Tag Archives: same sex marriage

African American Pastor’s Response to President Obama on Same Sex Marriage

OPINION, May 19, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ — The following is submitted by Bishop Darryl Husband:

I must admit that I was reluctant to publicly share my perspective on President Obama’s recent statement regarding same sex marriage because too often his presidency has caused separation within the ranks of African American leadership. And yet, what does an African American pastor do when his Africa American president makes a decision that eventually will destroy the foundation of not only the African American community, but the nation as a whole? Does that pastor take a risk that he will be misunderstood and labeled as an “Uncle Tom,” a Republican Party pawn, or someone “the white man has bought out?” If I do not take the risk, knowing that mentality in itself is as discriminatory as it gets, I become a co-conspirator in keeping us in bondage to our culture; suggesting that none of us is free to think or speak outside of what we are told.

I am neither a Republican, an “Uncle Tom” or bought out by anyone. I am simply accepting my responsibility as a citizen and a prophetic voice crying out in the wilderness of this generation. I decided that the risk is worth it. It is my responsibility as a pastor to speak to issues both popular and unpopular which affect the moral fiber of our society. I cannot be silent whether it comes from a Bush led, or an Obama led White House. My response must be the same. Tis true, the moral fiber of every generation is always challenged. However, challenges to our moral core must not be ignored. They must be met with bold correction or their seeds will suffocate us into chaos and extinction. If we begin to grow up a society that condones sexual behavior that cannot reproduce life, what other result can we expect? Our President is proof that politicians cannot set our moral agenda. Too often they are co-opted by the polls of an ever changing culture or influenced by the latest voting bloc that could get them over the edge in an election.

Decisions that affect our moral fiber should not ever be made based upon voting blocs. While we are indeed a democracy, we are like a family that’s supposed to have trained, skilled leadership, which makes decisions based upon what the outcomes of those decisions will be in our future. Ideally, families have parents that are given to lead them to a morally, ethically, fiscally healthy or responsible end. Every choice and intention should be based upon some foundational principles or truths for those expected results to come to manifestation. An attempt to satisfy “one” child at the expense of the rest, for the purpose of popularity, is parental immaturity and has destructive implications attached. It speaks strongly to that parent’s capability or incapability to lead.

While many of us have persons in our families whom we love dearly, that practice homosexuality, it is irresponsible for us to sanction it as a “norm” for family life. To make it a norm will eventually change the thinking of every new generation to fight the principles of the bible, the core beliefs that keep us from being totally unrestrained as a people. Standards of living are important. They give us balance. President Obama set a dangerous precedent from the highest office in the land with no spiritual counsel or future insight to the full ramification of his statement. Or did he? If he did, then we must deduce several things: 1) He has little to no regard for the church and many of its leaders; 2) He denies the foundational truth or at best misinterprets scriptures on what the Word of God says how a family is structured; 3) He seeks to weaken the voice of the once only, free voice in our society (The African American pastor). Down the road, not to marry same sex couples will eventual spell the end of funding that so many depend upon to do ministry and eventually may end in jail time for violation of rights or discrimination accusations. At the very least we will be spending unnecessary and needed monies in court to fight for principles we preach.

I am saddened as I write this, knowing many of our African American leaders will not take a bold stance, because we are still clouded in political and cultural power struggles, unable to see the future of our communities losing its one SURE foundation. The one place that has always been free to fight for everything the African American people have had was the church. If the church does not speak now, that voice will lose what is left of its waning authority.

No, I will not be silent and I challenge other leaders as well to let their voices be raised without thinking this attack is a personal, political party, homophobic or color issue. By NO means is it. This is a moral issue, period. We must sound the alarm, “Mr. President, rescind your remarks, revisit your views and hear the voice of the Lord. We need you to stand for what is right, not what appears to be popular.”

Two Grooms Does Not a Marriage Make

 

Homosexual marriage is the unholy product of a union between "living Constitution" and "living Bible" propagandists.

John Hawkins, proprietor of Right Wing News, recently selected his favorite quotes from C. S. Lewis. One has a great deal of relevance with regard to President Obama’s recent embrace of homosexual marriage.

 “No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did…The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority that the patient refuses to accept. And therefore resents.”  

Coverage of Obama’s announcement stressed how his views evolved, but truth be told his view didn’t so much “evolve” as revolve. In 1996 when Obama first ran for the Illinois State Senate, he was a strong supporter of homosexual marriage. Now, like the earth around the sun, choose–your–own–plumbing marriage has done a complete orbit of The Obama and arrived where it began.

That a peripheral question like this could have any role, however large or small, in a presidential election is yet another indicator that we live in a decadent age. Homosexual marriage is the Rosemary’s Baby of political questions: The unholy product of a union between the “living Constitution” and the “living Bible” crowd.

“Living Constitution” advocates interpret the document to support whatever faculty lounge fad is currently making the rounds in intellectual circles. In the last 50 years the Constitution has gone from a document protecting individual liberty to a grimy little pamphlet protecting the sexual proclivities of the libertine set.

