Also from Michael Brown at Townhall:
Consider Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, who on April 2nd announced his support for same-sex “marriage.” He explained that “Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most.” (Senator Kirk recently had a serious stroke.)
Then, for his intended coup de grace: “Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back — government has no place in the middle.”
What? These are the words of an elected U.S. senator?
Does Kirk not understand that the government does not get involved with the question of “who you love and who loves you back” but rather with the institution of marriage?
Does he not understand that the reason society conveys benefits on marriage is because marriage conveys benefits on society, namely, the ability (as a rule) to produce children for the next generation and to join those children to their mother and father? (Newsflash: It still takes a man and a woman to produce a child, and that is why it has always taken a man and a woman to constitute a marriage.)
And does Kirk really believe that the government should redefine marriage based on “who you love and who loves you back”? If so, then the government needs to recognize any loving relationship as “marriage,” regardless of age, number, or gender. But this is what Senator Kirk proudly declared.
Behold the effects of drinking the same-sex “marriage” Kool-aid!
Jim Wallis of Sojourners, had argued that “justice” requires us to support (and even bless) same-sex unions, he also stated clearly that, “I don’t think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, and that’s technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.”
Now, Wallis has declared his support for the radical redefinition of marriage, explaining, “I think we have to talk about, now, how to include same-sex couples in that deeper understanding of marriage. I want a deeper commitment to marriage that is more and more inclusive, and that’s where I think the country is going.”
What? These are the words of a noted Christian leader?
How seriously can Jim Wallis be taken when he tells us in 2008 that “marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral” and then in 2012 wants to make it gender-neutral? And how can he imagine that by removing the most essential components of marriage, namely one man and one woman, marriage will be made stronger? This would be like suggesting that, since car sales are down, we’ll say that bicycles and motorcycles are cars. (This is not meant to be a precise analogy but rather illustrative.)
And if Wallis truly wants to make marriage “more and more inclusive,” then he needs to embrace polygamous marriage and polyamorous marriage and more. Does he really mean what he says?
And has Wallis forgotten that as Christians, we do not determine our values by looking at where “the country is going”? Instead, as followers of Jesus, we are called to swim against the conformist, worldly tide of the age, calling society back to the timeless ways of God. Yet Jim Wallis wants to redefine marriage and make it “gender-neutral” based on where the country is going.
Behold the effects of drinking the same-sex “marriage” Kool-aid!
“He explained that “Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. “
so sodomites have a superior right to redefine marriage than the rest of us? What about Zoophilia, or poligimany, or you going to extent the same ‘right’ to refashion the tool of ‘marriage’ to suit thoses folk’s desires?
Isent anyone concerned about the people who actually need marriage to be a marriage?
Why can’t the state simply let theses people fashion their own institution for whatever sinful propose they have? Why must the State facilitate their efforts to hijack anther institution designed for a very specific propose which they obviously have as little interest in as their coupling has capability?
It is quite obviously theses people who desire to violate our rights by hijacking and refashioning our institution to suit their needs as apposed to ours.