Update 10/2/08:
The iProtect.com rally was a truly awesome event. Awesome speakers, music and the content of course, informative and spiritually uplifting!
Although I nearly missed it with a blown tire as I was exiting the I-5 freeway ramp to the church, I was still able to make the event. My tire had shredded and I came to a halt right before the protective banisters design to keep people from hitting the concrete wall.
As I was on the phone calling my roadside assistance, the highway patrol came and checked on me since I was near a very dangerous part of the freeway. They called their freeway support that came to my aid (I canceled mine) about 30 minutes later. Fortunately, since I was working for the event and had to be there two hours before, I was still able to get to church in decent time with decent parking especially. The place was nearly filled already!
Anyways, here is a review of what I got out of this event, summarizing what the speakers talked about. This whole event can be seen through mp3’s and on the iProtect link below.
The event started (now, this is only my synopsis and with me working, I missed bits and pieces of it all) with great music by the Katina’s (who ROCKED the church!) and a great sermon by Pastor Miles on marriage. He touched on Genesis 2:18 how the Lord had to find a helper suitable for his creation called “man.” He broke this down superbly and if anyone had a question on God’s intent for marriage after this, then they truly do hate God!
Next came the panel of guests who took on questions that were taken from people and produced electronically on big screens. Here are the questions that were presented and a background on the answers. Again, iProtect.com will have mp3s and other media for last night’s presentation.
The Questions posed to the panel experts:
- “Same-sex marriage doesn’t affect me so why should I be against it?”
Sean McDowell tackled that question by stressing that if Proposition 8 doesn’t pass, the whole nation will be affected! He said: “If same-sex marriage stands in California, we will see a domino affect throughout the country and the social re-engineering of marriage will have profound implications for every single one of our lives!” (more on website) - “You’re trying to impose your religion, what about separation of church and state?”
Greg Koukl tackled that question by starting off with: “The phrase separation of church and state never appears in the constitution at all.” Greg goes on to explain how the first amendment had been taken completely out of context. - “Heterosexuals have the right to get married according to their orientation, but homosexuals – why shouldn’t they have the same right?”
Yvette Schneider responded to that question by saying, “If sexual orientation were the basis of which we can get married, then it becomes wide open to any sexual orientation of any type of relationship.” (not exact words) - “Half of marriages end up in divorce, so why not allow same-sex marriages? Maybe they’ll do better statistically.”
Pastor Miles was quick to chastise us heterosexuals for failing our marriages and extended the challenge for us to work on our marriages. “Shame on us!” he said. Sean McDowell added that we don’t fix bad marriages by creating even badder marriages (my translation.) He said we don’t socially re-engineer and change the nature of marriage just because heterosexuals are failing at theirs! Greg Koukl added that “Marriage isn’t broken, people are broken!” - “Isn’t it true that kids need a loving family regardless whether its a mother or father?”
Greg Koukl responded by explaining the merits of having a mother AND a father. - “If you care about your gay friends, you would want them to be happy and that might mean being able to marry the person they love. So telling them they can’t be married isn’t very loving is it?”
Sean McDowell presented an accurate view on truly loving your friends. Pastor Miles shares also about true friendship.
Well, this was just a very brief summary of what I heard at the Fine Line event last night. I urge you all if you haven’t already to get the mp3 and whatever else iProtectmarriage has available of this event! And especially if you want to make comments about it below. You are fair game if you make a comment about the event and didn’t listen or watch it at all!
So check it out and come on back so we can talk about it!
10/1/08: This is the rally in favor of Proposition 8 being hosted by Pastor Miles McPherson of the Rock Church San Diego today at 7pm. Livestreaming can be found by clicking on this link: The Fine Line – iProtectMarriage.com
I’ll be working at the rally but thankfully I don’t have a pic of myself anywhere so NO ONE will be able to see me! Whoo Hoo! But this should be great and I’ll have my response to the rally posted here afterwards.
Here is a line up of some of the participants along with a special message by Pastor Miles:
Special Guests:
* Rock groups the Katinas and Stellar Kart
* Ron Luce of Teen Mania, a youth outreach organization
* Sean McDowell, a youth oriented Christian apologist (son of the great apologist Josh McDowell)
* Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, an organization that trains Christians to think clearly about their faith
* Yvette Schneider of Exodus International, a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ
* Brian Sumner and Christian Hosoi, skate pros; and
* Kyle Loza, pro freestyle motocross rider and X Games gold medalist
October 1, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Hi Carlotta,
Do you find it interesting that the president of Exodus International, still claims he has same-sex attractions? Their message may be about the ‘freedom’ from homosexuality, but the reality of it is that it is a big business with money. Alan Chambers is even married to a woman and has a couple of adopted kids. Despite this, he is still gay. Maybe you will be able to discuss this with Yvette Schneider.
Also, I looked at some people at this church-led political rally. It seems to be directed at youth–who are too young to vote. It seems a bit weird to me (skating pros and motocross riders???). But I guess it will help to plan ahead for next year since it looks like Prop. 8 is going to go down in defeat this year.
October 1, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Hi Carlotta,
I watched the simulcast via the internet tonight. I thought that the rally was excellent! Pastor Miles had an awesome message, and the panel did a great job answering questions.
Kevin,
From what I have been told by four ex-gay people, it takes time to leave the gay identity. Even if a Christian still has such urges, he/she doesn’t act upon them. Some former homosexuals remain celibate.
