Gay Marriage Thorny Issue for Obama

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

So the president goes on record to support gay marriage. Christians! Does voting for him, supporting him cause you to pause? He is endorsing immorality and sin! Does God turn a blind eye and say it's of no consequence? As the leader goes, so goes the nation. What kind of judgment will come our way?

Yet, the Republican nominee "covertly" accepts gay marriage, as a state governor, yet that is okay to wholeheartedly endorse him with the mantra that his "conservative Mormonism" would serve him well? Somehow that does not compute.

"The provision is explicitly set forth in the Massachusetts Constitution. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Legislature should act within a certain time to implement same-sex marriage, but the Legislature refused to act. Yet, Gov. Romney on his own went ahead of the Legislature and forced the implementation of same-sex marriage. Not only was he not required to implement same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts Constitution gave him no authority to do so. Gov. Romney should not have acted until the Legislature acted as that is the body vested by the Massachusetts Constitution with authority over marriage."

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Dagwood

As long as the states make the decision for supporting or oppsing, I'm fine with BO's stance. I wouldn't be saying that if he were forcing states to recognize his beliefs and follow through with amendments on it.

Bottom line: the federal government, period, needs to get out of our homes, businesses, churches, cars, pocketbooks, beds, and pants. 'Nuff said...

Ordinarily I do not like federal government intruding into the states. That's what the 10th amendment was written for. Abraham Lincoln damaged the 10th amendment and others since keep trying to completely destroy it.

However, if each state has different laws/rules for marriage this could cause lots of problems when people move from state to state. They could be married in one state with joint property rights and move to another state and one partner might have no rights.

I can see the need for one definition of marriage which would apply to all states. I realize that's one more power given to a federal central power but I can see that.

I still have problems forcing my religious beliefs that the homosexual life style is wrong on others who may not be Jews or Christians or who may consider themselves Jews or Christians but do not believe same sex relationships are wrong.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

This was also addressed in the NT, as a Bishop could only be the husband of one wife. Also, this was also addressed many, many years ago in Judaism and resolved.
Western Christianity also resolved this issue and realized what God had intended, until the Mormons came along.
And don't forget multiple partner would also mean ONE wife and many husbands would be possible.

Yes, I believe that a Bishop should only have one wife. A divorced spouse is called a former husband (we would use the term "ex husband" now) in the Scriptures (ref Deuteronomy 24:1-4) so after a divorce they are no longer husband and wife but former or ex husband and wife. So, in our churches we can insist on the Bishop/Pastor/Overseer only having one husband or wife at a time.

Over the years "the Church" has taken the stand in some places that marriage should be between one man and one woman as God started it with Adam and Eve, but how can we, the Church, force others by legislation to live by what has evolved as church teaching? Also, if a man or woman is not a "Bishop" where does it say in Scripture that they can't have more than one spouse at a time?

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Sam

Ordinarily I do not like federal government intruding into the states. That's what the 10th amendment was written for. Abraham Lincoln damaged the 10th amendment and others since keep trying to completely destroy it.

However, if each state has different laws/rules for marriage this could cause lots of problems when people move from state to state. They could be married in one state with joint property rights and move to another state and one partner might have no rights.

I can see the need for one definition of marriage which would apply to all states. I realize that's one more power given to a federal central power but I can see that.

I still have problems forcing my religious beliefs that the homosexual life style is wrong on others who may not be Jews or Christians or who may consider themselves Jews or Christians but do not believe same sex relationships are wrong.

That's fine. I dont believe the government should arrest and prosecute people for what they do in the privacy of their homes as consenting adults, but to redefine marriage as something other than what it is is something completely different. They are forcing their values on us, onto our culture and traditional way of life. There are other ways to allow for contracts that permit visitation rights and inheritance issues without degrading marriage into whatever we want to call it. It's not about equality---it's about forcing society to accept the sexual activities of others on an official basis. Well then that wouldn't be fair to the animalphiles, pedophiles, bigamists and polygamists and all the other folks who engage in varieties of sexual activities. Once the can of worms is opened, where do we draw the line? The same arguments for same sex marriage can be applied to a whole lot of other sexual and relationship arrangements.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yet, the Republican nominee "covertly" accepts gay marriage, as a state governor, yet that is okay to wholeheartedly endorse him with the mantra that his "conservative Mormonism" would serve him well? Somehow that does not compute.

