Sounds like if this anti-gay-marriage amendment goes through, we can look forward to more legislation banning cohabitation, no-fault divorce, and "deliberate childlessness."
Bolding mine.
CONSERVATIVES: WHAT ABOUT DIVORCE?
By David Crary
ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK - "Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh, soul-searching look at the institution.
"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor who writes frequently about family issues.
While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to enact state and federal bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats to marriage's place in society.
"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated -- if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness -- then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."
Gay-rights supporters, during their recent losing battles against gay-marriage bans in 11 states, often argued that if marriage in America was in fact troubled, it was heterosexuals -- not gays -- who bore the blame.
"That was the best argument same-sex marriage advocates had: 'Where were you when no-fault divorce went through?'" said Allan Carlson, a conservative scholar who runs a family-studies center in Rockford, Ill. "Any thoughtful defender of marriage has to say, 'You're right. We were asleep at the switch in the '60s and '70s.'"
Carlson hopes the same-sex marriage debate will encourage a broader national conversation.
"For the first time in about 50 years we are honestly looking at the state of marriage in America, and what we have allowed to happen to it," he said. "I hope the conservative side will do a little soul-searching and look for ways to rebuild traditional marriage into something stronger."
Carlson decries no-fault divorce, where neither spouse is held responsible for the breakup, but acknowledges that its demise is not imminent. He proposes more modest steps: tax revisions benefiting married couples, a more positive portrayal of marriage in textbooks, policies aiding young college graduates so they could afford to marry sooner.
Marriage Defenders Go On Offense
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Marriage Defenders Go On Offense
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
And here are the people that will bring us this new age of unenlightenment:
Falwell training 1st crop of lawyers
LEGAL STAPLES, CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
By Emma Schwartz
LOS ANGELES TIMES
LYNCHBURG, Va. - What Debra Meador read disturbed her. It didn't seem right that schoolchildren were once barred from holding prayer groups after class. Or that the Ten Commandments couldn't be displayed in a government building.
So at 34, the human relations specialist from Lynchburg made good on a longtime interest by enrolling in law school. But unlike most prospective law students, she applied to only one place.
"I wanted to take it in a Christian setting," said Meador, a member of the inaugural law class at Liberty University, a Baptist college founded here in 1971 by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. "I don't believe anyone could be neutral. We're willing to tell you what we believe and to follow that."
The school, like Meador, who aspires to argue cases before the Supreme Court, has grand designs. Right now, it has 60 students and six faculty members. Provisional accreditation by the American Bar Association is at least two years away.
That accreditation certifies that a school has been evaluated on the quality of its legal education, and it allows students to sit for the bar exam in any state.
But by teaching law from a Christian perspective, Falwell hopes to train a cadre of Christian lawyers to fight what he sees as the growing secularization of public life across the United States.
And the school plans to offer select students hands-on experience with a law firm that takes on constitutional issues. That would occur when Liberty Counsel of Orlando, Fla., moves its legislative arm to the campus.
Liberty Counsel is a legal organization that focuses on cases involving religion and traditional values.
Best known for establishing in 1979 the Moral Majority, one of the first evangelical efforts to have an effect on political discourse, Falwell sees the law school as an extension of his mission.
"We certainly are training Christian activists," Falwell, who this month announced the creation of a 21st-century version of the Moral Majority that aims to re-energize the religious right, said in an interview last week. "We're turning their attention to understand the Bible is the infallible word of God, that the American constitution is a sacred document and that the Christian world view is their matrix of service."
Both students and faculty members say that the curriculum includes the law-school staples: tort law, criminal procedure, constitutional law, contracts and real estate.
There is also a three-year required series on "lawyering," practical training in everything from filing a brief to interviewing clients.
Where the Liberty curriculum differs from most law schools is that legal studies are integrated with questions about morality, discussions centered on natural law and classes peppered with Christian perspectives on course material. The most concrete example, students and faculty say, is the first-year Fundamentals of Law course, which includes an examination of Christian influence on foundation of the American legal system.
But mostly, what this viewpoint means for instructors like H. Beau Baez, a Georgetown University law graduate who teaches torts, is that "we can explain not just what the rule is in the current state of the law, but what the law should be."
Falwell training 1st crop of lawyers
LEGAL STAPLES, CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
By Emma Schwartz
LOS ANGELES TIMES
LYNCHBURG, Va. - What Debra Meador read disturbed her. It didn't seem right that schoolchildren were once barred from holding prayer groups after class. Or that the Ten Commandments couldn't be displayed in a government building.
