Today on the show, Ray and Ted fielded calls from audience members on a variety of topics, including the use of ethanol or E-10 in gasoline products, and what the unintended consequences it might have. There were a lot of questions and opinions thrown out, and Ray promises to get a mechanic on the show to sort out some of these issues.
Also on the show, Ray read and reflected upon the famous "Bixby Letter," written by President Abraham Lincoln to a Massachusetts mother who lost five sons in the American Civil War.
Finally, in what promises to be an ongoing issue in the state, Ray and Ted discussed the looming battle Maine faces over gay marriage, making specific mention of the Maine clergy members who recently gathered to support same-sex marriage rights in the state.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Okay, rgarding gay marriage, I'm going to try again here. I don't actually think I can put a dent in your opinion, but I just have to keep fighting the good fight. I'm sure you know how that feels.
First of all, I was disgusted by Doug Thomas' remarks this morning. I know you agree with his stance on gay marriage, but did you listen to his words? He said Californians rejected gay marriage because (and I'm quoting from memory here) "they didn't want to see men marrying their dogs." Equating homosexuality with bestiality is disgusting. It should not be tolerated on your show or anyplace else. If someone called your show and started comparing minorities to animals, you'd hang on up them. Next time Doug Thomas compares gay people to animals, I hope you do the same. I don't care if he's a state rep. Bigotry is bigotry.
(Please note, I think it's possible to disagree with gay marriage without being a bigot, but --apparently -- not for Doug Thomas.)
Okay, second, you express confidence that Maine people would not support gay marriage on the ballot, and would overturn it if enacted by the legislature. Maybe so. Probably so. But you know what? As great as democracy is, sometimes on issues like these, some things have to be decided by the legislature and the courts. If women's suffrage had been put to a vote, it would have failed. If an initiative to strike down anti-miscegenation laws had been put before the people, it would have failed. A decade after Loving vs. Virginia, more than 70% of Americans believed that interracial marriage should not be legal. 70 percent!! Sometimes leaders have to lead and the public just has to catch up.
Finally, religion. I'm not going to tell you what to believe, but I do think it's a bit presumptious of you to claim to know so definitively the word of God. The other day on the show, you went on a rant, claiming that you KNEW what God thought about this issue, and then you said (again, quoting from memory) "If God came down and said homos could marry, that would be another thing. But that's not gonna happen." Homos. Nice.
How do you KNOW with absolute certainty what God thinks? Is it because of Leviticus ("man shall not lie with man")? There's lots of stuff in the bible (don't eat shellfish, don't divorce, slaves are A-OK) we don't accept anymore. The bible was written by men. Men make mistakes, even when transcribing the word of God.
You've said that you don't believe marriage should be a civil institution. Good for you. But like it or not, it is. Unless you support a ballot initiative to invalidate every civil marriage ever performed, even among heterosexuals, that argument is a non-starter. Let's deal with the reality we have, which is that government is in the marriage business. You might not like it, but that's the way it is, and it ain't gonna change. Once we accept that reality, the unfairness of banning gay marriage is obvious.
Which brings us to civil unions. Do you support civil unions for gay couples? If so, how do you reconcile the fact that couples who enter into civil unions DO NOT enjoy all the rights of married couples? Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex partners are NOT entitled to federal benefits (including military benefits) afforded to married partners. It's very much separate but unequal.
I'm sorry to be so long-winded here, but there are a lot of aspects to this issue. I expect this debate will be ongoing, because this issue isn't going away anytime soon.
I caught the beastiality reference too. but I figured Ray would say I wasn't listening.
Ray says he hopes to have a principled discussion on the issue. I guess that means Mr Heath won't be involved in it.
I think Mainers, will surprise guys like Ray once again.
Don't forget there was a large latino catholic group in CA. They are brainwashed .
I applaud the UCC for coming out with their stance last week.
Bring this on.
"Maine Won't Discriminate"
You Betcha!!
AS for Ray knowing what God thinks..
He has a direct line didn't you know?
"Marriage " should not even be a legal term, but a religious one. Civil Union should be the only term that has any legal bearing when it comes to contracts betwen two individuals who want to live together.