"The provision is explicitly set forth in the Massachusetts Constitution. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Legislature should act within a certain time to implement same-sex marriage, but the Legislature refused to act. Yet, Gov. Romney on his own went ahead of the Legislature and forced the implementation of same-sex marriage. Not only was he not required to implement same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts Constitution gave him no authority to do so. Gov. Romney should not have acted until the Legislature acted as that is the body vested by the Massachusetts Constitution with authority over marriage."

Maybe he "evolved" on the issue since then.

Nevertheless, as the Gov of Mass he may have gotten away with such statements, but as the head of the GOP, he would never last. He NEEDS the conservative base, the Christian voting bloc, and he would get so much grief from the Congress and donors he would commit political suicide to embrace it. I would rather have Romney in office being beholden to a conservative base than Obama caving in to his liberal base and removing the don't ask don't tell policy for military and now officially endorsing gay marriage.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Yesterday North Carolina strongly approved a state constitutional amendment affirming marriage recognized by the state as one man and one woman. In so doing the effort to promote gay marriage as a legally recognized union in North Carolina has been given a death blow. In fact in every state that gay marriages have been recognized as legal, the legality only came I to effect by activist judges overturning majorities of voters affirming traditional marriage or banning gay marriage.

This is a thorny issue for our president who is on record as saying he is opposed to gay marriage and in favor of traditional marriage. Recently he has stated he is "evolving" on the issue. Evidently the president is trying to give the liberal community in favor of gay marriage a ray of hope that after November he might be willing to evolve completely and morph into a whole different president on the issue once he has nothing to lose. Now why would the president, an unabashed liberal, try to tip toe on such a popular issue with his liberal supporters and donors? Hollywood is a big money source for Obama and also one of the biggest proponents of the gay agenda. Northeast liberals are also big supporters of the gay agenda and are big donors as well. And of course, the gay community os overwhelmingly supportive of the president. They are also big donors to his campaign. So what's the reluctance? Well another big constituency of the President is the African-American community and polls show that they are adamantly against gay marriage and the gay agenda as a voting bloc.

So it's a thorny issue for the White House. They send VP Biden out to lend support to the issue. But when Jay Carney, WH Press Secy, is pressed on the issue, he obfuscates.

Then there's the whole issue of the DNC hosting their convention this summer in North Carolina. It's a thorny issue. And North Carolina's solid support for traditional marriage in a state that the Democrats were hoping to win in November is another ominous sign for the president's reelection campaign come November...

I have one point. At one time the majority of people in some states would have voted for slavery. I'm not comparing gay marriage to slavery but I am pointing out that the will of the majority does not make something right.

In fact, our system of government was specifically set up in order to protect against the "Tyranny of the Majority" (Primary Source: The Federalist Paper #10). That is one of the inherent virtues of a Republic over a direct democracy, it helps protect minorities from the will of the majority.

Now I ask if, if having a republic is better than a direct democracy because it helps protect those in the minority then how much more should our courts also protect those in the minority from being tyrannized by the majority?

I'm not saying allowing gay marriage is right or that it should be legal. What I am saying is that even though it might sound righteous to point out that the majority of the people are against gay marriage and then condemn some activist judge for overturning the will of the people it's not. Condemning such judges is not righteous. I want and we need judges to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority when our respresentatives fail to do that. They should be doing it but when they don't I want and we most definetely need judges to intervene.

Now all that above is the general principle. What about the specific issue of gay marriage? Well whether those judges are misguided on this issue or not, they are still trying to fulfill their duty and that's to protect minorities even from majorities. So the real condemnation isn't whether they are allowing gay marriage, the real condemnation can only come from addressing whether the majorities ban of gay marriage is an example of "the tyranny of the majority". How would you argue it isn't?

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I have one point. At one time the majority of people in some states would have voted for slavery. I'm not comparing gay marriage to slavery but I am pointing out that the will of the majority does not make something right.

