This is how you protect the institution of marriage

When Jim gets it right, it is like a bolt of lightning from the heavens.

When MOI was a clever young lad(yes, there was a time when MOI was young) MOI wrote for the school paper. Being young and VERY Catholic, the scandal of the day was Liz Taylor having a public affair with Richard Burton. Liz was married to Eddie Fisher at the time(was during the filming of Cleopatra) and she was looking to dump one chap for another.

MOI being young and daft, wrote a mean piece about the horrors of divorce.

Liz Taylor went on to marry many more times as did the chaps mentioned. Gobsmacked at how public did not seem to care. Liz almost single-handed made divorce fashionable.

Most folks MOI has known are divorced. Some had good cause, while others just jumped ship as the easy way to move on. So much for 'til death due us part'.

Let me add a personal touch to this story. MOI had a companion, not married, but was my life partner. When John got sick with AIDS, it would have been easy to jump ship and more to the next partner. MOI did not do that. I stayed partnered until John died.

During one visit to Hawaii, shortly before John died, he asked MOI why I stayed. MOI told him that when I made a choice to be partnered it was 'for better or for worse', that was just what one did.

Apples and Oranges to some. The point being made is that if folks can just walk away, wonder if they know what they miss.

Jim, doubt that the clever folks you mentioned will grasp the beauty of your suggestion. Talk about obtuse.

Oh God! Why do I respond? "No more divorce" Ok! I said it. Although I have been married to the same person for 58 years, I would say that "I do" must not be a life sentence.

I’m not quite sure what your trying to say - the sarcasm is so heavy! (But, then, my blogging cohorts would probably say, I’m a little dense anyways).

But I do detect a not so subtle jab at several local pastors. Well thought out Jim, taking shots at the local clergy, who, like most pastors, have to deal daily with marriage problems and divorce. Nothing like piling on! It must give you a kind of perverse satisfaction to "stick it to the preacher."

Only a few of the many bloggers have really gotten the point on the homosexual marriage issue. For instance, redpeach said it best on his blog on May 30th: "Gay marriage takes God out of the equation."

Even leftist blogger Mike D recognized this point - if only inadvertently - when he said on May 30th: "Can anyone offer a valid, NON-RELIGIOUS reason to deny the right to marry to a whole class of people?"

The whole homosexual marriage issue is NOT JUST about the right to homosexual marriage. It’s about God. What He says and what we are going to do about it! Is what God says true or not? Are we willing to obey or not? Is the finality of God’s holy inspired Word to be preferred over the fallible, shallow, so-called intellectual attainments of a sin-cursed human race? Or not?

The late evangelical theologian, A. W. Tozer put it this way: "What we believe about God & His Word is the most important thing about us."

It all comes back to God. Is He Lord of all or not Lord at all?

If there is one thing the homosexual marriage crowd fears, it’s making the debate a "God issue." In order for the homosexual marriage issue to succeed, morality and religion must be axed from the public forum. The media has been very helpful in doing just exactly that.

T.C.,

You write:

"It’s about God. What He says and what we are going to do about it! Is what God says true or not? Are we willing to obey or not? Is the finality of God’s holy inspired Word to be preferred over the fallible, shallow, so-called intellectual attainments of a sin-cursed human race? Or not?"

And since you never answered on the other thread, just how exactly do you reconcile that statement with this verse from the "infallible" word of God:

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

T.C., do you shave?

T.C., your logic fails you. Whether God is in the equation is between the couple and God, and is not for us to decide. And it's completely irrelevant to the question as to why we should amend our constitution to prohibit certain people from marrying. In case you hadn't noticed, the state constitution is a secular document, not a religious one.

In addition, you're trying to drag this thread off-topic. This is about "protecting marriage," not expanding it. If you think marriage is under attack, why not ban it's biggest threat -- divorce? Maybe Jim was being sarcastic, but his point is valid -- it's not gays who threaten the institution of marriage, it's us "straights."

DW:

There is always a danger in answering such questions: (I guess I'm just foolish to try - once!.

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him." Proverbs 26:4 NASB

"The 'fool' is not merely a simple-minded person; rather, the term denotes one who is spiritually senseless. The fool is an individual who is insensitive to the divine demands for religious and ethical conduct." (Bible commentary).

Gal 2:16 "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law (the old Levitical law) but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

Gal 3:24 "So then, the LAW was our guardian UNTIL CHRIST CAME, in order that we might be justified by faith."

