Posted on 06/23/2004 6:23:17 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
I don't see a problem here.
If you can find a single quote from the New Testament in which Jesus Christ suggested that Christians had an obligation to protect their society from falling apart as a result of a wholesale rejection of the Gospel.
One of the most sobering Gospel passages is the temptation of Christ after He spent 40 days fasting in the desert. When Satan showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and offered to give them to Jesus if only He would kneel down and worship Satan, the most important thing to remember is not what Christ said in response, but what He didn't say. He never told Satan that the world wasn't his to give to anyone.
Remember that these people will be allowed to adopt children. The welfare of these children hangs in the balance.
These laws also serve to destroy the notion of the natural law with respect to marriage, and reduce marriage to a purely utilitarian, contractual arrangement. This will impact men and women in natural and sacramental marriages, and their children.
We are our brother's keeper, so we must work to prevent the passage of these evil laws.
Good point -- my daughter is married and we have no grandchildren, so I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. Really, though, the bottom line is that government should have stayed out of it in the first place, but it's too late now.
Carolyn
Excellent posts. I find myself agreeing...
How will it "affect" them? How will that effect be enough to destroy the institution?
We have seen the rise of the utilitarian view of marriage over the last thirty years in the rising divorce rate and all of divorce's attendant social ills.
The promotion of homosexual "marriage" utterly destroys what's left of the notion of marriage as a natural institution. I can only see this legislation as speeding the decline of natural marriage.
Certainly, at least ideologically, the State will have destroyed the institution, at least on the natural level. Marriage will only survive in the churches.
This will represent a devastating blow to the health of society.
We don't find an explicit condemnation of insider trading in the Bible either.
But, in this case, I recommend the parable of the Good Samaritan. We are our brother's keeper.
There are now enough states to pass this due to the fact
they individually have DOMA's.
The FMA will take the Federal Gov. out of the marriage
definition game and put it to state legislatures.
This includes Federally making marriage one man one woman for immigration matters.
These members count the letters of support.
Homosexual special interest groups are trying to organize letter campaigns.
This includes internet and (oddly enough) nightclubs.
For those who have not seen it:
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Amendment Text:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.
This is very doable.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BELOW IS A FORM LETTER TO SEND TO THE SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES
RE: Support in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Dear [ Decision Maker ]
I support the Federal marriage amendment. As your constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote.
This amendment will remove the courts from redefining the marriage based on social activist judges. This will also protect our state from any actions taken or will be taken in any other state. Private sexual behavior should not be the standard which defines marriage. Marriage is a public institution which is how we raise and support societies children. This institution needs protecting by putting into the Constitution what we have today.
This is not the first time the constitution has been used for social issues. All of the Constitution is based on various social issues. This only codifies the law which exists now.
This amendment will remove the Federal Government from this issue and return this topic to the individual state legislatures. The activist courts have made this a federal issue. There are no other options.
Any same sex couple has the legal right to make a private cohabitation agreement, they have the right make powers of attorney and have the right to make health care surrogate directives. These form documents are readily available for nominal cost or free on the Internet. Non of these agreements require any special lawyer help. Marriage under the law is one man and one woman. There is no sexual behavior test. Homosexual rantings to the contrary, their opposition is only attempting to impose public acceptance on what should remain a private consensual behavior.
Please support the support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26, amend the Constitution and protect marriage.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]
Judging me on my understanding of Christianity, are you?
While Jesus did intend to change the hearts of His Disciples, He also required them to do good works. Allowing our culture to slip into a sewer without any attempt to engage it is akin to allowing the hungry to starve or the naked to freeze.
The fallen world has rejected heaven. Heaven has not rejected the fallen world. It thrust itself into the world mightily with the Incarnation. G-d has not given up on it yet. We are called to advance heaven while we draw breath. We do so heart by heart, and also by establishing righteousness where we can.
Shalom.
Forvige me if I ignore the rest of your post. I'm not interested in your selfishness. Your marriage may be intact, but the marraiges of those that follow, including your children's, will not.
Just look at how the free love movement impacted marriage. It did not change my parents'. It did change mine and has had a tremendous impact on my children's, nieces', nephews', etc.
Shalom.
BTW Oreily had some nutcase PHD and she basically said opposition to homosexual marriage is merely religious. That is a homo-talking point. Opposition is NOT merely religious. OReily is a homoenabler because of he soft stand on homosexual pandering.
Beware of being "labeled" as opposing on religious grounds. It is not just religion, there are ethical AND moral reasons ouside of religion.
Yes it is! For centuries it worked fine.
The problem is that the enemy within, 'traitorous liberals', are basterdizing the english language. Anything written in the constitution can become meaningless. It doesn't need to be rewritten, it has to be enforced.
I don't know why W defers to the Congress and the Congress defers to a totally mushed down Judiciary. It should be the other way around! It's gone far enough. W should do what Lincoln did, suspend Habeas Corpus. Traitors who have 'outed' themselves should be shipped off to Gitmo for an atitude adjustment. The next election or the remaining Judges, Politicians etc can then sort it all out. But the next time a judge decrees that a dog is a cat, off to Gitmo he goes.
We are in a serious war and domestic situation and the ship of state and our sovereignty are in jeopardy. Conservatives are losing faith in W. Seems like he jumps at opportunities to gain approval from America's enemies, primarily 'traitorus liberals' and an Islamists supporting silent majority.
W needs to crank it up a knotch or I'm afraid we'll be at the side of another squeeker election.
Excellent post! The arguments on this thread can be divided among those who strongly still hold to the Creational cultural mandate which requires Image bearers to be "fruitful and subdue" the earth and our more baptistic FRiends that seek to seperate themselves from the world. Finding the correct balance is subject to knowing the times and being wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
1. In the parable, the "brother" who needed "keeping" was not the predator who robbed the traveler and left him for dead on the side of the road; it was the traveler himself who had been set upon by the predator.
2. Among the various characters in this parable, the absence of any government authority in dealing with the problem is noteworthy. The whole point of the parable is that the Samaritan helped the man himself, and paid the inkeeper out of his own pocket for the man's care. He didn't bring him to the Caesar Augustus Trauma Unit at the Beth Israel Hospital and dump him in the emergency room.
I would also suggest that the underlying message of that parable really has nothing to do with the notion of "we are our brother's keeper." Instead, the parable is a direct statement about the formal termination of the Old Covenant; this is why the two people who passed by were deliberately described as representatives of the Old Law: first the priest, then the Levite (a special group of priests who had been selected to serve as special guardians of the Tabernacle). And the one guy who did his duty for his fellow man was a Samaritan, whose group was ostracized by the rest of the Jews.
The problem we face today is really quite simple: We are long past the point where we should be shaking the dust from our sandals and moving on; we just don't like to admit it because we don't know where to go.
I don't know what "ideological destruction on the natural level" means. Will men and women still marry outside the churches?
Marriage will only survive in the churches.
So it won't be destroyed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.