So at 34, the human relations specialist from Lynchburg made good on a longtime interest by enrolling in law school. But unlike most prospective law students, she applied to only one place.
"I wanted to take it in a Christian setting," said Meador, a member of the inaugural law class at Liberty University, a Baptist college founded here in 1971 by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. "I don't believe anyone could be neutral. We're willing to tell you what we believe and to follow that."
The school, like Meador, who aspires to argue cases before the Supreme Court, has grand designs. Right now, it has 60 students and six faculty members. Provisional accreditation by the American Bar Association is at least two years away.
That accreditation certifies that a school has been evaluated on the quality of its legal education, and it allows students to sit for the bar exam in any state.
But by teaching law from a Christian perspective, Falwell hopes to train a cadre of Christian lawyers to fight what he sees as the growing secularization of public life across the United States.
And the school plans to offer select students hands-on experience with a law firm that takes on constitutional issues. That would occur when Liberty Counsel of Orlando, Fla., moves its legislative arm to the campus.
Liberty Counsel is a legal organization that focuses on cases involving religion and traditional values.
Best known for establishing in 1979 the Moral Majority, one of the first evangelical efforts to have an effect on political discourse, Falwell sees the law school as an extension of his mission.
"We certainly are training Christian activists," Falwell, who this month announced the creation of a 21st-century version of the Moral Majority that aims to re-energize the religious right, said in an interview last week. "We're turning their attention to understand the Bible is the infallible word of God, that the American constitution is a sacred document and that the Christian world view is their matrix of service."
Both students and faculty members say that the curriculum includes the law-school staples: tort law, criminal procedure, constitutional law, contracts and real estate.
There is also a three-year required series on "lawyering," practical training in everything from filing a brief to interviewing clients.
Where the Liberty curriculum differs from most law schools is that legal studies are integrated with questions about morality, discussions centered on natural law and classes peppered with Christian perspectives on course material. The most concrete example, students and faculty say, is the first-year Fundamentals of Law course, which includes an examination of Christian influence on foundation of the American legal system.
But mostly, what this viewpoint means for instructors like H. Beau Baez, a Georgetown University law graduate who teaches torts, is that "we can explain not just what the rule is in the current state of the law, but what the law should be."
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
Re: Marriage Defenders Go On Offense
Allan Carlson wrote:That was the best argument same-sex marriage advocates had: 'Where were you when no-fault divorce went through?'
No, I'd say the best argument was/is that letting gay people get "married" is in no way going to hurt hetrosexual marriages. Why would it?
I still have yet to hear *any* answer to that question, lame or otherwise.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
That's because there isn't one. Banning gay marriage protects no one from anything.
However, a ban might allow some people to continue to believe that no one is having gay anal sex...
Ryan
However, a ban might allow some people to continue to believe that no one is having gay anal sex...
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Here's more on "deliberate childlessness":
Deliberate Childlessness: Moral Rebellion With a New Face
10/13/2003
Albert Mohler
According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Joe and Deb Schum of Atlanta aren't worried about baby proofing their house or buying a car seat. As a matter of fact, the couple doesn't ever intend to have children and they are proud of their childlessness. According to the newspaper's report, "the Schums are part of a growing number of couples across the country for whom kids don't factor in the marriage equation."
The paper also pointed to the fact the nation's birthrate fell last year to an historic low of 66.9 births per 1,000 women age 15-44. That represents a decline of 43% since just 1960. "Many childless couples," according to the report, "revel in their decision, despite badgering from baffled mothers and friends. Others struggle with the choice before keeping the house kid-free."
The Schums just don't want kids to get in the way of their lifestyle. They enjoy cruising to the Georgia mountains on their matching Harley-Davidson motorcycles. They love their gourmet kitchen, outfitted with the very latest stainless steel appliances and trendy countertops. Deb Schum explains, "if we had kids, we would need a table where the kids could do homework." Clearly, children aren't a part of their interior design plan.
This pattern of childlessness has caught the attention of others in the media. The left-wing internet site Salon.com actually published a series of articles entitled, "To Breed or Not to Breed." This series of articles featured couples and individuals who have decided that children are not a part of their chosen lifestyle.