I’m curious. All you did was notice the young people in the audience? No comments about what was shared by Pastor Miles or the panel?
FYI, Pastor Miles works with teens and 20-something year olds. His ministry started by working with youth. On of the purposes of this rally was to equip those young Christians with biblical, moral, and even secular answers to what gay activists (like you) would throw at them on this issue.
October 1, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Mobilize before the election @:http://ad76.org/team.htm
October 1, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Christine, the event was awesome and I was really proud of the mixture of the audience of young and old, white, black, red and yellow people. You name it, the Rock had it! I can’t wait for the podcast of the simulcast to watch again. I loved Pastor Mile’s sermon and the question and answer session (on select questions). The questions and answers reminded me of the discussions we have right here in this forum alone!
The church was overflowing and at one point people were left standing outside the doors! But Pastor did preach a wonderful message on marriage. I’m glad you got to see the simulcast.
I’m exhausted and have a slew of comments to respond to tomorrow. Until then, I’m getting me some rest!
Oh, I tacked on the top of the page my older post on AB 2567. Governator vetoed it yesterday!
October 2, 2008 at 8:57 am
Religion + Politics = Taliban, Spanish Inquisition, etc…
If God wants to sanctify their marriage he will. Nothing you, or a priest or I say will affect whether God decided to sanctify the marriage. It’s up to the Big Man.
Sooo, it really boils down to politics. Policy should not be determined by religious views. That is a dangerous path. The end of that path leads to fanatisiscm and I don’t like it there.
Remember…
Religion + Politics = Taliban
ps, I am a happily married woman with one child and planning for two more. My husband is in the US Navy. I am a Christian. There is not a SINGLE word written in red that talks about homosexuality. If Jesus didn’t think it was important enough to work sooo hard against, why do you? Jesus’s greatest message was one of love and tolerance. I’m pretty sure he meant it.
October 2, 2008 at 9:02 am
I think it is pretty sad that the church was overflowing in an effort to oppose a group.
Why do our church’s spend so much time, money and energy on homosexuals?
Wouldn’t Jesus prefer if you spent that money and time and energy on strengthening EXISTING marriages. The ones that are in danger of failing? 50% of male/female marriages fall apart. If that is the concern, that marriage is not being respected… then where are the churchs full to overflowing with volunteers who raise money for marriage counseling? For support groups to keep marriage alive?
It is so very puzzling to me. We mobilize to deny so much more aggressively than we organize to give. Jesus would not approve.
October 2, 2008 at 9:36 am
Hi Christine,
You ask: “I’m curious. All you did was notice the young people in the audience? No comments about what was shared by Pastor Miles or the panel?”
Of course I noticed Miles and the panel he had on. It was hard not to.
And if you still have same-sex attractions–you are gay. You can be celibate. You can pretend you are straight and call yourself straight–but if you have same sex attractions, you are gay.
And I brought up the issue of Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus. I know that the ex-gay movement is involved with telling people they can convince themselves they are not gay. I too know some ex-ex-gays and can tell you that all of this is a lie.
But saying that, I am happy for these ex-gays (if that is really what they are) if their lives are made better by doing whatever they can to be happy. However, some of them then use their newfound happiness to turn around and try to get discriminatory laws passed against gay people. That isn’t happiness.
October 2, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Marisol, you said in your first comment that said that it’s up to the “Big Man.”
How do you know?
October 2, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Hi Carlotta,
Thank you for the question. It is a big one and yet a simple one too.
I know through my faith in Jesus. I can not be saved through good works or bad. I am saved by the love of Jesus and by my faith in him. Thank you Jesus.
The law in California has no effect on God. God can choose to sancify a marriage himself and does not need me or anyone else to filter the “candidates” for his sanctity for him. Therefore, God chooses whether a marriage is sacred or not.
If everyone’s so concerened about the sancitity of marriage, then why aren’t folks fighting this hard against people getting married drunk for 48 hours and then divorcing in Las Vegas? Why aren’t people up in arms about the terrible shows on reality tv about weddings and marriage? Because it isn’t about marriage, not really… It’s about people feeling uncomfortable.
I believe very strongly that fear is the opposite of faith. If you have complete faith in Jesus, then there is no room for fear.
That said, I do not believe that it is in our best interest to spend so much money and time fighting against marriage for gays and lesbians when we could be spending that time and money strengthening relationships through community outings, family counseling centers, and other better uses for our time and money that will have a direct and REAL impact on my marriage and the marriage of so many of our friends and families.
October 2, 2008 at 5:23 pm
The word “christian” is too easy to throw around. The most important issue for me (and for everyone else I would think) is where will I go when I die. The Bible has clear promises on that. If I am to believe the Bible for my assurance of eternal life in heaven then I have to believe it in every regard (100% accuracy in all matters). If I pick and choose what I believe to be true or false out of the Bible what’s to say my “assurance of salvation” can be trusted. In the long run encouraging and endorsing sin of any kind isn’t really showing love to the individual if the end result for them would be exclusion from kingdom of GOD (see 1st Corinthians 6:9). GOD defines what sin is and what it isn’t (via his WORD the BIBLE) and He doesn’t change with the times. The good news is that our sins can be forgiven – but it has to be on GOD’s terms.
1 Corinthians 6:9 [http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-9.htm]
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
October 2, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Marisol, did you get to see the simulcast or the mp3 recording of the event?
Because if you haven’t, most of the questions you raised were addressed in that discussion.
