? Why aren’t they using the media attention of this issue to educate us on the ostensive benefits of legalizing alternative forms of marriage?
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Phone Gall
Texas Marriage Amendment Opponents Resort to Autodial Guile
Margot Clarke is liberal. Very liberal. In fact, she was too liberal for even liberal Austin, where she has twice been rebuffed in her quest for a City Council seat. A Howard Dean supporter and activist for the Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood, Ms. Clarke was also endorsed by local gay/lesbian groups in her failed City Council bid last spring. She’s not the type of person who would be too friendly to the traditional marriage cause.
So, it was kind of a surprise seeing Ms. Clarke listed at the Texas Ethics Commission website as the Treasurer for a PAC called Save Texas Marriage. This shadowy group sent autodialed phone calls to elderly voters Monday with deceptive messages that voting for proposition 2, the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, would actually eliminate marriage in Texas. Of course, these charges are preposterous. By pure coincidence, no doubt, Monday was also the first day of early voting on state constitutional amendments.
You know the moral imperative for same sex marriage is weak when advocates have to rely on deceit to get support for their cause.
Update: The Austin American-Statesman is scooped by blogs! Not only was this Statesman article on the phoney phone calls posted after the story was broken at VitW and cross posted at Lone Star Times, it completely ignores the obvious Margot Clarke angle, which would have called into question the very legitimacy of "Save Texas Marriage". The story goes on to say:
10/26/05 update: Here is more evidence that Ms. Clarke is behind this nefarious and deceptive organization. The results of a Whois search on "www.savetexasmarriage.com" is below.
Margot Clarke is liberal. Very liberal. In fact, she was too liberal for even liberal Austin, where she has twice been rebuffed in her quest for a City Council seat. A Howard Dean supporter and activist for the Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood, Ms. Clarke was also endorsed by local gay/lesbian groups in her failed City Council bid last spring. She’s not the type of person who would be too friendly to the traditional marriage cause.
So, it was kind of a surprise seeing Ms. Clarke listed at the Texas Ethics Commission website as the Treasurer for a PAC called Save Texas Marriage. This shadowy group sent autodialed phone calls to elderly voters Monday with deceptive messages that voting for proposition 2, the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, would actually eliminate marriage in Texas. Of course, these charges are preposterous. By pure coincidence, no doubt, Monday was also the first day of early voting on state constitutional amendments.
You know the moral imperative for same sex marriage is weak when advocates have to rely on deceit to get support for their cause.
Update: The Austin American-Statesman is scooped by blogs! Not only was this Statesman article on the phoney phone calls posted after the story was broken at VitW and cross posted at Lone Star Times, it completely ignores the obvious Margot Clarke angle, which would have called into question the very legitimacy of "Save Texas Marriage". The story goes on to say:
"And not recognizing anything "identical" to marriage could mean not recognizing marriage, said Glen Maxey, who heads No Nonsense in November, an Austin-based group battling the amendment."Apparently, nonsense in October is completely appropriate.
10/26/05 update: Here is more evidence that Ms. Clarke is behind this nefarious and deceptive organization. The results of a Whois search on "www.savetexasmarriage.com" is below.
Domain Name: savetexasmarriage.com
Registrant Contact:
Margot Clarke info@savetexasmarriage.com
Save Texas Marriage
PMB 708
PO Box 38126
Dallas, TX 75238
US
+1.5124510908
Administrative Contact:
Margot Clarke info@savetexasmarriage.com
Save Texas Marriage
PMB 708
PO Box 38126
Dallas, TX 75238
US
+1.5124510908
Technical Contact:
Margot Clarke info@savetexasmarriage.com
Save Texas Marriage
PMB 708
PO Box 38126
Dallas, TX 75238
US
+1.5124510908
Billing Contact:
Margot Clarke info@savetexasmarriage.com
Save Texas Marriage
PMB 708
PO Box 38126
Dallas, TX 75238
US
+1.5124510908
Record created on 2005-09-12 08:24:08.
Record expires on 2006-09-12 08:24:08.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Thoughts on the Constitutional and Local Bond Election
9 proposed state constitutional amendments, 3 local bond packages, and 1 place to learn all about them
Early voting starts today and goes through November 4 (click here for early voting and election day poll locations).
