Skip to comments.St. Cloud Times Opinon Editor: With marriage amendment, no one wins
Posted on 05/30/2011 1:35:05 PM PDT by SmithLEdited on 05/31/2011 10:42:05 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
That's my take on the Minnesota Legislature's decision to put on the 2012 ballot a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage.
Yes, I know. Technically, one side will win. Barring the need for a recount, on Nov. 7, 2012, either Minnesota will have beaten the odds and rejected this ban, or our state will join dozens of others in telling two gay, consenting adults that they are not entitled to the same legal status as two straight, consenting adults.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
And as someone from the ELCA, he’s convinced this is about the people who have left, and not the damage that the ELCA has caused.
What a shock. Left-wing stooge refuses to support 3,000 years of social order. Film at 11? Hopefully not.
And what about the hateful language from the left that goes to attack the people who support traditional marriage? Or is it only "judgmental" when the right does it?
Personally, I do not believe that the state should be sanctioning any form of personal relationships, as that is the domain of God, but I am so disgusted and put off by the outright hate that I get for holding the religious views that I do about marriage that I'd vote for a this type of amendment just to stick a fork in the eyes of the people who hate on me so much.
I am continually astonished by the implication that something is being taken away from these people.
They do not have and never have had this status. That is very different from taking away something.
TRANSLATION: "Why don't you just do things my way so as to avoid all this unpleasantness?!"
“Wars have started over less.”
You have already declared war. You express surprise when we put on our armour?
We are not quick to fight and stand up for ourselves, but the time has come.
"Gonna find me a little island, somewhere, and settle down."
. . .Same-sex-marriage supporters' constant mantra has been that Minnesotans who support one man-one woman marriage are motivated by bigotry. Gay-marriage proponents make this claim even about people who merely support letting Minnesotans vote on the issue.
The Star Tribune's recent editorial on the marriage amendment was typical. "Don't put bigotry on the ballot," its headline ran.
But people who support one man-one woman marriage are not bigots. They argue, very reasonably, that marriage is rooted in nature -- in male/female sexual complementarity -- and that children need both a mother and a father. They say that's why it has been the bedrock institution of procreation and social order in virtually all times and places.
Same-sex-marriage supporters' attempt to tar this view as "bigotry" seems designed to shield them from tough questions as they campaign to redefine the world's fundamental social institution. Labeling your opponent a "bigot" is the ultimate rhetorical mudball--a classic slur intended to silence and intimidate rather than to facilitate an exchange of ideas.
First of all, marriage IS everyone's business. Pass fake homo-"marriage" as law and EVERYONE will be forced to recognized it, even against their strongly held Christian beliefs.
If for no other reason, that is enough.
From a government position, the only interest the state has in marriage is ensuring the continuity of the family through legal recognition of the children of that union. The state has zero interest in anything else having to do with marriage, and most especially, has no need to give a piece of paper to two gays shacking up that reads 'marriage' on it.
The same thing I'd ask this author is the same thing I ask any other activist who wishes to make words lose meaning: If you can change marriage from 'a union of a man and a woman' to 'a union between two people', what is to stop it from being three people, ten people, your donkey, that goldfish over there...
Oh, and the usual come back is that's not going to happen. Right, state governments aren't going to recognize Muslim polygamist marriages? Please, there's already exceptions in Canadian law to recognize it, how long until it comes here?
Two forthright answers:
1. No, it's a judgment on the ELCA's blatant bowdlerization of the Bible.
2. Respite for their souls from apostasy. "Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting." [Rom. 16:17-18]
He states that “faiths see homosexual marriage differently”. Just what religions have ever sanctioned gay marriage?
The last thing the Fairy Queens want is to let the peasants express their desires. They prefer to rule by dictat.
A lie purposely told. They have the exact same rights as anyone, but they want more rights than others.
Is God still Father?
blog post by Pastor Eric
I received an Advent devotional booklet published jointly by Luther Seminary and Pacific Lutheran Seminary. Not once, in 28 days' worth of readings, is God ever referred to as Father. I guess I don't have to tell you that the personal pronouns He and His are never used to refer to God either. Similarly, the Advent Prayers published by the Gettysburg Seminary also never call God Father. We are, however reminded that God loves us like a mother.
You would think that at least once in Advent, while we are praying to the Cleansing God and the Spirit of Swirling Darkness (that's what it says, I am not making this up - sounds more like Darth Vader to me than God), we might occasionally call God Father. Jesus is every now and then called Son, but whose Son? Why the God who "tip-toed into our world on holy feet..." of course! (Again, I am not making this up!)
Has anyone ever read Matthew 28:16-20?
The prize for not using a pronoun for God has to go to Bishop Mark Hanson, who recently said in a statement to the ELCA News Service, "You can bet your life that God will be faithful to God's promise, because God bet the life of Jesus on God's faithfulness..." It seem to me that Bishop Hanson should use a pronoun when Bishop Hanson speaks about God or Bishop Hanson might confuse Bishop Hanson's listeners.
<<<< I see marriage as a contract between two consenting adults. Beyond that, let your religion (if any) define it for you; don’t use your religion to define it for everyone else >>>>>
What an idiot. What about three consenting adults? A consenting adult and a consenting child? How do we know exactly what consent is? Lawyers and academics can define anything in anyway.
Then government forces the rest of us to accept their abnormal behavior as normal.
They can’t use sex-based pronouns; it’s anathema to the complete insanity of political correctness they are now under. They are now completely emissaries of Satan, without any doubt. Shun them as such.
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.