One woman wrote that parenthood just isn't a part of her plan, regardless of cultural expectations to the contrary. Motherhood just doesn't fit her self-image or her schedule. "I compete in triathlons; my husband practices martial arts; we both have fulfilling careers; we travel the world ... we enjoy family and friends; we have a fun, intimate relationship."
For others, the bottom line is simply financial. One woman asked: "What would the return be on the investment? Are there any laws that would require my children to pay for my nursing home when I am old? Are they going to be a sufficient hedge against poverty and loneliness?" A return on investment?
Some who have chosen to be childless have actually formed organizations in order to band together. The group "No Kidding" was formed in Atlanta four years ago as a social outlet for couples choosing to have no children. Traci Swartz, an occupational therapist in her thirties, joined "No Kidding" with her husband Jeremy, a 32 year old computer analyst. "When you don't have children, you are not involved in any activities like a lot of other people, like soccer and ballet," said Traci.
She explained that "No Kidding" members are more likely to talk about pets, travel, or other common interests. Kids rarely come up as a topic of conversation. "People think we sit around and talk about how we hate kids, but we almost never mention kids," Traci explained. No wonder.
Another woman in the Atlanta group explained, "you focus those motherly feelings elsewhere. For us, our dogs get all that love." That worldview is sick, but more and more common.
Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift. The Psalmist declared: "Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate." [Psalm 127: 3-5]
Morally speaking, the epidemic in this regard has nothing to do with those married couples who desire children but are for any reason unable to have them, but in those who are fully capable of having children but reject this intrusion in their lifestyle.
The motto of this new movement of chosen childlessness could be encapsulated by the bumper sticker put out by the Zero Population Growth group in the 1970s: "MAKE LOVE, NOT BABIES." This is the precise worldview the Scripture rejects. Marriage, sex, and children are part of one package. To deny any part of this wholeness is to reject God's intention in creation--and His mandate revealed in the Bible.
The sexual revolution has had many manifestations, but we can now see that modern Americans are determined not only to liberate sex for marriage [and even from gender], but also from procreation.
The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children. The shocking reality is that some Christians have bought into this lifestyle and claim childlessness as a legitimate option. The rise of modern contraceptives has made this technologically possible. But the fact remains that though childlessness may be made possible by the contraceptive revolution, it remains a form of rebellion against God's design and order.
Couples are not given the option of chosen childlessness in the biblical revelation. To the contrary, we are commanded to receive children with joy as God's gifts, and to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We are to find many of our deepest joys and satisfactions in the raising of children within the context of the family. Those who reject children want to have the joys of sex and marital companionship without the responsibilities of parenthood. They rely on others to produce and sustain the generations to come.
This epidemic of chosen childlessness will not be corrected by secular rethinking. In an effort to separate the pleasure of sex from the power of procreation, modern Americans think that sex totally free from constraint or conception is their right. Children, of course, do represent a serious constraint on the life of parents. Parenthood is not a hobby, but represents one of the most crucial opportunities for the making of saints found in this life.
The culture is clearly buying into this concept. Legal fights over apartment complexes and other accommodations come down to the claim that adults ought to be able to live in a child-free environment. Others claim that too much tax money and public attention is given to children, and that this is an unfair imposition upon those who choose not to "breed." Of course, the very use of this terminology betrays the rebellion in this argument. Animals breed. Human beings procreate and raise children to the glory of God.
Without doubt, children do impose themselves upon our creature comforts, waking us up in the middle of the night with demanding needs and inconvenient interruptions. Parents learn all too quickly that children are not only the smiling cherub sleeping in the crib, but also the dirty-faced preschooler, the headstrong teenager, and the boisterous grade-schooler.
The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children. This reminds us of our responsibility to raise boys to be husbands and fathers and girls to be wives and mothers. God's glory is seen in this, for the family is a critical arena where the glory of God is either displayed or denied. It is just as simple as that.
The church must help this society regain its sanity on the gift of children. Willful barrenness and chosen childlessness must be named as moral rebellion. To demand that marriage means sex--but not children--is to defraud the creator of His joy and pleasure in seeing the saints raising His children. That is just the way it is. No kidding.
Deliberate Childlessness: Moral Rebellion With a New Face
10/13/2003
Albert Mohler
According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Joe and Deb Schum of Atlanta aren't worried about baby proofing their house or buying a car seat. As a matter of fact, the couple doesn't ever intend to have children and they are proud of their childlessness. According to the newspaper's report, "the Schums are part of a growing number of couples across the country for whom kids don't factor in the marriage equation."