There are 9 state constitutional amendments and 3 local bonds (read: local politicians begging for money) on the ballot in Travis County. Below is my humble attempt to make sense of these measures, provide a little guidance on what they mean and share my thoughts on how I’ll be voting and why. I used the following sources in learning about these measures
State Constitutional Amendments
These measures were passed with 2/3 majorities in both houses of the Texas Legislature last session.
Proposition 1: The constitutional amendment creating the Texas rail relocation and improvement fund and authorizing grants of money and issuance of obligations for financing the relocation, rehabilitation, and expansion of rail facilities.
VitW Position: Against. I’m generally against the state government subsidizing a private business.
Proposition 2: The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
VitW Position: For. I’ve blogged extensively on why I support this proposition here.
Proposition 3: The constitutional amendment clarifying that certain economic development programs do not constitute a debt.
VitW Position: Against. This sounds like semantic gaming designed to allow the state and local governments to finance private enterprises under the rubric of economic development. I don’t think this is a wise role for government and it should be taken up by private lenders.
Proposition 4: The constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail to a criminal defendant who violates a condition of the defendant's release pending trial.
VitW Position: For. This would enable judges to better protect victims (like those of domestic abuse) against defendants who demonstrate a willingness to violate parole. I understand the opposition’s stance that this language is open to subjective interpretation by judges, but I hold that the benefits outweigh the costs in this case. But it does make you wonder why something so specific and arcane is constitutional amendment. Why couldn’t this issue be resolved in statute?
Proposition 5: The constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to define rates of interest for commercial loans.
VitW Position: For. The wording above is a little vague. This measure would allow exceptions from the legislature’s current rate setting regime, namely commercial lenders and borrowers. I don’t think the government should be in the rate setting business. The opposition claims that borrowers could be harmed by this arrangement, but 46 other states allow the market to set the rates for these loans and commercial borrowers in Texas should be able to figure out how to deal with commercial lenders like those in the rest of the country.
Proposition 6: The constitutional amendment to include one additional public member and a constitutional county court judge in the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
VitW Position: For, but who cares. This allows additional representation on the SCJC. What do they do? What effect to they have? Why is this a constitutional amendment?
Proposition 7: The constitutional amendment authorizing line-of-credit advances under a reverse mortgage.
VitW Position: For. This arrangement enables senior citizens to get some of the value out of their house prior to selling it. This should allow for more flexibility in financial planning. The opposition claims that it places older folks in greater jeopardy of losing their homes. This may be technically true. But if someone is going to lose their house because of misusing a home equity line-of-credit, they probably would put their home in jeopardy in some other, already legal way as well. I hold that allowing senior homeowners more freedom to structure their finances makes this proposition worth voting for because these people and their financial planners, generally speaking, are not idiots or crooks.
Proposition 8: The constitutional amendment providing for the clearing of land titles by relinquishing and releasing any state claim to sovereign ownership or title to interest in certain land in Upshur County and in Smith County.
VitW Position: Uh, what? Why is this here again? According to press reports, there are pending lawsuits related to this issue. I wonder how this amendment got 2/3 vote in the Legislature given that annoying, little factoid. I’ll vote no.
Proposition 9: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for a six-year term for a board member of a regional mobility authority.
VitW Position: Against. Regional Mobility Authorities (RMA), in my opinion, are unelected bureaucrats that have the power to increase the amount of money taken out of your bank account. Now, someone wants to increase the amount of time they can serve? A shorter term means greater accountability, even if they are appointed by other bureaucrats.
Local Bond Elections
Bond elections are where local politicians and quasi-governmental organizations ask the voters to allow them to go into debt, which will then usually be paid back by a tax specifically levied for that purpose. In other words, they are asking for more of your money… $150M of your money not including interest.
I’m voting against all three of these measures on the principle that there has not been a concerted effort to educate the public on what they mean (unlike the various toll road issues in the last few months). Furthermore, I’m not convinced the city and county governments are making good use of the money they are already getting from taxpayers. Now, they want more? Particularly galling is proposition 2, which is Save our Springs Alliance's baby. They want to use $62M of local tax money to buy undeveloped land for the purpose of preventing any future development. That’s a bad idea when the population of the Williamson/Travis/Hays county area is projected to go from 1.16M in 2000 to 2.75M in 2030. No, No, No!
However, for your reading pleasure the text of the bond initiatives is available here.
Early voting starts today and goes through November 4 (click here for early voting and election day poll locations).