Check it out and get back with me when you’ve seen it and then we’ll talk some more.
Click on the iProtectmarriage button to the right here for simulcast. As of this writing, only the mp3 is available. Video coming soon!
October 2, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Excellently said Andrew!
Pastor Miles and Greg Koukl also shared at the rally how people aren’t being true friends if they aren’t sharing the truth of the word of God.
Thanks for sharing that!
October 2, 2008 at 9:03 pm
And here in lies the rub… The bible has many supporters from many nations and backgrounds with many different interpretations. Evangelists, Mormons, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Calvinists, etc, etc,
Some choose to take each word literally and jump over any glaring inconsistencies when they are inconvenient.
Some choose to take only specific parts of the bible and concentrate on those areas.
I choose to start from what Jesus said was MOST important and work from there. Why? Because I am human and imperfect. The individual rules are many and I am not able to follow them all. But I do a pretty good job of loving folks.
The quote from Corinthians is one small paragraph that does not exclusively reflect God’s comprehensive views on sin and admittance to Heaven. There are dozens more that point to God’s grace and mercy in forgiving our sins.
Never once did I make mention of the sin of homosexuality. My point is simple: If protecting marriage is your goal, then please focus on that. There are so many families out there who desperately need your outreach. Wouldn’t you sleep better at night knowing your work saved a marriage, maybe kept a family together, reduced the number of single women with children? Or would you rather spend your money, time and energy fighting a group of people who have made a choice different from yours?
If you choose the former, then your true intentions are clear.
October 3, 2008 at 9:59 am
Marisol,
You appear to be forming your own opinions about the homosexual issue rather than following God’s Word on the topic. This is the typical liberal mantra that wants to dismiss what God has declared in His written Word.
Christ is God, the Holy Spirit (God also) inspired the Bible’s writing, So when God declared homosexuality an abomination in the Old Testament, it was in fact Christ (God) who was the one declaring that. So, Christ did say a lot about homosexuality. Everytime God says it in the Bible, Christ (being part of the Godhead) is agreeing with all that is previously written when he proclaims to the Father, “Your word is truth”.
John 1 explains that Christ was (and is) GOD in the flesh and was the Creator who made everything, including every word written by man to be included in the Bible. This unequivocably solidifies the inerrancy of the Bible and supports God’s original proclamations in Scripture that homosexual behavior is sin and an abomination.
Look at it this way. You would agree that murder is a sin – correct? You would agree that lying is a sin – correct? The Bible tells us that there are those who “exchanged the truth for a lie.”
Would you want to be a part of spreading a lie and seeing people miss out on heaven?
Look at this portion of Scripture:
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Notice what is mentioned in the very next verses after the “exchanged the truth for a lie” verse:
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
There is NO DOUBT that the description of “vile affections” and “not natural” is describing homosexual behavior.
Next time you think you are being compassionate by letting your friends continue in their sin, think of the eternal consequences of not warning them to repent!
October 3, 2008 at 7:30 pm
One could say that there are two fundamental components to the kingdom of God – salvation (I am forgiven and am going to heaven) and then sanctification (I am becoming more and more like Christ). It starts with salvation, and salvation here is salvation from the penalty of sins. But before one can be saved, a person has to come to the realization that they are a sinner and need saving.
Jesus said, “Go and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ because I did not come to call righteous people, but sinners.” If by calling homosexuality a sin will help but a single soul to realize their need for a savior and cause them to repent and turn to Christ for fogiveness and salvation all the effort and criticism should be worth it. “In the same way, I tell you that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who don’t need to repent.”
Saving marriages in this world is indeed important but saving souls for heaven is most important. “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage”.
October 4, 2008 at 11:02 am
You have made some really good points, Andrew.
I think that we now need to ask people who call themselves Christians, whether or not they have been born again. Jesus told us in Scripture, “you must be born again.” It is NOT an option. It is not a “denominational” difference. It is a fact.
The liberal side never seems to want to talk about repentance. Why is that? They also don’t like talking about the cross of Christ.
When Jesus walked the earth, he began his ministry by proclaiming, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
What you wrote regarding the joy of celebration (both in heaven and on earth) when even just one sinner being called to repent is born again in Christ as a result of their repentance, goes to show how important both repentance and being born again in Jesus really is! They go hand in hand. Can’t have one without the other.
I agree that the sanctification process takes time -perhaps our entire lifetime and beyond. A person who has truly given their life over to the Lordship of Jesus Christ is a changed life. It is no longer the bondage of the flesh that rules them. They are set free in Jesus Christ. Their desire is towards holiness and righteousness. No one (on this side of heaven) ever completely “arrives,” but Scripture tells us “by their fruits you shall know them.”
A telltale sign of true repentance, salvation, and agape love for Jesus is our obedience to him and His Word. Jesus did tell us, “if you love me, keep my commandments.”
October 5, 2008 at 1:58 am
It’s telling that the response from the panel to question #2 was not that “this is not an attempt to mix church and state,” but rather, “church and state should not be separate.”
October 5, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Marisol, you said the following:
What you are really saying is that for the Christian to use their money ONLY for sharing the gospel but to ignore politics completely?
We had a great church service today at the Rock and had a guest speaker, David Barton. This man is a historical expert on the history and politics of our nation as it relates to Christianity and showed how important it was for the Christian to be involved with their government.
