Skip to comments.Rick Warren endorses Prop. 8
Posted on 10/24/2008 9:05:17 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Pastor Rick Warren is endorsing the effort to protect traditional marriage in California.
The well-known Christian author says people in California need to vote "yes" on Proposition 8 because for "5,000 years, every culture and every religion...not just Christianity...has defined marriage as a contract between men and women."
And Warren says "there is no need to change the universal, historical defintion of marriage to appease two percent of our population." As Warren puts it: "This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about."
He urges people to vote "yes" on Proposition 8 on November 4 to preserve the biblical definition of marriage.
Passage of Prop. 8 would amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, negating a California Supreme Court decision in May that legalized same-sex "marriage" in the Golden State. Recent polls indicate California voters are closely divided on the question of homosexual marriage.
The most logical and sensible argument Mr. Warren has provided.
Can he please endorse McCain and Palin Now? For the love of God!
I have to say that I have been critical of Warren in the past because I thought he was too touchy-feely; however, since the forum where he asked tough questions and exposed Obama, I began to respect him a little more. And with his support of Prop 8, I respect him even more.
Pastors can’t endorse candidates and remain tax-exempt, only initiatives like Prop 8. This endorsement is about a month too late, but better than nothing.
Joe knows basic plumbing. Real marriage is between a man and a woman.
Thanks to Rick Warren for some simple truths.
Why can’t we have people, even if they are religious, even if they are “social conservatives’ just say:
“Look: no one is advocating anyone go and arrest a gay couple living together. But, the foundation of marriage, as an institution IS NOT ROOTED in modern notions of romantic love, it is rooted in human biology, human reproduction, the very human need to secure those things in a committed, loyal relationship, for the mutual security of each partner’s reproductive rights and for the joint security of the lives of their children.
Any number of two individuals, hetero, “homo” or whatever, have been often well-known and more often unknown, life-long romantic partners, without the “benefit” of marriage. So what? Usually, everyone let them be, and so should we and so should we not be forced to call an apple an orange just because, in a “romantic sense” one might call them equal. The term “equal” does not equal “same”.
A “romantic couple” and a “married couple” are not the same and need not be reduced to being called by the same nomenclature, in order for society to “respect their individual rights”.