People should only get "marriage" brought into it if they want to get their church to do so.
and that should have no more legal standing than a baptism or bar mitzva or whatever other religious rite.
70 million dollars evenly spent was wasted on prop 8 The biggest amount spent on any non presidential campaign.
and now it is going to the courts.
Hopefully obama will appoint 3 liberal judges in the next 4 years that use a little judicial activism in the right way.
I cannot believe any sane person would support judicial activism from either side. Judicial activism violates the Constitution. It makes the three branches of government inherently un-equal.
-----------------
I do believe civil unions are un-equal to marriage and therefore are probably un-Constiutional.
If the government were truly seeking to create an equal situation, they would create an agreement that any two people, man-woman, mom-daughter, son-father, sister-brother, two friends, etc. that would give them protection in areas of medical care, end-of-life issues and asset dispensation.
-------------------
Marriage is not a governmental institution, it is a faith based institution.
I have long said, with no offense intended to anyone, that I believe that two people who are married outside of God actually do have a civil union, in other words, a government recognized contract between two people.
------------------
I know Doug Thomas and have known him for years. While I will not speak for him, I know him enough to know that he was not equating gays to animals.
That is an arguement being made by many, that if you re-write the rules of marriage, where does it end?
I personally do not subscribe to such an idea, but there are many that do. Doug is not one of them.
I did not catch his comment this morning, but I had, I would have asked him to clarify his remark.
Rigby,
Do you think heteros are offended when I refer to them as "heteros."
I have personally long refered to the two group that way because I don't like gay and straight.
If you were offended by homo, it was not my intention to offend, anymore than when I say heteros.
--------------
I am concerned about the rhetoric around this issue.
It started with the two of you mocking what I believe God says.
If you actually listen, I say, "I believe God has spoken very clearly about this issue (whatever the issue is)."
I am always clear that it is what I believe.
I believe in God. I believe in his word.
I come at this issue based on what I believe God says about it.
The UCC spoke about what they believe God says about this issue. I did not see you mock their beliefs.
Of course their beliefs apparently agree with yours.
Convenient.
Ray
"Mock" is a trademark of your show.
You of all people should not be offended at being mocked. You being concerned about rhetoric is prety funny.
As for what Doug Thomas said,you were not listening. I am sure you have it on tape somewhere. Play it again sam.
As I have said before marriage is a term that shouldn't even be in our govt vocabulary. If someone gets "married " in a church. They should still have to have a civil licensing ceremoy performed by a govt appointed official.
We mock not necessarily your stance on an issue, but the importance you place on your stance as the be all end all of an issue.
Judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder, since no one, even you, knows what the framers had in mind for the 21st century.
I consider it judicial activism to overlook the first line of the second amendment when making a ruling. You do not.
YES WE CAN !!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27652443#27652443
The above link to Keith Olbermann is Superb commentary on Gay marriage. Ray and good ole Sarah can have their opinions. This is obviously the way the country is going. Proudly at least in my daughter's lifetime there will be one less excuse to harbor the the thought of second class citizens in this country!
I didn't listen yet, but I can only imagine the enlightenment I will gain once listening to Keith tell me how backward I am.
I guess he feels that way about the whole country.
Pretty funny, blacks and latinos were enlightened enough to vote for Barack Obama, but to ignorant to open their minds to same-sex marriage in California. I guess the President-elect can send them to re-education school.
30 states have made a declaration at the ballot box about this issue. Denying same-sex marriage has not failed at the ballot box in any state it has been voted on.
The vast majority of Americans simply do not support the concept.
I know y'all are feeling real empowered right now. Keeping reaching and pretty soon, you will overreach, just as the republicans from the 1994 victory did and the people will rise up again.
Maine people do not support this issue.
Kind of like putting chocolate sauce on a fish. There may be a few who like it, but the vast majority simply know it is wrong.
By the way, I was not denying Doug said it, I just didn't catch it.
Did Ted comment? I would be surprised he did not say something about it.
Russ,
If you daughter is gay, I am not looking to offend you, but marriage is simply not a civil institution.
The federal government sticks its nose where it does not belong all the time. Getting involved in marriage and attempting to take it over is just another example.