He showed how Congress is whom it is according to how we have VOTED. Congress makes laws according to the people who are currently holding office, and those people WE have voted into office.
He also showed the percentage of bible believing Christians in America compared to the voting block of these actual Christians.
In other words, if we want legislature to be enacted, then we must be proactive in getting our vote out!
So to answer your question Marisol, if it takes money to get the word out and awaken our people who make up a great percentage of the voting block to be active in getting our Christian principles in the government, then no, I wouldn’t sleep better at night knowing that I was ignoring a very important part of being involved with my country and its laws!
By the way, this speaker received a standing ovation by our mostly 30 years and under crowd! Speakers usually have a tough time to follow after Pastor Miles, but this one got our attention. As soon as the video is out, I will be placing it on this blog!
Phil, I agree with the panel that church and state should NOT be separate. It is impossible for the Christian to separate the two.
We live in the USA, but what are supposed to do, leave our beliefs at the church door? We are taught to love our neighbors, to abstain from sexual immorality, not to use profanity and on and on. What are we supposed to do, be godly within church doors and then practice no religion outside?
That makes perfect sense not to separate the two. More on the separation and state coming up in a future post on my blog.
Christine thanks for your comments as they were quite welcomed as I dealt with some family issues that kept me away from my blog these last couple of days.
Andrew, I will be getting into it later the reason why it’s so important for us to be involved with our nations politics as well as saving souls! (The efforts in our trying to save marriage could lead many to their souls being saved in the process!)
October 5, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Well, I don’t want to get into an extended debate about whether church and state should be separate. I think they should, and I think it’s not just best for the state, it’s also best for every church, if government interference in matters of religion is kept to an absolute minimum.
However, it seems that you, the panel, and I agree on one thing: a vote for proposition 8 is a vote to allow the state to enforce religious beliefs. If neither you nor the most vocal proponents of proposition 8 are willing to make even a half-hearted attempt to justify proposition 8 as anything other than an attempt to blur the line between church and state, then anyone who does believe church and state should be separate should vote against it, on principle.
That is, if someone says, “Whoa! Aren’t you trying to enforce your religion on other people? Doesn’t that violate the line between church and state?”
…and your response is, “Actually, church and state should not be separate,” then the subtext of your answer is: yes, it does violate that line, and that’s okay.
As such, you almost render the same-sex marriage issue a red herring. Anyone who believes that churches should not be subject to the whims of the government is obligated, ethically and morally, to vote against proposition 8.
(I think we’ve covered that ground before, so I won’t go on at length. I just want to clarify that that is exactly what the panel–and you–seem to be saying: “Vote for proposition 8 because religious beliefs ought to be enforced by the government.”
October 6, 2008 at 12:26 am
Phil said:
No Phil, it’s not about the state enforcing religious beliefs. It’s about the religious exercising their right to vote – period! What’s being voted upon is not a religious mandate, it’s an issue that people who wish not to see gay marriage as a legal entity to have the freedom to vote against it. This is religious or non-religious.
So that’s what church was about today – reminding Christians of their power to vote about issues dear to them. The issues are presented as non-religious issues for people to vote on.
It’s sad that people get into a ‘tizzy’ when Christian folk start exercising their right to vote. And then they call it “forcing their religion.” No, it’s not forcing anything.
It’s simply all about voting for what you believe in. Everyone who votes – religious or not – are doing the same thing – voting for what they believe is best.
And the ones with the most votes win!
October 6, 2008 at 11:36 am
Carlotta,
You seem to forget that, in a democracy, the “state” and “the people” are essentially the same thing. “The people” can change the government if they wish, can change the people in charge, and can even change the Constitution. In some states, the process is more protracted, and in some states, it’s more direct.
So, if voting to prevent other people from doing something because your religious beliefs tell you that it’s wrong isn’t “allowing the state to enforce religious beliefs,” what is?
Are you saying that it’s impossible for the state to enforce religious beliefs, period, as long as a majority of the people like the law? Or can you give me an example of when it would be wrong for the state to enforce a religious belief, even though you think the belief is true?
October 6, 2008 at 11:39 am
…and if that’s the case, then why did Greg Koukly spend his time justifying why it’s okay for the state to enforce religious beliefs?
If the answer to question number two was “Actually, voting for this proposition doesn’t violate the commonly-held notion of separation of church and state,” wouldn’t it have been much easier for him to devote his time to that? Instead, he chose to say–and you agreed– that church and state should not be separate.
October 6, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Carlotta,
No one is asking you to stop being a Christian or to leave your principles inside your door, but it is unreasonable to expect everyone to agree with you just because you believe you are right. It is as I said before, religion + politics = Taliban.
No thanks. I like being a Christian in a free nation, one that doesn’t use religion to enforce laws.
Someone on another thread listed a loooong list of bible scriptures from the Old Testament and said that Jesus agreed with all the laws, but he came to free us from those heavy laws, like dont eat shrimp, dont touch women on their period, etc…
I don’t know about you, but if you arent willing to uphold those portions of the old testament, then I dont see your passion as one for the bible, rather as a cry out against that which makes you uncomfortable.
My point is, you claim to care about marriage, well… when is the last time you raised money for a couple who needed counseling to get through a rocky patch? hmmm???
-Marisol
-Marisol
October 6, 2008 at 1:12 pm
By the way,
To whoever moderates this board. It is one of the nicest boards I have ever had the pleasure of participating. I love the layout and I get a kick out of our little identifying squares. Very Convenient. Thank You
October 6, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Marisol:
NO you didn’t go THERE Marisol! Come on now, American religion AND politics resembles the Taliban? Please share with me the similarities.