There are 9 state constitutional amendments and 3 local bonds (read: local politicians begging for money) on the ballot in Travis County. Below is my humble attempt to make sense of these measures, provide a little guidance on what they mean and share my thoughts on how I’ll be voting and why. I used the following sources in learning about these measures
State Constitutional Amendments
These measures were passed with 2/3 majorities in both houses of the Texas Legislature last session.
Proposition 1: The constitutional amendment creating the Texas rail relocation and improvement fund and authorizing grants of money and issuance of obligations for financing the relocation, rehabilitation, and expansion of rail facilities.
VitW Position: Against. I’m generally against the state government subsidizing a private business.
Proposition 2: The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
VitW Position: For. I’ve blogged extensively on why I support this proposition here.
Proposition 3: The constitutional amendment clarifying that certain economic development programs do not constitute a debt.
VitW Position: Against. This sounds like semantic gaming designed to allow the state and local governments to finance private enterprises under the rubric of economic development. I don’t think this is a wise role for government and it should be taken up by private lenders.
Proposition 4: The constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail to a criminal defendant who violates a condition of the defendant's release pending trial.
VitW Position: For. This would enable judges to better protect victims (like those of domestic abuse) against defendants who demonstrate a willingness to violate parole. I understand the opposition’s stance that this language is open to subjective interpretation by judges, but I hold that the benefits outweigh the costs in this case. But it does make you wonder why something so specific and arcane is constitutional amendment. Why couldn’t this issue be resolved in statute?
Proposition 5: The constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to define rates of interest for commercial loans.
VitW Position: For. The wording above is a little vague. This measure would allow exceptions from the legislature’s current rate setting regime, namely commercial lenders and borrowers. I don’t think the government should be in the rate setting business. The opposition claims that borrowers could be harmed by this arrangement, but 46 other states allow the market to set the rates for these loans and commercial borrowers in Texas should be able to figure out how to deal with commercial lenders like those in the rest of the country.
Proposition 6: The constitutional amendment to include one additional public member and a constitutional county court judge in the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
VitW Position: For, but who cares. This allows additional representation on the SCJC. What do they do? What effect to they have? Why is this a constitutional amendment?
Proposition 7: The constitutional amendment authorizing line-of-credit advances under a reverse mortgage.
VitW Position: For. This arrangement enables senior citizens to get some of the value out of their house prior to selling it. This should allow for more flexibility in financial planning. The opposition claims that it places older folks in greater jeopardy of losing their homes. This may be technically true. But if someone is going to lose their house because of misusing a home equity line-of-credit, they probably would put their home in jeopardy in some other, already legal way as well. I hold that allowing senior homeowners more freedom to structure their finances makes this proposition worth voting for because these people and their financial planners, generally speaking, are not idiots or crooks.
Proposition 8: The constitutional amendment providing for the clearing of land titles by relinquishing and releasing any state claim to sovereign ownership or title to interest in certain land in Upshur County and in Smith County.
VitW Position: Uh, what? Why is this here again? According to press reports, there are pending lawsuits related to this issue. I wonder how this amendment got 2/3 vote in the Legislature given that annoying, little factoid. I’ll vote no.
Proposition 9: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for a six-year term for a board member of a regional mobility authority.
VitW Position: Against. Regional Mobility Authorities (RMA), in my opinion, are unelected bureaucrats that have the power to increase the amount of money taken out of your bank account. Now, someone wants to increase the amount of time they can serve? A shorter term means greater accountability, even if they are appointed by other bureaucrats.
Local Bond Elections
Bond elections are where local politicians and quasi-governmental organizations ask the voters to allow them to go into debt, which will then usually be paid back by a tax specifically levied for that purpose. In other words, they are asking for more of your money… $150M of your money not including interest.
I’m voting against all three of these measures on the principle that there has not been a concerted effort to educate the public on what they mean (unlike the various toll road issues in the last few months). Furthermore, I’m not convinced the city and county governments are making good use of the money they are already getting from taxpayers. Now, they want more? Particularly galling is proposition 2, which is Save our Springs Alliance's baby. They want to use $62M of local tax money to buy undeveloped land for the purpose of preventing any future development. That’s a bad idea when the population of the Williamson/Travis/Hays county area is projected to go from 1.16M in 2000 to 2.75M in 2030. No, No, No!