Marriage predates America.
I think the American government simply tried to jump on the band wagon and act like it was leading the parade.
Ray, I did not mean to mock what you believe God says, and if you felt I did, I apologize. What I meant to do was to question how you arrived at that belief. That's what good people of faith have done for centuries. Faith without examination is zealotry.
So, when you say "I believe God has spoken very clearly about this issue," I genuinely want to know what you mean by that (not to mock, but to understand).
First of all, do you mean that God has spoken clearly about gay marriage or about homosexuality itself? Where has he spoken about it? I'm aware of the section of Leviticus I quoted in my earlier comment ("man shall not lie with man"). But I'm also aware of Leviticus' invocation against shellfish: "They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." Why is one of those now considered to be perfectly okay and the other still considered an abomination?
Okay, before we tumble too far down this rabbit hole, I guess I should also say that I think a religious discussion on this matter is a red herring. Ultimately, I do not begrudge you your religious beliefs. I only take issue with them when you try to tie them to legislation. (How well do you think an anti-lobster amendment would go over in Maine?)
Ray, you write: "I have long said, with no offense intended to anyone, that I believe that two people who are married outside of God actually do have a civil union, in other words, a government recognized contract between two people."
That's fine, Ray, but it's not relevant to actual law. The law says that two people married by a judge or a JoP are married. Period. Unless you're in favor of legislation reversing that fact, your personal belief about what marriage means are off-topic. Let's talk about the laws as they're written in the books, not how you personally define them in your heart. That only muddies the water.
Again, I'm not trying to mock or belittle your beliefs, only to point out that your religious beliefs and legal definitions are two very different things. I'll never win trying to argue with you about your religious beliefs, and why should I? Your beliefs are your beliefs, and you're entitled to them. But I will stand against you when it comes to how the law should be applied.
Ray, you're absolutely right that your stand with the majority on this issue. Most Americans simply aren't ready to accept gay marriage. But I'll again point out that the majority of Americans weren't ready to accept interracial marriage before Loving v. Virginia. Nor were they ready ten years later. But we got there. Long after it was the law of the land, we got there.
Also: Your numbers are shrinking and mine are growing, and the numbers on my side are younger. Maybe that will change, but I doubt it. In the past two centuries, America has evolved again and again to become more tolerant and more inclusive. I believe with all my heart that gay marriage will be (legally) accepted in all 50 states in our lifetimes. And there will be people who never accept it morally, but those people will be fewer and fewer with every generation. I believe this.
Once again, Ray, I want to stress it is not my intention to mock or offend. I understand things can get pretty thorny once we start nosing around each other's religious beliefs. But while I disagree with you vehemently on this issue and many others, I hope I express that disagreement with respect.
Best wishes,
Rigby Maguire
Rigby,
I am uncertain what you mean. The law currently denies same-sex couples the right to marry. Clearly, the law is on my side in this issue.
My faith, I am a Christian, tells me that couple of the same-sex marrying is not the natural order of things. The first chapter of Romans speaks very clearly about the issue of homosexuality.
Since you asked about my faith, I will tell you what I believe.
I believe we are all children of God, regardless of whether we believe it or not.
I believe that anyone can gain salvation through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and Savior.
I believe we are all equal before God, regardless of our station in life and he will judge us accordingly, based on our actions.
I do not believe we are called to judge our fellow man, however, I do believe we are called to judge the actions of our fellow man.
Specifically to the issue of homosexuality:
I do believe that the act of homosexual sex is a sin, which I believe the Bible lays out in Leviticus and Romans.
I also believe all sin is equal, a lie is as bad as murder in the eyes of God because sin is a transgression against God, we humans are the ones who place degrees on a person actions.
I believe all sin is forgiven by God simply for the asking.
I do not believe (as some Christian Churches teach) that homosexuals cannot go to heaven. Again, all sin being equal, the sin of homosexual sex is no worse or no better than any other sinful action.
My faith tells me that marriage is an institution created by God between one man, one woman and God. That the union of one man, one woman and God is sacred.
I do not hate homosexuals.