Marisol, I’m not quite getting your anger toward fellow Christians in support of keeping marriage between a man and a woman.
I think you are venting perhaps because someone you love dearly is gay and you’re trying to support them. Is that it?
May I ask, are you a born again Christian? Are you saved and you know you are going to heaven?
And oh yes, to answer your questions, because I regularly give to my church (and others of course), that money is used to pay for the counselors who help those with broken marriages. And the Old Testament? Christ fulfilled the OT so there’s no need in practicing the laws that were meant for the Jewish people. I do love the lessons of the Old Testament and the Proverbs I use for wisdom and Psalms to enrich my prayer life. Although the Jewish laws are not practiced, the OT still plays a very important part of my overall education of God’s word and will for my life.
—————–
Thanks Marisol about the nice compliments regarding my board!
October 6, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Oh Phil…I’m listening to the video again before answering your questions about Greg Koukl.
October 6, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Hi Carlotta…I read Marisol’s post and noticed for the first time that we each have our own identifying square. That really is kind of adorable, I’ve gotta admit.
In addition to the layout, though, I also respect the tone and opportunity that a blog like this allows for discussion. Although I disagree with your politics, I suspect you’re someone who does a lot of good things 97% of the time.
As for the other 3%, well…
I’m always happy for the opportunity to talk things through.
October 6, 2008 at 9:10 pm
You know Phil, I meant to tell Marisol that when I first started using the squares, I didn’t know they were identifying avatars because I didn’t have a lot of folks commenting right away.
So when the comments started piling up that’s when I noticed the same square when with the same email address. That is kind ‘a cool!
Thanks for being a patient respectable disagreer!
October 6, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Phil, I went back and listened to the video and Greg Koukl said the same as I said in my earlier comment.
He said that the right to vote is a secular issue and that Christians are exercising their civil liberties in voting for what they believe in.
Proposition 8 is not a religious issue but a secular issue he explains. So that’s basically all it is, Christians using their liberties to vote on a secular issue. No one is trying to “force” anyone to do anything they want, they are trying to win their vote!
Make sense?
October 7, 2008 at 2:16 am
What a load of nonsense. You spend 100 posts arguing that we must stop gay marriage because it’s against God’s will, and now you say it is a secular issue.
You are unAmerican, Carlotta.
Other people’s rights mean nothing to you if they are different from your particular religious views. Make no mistake, it is people like you who led the spanish inquisition, who have murdered nonchristians throughout the centuries claiming it is God’s will, who burned and drowned innocent old women in Salem on the grounds that they were witches. People like you made sodomy a crime, interracial marriage a crime, opposed women’s suffrage, treated jewish people as less than human, and have caused untold suffering.
If your city had an influx of muslim voters who passed a city regulation that you had to cover your face in public, you would scream that it is a violation of your religious freedom, and rightly so. Proposition 8 is no different.
There is a reason why Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment. A mere law, a statute, which forbids gay marriage is unconstitutional because itviolates the fundamental rights of homosexuals to equal protection under the law, which is guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions. A consitutinal amendment essentially is a declaratio that everyone in the United States is entitled to equal treatment under the law except gay people. It is a statement that “We believe everyone has fundamental human rights and should be treated the same EXCEPT GAY PEOPLE.” This is dangerous and unamerican. We have finally after 100 years gotten rid of laws which said we treat everyone the same except female people. We have finally gotten rid of after 190 years laws that say we treat everyone the same except black people.
Now you people want to turn back the clock and start carving out exceptions to treating people the same? Sure, you say it’s only homosexuals, and only about the marriage issue. But when you start denying people rights based on your religious views, where does it end? How do you guarantee it ends where you want? You can’t. If you want to be a good American, you had better go back to school and learn about the constitution and what it means.
October 7, 2008 at 7:13 am
Alan, the topic on my blog of gay marriage IS a spiritual issue, but you are confusing that with voting for Proposition 8 which is a secular issue. Don’t confuse the two.
Gays DO have the same rights nation-wide right now as heterosexuals, and that is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex for marriage – of course in California those rights are now to marry same-sex individuals.
Marriage has always been understood not only in this nation, but world wide to mean the union of opposite sex people. So you aren’t asking for a right, you are asking for a major change in what’s been accepted as a societal family norm.
What’s driving most evangelicals to the polls is to support our beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and that the family is uniquely created by God for the primary purpose of providing a sound emotional, psychological and spiritual foundation for the raising of children.
That’s why at this rally for Prop 8, the first message given was a sermon by Pastor Miles on the biblical view on marriage – it’s importance and uniqueness and why God created it.
Homosexuals have the right to marry (opposite sex), but they don’t have the right to change the definition of marriage.
And how American of me to vote regarding this!
October 7, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Hi Carlotta,
Regarding your post:
Carlotta: “NO you didn’t go THERE Marisol!”
Me: Yes, I do dare to go there, because it terrifies me to think of an America 300 years in the future. Religion can take over a political landscape very slowly and insiduously, so that you barely feel it. After a time, given enough power, religion can create theocracies. These can become very destructive. When religious authority is used to make laws and punish the breakers of those laws. Think Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem witch trials, for instance, or the very governement that ran out the pilgrims. Eventually people of power become attracted to those high appointments and “become religious: in order to gain the power and then… yuck yuck yuck I shudder even to think on it! God I LOVE America so much because of the freedom I have.