The paper also pointed to the fact the nation's birthrate fell last year to an historic low of 66.9 births per 1,000 women age 15-44. That represents a decline of 43% since just 1960. "Many childless couples," according to the report, "revel in their decision, despite badgering from baffled mothers and friends. Others struggle with the choice before keeping the house kid-free."
The Schums just don't want kids to get in the way of their lifestyle. They enjoy cruising to the Georgia mountains on their matching Harley-Davidson motorcycles. They love their gourmet kitchen, outfitted with the very latest stainless steel appliances and trendy countertops. Deb Schum explains, "if we had kids, we would need a table where the kids could do homework." Clearly, children aren't a part of their interior design plan.
This pattern of childlessness has caught the attention of others in the media. The left-wing internet site Salon.com actually published a series of articles entitled, "To Breed or Not to Breed." This series of articles featured couples and individuals who have decided that children are not a part of their chosen lifestyle.
One woman wrote that parenthood just isn't a part of her plan, regardless of cultural expectations to the contrary. Motherhood just doesn't fit her self-image or her schedule. "I compete in triathlons; my husband practices martial arts; we both have fulfilling careers; we travel the world ... we enjoy family and friends; we have a fun, intimate relationship."
For others, the bottom line is simply financial. One woman asked: "What would the return be on the investment? Are there any laws that would require my children to pay for my nursing home when I am old? Are they going to be a sufficient hedge against poverty and loneliness?" A return on investment?
Some who have chosen to be childless have actually formed organizations in order to band together. The group "No Kidding" was formed in Atlanta four years ago as a social outlet for couples choosing to have no children. Traci Swartz, an occupational therapist in her thirties, joined "No Kidding" with her husband Jeremy, a 32 year old computer analyst. "When you don't have children, you are not involved in any activities like a lot of other people, like soccer and ballet," said Traci.
She explained that "No Kidding" members are more likely to talk about pets, travel, or other common interests. Kids rarely come up as a topic of conversation. "People think we sit around and talk about how we hate kids, but we almost never mention kids," Traci explained. No wonder.
Another woman in the Atlanta group explained, "you focus those motherly feelings elsewhere. For us, our dogs get all that love." That worldview is sick, but more and more common.
Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift. The Psalmist declared: "Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate." [Psalm 127: 3-5]
Morally speaking, the epidemic in this regard has nothing to do with those married couples who desire children but are for any reason unable to have them, but in those who are fully capable of having children but reject this intrusion in their lifestyle.
The motto of this new movement of chosen childlessness could be encapsulated by the bumper sticker put out by the Zero Population Growth group in the 1970s: "MAKE LOVE, NOT BABIES." This is the precise worldview the Scripture rejects. Marriage, sex, and children are part of one package. To deny any part of this wholeness is to reject God's intention in creation--and His mandate revealed in the Bible.
The sexual revolution has had many manifestations, but we can now see that modern Americans are determined not only to liberate sex for marriage [and even from gender], but also from procreation.
The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children. The shocking reality is that some Christians have bought into this lifestyle and claim childlessness as a legitimate option. The rise of modern contraceptives has made this technologically possible. But the fact remains that though childlessness may be made possible by the contraceptive revolution, it remains a form of rebellion against God's design and order.
Couples are not given the option of chosen childlessness in the biblical revelation. To the contrary, we are commanded to receive children with joy as God's gifts, and to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We are to find many of our deepest joys and satisfactions in the raising of children within the context of the family. Those who reject children want to have the joys of sex and marital companionship without the responsibilities of parenthood. They rely on others to produce and sustain the generations to come.
This epidemic of chosen childlessness will not be corrected by secular rethinking. In an effort to separate the pleasure of sex from the power of procreation, modern Americans think that sex totally free from constraint or conception is their right. Children, of course, do represent a serious constraint on the life of parents. Parenthood is not a hobby, but represents one of the most crucial opportunities for the making of saints found in this life.
The culture is clearly buying into this concept. Legal fights over apartment complexes and other accommodations come down to the claim that adults ought to be able to live in a child-free environment. Others claim that too much tax money and public attention is given to children, and that this is an unfair imposition upon those who choose not to "breed." Of course, the very use of this terminology betrays the rebellion in this argument. Animals breed. Human beings procreate and raise children to the glory of God.