However, for your reading pleasure the text of the bond initiatives is available here.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Next Steps to Support the Texas Marriage Amendment
Previously, I discussed how legalizing same sex marriage could be detrimental to homosexuals, to society, and to the cause of the Gospel. Below, I discuss the next steps I recommend believers take to speak the truth in love.
A call to depend
If you are convinced that same sex marriage is damaging to homosexuals, society, and the cause of the Gospel, I urge you to join me in the following acts of dependence:
Pray continually
God’s Word says much about marriage and its meaning. In addition to the text from Ephesians 5:22-33 quoted above, the following passages also draw parallels between the marriage of a man and a woman and God’s relationship with His people:
Remember that same sex marriage is a “HAC”
When discussing same sex marriage, remember the acronym “HAC”, because, as is described early, legalizing same sex marriage is a(n)
Actively support the Texas Marriage Amendment (TMA) and other movements to support traditional marriage
On November 8, vote “yes” on proposition 2, the Texas Marriage Amendment or vote early between October 24 and November 4 (click here for early voting and election day poll locations). A constitutional amendment is necessary because a vocal minority, unwittingly acting as agents of the devil, are using activist courts to entice thousands of young people into the cruel trap of homosexuality, foist a Pandora’s box of new social ills on this country, and detract from the cause of the Gospel.
Can we stand by and let them?
“The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, speak to your countrymen and say to them: 'When I bring the sword against a land, and the people of the land choose one of their men and make him their watchman, and he sees the sword coming against the land and blows the trumpet to warn the people, then if anyone hears the trumpet but does not take warning and the sword comes and takes his life, his blood will be on his own head. Since he heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take warning, his blood will be on his own head. If he had taken warning, he would have saved himself.
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.'
"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself.
"Son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'This is what you are saying: "Our offenses and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?" ' Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'…
And if a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he will live by doing so.” Ezekiel 33:1-11, 19
A call to depend
If you are convinced that same sex marriage is damaging to homosexuals, society, and the cause of the Gospel, I urge you to join me in the following acts of dependence:
Pray continually
- Pray for those fighting for God’s model for marriage in government, media, law, the church and elsewhere.
- Pray that God will give you the strength and direction to stand for His model for marriage.
- Pray also for those advocating against traditional marriage, for their salvation and peace.
- Pray against the spirit of rebellion, perversion and deception that drives the same sex marriage movement and sets its will against us.
God’s Word says much about marriage and its meaning. In addition to the text from Ephesians 5:22-33 quoted above, the following passages also draw parallels between the marriage of a man and a woman and God’s relationship with His people:
Remember that same sex marriage is a “HAC”
When discussing same sex marriage, remember the acronym “HAC”, because, as is described early, legalizing same sex marriage is a(n)
- Hate crime against homosexuals
- Attack on society
- Crisis for the Gospel
Actively support the Texas Marriage Amendment (TMA) and other movements to support traditional marriage
On November 8, vote “yes” on proposition 2, the Texas Marriage Amendment or vote early between October 24 and November 4 (click here for early voting and election day poll locations). A constitutional amendment is necessary because a vocal minority, unwittingly acting as agents of the devil, are using activist courts to entice thousands of young people into the cruel trap of homosexuality, foist a Pandora’s box of new social ills on this country, and detract from the cause of the Gospel.
Can we stand by and let them?
“The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, speak to your countrymen and say to them: 'When I bring the sword against a land, and the people of the land choose one of their men and make him their watchman, and he sees the sword coming against the land and blows the trumpet to warn the people, then if anyone hears the trumpet but does not take warning and the sword comes and takes his life, his blood will be on his own head. Since he heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take warning, his blood will be on his own head. If he had taken warning, he would have saved himself.
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.'
"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself.
"Son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'This is what you are saying: "Our offenses and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?" ' Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'…
And if a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he will live by doing so.” Ezekiel 33:1-11, 19
Why Christians Should Support the Texas Marriage Amendment, Part III
Previously, I discussed how legalizing same sex marriage could be detrimental to homosexuals and to society. Below, I look at the implications for the Gospel and religious freedom.
The Gospel In Crisis
Legalization of same sex marriage also has profound, theological implications for the church. Ephesians 5:22-33, along with several other passages of scripture, clearly correlates the marriage union of a man and woman with the spiritual union God has to His people through the Lord Jesus Christ.
