Posted on 05/01/2013 6:30:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As a Soldier and someone who will soon be applying to become Chaplain, I am forced to write this article under a pseudonym. It isn't because I am afraid that my beliefs or convictions are wrong but it is entirely possible that this could be used by some to keep me out of the Chaplains Corps where I think I can do such good for the Soldiers of the United States.
I not writing my personal beliefs about homosexuality or gay marriage. Instead I would like to focus on a constitutional issue: how would legalizing homosexual marriage affect the First Amendment? I have seen and heard many arguments about the effects that gay marriage would have (or not have) on society and why it is such a Neanderthal viewpoint to be against gay marriage. My concern is if gay marriage is legalized, how will that affect the constitutionally protected idea of freedom of religion?
I find it strange that the biggest story of the day on April 29, 2013 was an NBA player coming out of the closet. He was immediately hailed as brave, admirable, a courageous individual, etc. Personally, I think it is a bit silly that this is a story, for two reasons: first, does anyone really care, or are they personally affected by what happens in the bedroom of Jason Collins? And secondly, if Mr. Collins was coming out so that young adults had a role model to look up to, what about Baylor basketball player Brittney Griner who is going to the WNBA and came out last week? Do lesbians not count as role models in sports?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Everything.
Dunno about that... Is your dog gay?
Are you serious?
Queer marriage is just a tool to destroy the family unit and morality.
With no family or morals people will accept most anything, even a communist dictator.
What is threatened by Gay marriage? Lessee:
Normalization of
Pedophilia
Polygamy
Bestiality
And the preaching of such in our schools.
Due to lack of imagination, I have probably missed a bunch, too.
A dog or a horse can’t give consent but what if I want to marry my brother? Or my sister? Or my dad? They can give consent and we are too old to have natural children. Why should we be stopped? If 2 men can marry then there is no reason why I can’t marry my sister.
Absolutely...who are we to draw the line...I mean if the door is open the door is open. Let’s just not make a little mockery of marriage, let’s completely destroy it. Two men, bother sister, father son...where do you draw the line once across the line. If there are no standards then there are no standards, period. Everything is on the table and therefore nothing is out of bounds.
Sodomy is not a religion, it is a choice of lust. However to its practitioners it is a substitute for religion, and persued with all the ferver of it. .
Tim Tebow “came out” as a strong Christian, who not only talked the talk, but walked the walk in a myriad of ways, and he was excoriated by the media. Jason Collins “comes out” (a shock to everyone who knew him, including his IDENTICAL TWIN brother), and after having a long term heterosexual relationship with a woman, and he’s hailed by the media as some kind of hero. What is the danger to the First Amendment in normalizing abnormal behavior? Christianity has been, and continues to be under attack, and the homosexual lobby is but one direction this attack comes from. Normalizing homosexual behavior (key word: BEHAVIOR) will destroy this nation.
“A dog or a horse can’t give consent...”
It’s implied...since they live in the house.
The problem with homosexual marriage is actually not government, but that orthodox religions have ceded a religious rite to the government.
Seriously (using the Catholic sacraments), how many of these should the churches recognize the government authority to administer (and to determine who is worthy of receiving them)?
Baptism.
Confirmation.
Holy Eucharist.
Penance (Confession).
Anointing of the Sick.
Holy Orders.
How about “none of them?” So why cede the sacrament of Marriage one iota?
The only way for the Orthodox and conservative churches to stop this nonsense is to take back marriage as a sacrament, and refuse to recognize it outside of it being a sacrament, by what is in effect a treaty between them.
That is, for example, a couple who say they are married go into a Catholic church and identify themselves as “Mr. and Mrs. Jones”. Unless they can provide documentation that they were legitimately married by the Catholic church, or another Orthodox church, they will not be considered married until that status is verified. If they cannot be verified as married by the rules, or cannot be married according to the rules, then they are treated as single people. Until such time as they have an authorized marriage.
When this is done, it does not matter *who* the government says is married. The government can marry a goat and a dog for all that matters. Likewise the government cannot divorce a married couple, either, as least as far as the orthodox churches are concerned.
On the surface this does not seem like a great change, but in truth it is. Once the orthodox and other conservatives take back marriage, it strips secular marriage of much of its legitimacy.
It also brings back some discipline to Catholics who are CINOs. Unless they follow the rules, they cannot have the legitimacy of couples that do.
What did they do to the YMCA?
The proliferation of marriage will result over time in men become more and more like beasts and women will suffer.
Yes, marriage is intended to protect children also but God's plan for the care of women is a very high priority.
Except where government is forcing christian, mulsims and Jews to accept as normal(non-sinful) a self-destructive behavioral condemned in the bible. There is no conflict with the first amendment.
But then again technically speaking Its not within Washington’s power to have any say on the religious, cultural, and institutional matter of marriage period.
unfortunately if we can count on one thing from Washington it will be intrusive interference. Washington does not have a history of leaving people alone in respect to their religious, cultural, institutional or any other affairs. Federal politicians and their employees in black robes seem to stick their noses into anything and everything.
I agree competely that is the problem and I know it started back in the 1990’s with things like the “gay strait aliance”.
Homosexuality is no more normal than cancer, and even more deadly to your lines survival.
The man is right about one thing. The State needs to stop issuing marriage licences at all. We can’t trust the Government to keep an honest hand on this matter.
Marriage must return to the church.
I predicted years ago, before DADT repeal, that if homosexuals ever achieved permisssion (aka, AFFIRMATION) in the military, that they would own it - that they would be untouchable. I didn’t think it would happen this fast.
Forget it. If you do become a Chaplain; you will soon be outed as a Christian. Expect a court-martial.
I imagine something like that will eventually happen. Not sure it will keep anyone from getting punished when they refuse to accept whatever contracts the state claims are valid, but it might be a way of showing that real marriage and whatever impossibility the state is pushing at the time are two different things.
Freegards
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.