I do not want homosexuals or any other citizen to be mistreated.
I simply believe that from birth, some of us are precluded from certain things. As an example, as a male, I cannot give birth to a child (or wire the home surround sound system .... but that is another issue).
If you had asked me ten years ago, I would have said that homosexuality was a chosen lifestyle.
Today, I believe it is reasonable to believe that people are born with a tendancy toward homosexuality. I do not find that incompatible because there are any number of out-of-the-norm things we find in nature.
PLEASE NOTE: Just so there is no misunderstanding, out-of-the-norm is not a disparaging remark but merely a reference that being homosexual is not the norm as anywhere from 3 to 10% of the population claims to be homosexual which means over 90% is not.
My faith is the most important thing in my life. In my mind, it defines who I am and it is the core of my family's foundation.
I do not wish harm to anyone but it is simply impossible for me to support something that I believe God has so clearly spoken against.
I will never stand in support of something God stands against.
--------------
This is not directed to anyone in particular, but I find this observation interesting.
Those who are attempting to change the natural order of our society rail against those who stand on the ground of their faith in opposition, yet cannot wait to embrace anyone connected with a faith-based organization who supports their position as a means to legitimize their efforts.
The churches that came forward recently to support same-sex marriage in Maine were embraced immediately for their faith-filled position by the very people who have for years claimed I am intolerant, bigoted and prejudiced because my faith leads me to a different conclusion than that of the churches who support the issue.
Rigby,
I was not offended when I said you all mocked my faith. That was more a comment at Bruce because he is always preaching tolerance at me ... yet he lacked any where my beliefs were concerned.
It is almost impossible to offend me.
My wife says I am simply not deep enough to be offended by others .... she says it with a smile, I think.
I am uncertain what you mean. The law currently denies same-sex couples the right to marry. Clearly, the law is on my side in this issue.
Yes, but my position is that the law is unfair and discriminatory. Your position seems to be that it isn't unfair because civil marriages between heterosexuals aren't really marriages either.
Let me ask you this: If there was a ballot question to invalidate every single heterosexual marriage that was not performed in a church, would you support it? I sure wouldn't, nor would the vast majority Americans. If you would, then at least you're being intellectually consistent. If you wouldn't, than your personal view that civil marriages aren't really marriages is irrelevant. If civil marriages are a reality, than barring same-sex marriage is inherently unfair.
Okay, on the religion front, I'll ask a third time: Yes, Leviticus clearly inveighs against homosexuality. But as I've repeatedly brought up, it also inveighs against eating shellfish (calling it an "abomination"). So, did God change His mind? Or did someone decide that parts of the bible were important to pay attention to and parts weren't? Boy, I'd sure like to have been a part of that meeting!
Rigby,
I mean this with sincerity and the utmost respect as I feel you have extended the same to me. I caveat my remarks with that statement because I am un-certain how my response will read or be taken.
Look, I did not make the rules. Additionally, I am a flawed human being who is a sinner (I believe being fat is a sin, as an example).
I do not and have not ever said that I could follow every rule in the Bible because as a flawed human being I am incapable of being perfect.
That said, it doesn't mean that I don't try ... and of course, fail ... and it surely doesn't mean that I would stand in support of something I believe goes so clearly against the teaching of the Bible.
This fight by the gay movement is not about tolerance and equality. This fight for them is about forcing society to accept their lifestyle as equal to the heterosexual lifestyle.
That battle will fail, even with the most enlightened of people.
They are fighting the wrong battle.
If they were simply looking for equality, they should be fighting to establish a civil contract that allows any two people to enter into it and provide legal protections.
Marriage is not an inclusive institution.
I did not set the rules. It is just the way it is.
"Maine people do not support this issue".
We will see.
Heath could not even get a petition filled for this last ballot on one of his hate issues. And we all know people will sign just about any petition.
Ray I tolerate your beliefs and will defend your right to have them. But unfortunately y'all always want to push your beliefs on everyone.
You are a public figure,(i na small pond)but nevertheless in the public eye more than the average citizen. Someone has to rebut you once in awhile. This is not a lack of tolerance, but an opposing view.