In fact, our system of government was specifically set up in order to protect against the "Tyranny of the Majority" (Primary Source: The Federalist Paper #10). That is one of the inherent virtues of a Republic over a direct democracy, it helps protect minorities from the will of the majority.

Now I ask if, if having a republic is better than a direct democracy because it helps protect those in the minority then how much more should our courts also protect those in the minority from being tyrannized by the majority?

I'm not saying allowing gay marriage is right or that it should be legal. What I am saying is that even though it might sound righteous to point out that the majority of the people are against gay marriage and then condemn some activist judge for overturning the will of the people it's not. Condemning such judges is not righteous. I want and we need judges to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority when our respresentatives fail to do that. They should be doing it but when they don't I want and we most definetely need judges to intervene.

Now all that above is the general principle. What about the specific issue of gay marriage? Well whether those judges are misguided on this issue or not, they are still trying to fulfill their duty and that's to protect minorities even from majorities. So the real condemnation isn't whether they are allowing gay marriage, the real condemnation can only come from addressing whether the majorities ban of gay marriage is an example of "the tyranny of the majority". How would you argue it isn't?

Judges are empowered to interpret the Constitution. I don't know how the overturning of referendums protecting the centuries old accepted definition of marriage is an upholding of Constitutional principle. Marriage isn't a civil right. It's an age old relationship that has served humanity better than any other arrangement in history and to suddenly decide that gay marriage is virtuous is insane. There's no tyranny in upholding a standard that existed for thousands of years. We told polygamists many years ago that multiple wives was unacceptable. The majority of Americans embraced that opinion. We forced mutual, consenting adults to abandon the practice, and prosecuted and jailed people for it. Why didn't the courts overturn that decision? Was that the tyranny of the majority?

Slavery was obviously wicked and unjust. Denying gay marriage doesn't come close.

[n david]

Not shocked by Obama's comments and support of gay marriage. But now that Obama has openly endorsed sin, no christian should vote for him, regardless of color.

Unfortunately, the battle against homosexuality has been lost. Obama said it, this millennial generation is more accepting of homosexuality than any previous. There's a reason for this.

Schools are teaching kids it's okay to be gay. They bring people like Dan Savage to school-sponsored events, where he bashes the Bible and christianity, and mocks kids who take a stand and walk out during his speech. No wonder more and more kids claim to be gay or "confused" about their sexuality; they get fed this trash by teachers and speakers like Savage, and watch "Glee" promote homosexuality. It's cool to be gay or lesbian if your in school now.

Kids aren't being born this way....they're being indoctrinated this way by schools and the media.

TV introduced America to "Will and Grace," reinvented the "Modern Family," and this fall, the creators of "Glee" will show us what "The New Normal" really is.

Any attempts by people like Ron Brown, a football coach, or Pastors like Sean Harris to speak about homosexuality as sin, causes them to be branded as hate-mongers and bigots.

Soon, discrimination and anti-bullying laws will be updated and passed, limiting any speech against homosexuality, and making it a hate crime to do so.

The President's personal endorsement of gay marriage didn't surprise me. It only gave another reason a true christian should not vote for him, regardless of color.

[n david]

Lest anyone be confused...Obama didn't "flip flop" on his position with gay marriage, Unlike Republicans who change their position, liberals don't "flip flop", they "evolve."

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Maybe he "evolved" on the issue since then.

Nevertheless, as the Gov of Mass he may have gotten away with such statements, but as the head of the GOP, he would never last. He NEEDS the conservative base, the Christian voting bloc, and he would get so much grief from the Congress and donors he would commit political suicide to embrace it. I would rather have Romney in office being beholden to a conservative base than Obama caving in to his liberal base and removing the don't ask don't tell policy for military and now officially endorsing gay marriage.

"Maybe", hmmmm..... Two years of "evolving" isn't enough to be a solid conservative. He evolved and joined the NRA two years before he ran in 2008. Goodness. Do we just like being comfortable in our imagination?

Obama didn't cave to his liberal base. That is what he believes.

We are about to do the same thing we did with Obama, vote in a candidate that we refuse to vet It's just amazing. We threw all the other candidates and splattered them on the concrete, but don't touch Romney, he has great hair. LOL!