Without doubt, children do impose themselves upon our creature comforts, waking us up in the middle of the night with demanding needs and inconvenient interruptions. Parents learn all too quickly that children are not only the smiling cherub sleeping in the crib, but also the dirty-faced preschooler, the headstrong teenager, and the boisterous grade-schooler.
The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children. This reminds us of our responsibility to raise boys to be husbands and fathers and girls to be wives and mothers. God's glory is seen in this, for the family is a critical arena where the glory of God is either displayed or denied. It is just as simple as that.
The church must help this society regain its sanity on the gift of children. Willful barrenness and chosen childlessness must be named as moral rebellion. To demand that marriage means sex--but not children--is to defraud the creator of His joy and pleasure in seeing the saints raising His children. That is just the way it is. No kidding.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
So I guess you either love children or hate them.
Damn I hate organized religion.
Damn I hate organized religion.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
BUT THAT'S HOW GOD WANTED IT.
BTW, anyone watch the Packers-Texans game on Sunday night? ESPN had the Texans' QB wired for sound, and after scoring the first touchdown, he looked down (or was it up?) and muttered "Thank you Jesus".
Too bad for him Jesus apparently wasn't there for him when Ryan Longwell kicked the game winning FG for the Packers.
BTW, anyone watch the Packers-Texans game on Sunday night? ESPN had the Texans' QB wired for sound, and after scoring the first touchdown, he looked down (or was it up?) and muttered "Thank you Jesus".
Too bad for him Jesus apparently wasn't there for him when Ryan Longwell kicked the game winning FG for the Packers.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Yeah, I saw that. I seem to remember he raised his arms toward Reliant Stadium's retractable roof as he said it. Maybe he was just thankful he was out of the rain?
I'd love to see an interview with the losing team after the Super Bowl or something, where some guy says, "I blame God for our loss. He just wasn't there for us today. He teased us by getting us through the playoffs, then smited us the day of the big game. I think Coach is having an affair, and that angered God. Or maybe it's our running back's coke habit. Or it could be God thinks my new $250,000 Hummer is prideful. All I know is that God's a fickle bastard. Don't turn your back on Him."
It was a pretty good game, though.
Ryan
I'd love to see an interview with the losing team after the Super Bowl or something, where some guy says, "I blame God for our loss. He just wasn't there for us today. He teased us by getting us through the playoffs, then smited us the day of the big game. I think Coach is having an affair, and that angered God. Or maybe it's our running back's coke habit. Or it could be God thinks my new $250,000 Hummer is prideful. All I know is that God's a fickle bastard. Don't turn your back on Him."
It was a pretty good game, though.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Time to keep gays out of baseball games, for the sake of the children. Or God will punish us. Soon.
Bolding mine.
Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
Christian Conservatives Say They Gave Bush 'Moral Mandate'; Call Him to Act on Their Behalf
Nov. 29, 2004 - Among some conservative Christians, there is a belief that President Bush received a "moral mandate" to win the recent presidential election -- and they are calling on him to act on their agenda now.
"I believe Our Lord elected our president and I believe he put him in office and it is my prayer that he will sustain him in office," said one woman at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Another was asked if she believed that God intervened in the election. "Absolutely," she said.
"Values" voters delivered for the president, and the president must now deliver for them -- especially in the courts, said Gary Cass, head of a grassroots political organization affiliated with Coral Ridge, called the Center for Reclaiming America.
"It's about the next 40 years and how the courts are going to affect the world in which my children and grandchildren are going to be raised in," he said.
Cass wants a U.S. Supreme Court that will outlaw abortion and gay marriage. "Do you want to take your children to a National League baseball game for instance and have homosexuals showing affection to one another? I don't want my kids to see that," he said.
Risking God's Wrath
By one measure, conservative Christians comprised 12 percent of the electorate this year -- the same as four years ago. But they see themselves as a crucial piece of the president's political base.
They believe that if their agenda is not implemented quickly -- if their concerns are not addressed in a timely fashion -- God will be angry.
One leading evangelist recently warned, "God's patience runs out."
Dr. James Kennedy delivers sermons at Coral Ridge which are broadcast to 3 million homes. He said he knows of no timetable for God's wrath, but wants results fast.
He dismissed the concerns of people who worried about the impact of Christian conservatives on the U.S. government.
"Repent," he said with a laugh. "Repent. That's what I'd say."