Gal 5:18 "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law."

And people like Britney Spears.

There is no "gay marriage crowd" that I'm aware of, but it's encouraging to see that after centuries of bigotry the public is ready to move on, and so are the churches, some of them kicking and screaming, but that's how it was with the women's sufferage, child-labor law, racial integration, interracial marriage, etc...

As a subscriber to the Fresno Bee for over 50 years, I have read many letters to the editor signed T C Morgan. If classifying them were up to me, I would file them under surly/grumpy genre.
Mother and Father were from two different religions, none tolerant of the other. So they decided to become agnostics. But I would most vigerously reject the idea that my parents lacked in morality. To the contrary. It was their contention that all the world needed was universal tolerance. All that Bible-thumping, dealing with every situation in life seems to be peculiarly American Christian, which is nothing that contributes to the domestic tranquility of this culture. Conversely enough, Jesus Christ never made any reference to homosexuality. But enough!
I am a Catholic, but I can do more useful things than argue with intolerant zealotry.

Isn’t it telling how TC will not respond to DW”s question in this thread nor the one from May 30? TC has predictably responded to this post, as to previous post, with Prov 26:4 "Don't respond to the stupidity of a fool; you'll only look foolish yourself." It’s the quote zealot Christians typically use to avoid answering a direct question they have no good answer to. His subsequent post is almost comical in the way he avoids the simple question.

Also, Jim’s idea of holding the Mayor and the Pastors to their rhetoric is criticized by TC. I hope we’re past the point of holding Pastors and Priest up as Gods, above reproach, instead of seeing them as men doing God’s work. Shouldn’t Pastors be held to their word?

I can’t recall TC, or most other Christians, being equally concerned about other subjects from the Bible such as keeping the Sabbath holy under penalty of death, not eating pork or shellfish, not planting different crops side by side, the selling of slaves or even not cutting the hair at the sides of your head or clipping off the edges of your beard (the issue and question so complex it can’t be answered by TC).

Faith is a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” (Merriam-Webster) It scares me that someone wants to use their faith to control other people’s lives. Some of the rants of the self-professed Christians don’t sound much different from the rants of the fanatics we are creating in the Middle East.

Jim is absolutely correct in his sarcasm.

All sarcasm aside, I like the idea!

Why get married if you're not sure about spending a lifetime with someone? I wouldn't marry any woman who wants a prenuptual agreement; I would always be thinking, "what does she want to take from me?"

It might make people think through their decision more thoroughly if they know there is no easy way out.

Of course clauses about infidelity and abuse would need to be written in.

For the Christian-bashers out there, the church is very aware of the 50% divorce rate and is calling for ALL people to remain committed to their marriages, regardless of religious affiliations...

I love the Idea of marriage for life but there is, what seems like a forgotten issue. Not everyone is a good husband or a good wife. I don’t mean don’t do the dishes bad, I mean molest your son bad. Steal and lie bad. What is a person to do if they are married for life with someone who does a crime and they are locked up for life. Are they not supposed to move on? I think that the approach is good but marriage should be handled through the church. They should approve all marriages and divorces. Marriage is a religious affair and not a government one.

Interesting. Matt and Tyrell both agree in principle with the idea of "marriage for life," but both recognize exceptions to the rule, and neither want to see the government get involved in marriage to that degree. Tyrell goes even further by declaring that marriage is a religious issue rather than a government one.

So, can we expect both of these principled gentlemen to follow through on their principles and vote "no" on the so-called "protection of marriage" constitutional amendment this November?

Oh yeah...This will work.

And to think all we have to worry about is free national healthcare in the US.

Because -- God knows -- all the kids of 'enforced' marriages, gay or straight, are going to need therapy for the REST of their lives.

I am most gratified that anti "Christian-bashers" would allow for "clauses about infidelity and abuse." Already, far too many marriages subscribe to: "...till death do us part." One spouse deciding to off the other.

So to Mike D's post of:
Gal 3:24 "So then, the LAW was our guardian UNTIL CHRIST CAME, in order that we might be justified by faith." AND
Gal 5:18 "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law."

If this is the case and you are confident in the justification of your faith, what does it matter what the civil law says regarding marriage since you will do as your faith commands anyway?

What I am waiting to hear from someone is exactly HOW gay marriage will directly and personally affect the institution of marriage? It didn't impact me personally when my hetero friends got married (except for the wedding gift I had to buy)-- so how would my getting married to another man directly impact another relationship (assuming that there is a loving and respectful one already in place)?