Allowing legalization of same sex marriage, and the numerous other redefinitions of marriage that will surely follow, will necessarily blunt one of the sharpest instruments for communicating the Gospel. Today, almost all non-believers know what marriage is and have some sense of the relationship between the husband and wife (even if they do not necessarily agree or act it out). Tomorrow, marriage will mean anything, and it will say nothing about the relationship God wants to have with use through Christ.
In addition to the problems of communicating the Gospel in culture gone mad with moral equivalence, legalization of same sex marriage could also be the next step in attacking religious freedoms. Combined with hate crimes laws, legalized same sex marriage could make it illegal for pastors or anyone else to call homosexuality a sin, as the Bible does in Romans 1:18-32 and elsewhere. If sin cannot be identified as sin, then the Gospel cannot be legally proclaimed. This scenario is already being played out in Alberta, Canada, where hate crimes laws and legal recognition for homosexuality have combined to put a pastor who spoke against homosexuality at risk of being penalized by the government’s “Human Rights Commission”.
Because of the Bible’s clear association of marriage to the Gospel and the civil liberties risks posed by legal recognition of homosexuality, God’s people should “stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the Gospel” by actively working to keep God’s plan for marriage as the law of our land.
Update: Additional posts on the Texas Marriage Amendment
The Gospel In Crisis
Legalization of same sex marriage also has profound, theological implications for the church. Ephesians 5:22-33, along with several other passages of scripture, clearly correlates the marriage union of a man and woman with the spiritual union God has to His people through the Lord Jesus Christ.
“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”In addition to its metaphorical beauty, the passage above illustrates how a man and a woman in marriage is the effigy for the deeper, spiritual reality of God’s relationship to believers through the Lord Jesus.
Allowing legalization of same sex marriage, and the numerous other redefinitions of marriage that will surely follow, will necessarily blunt one of the sharpest instruments for communicating the Gospel. Today, almost all non-believers know what marriage is and have some sense of the relationship between the husband and wife (even if they do not necessarily agree or act it out). Tomorrow, marriage will mean anything, and it will say nothing about the relationship God wants to have with use through Christ.
In addition to the problems of communicating the Gospel in culture gone mad with moral equivalence, legalization of same sex marriage could also be the next step in attacking religious freedoms. Combined with hate crimes laws, legalized same sex marriage could make it illegal for pastors or anyone else to call homosexuality a sin, as the Bible does in Romans 1:18-32 and elsewhere. If sin cannot be identified as sin, then the Gospel cannot be legally proclaimed. This scenario is already being played out in Alberta, Canada, where hate crimes laws and legal recognition for homosexuality have combined to put a pastor who spoke against homosexuality at risk of being penalized by the government’s “Human Rights Commission”.
Because of the Bible’s clear association of marriage to the Gospel and the civil liberties risks posed by legal recognition of homosexuality, God’s people should “stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the Gospel” by actively working to keep God’s plan for marriage as the law of our land.
Update: Additional posts on the Texas Marriage Amendment
Why Christians Should Support the Texas Marriage Amendment, Part II
In Why Christians Should Support the Texas Marriage Amendment, Part I, I discussed the many dangers inherent in homosexual behavior and how any official sanction of homosexual behavior could have severe consequences for young people at risk of falling into homosexuality. This posts examines how the traditional definition of marriage is the foundation of society and why Christians should work to preserve it.
Do you take this man….and this woman…..and this man to be your lawfully wedded…
Legalizing same sex marriage further opens the Pandora’s box of “alternative” family arrangements that are an attack on society, both now and in the future.
The Bible directs believers to do good things for the society we in which we live (see Matthew 5:13-16, I Peter 2:12-17, Titus 3:1-8, Galatians 6:9-10). God’s plan for marriage and the family has been the building block of solid societies for millennia. Conversely, societies suffer when they embrace alternative forms of the family. In our country, “no fault” divorce is the precedent for the painful consequences of deviating from God’s plan for marriage. Reams of evidence show that children from divorced families are far worse off than their counterparts from intact families. Believers should stand against this and other deviations from God’s model for the family. Thus, promoting traditional marriage is one of the best ways the church can do good for the surrounding culture.
Tragically, there is historical precedent that shows legalizing same sex “marriage” will further erode incidence of traditional marriage and harm children. Researcher Stanley Kurtz wrote that Scandinavian countries have had widespread legalization of same sex marriage for nearly a decade. Today, over 50% of all children are born out of wedlock in Norway and Sweden, and 60% in Denmark. Says Kurtz “Clearly, in a place where de facto gay marriage has gained almost complete acceptance, marriage itself has almost completely disappeared.”