The Bible has not fared any better. It could not be more clear on homosexual practices, yet there are clergy who take it upon themselves to breathe a little life into that dusty scroll. The Post quotes the Rev. Clement Aapengnu of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church claiming, “Who has the authority to define what marriage is?”

For starters I would have said the church does, based on the Bible, but if one doesn’t regard the Bible as the inspired word of God, then the book becomes just an ancient collection of folktales. We don’t take child–rearing advice from Hansel & Gretel, so why consult the Bible for a definition of marriage?

In fact that’s pretty much the take of the Post’s “religion” columnist Lisa Miller who wrote last week, “On the specifics of what constitutes a “good” or “right” kind of family, the Scriptures offer no guidance at all.”

The interesting question is why make the change now? Obama was going to carry Hollywood and San Francisco anyway, why take a chance on alienating red state voters?

Each time homosexual marriage has been put before voters it has, without exception, lost. North Carolina, the most recent state to vote, ratified man–woman marriage by a landslide 61 percent.

In its top–down campaign of sexual enlightenment, the media drags out various polls that show when the choice is binary between regular marriage and imitation marriage 51 percent support imitation marriage. When offered “civil unions” as a third option, support for homosexual marriage plummets to 38 percent.

This, however, is not good news for social conservatives. There is essentially no difference between civil unions and marriage. Just as the marriage of male and female by a justice of the peace has all the rights and privileges of a wedding in a church, the civil union is essentially the same as heterosexual marriage.

Even worse, as we saw in California, once they get “civil unions” the homosexual lobby terms it  “second class” marriage and uses its existence to prove discrimination in the courts.

You don’t have to be a Wal–Mart shopper to fall prey incoherent thinking with regard to homosexuals and the family. Mitt Romney, to his credit, opposes both homosexual marriage and civil unions. But then Romney says he does not oppose two random homosexuals who decide it might be fun to play house and adopt a child without even the formality of marriage.

If your basis for defining marriage is the “feelings” and “love” of the interested parties, then no coherent intellectual argument can be made to define numbers of wives or husbands and, with a bit of evolving, their ages. It’s not a slippery slope, this change is a leap into the abyss.

Currently Obama reassures the religious that he supports a same–sex marriage law that is “respectful of religious liberty.” Which sounds a lot like what he said regarding forcing religious institutions to cover abortion and contraception before the passage of Obamacare and we know how that turned out.

How obama’s Gay Marriage Views Have ‘Evolved’

obama announced Wednesday that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his public opposition after feeling pressure from several Democrats, including his own Vice President, Joe Biden.

obama’s position on same-sex marriage has changed several times during his hideously dishonest, radically motivated, meteoric career. In 1996, he was in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. Then, in 2008 his view “magically” switched to “marriage is between a man and a woman”. More recently, up until Wednesday, his opinion was “evolving”.

What this reveals about obama is how coldly calculating is his timing. Each and every reversal of position coincidentally benefited obama’s political prospects enormously. It’s clearly not an accident that each shift in his position happened at exactly the right time…for him.

Back in 1996, while running in a Democratic primary to become an Illinois State Senator from Chicago, he took the position that suited the views of that electorate. He was an open supporter of same-sex marriage.

When obama announced in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman, he was running a nationwide campaign for president. He clearly understood that Electoral College votes might not fall his way if he openly supported gay marriage. Naturally, since the ends justify the means, a dishonest shift in his position seemed perfectly appropriate to him. As was his tactic in the 1996 State Senate campaign, he tailored his views to suit the electorate.

Now in 2012, when he’s struggling to raise funds for his re-election, obama suddenly supports same-sex marriage…again.

It’s no mystery that the gay community makes big donations to Democratic campaigns. Since obama needs donations from the deep-pocketed gay community, don’t expect him to change his position on same sex marriage again. That is, unless and until it becomes politically expedient.

Since he first took center stage within the national public eye, obama’s constantly preached about how he will have the most transparent administration in American history. In this instance, on this issue, that claim carries a semblance of truth.

What are the odds?

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/how-obamas-gay-marriage-views-have-evolved/

Nancy Pelosi and Her Misunderstanding of Catholicism.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday she supports same-sex marriage because her Catholic faith “compels” her to “be against discrimination of any kind.”  Catholic teaching on the matter states, ” While opposing “unjust discrimination” against homosexuals, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that homosexual acts are “contrary to the natural law” and can never be approved and that marriage is the sacramental union of a man and a woman.”

“My religion has, compels me–and I love it for it–to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination. I think it’s unconstitutional on top of that,” Pelosi said during her press briefing.  Pelosi called President Obama’s statement on same sex marriage, “a great day for America.”  She had didn’t comment on the fact that he felt different on this same subject two years ago.  Nonetheless, she went on to say,  “I hope this will bring people together on the same issue.  It’s a matter of time, it’s all a matter of time.  On these issues, what is inevitable to some of us is inconceivable to others. What we want to do is shorten the difference between the inevitable and the inconceivable and I think the president went a long way in doing that yesterday.”