Bravo Jim for zeroing in on what is the real "attack" on marriage. It is not the WHO that gets married it is the WHY. Far too many jump at the prospect with the idea that if it doesn't work out, we'll just get divorced. As a secular and free society based upon the principles of religious freedom AND tolerance for those to whom we don't always agree, we should be supportive and celebratory of any two people who are willing to stand before the community, family and their own divine being to proclaim their willingness to love and care for their mate "forsaking all others till death do they part."

JC, I think you have me confused with someone else. It was T.C. Morgan who was quoting Galatians to justify his pick-and-choose method of following the Bible.

And I don't have a good answer to your question, anyway. I don't know how gay marriage is supposed to affect may marriage. Am I supposed to get divorced now, after almost 10 happy years of marriage, just because same-sex couples can marry, too?

But if I find out, I'll let you know.

Mike- my apologies. I read the wrong line and incorrectly attributed the Galatians quotes to you.

Like you, I have never understood the selective following of what is oft-quoted as the absolute authority over man. I would have much more respect for those that follow the Bible in its literal entirety rather than the "pick and choose" method employed to rationalize a particular position. The decision that this passage doesn't apply but this one does is disingenuous and rates about a zero on the scale of personal integrity.

"How can this idiot stand there and tell me some Bible crap and not have a clue what I'm going through?"

...or how about, "That sounds real good, but it doesn't apply to me right now."

Here's a good one: "How in the world can there be a God who wants goodness, yet also allows so much pain and suffering on this planet he supposedly created?"

JC and Mike D., those are some of my own questions from as recently as only 3-4 years ago; I know exactly where some of your questions are coming from because I had the same musings. That's why I posted a comment on a different thread about studying the New Testament and how it supercedes some (repeat--SOME) of the Old Testament rules.

Understanding the colloquialisms of Greek & Latin from about 2000 years ago helps intrerpret what the words mean. Some are meant literally, some are meant inferentially, and some are even intended to make fun of someone's personality. So there you have it--about 1/2 of 1% of the background knowledge needed to begin to comprehend the Bible.

I'm hardly any kind of expert with the Bible. I just know that every thing I've been learning over the last few years has made perfect sense in every aspect of my life. But that only happened after I quit fighting it.

This could become a 100 megabyte dissertation on life, but the crux of the matter is that anyone can start looking up info on Christianity Today's (find the article about the church leader who struggles with homosexuality--sounds just like R. Foster on the other thread!) or RBC's websites, and you can investigate God's word privately without any of your agnostic or athiest friends ever having a clue! Admittedly, some of the analyses are slanted or opinionated, but most are factual and rooted in current psychological or scientific knowledge.

It was information on those "bigoted" Christian sites, and sympathy for the monumental pile of you-know-what that R. Foster has had to endure, that made me lighten up on that other thread. R. Foster is every bit as human as I am, and I know exactly why God loves him just as much as He loves me. The bashing didn't do it; a rational bit of research and compassion did.

...For the record, Mike D.: I never said I wouldn't support a constitutional amendment, as you stated on both threads--BUT, I will definitely study more to find out what I should do.

Bye for now, my son is in the other room waiting for me to go have some fun with him.

all my life my mouth has gotten me into trouble, so why not now? Those that use the content of the Bible as an interchangeable, intellectual bludgeoning device are not (refined) disingenuous but blooming hypocrites.

The Bible allows for divorce but not no -fault divorce(man's creation)and the Leviticus and Old Teatament stuff was meant for the people of Israel(God's chosen people) and to prophesize the coming of Christ.The New Testament applies to all others( that would be US) and if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior then you end up playing the game that DW and Mike(D) do...T.C-does the line cast your pearls before swine come to mind.

The "pearls before swine" thing is pretty familiar to me, Brian. That's one of those verses that fundies typically drag out when they're losing a debate.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of marriage, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Just wanted to point out how those two could be interchangeable...and should be.

Why is it that some Christians, who were given their freedom of religion, feel the need to prevent the pursuit of happiness to others? God you say? The reason you give is because God said? Our founding fathers realized that not all religions are alike and not all people believe in God. But we all deserve the same life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. God has no place in politics because there is no one view of God.

Please quit trying to amend the constitution to take rights away from others. It's extremely selfish. I should point out that not all Christians feel the need to run other people's lives. Only the extremists. Why is it we always seem to be fighting the extremists?