Carlotta: “Marisol, I’m not quite getting your anger toward fellow Christians in support of keeping marriage between a man and a woman.”
Me: You aren’t getting my anger because I’m not angry. I am sad, and concerned. I believe that people spend too much time pointing fingers, yelling, JUDGING, and not enough time simply loving their fellow man and loving Christ.
Yes I am saved, and I know that Jesus loves me. I feel it so purely and completely that it puts a genuine smile on my face every time I think on it.
Regarding donating money to the church for marriage. I don’t see donating to a general fund that goes to support a multitude of projects to be quite on par with what I was asking. Saving marriage sounds like a passion of yours. I simply believe that the time money and energy you expend against gay marriage is better spent on saving marriages in jeapardy. It is a very personal thing to help a marriage, not just something that you can take credit for by dropping an envelope into the dish. Again, God can decide what marriages he wants to sanctify. That’s the part that is so confusing to me. No one is making God do anything. If he chooses to make a marriage sacred, it can be done between two people on a mountain top with no papers, no witnesses, no anything. It’s between God and the individuals getting hitched, anything else is just a paper trail. So why are we fighting about a definition? Is it tradition? well, I can list quite a few “biblical traditions” I am quite happy to do without.
Regarding the board: You are welcome, it was a compliment well earned!
Sincerely, Marisol
October 7, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Alan,
I just read your post. And this paragraph is so well written:
“If your city had an influx of muslim voters who passed a city regulation that you had to cover your face in public, you would scream that it is a violation of your religious freedom, and rightly so. Proposition 8 is no different.”-Alan
Alan is right, if Islamists were in the majority and we allowed majority rule, this would be a real threat. Do we really want to use religion to set up lawmaking precedence? What happens when the 2nd fastest growing religion takes seed in America, and we have already allowed religious beliefs to shape law in the past? Precedence… oh yeah, scary.
I challenge those of you using religious and/or secular reasons for defending prop 8, to explain how they would feel should Alan’s hypothysis come to light.
-Marisol
October 7, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Marisol, you are giving conflicting views here. First you make this comment:
I answered you by letting you know that the money I give to the church is used partly to help pay the counselors that work for the church. But no, that answer didn’t satisfy you because then you say,
Well Marisol, if some of the church’s money is used for counseling, then WHAT on earth are you griping about here?
I’m a single-parent and marriage counseling wouldn’t be my cup of tea. So the only other way I could help marrieds, is to at least see that they get funding to get counselors who could help them.
You’re a military wife and I know how difficult the military could play on marriages – especially the Navy where the sailors are gone for months at a time on those ships. If you and your hubby had problems, wouldn’t you like to know you could go to a church and have free counseling regarding your marriage?
Or is your gripe that you don’t want ANY money used for things like “get the vote out” because you want ALL of it used for marriage counseling in church?
I’m trying to understand you here.
As far as Alan’s hypothesis is concerned, since people vote for political positions, legislature and etc., and if the majority ever became Islamic then much of our government would then begin to reflect Islamic beliefs.
That’s the way I understand our government to be. I’m no government expert here, but that is a good question – and very scary if true!
Any of you government experts want to tackle that one?
October 7, 2008 at 3:18 pm
You are correct Carlotta,
I did not clarify my issue. If I had a lot of time to devote to well crafted debate, I would never have made that mistake. I apologise and you were right to point that out.
What I should have said was, when was the last time you raised money for the sole intent and purpose of saving a marriage.
It should be at least as often as you raise money for the sole intent and purpose of denying marriage for same sex couple. If protecting marriage were really the main focus.
I simply believe that the time and money spent on denying a group a piece of paper and a definition could be better spent.
Being a military wife, we do have many resources available to us. In our church as well as through the military. I believe the money spent on movements such as yes on 8 could be spent on so many wonderful things.
More childrens tutoring programs
Programs for the terminally ill
After school programs for latch key kids
Let’s spend the time and money on giving, not taking.
Regarding our government, it could be that way if we allowed religious views to determine policy. If however we kept America a place where religion and politics remain separate, then we would be safeguarded against such things.
It would be scary Carlotta, that is why even though I am Christian, I don’t believe in crafting laws based on the Bible. Every major religion has some basic laws that most of us believe in, don’t steal, dont kill, dont lie, but the Bible also says don’t worship anyone else and thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Why aren’t you carrying out those laws?
-Marisol
October 7, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Apologies accepted Marisol! It’s all okay, thanks for the clarification!
I don’t think you understand the purpose of the support for Proposition 8. You see it as people trying hard to deny gays marriage – well, that denial is a natural result of us trying to protect male/female marriages!
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point because there’s going to be no way anyone who supports Proposition 8 is going to make you happy.
You can’t separate someone’s beliefs from policies that affect their lives.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree with this one.
Marisol, I don’t worship anyone else and the commandments in the Old Testament aren’t practiced anymore because there’s no need to. Christ came and fulfilled the Old Testament.
I’m tired and retiring for the evening. Some things I write and it doesn’t even make sense to me.
Tackle this and more in the morning!
October 8, 2008 at 2:21 am
I think one reason that same-sex marriage opponents get called things like “hateful” and “bigot” is because their political views often ignore the needs and lives of gay people, acting as if they are less than human.