You can watch the video here from CNS News:  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-her-catholic-faith-compels-her-support-same-sex-marriage

 

 

 

 

Chasing Moses: How The President’s War on Marriage May Dampen His Re-Election Chances.

Is Pharaoh's rainbow about to fade...?

Marriage between a man and a women, once a joyous occasion with no cultural back-lash other then a few of your old buddies (man’s perspective) teasing you about being hen pecked may now be in danger of becoming a cultural litmus test before the “I do”. The politically charged debate is now in the cross-hairs of the ever-ready Obama war machine.

President Obama, has managed a War on Guns, a War on Women, a War on Big oil, a War on Wall St., and amazingly a War on Terror; tapping out the number one villain in the world Osama Bin Laden. Only Pharaoh could boast so much—until one day he met a man called Moses who took him on a humbling swimming lesson in the Red sea. This War on Marriage may just be the stretch run gambit the president regrets later in life.

We must ask ourselves, does President Obama, like his historical, and egotistical Egyptian predecessor, have the interests of the people at heart ? Does this president agree with the interests of those involved in the Gay and Lesbian persuasion as he “evolves” on the issue, or are they being used as political pawns to be discarded after the election is over ? Here is a preview of what I think the presidents War on Marriage playbook might look like based on what I have seen so far.

First off, our president is not without help. His Hollywood and Big Media troubadours continue to create a narrative that points to a Boogieman—that would be you an me. Mothers, fathers, parents who believe deeply in their conviction that marriage is a sacred vow since time immemorial between a man and a women–it’s never been any different.

However, the President’s chief henchmen, Eric Holder is smart enough to know that time does not make an argument, after-all slavery had gone on for a long time, and so the equivocation of slavery and same sex marriage is a fairly easy sell—but a flawed one. False comparisons with ethnicity and behavior will be their narrative.

Secondly, the administration could play the racist segregation theme as well; that mothers and fathers, parents that want to uphold traditional marriage are one and the same with those bigots who were against blacks and whites marrying one another long ago. We hear these straw man arguments already, and I find those kind of comments truly offensive.

Considering that both President Obama, and Attorney General Holder are both black men who have experienced racism in their lives, yet overcame such discrimination with grit and determination, I suspect their words may resonate particularly well with those who are still struggling in life be it financially or otherwise.

Thirdly, are the issues of benefits. It would seem unfair to deny health care and certain tax benefits to a couple in love. After-all, does it seem fair to deny a sick person health care ? Considering the Obama-Care is now in the hands of the Supreme Court, I expect the president to maneuver and associate the same sex marriage debate as part and parcel of the controversial health care legislation.

If he can successfully tie that narrative in, he will pressure the Supreme’s who are no different then you and me in their human desire to be loved and respected. The strategy is simple: obfuscate the issue of same-sex marriage with healthcare enough, ultimately so you can’t have one without the other.

Finally, so what are people who believe marriage is between a man and a women to do ? Considering the above strategies in some form or another will intensify, I think the following three steps should be on every conservatives mind in some form or another.

Number one, stay on subject—marriage. This is what the debate is about, nothing else. Not healthcare, not slavery, not racial intermarriage, not even people who claim their in love. Its about an institution that has the biological advantage of having a mom and a dad for children to learn from each parent with their unique gender advantages.

Gays and Lesbians have the right to do as they please, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of us. Having no children is not an argument against traditional marriage any more then it is an argument for same sex marriage. It’s about upholding values that sustain civility for society.

Number two, marriage is a biological must for the human race to progress into a civil and technologically advanced society—it is more then just survival of the human race. Without it, I doubt seriously I would be here writing this piece, and frankly there would be few of you who would know how to even read it—let alone on a computer.

We need to be thankful to someone for this grand institution called marriage— I will leave that up to you who that is.

Number three, we need to concern ourselves with those who we disagree with on these major issues. I have had a similar conversation with some in the gay community. I care for their survival, their health, their prosperity—and as a Christian their ultimate welfare. I must admit I wasn’t always this way. Show you care, engage people you differ with in dialogue—have conversations that don’t burn bridges—the cause is worthwhile.

In the end, some may think I may be falsely mis-characterizing the president. I have thought about this, and I don’t think so. Reading both his books, (still not finished) watching him for almost four years now, seeing him instructing his Attorney General not to enforce DOMA ( Defense of Marriage Act), I believe he is making a pure political calculation no more no less.

Yet, as personable and likable as he comes off, I believe his vision for America is dangerous and most uniquely disguised as peaceful–a rare trait. For me and my family, I think the president is sailing in sacred waters which may well sink his hope and change chariot.

Special thanks to www.nationformarriage.org.

Recent Entries »