As for not catching Doug's comment SEE you don't listen. You are anxious to make yourself heard.
"Marriage predates America."
The absence of women's suffrage also predates America. I guess if that is a qualification for not changing something. We should be turning back the clock on many things according to the rw.(you)
Ray you did not answer his question. He asked if you believe marriages ( heterosexul) that are not performed by a church are valid.
Ray, It is a very thoughtful and insightful commentary. It does not slam anyone. It is only six minutes and I think six minutes well spent.
I don't get the government issue. If they issue licenses, they are in the marriage business. Since issuing a license means nothing (to you) until the marriage is consummated "before God", I don't get the problem with issuing the licenses. The Church has to carry out the ceremony. If the Church doesn't - and no one I know of has any inkling of making them - then there is no marriage, at least in your mind. It costs you nothing, it deprives you of nothing and in your eyes it is not legitimate. So why all the fuss about letting the government issue licenses. It would be like the Maine Dept. of Fish & Game issuing Manatee fishing licenses. Meaningless because there are none here. If churches aren't performing the ceremonies, the license is also meaningless - NO?
My daughter is straight, but it doesn't matter. I would never be offended if she were gay. I would be more concerned about one of your kids. Should one turn out to be gay, how do you explain to them that you think they are not entitled to the same happiness, rights and privileges that you and Dee Dee have enjoyed?
I personally know of a young boy who was in a Jehovah's Witness family. He grew up a lamb in a lion's den. Huge guilt and inferiority complex. At 30, he is still messed up psychologically. He needed some assurance from somewhere he was really OK and never got it. More tolerant people in the 21st Century won't put up with that any longer.
Bruce,
You are slowing down on me.
I addressed that early on.
I have always said, if the marriage is not between one man, one woman and God, it is a civil contract, not a marriage.
That is not to offend anyone, I simply believe marriage is a religious insitution.
Keep in mind, when you are watching the show, you only see what you see but that does not mean you see all that is going on.
I don't need to be anxious to be heard, it is my show. Very odd comment from you.
Heath's petition was wrong. He attempted to ban homosexuals from existence. He over-reached and no one was interested. Not hard to figure out.
Granting women the right to vote did not change the natural order of things.
------------
Russ,
my children:
If one was gay, I would love them just as I do now.
How do they know that? Because we have the discussions about everything. I have heard the horror stories when one is gay and afraid to tell their family because they fear not being loved and expect rejection.
I had that happen in my own family.
A relative I am very close to and have always been very close to was afraid to tell Dee Dee and me. When he finally did, I said "Why did you wait so long?"
He replied, that he feared rejection. I said, "from me, I have known and loved you all my life like my brother."
He said he knew that but friends of his had the same sort of relationships and they were rejected. He said he did not really believe we would feel that way, but he was afraid to take the chance because you never know how people will re-act.
It taught me a lesson that I never wanted my children to worry, so dee dee and I talk about these issues with them.
They also know where I stand on this issue. They understand that it is not about discrimination or a lack of tolerance toward homosexuals. It is about my faith and what I believe God says.
They get that. Faith is very personal and I do not demonize those who are following what they believe God is telling them on this issue just because we disagree.
I just think they are fighting the wrong battle.
Russ,
The only thing I can equate it to is me finding a large parade and running up in front of it claiming I was the leader.
The government jumped on the marriage bandwagon and much like most of what it does, it allowed special interest to get involved, conferred special status, tax status and other things which is why we have the current problem.
Government's role, in my opinion, regarding marriage should be one from an archival standpoint. They can log the marriages perform for the sake of a public record, but nothing beyond that.
Ray, I'll ask these questions as directly as I can. One is religious, the other is political. I've asked them both before.
1. Do you believe eating shellfish is a sin? If not, why not?
2. Would you favor a constitutional amendment banning civil marriage between heterosexuals? If not, why not?
Thank you.
In answer to your first question, no I do not believe eating shellfish is an abomination.
In Acts Chapter 10, Peter is hungry and when God speaks to him he says he has never eaten anything unclean, meaning un-holy according to the laws of Moses in Leviticus. God said nothing I have cleansed is un-holy.