And in the US, the abominable Lawrence v. Texas decision has open the door to same sex marriage being forced upon society by activist judges. According to the Supreme Court’s opinion in the case that overthrew state anti-sodomy laws:
“The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.”
This language is very troublesome. First, it defines acceptable sexual practices only by adulthood and consent, meaning state laws against polygamy and incest are now in jeopardy. Second, it sets the stage for a Texas state judge to overthrow the Texas Defense of Marriage act, citing the precedent language in Lawrence v. Texas.
This is why a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man/one woman is necessary. Only a constitutional amendment will prevent same sex marriage advocates from creatively reinterpreting the Constitution to redefine marriage and the family to their liking.
And they have many redefinitions in mind. The statements below demonstrate how aggressive and intolerant secularists think they can play God and further redefine marriage and family as they see fit.
Update: Additional posts on the Texas Marriage Amendment
Do you take this man….and this woman…..and this man to be your lawfully wedded…
Legalizing same sex marriage further opens the Pandora’s box of “alternative” family arrangements that are an attack on society, both now and in the future.
The Bible directs believers to do good things for the society we in which we live (see Matthew 5:13-16, I Peter 2:12-17, Titus 3:1-8, Galatians 6:9-10). God’s plan for marriage and the family has been the building block of solid societies for millennia. Conversely, societies suffer when they embrace alternative forms of the family. In our country, “no fault” divorce is the precedent for the painful consequences of deviating from God’s plan for marriage. Reams of evidence show that children from divorced families are far worse off than their counterparts from intact families. Believers should stand against this and other deviations from God’s model for the family. Thus, promoting traditional marriage is one of the best ways the church can do good for the surrounding culture.
Tragically, there is historical precedent that shows legalizing same sex “marriage” will further erode incidence of traditional marriage and harm children. Researcher Stanley Kurtz wrote that Scandinavian countries have had widespread legalization of same sex marriage for nearly a decade. Today, over 50% of all children are born out of wedlock in Norway and Sweden, and 60% in Denmark. Says Kurtz “Clearly, in a place where de facto gay marriage has gained almost complete acceptance, marriage itself has almost completely disappeared.”
And in the US, the abominable Lawrence v. Texas decision has open the door to same sex marriage being forced upon society by activist judges. According to the Supreme Court’s opinion in the case that overthrew state anti-sodomy laws:
“The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.”
This language is very troublesome. First, it defines acceptable sexual practices only by adulthood and consent, meaning state laws against polygamy and incest are now in jeopardy. Second, it sets the stage for a Texas state judge to overthrow the Texas Defense of Marriage act, citing the precedent language in Lawrence v. Texas.
This is why a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man/one woman is necessary. Only a constitutional amendment will prevent same sex marriage advocates from creatively reinterpreting the Constitution to redefine marriage and the family to their liking.
And they have many redefinitions in mind. The statements below demonstrate how aggressive and intolerant secularists think they can play God and further redefine marriage and family as they see fit.
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." - Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT magazine, December/January 1994So, when considering your own response to the same sex marriage issue, ask yourself the following questions:
"[Legalizing same sex marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us." - Michelangelo Signorile, "I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do," OUT magazine, May 1996
“Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” - Paula Ettelbrick, author of “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”
“In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Would polygamy invite abuse of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.” - Judith Levine, author of “Stop the Wedding!: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough”
- Do you want your children to grow up in a society where 60% of all children are born out of wedlock? Where children are routinely exposed to unstable and dangerous “alternative” family arrangements?
- Do you want polygamy and incest to be legalized? Is it OK for 3 or 4 homosexuals to be married? What about a man and his consenting, 19-year-old daughter?
- If not, can polygamy and incest stay illegal if same sex marriage is legalized?
Update: Additional posts on the Texas Marriage Amendment
I’ll have a Grande Café Humanism to go
Recently seen on a cup from Starbucks:
“I have faith. Faith in our wondrous capacity for hope and good, love and trust, healing and forgiveness. Faith in the blessing of our infinite ability to wonder, question, pray, feel, think, and learn. I have faith. Faith in the infinite possibilities of the human spirit.”There’s nothing like a shot of Enlightenment propaganda to go with your Espresso.
-- James Brown
Emmy-winning sports broadcaster and co-host of Fox NFL Sunday.