For example, instead of proposing what institutions they think the government should provide for gay couples, they spend much more time suggesting what the government _shouldn’t_ do. Often, arguments focus on the “harms” that gay couples will cause to straight people, relegating gay couples to an “enemy” status.
Here, you seem to be providing an option for gay people: marry someone of the opposite sex.
Really, Carlotta? Is that what you believe? That gay men ought to marry women?
Is that why you believe gay marriage somehow undermines straight marriage? Because you believe that the supply of straight men is going to dwindle as heterosexual men decide to marry other men?
What kind of poppycock is this? I mean, really? “Gay men should marry women?”
October 8, 2008 at 8:21 am
Phil, we were discussing rights and the point is that gays have the same rights as anyone else right now – to marry the opposite sex!
Not providing an option, just stating reality. Now to change that reality is to redefine marriage completely. That’s what this discussion is all about.
More on that later as I’m working on an article of the social re-engineering of marriage.
Laws and saying “no” to people doesn’t automatically make one a bigot. Telling my children they weren’t allowed to have sex outside of marriage doesn’t automatically make me a bigot towards individuals who practice premarital sex. And believe me, I feel the same about premarital sex as I do about homosexuality. It’s just that those who practice sex before marriage aren’t making political waves about their freedom to do so.
The same with homosexuality. The fact that it is immoral and gays have no business getting married anyway, doesn’t make me hateful at all. Just a person who disagrees.
On the other hand, homosexuals who are being told that no, their sexual orientation is not only an affront to God, but to society as a whole (as in marriage) and people disagree with it, are the ones who are showing much hatred to those who oppose their lifestyles.
Ignoring the lives and needs of gay people? Not at all. I know that the best for gay people is to believe in God and follow after Christ. That is the best for them and anyone else, and to follow after God means no longer being homosexual.
The truth hurts at times but being a true friend to a homosexual is to tell them the real truth.
October 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm
You are living in a country that was founded, though by god fearing men, on seperation of church and state (more on this below). Not everyone in this country believes that the bible was written with inspiration from a diety. Not everyone in this country is christian.
Your religious beliefs are exactly that, yours. And while I will defend your right to yours, I will also defend my right to mine.
This is a legal issue, a human rights issue. This is not about religion. It is my right as a human being to marry and spend the rest of my life with the person that I love.
ON seperation of church and state: while the constitution might not expressly use the phrase “seperation of church and state” it does protect this right: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”
If you still think this is a religious issue, then what about my religious freedom??
October 8, 2008 at 6:26 pm
You’re right Angie that this is a legal and human rights issue. And we ALL are exercising our religious freedom in voting for an issue directly governed by what we believe.
So the two go hand in hand – religious freedom and voting on a secular issue. In this case, we have people with varying degrees of beliefs in marriage. The vote will decide whose beliefs will actually win the amendment.
What does separation of church and state have to do with that? Nothing at all, because you can’t separate what a person believes.
If you haven’t already, please do take a look at the Fine Line video (next post) and listen to the sermon by Pastor McPherson and to the panel discussion.
Great info!
October 9, 2008 at 12:13 am
Carlotta,
I have a question, and I’m genuinely curious about the answer. It’s a pretty straightforward question (no pun intended.)
In 1948, when the majority of Californians opposed interracial marriage, there were many people who believed with all their hearts that interracial marriage was against God’s will.
Some of them argued that anti-miscegenation laws were not unduly harmful, because everyone had the right to marry: blacks could marry blacks, and whites could marry whites.
So here’s my question: in your opinion, were those people bigots?
October 9, 2008 at 7:55 am
Yes, they were bigots Phil because firstly, there’s no biblical basis for their discrimination and secondly, their actions contradicted the 14th amendment of the Constitution which provided equal protection to all people.
The Federal Constitution provided racial freedom through the 13, 14 and 15th amendments. So the Federal constitution overruled the California constitution for that reason.
The 1948 case (Perez vs. Sharp) was based upon an interracial couple who wanted to marry but their license was voided due to a California law that didn’t allow interracial marriage.
That couple, one black and the other Mexican, petitioned the California Supreme Court and the court ruled in their favor. It basically ruled that a couple had a right to marry not based solely upon prejudice and that it violated the due process of equal protection.
So the two factors, prejudice and violation of the 14th amendment is what enabled this old California law of miscegenation to be kicked out.
I know proponents of gay marriage compare their plight to interracial marriages quite often. But it doesn’t apply to them because there is no Federal law in our Constitution that offers protection of discrimination due to sexual orientation as it did to protect people from racism.
To add to all of this, the will of the people will win out unless it directly contradicts the Federal Constitution. In that case the Federal Constitution will overrule the people. So if the will of the people in support of Yes on Prop 8 wins out, we do have the backing of the Federal Constitution which doesn’t give room for marriage based upon same-sex orientation.
Well, at least that’s my take on it.
October 9, 2008 at 11:31 pm
While I’m inclined to agree with your conclusion, I find fault with your rationale for it.
You provide two reasons. I’ll analyze your second reason first: “…their actions contradicted the 14th amendment of the Constitution which provided equal protection to all people.”
The Constitution is a fine document, and extremely important in protecting rights for Americans. But the Constitution is not the arbiter of what is and is not moral.
Your answer implies that if the 14th amendment did not exist, or if it were worded differently, then it might be licit to oppose interracial marriage. But the law, even the Constitution, cannot render something to be morally licit.