The birth of Jesus Christ, his death at the cross and ressurection(spelling) three days later fulfilled God's law and promise and made everything new again.
Acts does not invalidate Leviticus, but rather explains that God has cleanse what was previously unclean.
---------------------------
Point number two.
Interesting question that I have not considered before and therefore do not want to have a knee-jerk reaction to. Let me give it some thought.
Please remember, I am not speaking for anyone other than myself. I said I believe marriages that lack God as the foundation are nothing more than a civil contract between two people.
I am not speaking for other Christians as some or many may view this position as too extreme.
Would you favor a constitutional amendment banning civil marriage between heterosexuals? If not, why not?
Rigby
--------------------
I have thought about this quite a bit. It is a very good question.
No, I would not favor a Consitutional amendment that bans civil marriage between heteros.
Here is why. I think that issue is simply to complicated to convey. We have a long history of one man, one woman being married in this country and the state has recognized those unions as marriage, regardless of the religious aspect of the union.
I am not sure how you even begin to communicate the concept because I believe so many people would be offended at the notion that their union is invalid, they would never hear the arguement.
I will give you an example.
Take the homosexual issue and some churches.
Some churches, some pastors and other religious leaders condemn homosexuality as the ruination of our society. They say awful things about homosexuals, tell them they will burn in hell and that their lifestyle is an abomination to God.
Then they close out their message with, "And oh, by the way, Jesus loves you."
After the tirade, do you think any homosexual who was spoken to in such a manner, heard the last and most important sentence?
I know I don't.
I would favor a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage once and for all, however, because I do not want the Courts to do so.
This issue is a reflection of the values of the people and that is best left to the Legislature.
I do not want the Courts imposing the values of 9 people on the 304 million of us.
I guess what I do not understand is why this battle is being fought on the ground it is being fought on.
Why not seek a legal contract, recognized by the government, that allows any two adults to be joined so that they are legally protected, enjoy any and all tax benefits, survivorship, medical issues, etc.
In other words, have a legally binding contract that allows any to people to join and gives them the legal benefits of marriage from a government perspective.
If this is truly about equality and civil rights, then the fight should not be over marriage but over equal legal benefits for any two contractually bound adults.
Of course you would love them just the same if one were gay. What I want to know is how do you explain to them that you are on the protest line holding a sign saying your son or daughter is not entitled to the same love and happiness as you and Dee Dee.
What you say to your friend is that it is OK for him to be gay and you don't look down on him for it. AS LONG AS you don't expect the same rights and happiness as I have. IF you try, I am going to do what I can to stop you. To me that is a pretty tentative and conditional acceptance of equality.
A while back, you accused me of drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. When it comes to the Bible, you own the whole jug. Think how old the Bible is and when printing presses were invented. There's 2500 plus years of stories in the Bible. Written in both Ancient Greek and Hebrew, not English. For over 2000 years these stories kicked around being written by hand, passed on to generation to generation. There are numerous versions of the same story. With an unknown history of custody for a particular story and a lack of understanding the people of the time had that we have today. I think it presumptuous of anyone to say they know exactly what God's word was thousands of years ago. As an Earth Sciences major years ago, I know with certainty that the Bible is wrong on the origins of the earth and evolution. Why isn't it wrong on God's feelings towards Gays. You're betting someone else's happiness and life on a faith and belief, not KNOWLEDGE. I think that to high a a price to pay.
Russ,
You can be principled without being hateful or without mistreating someone.
You are the one placing conditions.
I can love my children unconditionally but that does not mean I agree with everything they do.
I cannot change the laws of nature and try as you might, neither can you.
You act as though marriage is some concept that the government thought up, created some rules for and now as society is changing, they will simply change the rules.
Marriage does not work that way. It is not a government concept and the government does not have dominion over it. Just because you or they say they do, that does not make it so.
I can call a cat a dog all I want, but the truth never changes, it is still a cat.
-----------------
You make some pretty bold pronouncements about the Bible. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not fact, it is your opinion, just as mine is my opinion.
My truth is based on what the Bible says.
Your truth is apparently based on something else.
Your definitive statement about the earth's origins is telling. You cannot prove it, yet you are certain you are right and I am wrong.
