Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Christian Church approves of Gay Marriage

Christian Church approves of Gay Marriage

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone
The United Church of Christ has officially endorsed same sex marriage. It is the first major denomination to do so. After Spain, Belgium, then Netherlands and Canada have all approved fully or in part pro-same sex marriage laws, this has to be seen as a major blow to some more conservative backers of ‘traditional marriage.’ The historic vote by the members of the church overwhelmingly affirmed equal marriage rights regardless of gender.

The marriage equality resolution (1) affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and declares that the government should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who choose to marry and share fully in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized marriage; (2)affirms equal access to the basic rights, institutional protections and quality of life conferred by the recognition of marriage, (3) calls for an end to rhetoric that fuels hostility, misunderstanding, fear and hatred expressed toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons, (4) asks officers of the church to communicate the resolution to local, state and national legislators, urging them to support equal marriage rights, (5) calls upon all settings of the church to engage in serious, respectful and prayerful discussion of the covenantal relationship of marriage and equal marriage rights, (6) calls upon congregations, after prayerful, biblical, theological, and historical study, to consider adopting Wedding Policies that do not discriminate against couples based on gender, and (7) urges congregations and individuals of the UCC to prayerfully consider and support local, state and national legislation to grant equal marriage rights to couples regardless of gender, and to work again legislation, including constitutional amendments, which denies rights to couples based on gender.

I do find it very interesting that they only encourage member congregations to make this resolution part of their church and don’t require it.

Cross post from http://www.iwt.blogspot.com

Powered by

About TheCO

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Full marriage equality. Now that’s a totally Christian concept in my book. Profound thanks to the courageous members of the United Church of Christ Synod who have approached this matter in a Christian, common sense manner.

  • http://iwt.blogspot.com Theco

    I was kinda surprised at this myself, good for them.

  • Mary

    The UCC Synod does not require any law from its individual members. Its policy that each individual church have autonomy – like federal vs. state law in the US. Each church is represented by a member of the Synod, 80% of whom voted for this change.

  • http://iwt.blogspot.com theco

    I wasn’t sure how the UCC worked, being one of those Eeeevil Zionist Agnostics Out to Rule the World i often have trouble telling one group of religious folk from another.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Christians all over America are beginning to realize and assert that the the Religious Right is not representative of all — or even most — Christians and that the intolerance, bigotry, divisiveness and unconstitutional co-mingling of God and government the Religious Right promotes to serve policies that do not even come close to reflecting the Gospel is mutually destructive to both church and state.

    Check out Christian Alliance for Progress to see how Christians who understand the Word actually feel about the Religious Right.

  • PseudoErsatz

    Not unexpected. UCC is one of the first to support SSM.

    Furthermore, you can expect the following from :

    1) Decline in membership. Do your Google searches. You will discover that this is one of the congregations with declining membership. The exodus will go to more conservative churches.

    2) Rumors of Church split. Just like the Episcopal church. Constituents returning to their respective congregrations will discover some very concerned groups. There will be motions to secede from the UCC, and statements issued that intend to distance certain UCC congregations from this representative group.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Is this decline directly attributable to the fact that they have taken a Christian approach to SSM that more conservative groups are too self righteous to appreciate? If that is the case, then I would be proud to be a member of the UCC congregation.

  • http://iwt.blogspot.com theco

    P.E.,

    Not to rain to hard on your parade but it looks to me like _all_ Churches are losing members, or at least the ones that keep accurate records.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    But, theco. Conservative religious right Christians are the epitome of honesty, integrity and family values. They would never inflate their numbers so as to misrepresent the impact they have on religion and secular society.

  • http://iwt.blogspot.com theco

    Silas,

    Of course they are.

    Did i tell you about this lovely ocean front property i have in Montana? 124 acres over all with 36 being along a pristince white sand beach. I’m willing to let it go at a great price, personal history, _really_, i just can’t stand to be here anymore.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    *sigh* another gay marriage post.