Even if the Constitution specifically prohibited interracial marriage, opposing interracial marriage would still be bigotry.
In some other countries, interracial marriage, even interracial relationships, are illegal. That is the law of the land, and in those cases, the law itself is bigoted. It is always immoral to oppose interracial relationships, whether they are protected by law or not.
Would you agree with this viewpoint, or do you think that what is bigotry in some countries is acceptable moral behavior in others?
October 9, 2008 at 11:34 pm
(I should add that I’d like to discuss your biblical rationale in a separate post, but first I want to establish that the laws of a government are categorically irrelevant to whether something fits the definition of “bigotry.”)
October 10, 2008 at 7:56 am
Phil, God’s word as found in the bible is the ultimate authority on what is right or wrong. Forgive me for giving the impression that anything else decides morality.
Just gave the example of our federal constitution because it supported morality.
So if the bible says it’s wrong, then it’s wrong no matter what a constitutional law says.
October 10, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Carlotta, it seems like we agree that the law is irrelevant when it comes to whether someone is a bigot.
It also seems that we agree that someone can still be a bigot even if they believe in their heart that they are doing God’s will, correct?
October 10, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Yes, I agree Phil that the law is irrelevant when it comes to whether someone is a bigot.
Someone can believe with all their heart they are doing God’s will, and still be a bigot.
All I have to do is ask, where does it say in God’s word that what you are doing is right? For example, where does it say in the bible that being black is a sin?
Or…
“where does it say in the bible that being a homosexual is a sin?”
October 10, 2008 at 6:05 pm
So, if I’m understanding you correctly, it is okay to call someone a bigot if they are opposing rights for other individuals if I believe that the religious beliefs motivating their actions are incorrect.
October 10, 2008 at 6:33 pm
No, you aren’t understanding me correctly.
Unless it can be shown scripturally that a person has a basis for discriminating against someone for whatever reason, than that discrimination I would consider as bigotry.
Not “what I believe” but “what says the Lord!”
The bible is not that difficult of a book to show whether someone is being bigoted or not.
October 12, 2008 at 12:04 am
The distinction is moot, Carlotta, because you do believe it’s what the Lord said.
If someone has deeply-held religious beliefs that aren’t Scripturally-based, then you believe that they are wrong, correct?
I’m pretty sure my statement in the 6:05 post is accurate; I think the reason you claim it’s not is simply because you don’t like the terminology of calling your beliefs “beliefs.” But that’s semantics. Even if what you believe is 100% correct and true and infallible, it’s still a belief.
October 12, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Phil, for the evangelical Christian, everyone’s belief’s is measured to the word of God, the Bible. For example, if someone is from a non-Christian religion and tells me that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God, then I put their statement to the test with the Bible. The Bible overrules anyone’s belief on anything.
Hope you understand what I’m saying and if you don’t, then unfortunately, this is the end of THIS conversation because it’s turning into an endless argument.
October 27, 2008 at 10:03 pm
So let’s see if I’ve got this right – one third of the world is starving, millions day every year from completely curable diseases … and God spends “his” time worrying about gays and lesbians getting married.
Do any of you ever hold your churches to any sort of moral standard? Does it trouble you IN THE LEAST that the religious arguments you employ against gay marriage have been used throughout history to justify slavery, sexism, classism, racism and genocide?
Open your minds, I beg you. Visit a library. Go to school. Believe what you want, but try to educate yourselves. Find out what your religion has done to your fellow human beings. And then hold these institutions to account for their crimes.
That is, if you really care about your fellow human beings. Unfortunately, organized religion has a pretty brutal history, especially with regard to scientific discovery.
October 27, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Here’s what is going to happen with Prop 8 – in all likelihood, it will go down in defeat. And if not? It will be knocked down by the courts as unconstitutional AGAIN.
Now think about all the millions of dollars that have been spent trying to pass it.
How many people do you think you could have fed with that money? How many people do you think you could have inoculated against communicable diseases? How many life-saving operations could have been paid for?
Now ask yourself this – what do you think Jesus would have preferred you to do?
Make no mistake about it Carlotta, you and the people who support prop 8 are bigots.
I can think of few institutions as murderous, as contemptuous of humanity and science as organized religion. Further, it is hard to imagine anything more patently disrespectful to an all-powerful god than to pretend to understand what such a god thinks.
The religiously devout should practice the humility they demand of others.
Religious faith is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
October 28, 2008 at 9:11 am
Eric, much wrong has been done in the name of “religion” including Christianity. But all things must be measured to the word of God and that alone things will either disappear or stand.
God’s laws against homosexuality are clear in both the Old Testament and New Testament. There is no way around it.
Homosexuality is a sin. Premarital sex is a sin. Adultery is sin. And of course the list goes on and on. Christians don’t support sin period. Does that make us bigots toward adulterers? Toward sexual fornicators? No, not at all!
The true bigotry is from many who practice homosexuality and support homosexuals who hate anything considered “religious.” God-haters is what I call you all and that’s the true bigotry.
Homosexuality is one of the few sins (the only one I can think of) whose participants insist that their sinful lifestyles must be accepted as GOOD and MORAL. A sin turned into an agenda.
That’s the problem most of us have against homosexuals – the forcing of this group to have everyone accept them as morally upright people.
Whether prop 8 passes or not, it will never change the fact that homosexuality is a sin which practiced until death, will result in unfavorable judgement from God.