None of us where here when the earth was created. The scientific theories about the origin are just that, theories. No one can prove them because no one was around to document the origin.
Surely you see that.
Ray said"Granting women the right to vote did not change the natural order of things'.
Some would disagree.
At the time there were religious groups who said it was against god's law.
I probably am slowing down in my old age.
"Marriage does not work that way. It is not a government concept and the government does not have dominion over it. Just because you or they say they do, that does not make it so"
What about divorce. is that outlined in bible or is that a govt concep?.
I would say Moses was running a type of govt at his time.Whenever there are leaders and followers it is a govt of sorts.
Your govt has a bible instead of a constitution to guide it.
I don't think so. I respect and admire the Constitution and would dearly love to see the country governed by it.
The Bible and the Constitution are not incompatible documents.
I am in full agreement that civil unions are inherently un-equal to marriages within the confines of our laws and how marriage is supported in law.
I have said that repeatedly and did here when the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled as such.
Let me ask you.
Why fight the marriage battle?
It cannot be over equality. A contractual arrangement between any two people that conveys all the same benefits as marriage sanctioned by the government accomplishes the "equal protection under the law" issue.
This drive to re-define marriage is not about equality. It is about acceptance. It is about one group attempting to use the legal process to force another group to accept their lifestyle as equal.
This battle is about acceptance for the gay right movement, not about equality.
"I don't think so. I respect and admire the Constitution and would dearly love to see the country governed by it".
As long as it is run by your interpretation. and interpreted by judges who agree with you.
I see mainers are buying up guns now because they are fearful that they will not be able to have a gun on hand to support their local well regulated militia once our new president is sworn in.
But if the cat is a dog to someone else, then there is no harm to you. So why not leave well enough alone. If I want to call Sylvester, Fido, Ray Richardson can laugh, snicker and think it's ridiculous, but he shouldn't go out and do anything to prevent me from my 'error"
In the town next to where I was born, 350 years ago they were burning people under the guise if "God's work". Think how far we have come since then. Picture yourself trying to argue to one of the accusers that there are no witches and they shouldn't burn people. That's how I feel dealing with you! :)
In science there is a proven theory of "uniformatarianism", basically what went on now, went on in the past. Only people who think in terms of "intelligent design" which has been proven to be an unfounded theory,think that the Earth isn't 5.5 or so billion years old.
The reverse of your statement is how do you know Jesus was who he said he was you weren't around. I believe he existed, but I see no proof he is truly ths son of God. Since you weren't around to ask him, how do you know. You know by Faith. Faith means you believe, you do not know. Fine if you want to believe it, but you do not know it.
It is not me who is closed minded on these issues.
The earth may in fact be several billion years old. I do not know and neither does anyone else.
If it is a billion or several billion years old, that does not invalidate my belief that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. God deals in eternity, not a 24 hour clock like we humans do.
A day to him could be a million years to us.
It is kind of like evolution. The theory of evolution may or may not be true. Doesn't matter to me and I am not threatened by it if it is true.
The God I believe in can do anything. If he chose to use evolution as the means to make this all work, that would not surprise me nor threaten me.
I do not put limits on God.
The gay marriage situation or idea is simply wrong. I do not mean to offend you or anyone over it, but there is nothing anyone can say or do to change that fact for me. God himself would have to tell me that I have made a mistake on this issue in order for me to change my mind.
-----------------------
No one here has addressed my basic premise. This fight is not about equal rights. This fight is about the gay rights crowd seeking to force society to accept or endorse their lifestyle as equal.
If this were about equal rights, the fight would be to establish a contract, recognized by the government, that gave all the benefits of marriage to any to people who choose to legally bind themselves to this government-sanctioned contract. Brother-sister, Mom-daughter, two lifelong friends, whatever ..... that would be a fight for equal rights.
This fight is to take something that has stood the test of time and attempt to redefine it so that a certain segment of society can feel accepted.
I am sorry, but this is wrong. I do not believe homosexuals should be discriminated against, but I will never support same-sex marriage because I believe it to be morally wrong under the rules God has laid out for us.
Post a Comment