    Would scientists quick go and find out if there’s a gay gene or not so I know what to think about this whole mess?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Should a church really be concerned about a decline in its membership when the members who are leaving are doing so because that church has become more tolerant and inclusive?

    Also, I am curious about why the existence or non-existence of a “gay” gene is relevant to Matthew T. Sussman’s formation of an opinion on this issue.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    Isn’t a church saying that it approves or disapproves of a particular “law” some kind of problem with that separation thing that everyone talks about only when it suits their “needs”?

  • PseudoErsatz

    theco: Quite right. My guess is that as more churches turn down its ‘light’ to the same level of illumination as the community around them, more and more of its members–in regards to church attentence and membership–will conclude, “Why bother?”

    Silas: You’re right, it is funny how both libs and cons can define “Christian” as the perspective that agrees with them. Somewhere along the way being “Christian” went from functioning as the general glue that held society together to it being used as a political tool. The conservatives have held it long enough, so I guess it is some sort of retribution to have it (slowly) being removed from their grasp to be held proudly by the liberals. It is also no surprise that those who will soon fully wield it will want to politically define the parameters by which it can be held. The good thing about this whole process is that the true “Church” (from the Biblical sense) will finally come to realize two things–1) that both sides have the definition of Christianity screwed up, and 2) they will clearly see how Christianity came to be influenced by society, rather than vice-versa.

  • Tristan

    Breaking news on CNNNNNN :

    Gay church approves of heterosexual marriages ……..

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Isn’t a church saying that it approves or disapproves of a particular “law” some kind of problem with that separation thing that everyone talks about only when it suits their “needs”?

    The Church didn’t approve of any law, but it approved the recognition of my relationship on an equivalent level to yours, within the halls of worship. It made an approval on a civic level not a governmental, legislative one.

  • Dr. Tristan, M.D.

    Breaking news on Fox-In-The-Henhouse news:

    Gay Church approves of Gay relationships ……

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    PseudoErsatz wrote:“Somewhere along the way being ‘Christian’ went from functioning as the general glue that held society together to it being used as a political tool.”

    Indeed, it has and may God have mercy upon all of us.

    Now, do you suppose that this is the result of the diversification of religious faith that has occurred concurrently with an increase in religious tolerance or was it the opportunistic politicians who found a small yet politically significant group of lost and confused souls they could exploit for votes?

    As an aside, shouldn’t it be the liberals rather than the conservatives who use Christianity as a political tool? After all, liberal philosophies have a lot more in common with the teachings of Christ than conservative philosophies — especially free market capitalism — do.

  • http://purplepew.org V.L. Carey

    I think the UCC Synod got it right regarding gay marriage; and its encouraging that 80% of the synod voted in favor of marriage equality.

    The gay marriage debate will only grow hotter as “God is still speaking.” What God is saying through churches like the UCC and the Episcopal Church is that homosexuality is NOT a sin, and the Bible doesn’t say that it is. Therefore, “marriage is honorable in all…”

    This is what the debate will eventually lead to: the truth that God is revealing. And churches and households will be divided: those who believe the truth and those who don’t.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Not unlike the divisions we see now, V.L.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    it became used as a political tool when it’s (self-appointed?) leaders began portraying the religion that is currently in power in the most powerful nation in the world as being a weak victim who is under constant assault.

    want to oppress a group of people? Tell the oppressors that they are ‘defending’ a way of life.

    How people cannot see this stuff is beyond me.

    ‘Defend’ prostelyzing in school.

    ‘Defend’ family values from the tv, the media, Hollywood, liberals, gay people, and damn….why are so many against ‘family values’? Hmmm…what could it mean?

    ‘Defend’ the unborn from their own possibly liberal mothers.

    ‘Defend’ religious fables about the origins of man and earth against rejection by the scientific/educational community.

    ‘Defend’ the idolatry of our faith from activist judges who don’t want our idols in their ‘office’

    etc. etc. ad nauseum.

    fear works. fear as a political tool works brilliantly. Perhaps if you cannot see it put to use within your own community, then study mine sometime.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Marriage may be considered by some as an institution ordained by God. In actuality marriage is secularly the creation of a corporate entity. Two people enter into a contract. It’s as simple as that. We’ve taken a simple, lovely concept and made it into this horrible, confusing Pandora’s box of finance and emotions.

    In the early days, families arranged marriages. That still happens in some cultures today. One has to wonder if such customs are outdated or borderline barbaric. I believe that marriages should be forever. I also believe that we’ve made the dissolution of the same too easy. There is such a thing as family value. There’s no question about it. But, what lingers is, what exactly constitutes the term? Two people who love each other and want to enter into this contract should be encouraged to prosper and preserve their union regardless of the genders involved.

    Nobody’s condoning bestiality. Nobody’s saying that the encouragement of the same will lead to pedophilia or the erosion of the family unit. It creates an alternative family unit which has just as much a right to exist and grow as a conventional union.

    Looking at the issue from a religious perspective I can see why there is division among the ranks. There’s always been a great debate about sex withing the confines of Christianity. And surely the advent of Islam and its subsequent growth was probably fed by the tyrannical methods used by the Church to secure and enslave converts. When a religion reduces women and or anyone who deviates from the missionary heterosexual lifestyle to second-class status, the state and secular society has a moral obligation to insure that these religious customs do not become the norm outside the confines of a church. That, in and of itself, seems like common sense to me.

  • http://www.dorksandlosers.com Tan The Man

    Wow. This event is about 5 years sooner than my prediction. But I still hold fast to my 10 year prediction of the Catholic Church approving gay marriage.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    The Catholic Church approving? Never.

    I would say it’s more likely that in 10 years, the rest of the world will okay gay marriage, the Catholic Church will voice it’s opposition, resign itself to the fact that it’s views are considered yet again oppressive and exclusionary, (and increasingly isolationist), but it will have made it’s point, and then we all move on.

    That’s my bet.

    Gay marriage will save the taxpayer over 1 billion a year. Even the General Accounting Office agrees with that.

    The health insurance rates for everybody will fall, as more and more people settle into monogamy. Even things like home ownership will increase. The small effects on society are what will finally convince people of equality for all, but something like that doesn’t benefit the church. Continued control over people’s behavior does, so they will continue to speak out on behavior.

    My opinion.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Giant stadium seating fundamentalist ranthouses aren’t losing membership. From what I can see they’re building bigger facilities with gyms, sports fields and super duper broadcast studios.

    Dave

  • http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com Mike Williamson

    It’s amazing how the word “marriage” sets people off.

    “Oh, I don’t mind them having a relationship LIKE a marriage with the same RIGHTS as being married as long as we agree that it’s NOT REALLY a marriage, which was created by God in 3996 BC…”

    Yet they can never find the scripture…since Solomon married to cement treaties, and then Henry VIII created his own church to have multiple wives (in series, granted, but…)

    The “one man one woman” thing is quite recent and strictly Western. And usually only on paper and largely ignored.

    But it’s sacred. Trust Us.

    And gay unions should be Separate But Equal.

  • http://iwt.blogspot.com theco

    Does this make you undecided now? And what does it matter either way what two (or more) other people are doing regardless of their gender if they are consenting?

    Comment 11 posted by Matthew T. Sussman on July 5, 2005 01:36 PM:

    *sigh* another gay marriage post.

    Would scientists quick go and find out if there’s a gay gene or not so I know what to think about this whole mess?

  • http://iwt.blogspot.com theco

    Not really. Unlike other churches they aren’t cohersing people to force others to tow the line, and they aren’t even expressing approval of a law or laws that some states don’t have, but simply of a religious state.

    Comment 13 posted by andy marsh on July 5, 2005 02:18 PM:

    Isn’t a church saying that it approves or disapproves of a particular “law” some kind of problem with that separation thing that everyone talks about only when it suits their “needs”?

  • http://iwt.blogspot.com theco

    Jeeze Williamson,

    Go plug your upcoming Books
    (and here)

    Somewhere else, we’re having a serious discussion you rat fink bastard and we don’t need your sales pitches!

    Comment 26 posted by Mike Williamson on July 5, 2005 11:38 PM:

    It’s amazing how the word “marriage” sets people off.

  • TBJ

    Interesting posts on all fronts..

    I just have one question:

    How come we are all equals when it comes to our “obligations” as US Citizens, but we are not when it comes to our rights?

    Examples:

    Obligation or requirement: Payment of Taxes; we all gotta do it(well at least the ones of us that work).

    Right: Marriage, only straights can do it.

    Hmmm..

    Does not, and never has, made any sense to me. Sexuality only comes into question in the most unimportant of issues.

  • http://iwt.blogspot.com theco

    Shhh!

    No introducing reason and logic into discussions of religion!

    Bad boy!

    Comment 30 posted by TBJ on July 5, 2005 11:49 PM:

    Interesting posts on all fronts..

    I just have one question:

  • http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com Mike Williamson

    I can’t find the link anywhere, but last year, I got an email from a “conservative” forum about the “extreme liberal” MA judges, and the threat to our Precious Bodily Fluids.

    You see, the logic went, if two women have a relationship, they can’t have heterosexual sex…so they’d have to be masturbating…

    BUT!!!!

    How would we KNOW they were masturbating? And not just PRETENDING to masturbate for the opportunity to have the rights married people have?

    Yes, that was the actual gist of a five page paper.

    IT just boggles me, the “logic,” the particular concern, and the definite psychological issues this man has.

  • http://iwt.blogspot.com theco

    “Precious bodily fluids”? Ye Dogs the General lives!

  • PseudoErsatz

    “As an aside, shouldn’t it be the liberals rather than the conservatives who use Christianity as a political tool? After all, liberal philosophies have a lot more in common with the teachings of Christ than conservative philosophies — especially free market capitalism — do.”

    Nope. As I said before in other similarly-themed responses, those who use Conservative or Liberal tools to create an image of Jesus Christ then worship that image are practicing idolatry. The Conservatives equating the sin as inseparable from the sinner–hence “condemn the individual”–is just as contrary to Jesus’ teachings as those who think that the ‘Love’ that Jesus spoke of in regards to ‘Loving our neighbors’ means never confronting our ‘neighbors’ about actions and behaviors that are contrary to his words and God’s perfection.

    Neither one of us would know what Jesus would say about “coerced compassion” from a decree from a welfare state; we don’t know what Jesus would say about seizing money from people against their will to be used for others. We only know that Jesus would say, “Render yourselves to God”. If we were in His presence, He would not care about our political persuasion, but about what we have done to further His kingdom. I would venture to guess that people who read posts at this site can speak of the actions and the names and faces of individuals who have helped, encouraged, or taught them something very important about life over the years more readily than how much a government program has helped them.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    “…in regards to ‘Loving our neighbors’ means never confronting our ‘neighbors’ about actions and behaviors that are contrary to his words and God’s perfection.”

    The Scripture with regard to confronting our neighbors about their actions and behaviors is in Matthew 7:1-5:

    1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

    5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

    We are all sinners, mere mortal humans subject to the natural weaknesses of our temporal flesh and, as such, we all fall short of God’s perfection and are therefore unfit to judge the actions and behaviors of our fellow sinners, whether we love them or not.

    I often wonder what Jesus would think about the need for compassion to be coerced and how that has furthered His Kingdom on Earth.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    I am never ceased to be amazed about how those verses are twisted to mean we must all endorse every behavior.

    Do those verses mean I can’t say pedophilia is wrong?

    Do those verses mean I can’t say rape is wrong?

    Do those verses mean the rest of the Bible which talks about moral behavior is wrong?

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Abraham’s behavior in today’s world would be unlawful and considered morally wrong.

    David’s propensity to violence would be akin to that of Osama bin Laden.

    Crucifixtion would be unconstitutional as cruel and unusal punishment.

    Seeing ghosts on the road to Damascus would be considered lunacy.

    Ah yes, the Bible is a moral guide and compass.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    […] we all fall short of God’s perfection and are therefore unfit to judge the actions and behaviors of our fellow sinners […]

    I guess that puts all of us Blogcritics out of business… ;)

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    If God were perfect how would He explain the human race?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Matthew 7:1-5 cannot be construed to mean that we all must endorse every behavior, only that we are not fit to judge the sins of our fellow sinners because we all suffer the same weaknesses of the flesh.

    As Americans, however, we are fit to define crimes as those actions and behaviors that deny or violate civil and human rights.

    Rape and child molestation/exploitation are obvious violations of human and civil rights, so yes, we can indeed say that rape and child molestation/exploitation are crimes.

    Furthermore, we can investigate, arrest and indict people who are suspected of having committed such crimes and, if they are found guilty in a court of law, we can even take away their freedom so that they cannot violate anyone else’s rights.

    Actions and behaviors that are proscribed in the Scriptures but do not deny or violate civil and human rights fall into that gray area known as “sin,” which no mortal human is fit to judge or condemn.

    It is all we mortal beings can do to keep our own sins in check. Taking on the additional burden of judging, condemning and punishing the sins of our fellow sinners is way beyond the purview of humanity. This is the reason for the good advice Jesus gave us in Matthew 7:1-5.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    The Bible says God knows the future.So – if God knows the future, do we have free will? I mean – since God already knows what we are going to do – then we really don’t have any choice. We seem to have a choice because we don’t know what we are going to do. But – if God knows the future then reality is like a movie that’s already been written and it’s like we are watching the movie for the first time – so we don’t know what’s going to happen – but God has already seen the movie and he knows what’s going to happen – and that’s it. The movie can’t change.

    What this means is – there really is no such thing as “free will”. Free Will implies that we have a choice and that we can do A or we can do B but if God already knows we are going to do A then we are going to do A. We can’t chose to do B because if we chose B then God would have been wrong about knowing we were going to chose A, and God can’t be wrong. Thus there really is no real choice.

    And – since God can see into the future – then God must know his own future – and therefore God has no free will either. Since God already knows what he’s going to do – he can’t change his mind without already knowing he’s going to change his mind, can he?

    So praying to God for God to do something has no effect because in praying to God to do something – you are lobbying God to make a different decision or it influence him to decided something different than what he has already foreseen he is going to do. In praying you are wasting your time because God already knew what he was going to do long before you were born and that is the only thing he’s going to do. God can not change his mind.God is totally bound by his own laws and has absolutely no free will to change anything in even the slightest way.

    Being able to see into “the future” is the most limiting power of all because once you can see the future then you can see your own future and you no longer have the illusion of choice. You become infinitely powerless by becoming infinitely powerful.

    Where is the God is perfection part? Is having absolutely no power and no free will and no choice perfection?

  • Nancy

    Tan, I know I’m kinda late w/this comment, but – the Catholic church approve of gay marriage w/in 10 years!? Man, in 100 years, they just MIGHT decide that women have souls & can hold equal positions in the church, and you think gay approval in 10? You are seriously over-optimistic, Dude.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Predestination and free will as they are portrayed in the Scriptures is not easy to understand or explain. Seeker’s Trove has an interesting article about this topic, as well as many others.

  • http://iwt.blogspot.com theco

    Improve Comedy?

    Comment 39 posted by Silas Kain on July 6, 2005 01:00 PM:

    If God were perfect how would He explain the human race?

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    lol…

    Giant stadium seating fundamentalist ranthouses aren’t losing membership. From what I can see they’re building bigger facilities with gyms, sports fields and super duper broadcast studios.

    Yup. And recent studies show many Americans are relocating to the south and west where loads of these ranthouses exist and thrive.

    Breaking news on CNNNNNN :

    Gay church approves of heterosexual marriages …….

    Funny, but CNNNNNN is late on the uptake; the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Church (my pro-GLBT Christian denomination) has approved of het unions (and GLBT unions) since its founding more than 30 years ago.

    If God were perfect how would He explain the human race?

    Interesting; earlier today I read an essay by Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong that addressed this question while discussing the topic of evolution. Rev. Spong’s conclusion is that God may be perfect, but her/his creation obviously was not and is not.

    Should a church really be concerned about a decline in its membership when the members who are leaving are doing so because that church has become more tolerant and inclusive?

    Yes, if one is sincere in being concerned for the souls of those departing intolerant people. I do see your point, though. And agree — sometimes schism is for the good.

    “Precious bodily fluids”? Ye Dogs the General lives!

    “Every sperm is sacred /
    Every sperm is good…”

    We only know that Jesus would say, “Render yourselves to God”.

    OK. Based on whose interpretations? On whose translations or mistranslations?

    the Catholic church approve of gay marriage w/in 10 years!? Man, in 100 years, they just MIGHT decide that women have souls & can hold equal positions in the church, and you think gay approval in 10? You are seriously over-optimistic, Dude.

    Sadly, I must agree with this one. Alas.

    Ah well… UCC rocks!

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Every sperm is sacred? Dear God, tell me that the fundies haven’t gone down that road! That means that billions of potential babies die every day in wads of Kleenex. Great. I can see it now. We won’t be allowed to buy Kleenex any more.

    God did not make humankind perfect because He needed something to laugh at.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    You’re right Ms. Davis, if we truly care about the salvation of those intolerant people who would leave a church because its leaders decided in favor of a policy of tolerance and inclusion, we should be concerned if they leave that church for one that is less tolerant and inclusive because they will not find peace there or anyplace else.

    But then, I wonder if Matthew 7:6 could be relevant in some of those situations, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Somehow watching the bloody faces coming out of The Tube in London this morning makes me wonder why we continue to be so hateful in the name of a deity? Islamic terrorists hate on behalf of Allah. Christian Fundamentalists hate fags on behalf of Jesus Christ. Two people of the same gender want to love each other and have the same protections as a heterosexual couple. What’s the big deal? There are far more important issues confronting our society and the world than what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom. This issue had a direct impact on the last election. And it just goes to show just how screwed up our priorities are in this country. When I think about all the people that died on Septemeber 11 I ask myself just what in the hell did they die for? So that we could come to this? Grow up, America. Open your damned eyes.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    It’s amazing that in talking about whether or not homosexuality or the attendant behavior is sinful people forget what is enshrined in marriage is man and woman who produce children.

    Until the underlying biology changes, I don’t think the theology that goes along with it will.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    sinful people forget what is enshrined in marriage is man and woman who produce children

    Wouldn’t that make infertile people sinful, too? Or those who choose not to have children?

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    John, with all due respect, people can’t have it both ways. If one subscribes to the belief that marriage is an institution established by God then as far as I am concerned civil recognition of marriage in this country is Unconstitutional.

    On the state side, marriage is a contract binding two people together. The insertion of gender on the parties is an infringement of inalienable rights. If Judeo-Christian traditions and laws are to be the only basis for the rule of law in this country then we are not a Federal Republic. We are a theocracy and as such we are akin to Iran and other “religious” republics.

    If we’re going to go the biology route then outlaw all forms of sex except intercourse between two licensed people for the specific purpose of procreation.

    Frankly, I am getting very tired of the whole damned debate. It’s ridiculous how much time and energy has been wasted on this topic. It’s also a sin that the debate has forshadowed other issues that are far more pressing. If we spent as much time on education and infrastructrure as we do on the role of genitalia in society we’d be golden.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    The ability to produce children isn’t enshrined in marriage, John. Unmarried people produce children all the time, or so I’m told.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    They do, Lisa? Oh, come to think of it, was not Christ conceived out of wedlock? Hmmm. But that’s different. Mary was the Immaculate Conception and we all know that the Immaculate Conception is Gospel and not a deception.