People who are concerned about the influence of Christianity "have never really surrendered their life to God and submitted themselves to his commandments -- and if they did that they wouldn't have so much concern about some court saying again that it's wrong," he said.
Asked about the millions of Americans who are not Christian, or have a different interpretation of Christianity, Kennedy said with another laugh: "I couldn't care less. It's true."
"I think that the idea that the worst sin that somebody can commit is to offend somebody is ridiculous," he said.
Evangelicals say Kennedy may seem intolerant, but there's no greater love than upholding the will of God.
Bolding mine.
Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
Christian Conservatives Say They Gave Bush 'Moral Mandate'; Call Him to Act on Their Behalf
Nov. 29, 2004 - Among some conservative Christians, there is a belief that President Bush received a "moral mandate" to win the recent presidential election -- and they are calling on him to act on their agenda now.
"I believe Our Lord elected our president and I believe he put him in office and it is my prayer that he will sustain him in office," said one woman at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Another was asked if she believed that God intervened in the election. "Absolutely," she said.
"Values" voters delivered for the president, and the president must now deliver for them -- especially in the courts, said Gary Cass, head of a grassroots political organization affiliated with Coral Ridge, called the Center for Reclaiming America.
"It's about the next 40 years and how the courts are going to affect the world in which my children and grandchildren are going to be raised in," he said.
Cass wants a U.S. Supreme Court that will outlaw abortion and gay marriage. "Do you want to take your children to a National League baseball game for instance and have homosexuals showing affection to one another? I don't want my kids to see that," he said.
Risking God's Wrath
By one measure, conservative Christians comprised 12 percent of the electorate this year -- the same as four years ago. But they see themselves as a crucial piece of the president's political base.
They believe that if their agenda is not implemented quickly -- if their concerns are not addressed in a timely fashion -- God will be angry.
One leading evangelist recently warned, "God's patience runs out."
Dr. James Kennedy delivers sermons at Coral Ridge which are broadcast to 3 million homes. He said he knows of no timetable for God's wrath, but wants results fast.
He dismissed the concerns of people who worried about the impact of Christian conservatives on the U.S. government.
"Repent," he said with a laugh. "Repent. That's what I'd say."
People who are concerned about the influence of Christianity "have never really surrendered their life to God and submitted themselves to his commandments -- and if they did that they wouldn't have so much concern about some court saying again that it's wrong," he said.
Asked about the millions of Americans who are not Christian, or have a different interpretation of Christianity, Kennedy said with another laugh: "I couldn't care less. It's true."
"I think that the idea that the worst sin that somebody can commit is to offend somebody is ridiculous," he said.
Evangelicals say Kennedy may seem intolerant, but there's no greater love than upholding the will of God.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Re: Marriage Defenders Go On Offense
lukpac wrote:No, I'd say the best argument was/is that letting gay people get "married" is in no way going to hurt hetrosexual marriages. Why would it?
I still have yet to hear *any* answer to that question, lame or otherwise.
The US Supreme Court agrees with you -- bolding mine.
Court Declines to Hear Gay Marriage Case
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over gay marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation's only law sanctioning such unions.
Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. They declined, without comment.
In the past year, at least 3,000 gay Massachusetts couples have wed, although voters may have a chance next year to change the state constitution to permit civil union benefits to same-sex couples, but not the institution of marriage.
Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court's usurpation of power."
Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court."
Merita Hopkins, a city attorney in Boston, had told justices in court papers that the people who filed the suit have not shown they suffered an injury and could not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. "Deeply felt interest in the outcome of a case does not constitute an actual injury," she said.
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly told justices that voters can overrule the Supreme Court by adopting a constitutional amendment.
The lawsuit was filed by the Florida-based Liberty Counsel on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.
The conservative law group had persuaded the Supreme Court in October to consider another high profile issue, the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government property. The court agreed to look at that church-state issue before Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was diagnosed with thyroid cancer.
He is working from home while receiving chemotherapy and radiation and will miss court sessions for the next two weeks.
State legislators will decide whether to put the issue before Massachusetts voters in November 2006. Voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in November elections. President Bush has promised to make a federal anti-gay marriage amendment a priority of his second term.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court narrowly ruled that gays and lesbians had a right under the state constitution to wed.
The nation's high court had stayed out of the Massachusetts fight on a previous occasion. Last May, justices refused to intervene and block clerks from issuing the first marriage licenses.
The case is Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts, 04-420.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney