It is still all too true that the Right gets it wrong, and the Left doesn t get it. Mr. Wallis, If it’s true what I’ve read that you oppose the legal recognition of the marriages of gay couples, then it’s you who doesn’t get it.>

This is not the top two or three most pressing issue right now, MNW. In a few years a younger generation will completely take over this issue by itself. They simply don t hold gay people with the same kind of contempt, as do the current generations in Washington. Is it absurd that there isn’t a legal recognition yet? Of course it is. But we’ve barely scratched the service on agreeing that it’s wrong to discriminate against someone simply because they have less material wealth. Writing gay marriage into law is a classic example that some deeply held principles don’t necessarily have to be immediately fought for tooth and claw. If Elton John can see this you should too?>

FYI — MNW — In the post below this one, Jim says, “I also believe that gay and lesbian people are entitled to the same legal protections and civil rights as other Americans. That s neither liberal or conservative, simply common sense.” Which is a whole lot better than what Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the folks at Focus on the Family would say.>

MNW – A few questions for you. 1. First, you obviously don’t consider homosexual sex to be inherently sinful. Is there any situation in which you think consensual sex between adults is sinful? 2. Given that you can live with a same-sex partner if you wish, why is important to you to be able to get “married”? Is it for practical reasons (like taxes, etc.), for symbolic reasons, for religious reasons (e.g. you think it’s sinful for unmarried people to have sex), or something else? I’m not saying you shouldn’t be able to, I’m just wondering what it is in particular that makes you WANT to get married.>

This is not the top two or three most pressing issue right now, MNW. For you, perhaps. In a few years a younger generation will completely take over this issue by itself. They simply don t hold gay people with the same kind of contempt, as do the current generations in Washington. So you think. I’m quite aware of what you say. But I am also quite aware that the “next generation” of extremist “Christians” are also being taught, in radical ways, the same prejudices and ignorance that we see today in the US. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel. Don’t be so sure that the next generation will be any better at recognizing what is and is not right. I have no confidence whatsoever. Is it absurd that there isn’t a legal recognition yet? Of course it is. But we’ve barely scratched the service on agreeing that it’s wrong to discriminate against someone simply because they have less material wealth. Poverty is one issue among many. Just like the legal recognition of my marriage is among many. There is no measure as to what makes one wrong more important than another, wouldn’t you agree? If poverty is the most important thing that you think needs to be tackled, then have at it. I won’t tell you that the legal recognition of my marriage is more important. To me, the most important thing is for my legal rights to be recognized. Once I am on a strong legal footing I will be better prepared to help those who are also in need. Do you get that? The legal recognition of my marriage is desired out of NEED. Writing gay marriage into law is a classic example that some deeply held principles don’t necessarily have to be immediately fought for tooth and claw. Tooth and claw? Where do you see anything (in what I’ve written)remotely resembling tooth and claw? If Elton John can see this you should too? I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what Elton John thinks. What makes you think that Elton John, and his position, would have any sway over me? Because he’s gay? If so, could you be any more obtuse? What are your demographics? Can I pick any white, male, heterosexual that agrees with my position and use them as “evidence” that you should agree with me? Would that persuade you in the least? If not, then why the hell do you think throwing Elton John in my face would make a hill of beans difference to me?>

“I also believe that gay and lesbian people are entitled to the same legal protections and civil rights as other Americans. That s neither liberal or conservative, simply common sense.” That’s great! But someone on one of the threads stated that Jim doesn’t support the legal recognition of my marriage. I was just making a statement. And my statement weighs heavier now, given that if it’s true that Jim doesn’t support the legal recognition of my marriage, yet makes a statement that says “gay and lesbian people are entitled to the same legal protections and civil rights as other Americans”, because my statement says that if he doesn’t support the legal recognition of my marriage then he doesn’t get it. Mainly because the legal recognition of my marriage IS “entitlement to the same legal protections and civil rights as other Americans.” Is it not? Which is a whole lot better than what Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the folks at Focus on the Family would say. I agree, it is a whole lot better than the bigots that hide behind their religion because they have no courage to state their prejudice outright. But if Jim Wallis does not support the legal recognition of my marriage, I’d like to know why? Which is why I posted the initial post in this thread…in the hopes of him providing some clarity.>

.1. First, you obviously don’t consider homosexual sex to be inherently sinful. Is there any situation in which you think consensual sex between adults is sinful? Consensual sex between a married person and another who is not the spouse I would consider to be “sinful”. There’s one, which I think answers your question. You should also note that I place the word “sinful” in quotes, as my comprehension of “sin” is not, most likely, the same as yours. Basically, I don’t believe in “sin” like the general way that most people think of “sin”. “Sin” is a man-made concept. There is nothing I, or you, could do that would be considered “sin” to God. It’s about how “sin” affects YOU, that matters most. So, yes, I agree with your observation that I do not think that there is anything “inherently sinful”…TO ME…a gay man…in “homosexual sex” (I assume you mean man on man sexual relations and everything that implies, because it’s quite confusing in the realm of religious definitions because everything I’ve done with a man I’ve also done with a woman…and I can guarantee you that when I lie with a man, it’s nothing like when I lie with a woman. Got it?) 2. Given that you can live with a same-sex partner if you wish, why is important to you to be able to get “married”? Is it for practical reasons (like taxes, etc.), for symbolic reasons, for religious reasons (e.g. you think it’s sinful for unmarried people to have sex), or something else? I’m not saying you shouldn’t be able to, I’m just wondering what it is in particular that makes you WANT to get married. Unlike the heterosexual couples I know, I am quite educated on the REAL and TANGIBLE protections, responsibilities, priveleges, and rights that legal marriage confers on those who choose to contract in it. I do not wish to have my marriage legally recognized for any other reason except to also obtain the same legal protections, responsiblities, priveleges, and rights that everyone else in this country enjoys. If what you were looking for was a more personal reason…how’s this… My partner came out of the subway across the steet from the WTC a few minutes after the first plane hit on Sept. 11. The building he worked in at the time was WTC 7 (the building that collapsed on 9-11 around 6 PM). While he was not injured or hurt physically, he was traumatized for weeks and still cringes when he sees the footage of the second plane hitting the building. He witnessed people jumping (not falling) from the building, and as he describes “dissappearing into the ground when they met the ground” (there was no “bouncing” or “splattering”…they “just went right through the pavement” as if the pavement wasn’t even there). Neither one of us were physically injured that day. But it could have been different, as the psychological injuries could also have been different. I, or my partner, could have died that day. Either one of us could have been severely injured. Either one of us could have gone nuts. It made it all that more real that the protections, responsibilities, priveleges, and rights that come with the legal recognition of marriage are important AND NECESSARY (NEEDED). Our marriage deserves nothing less. That’s just one reason…I could also share with you the financial hardships that we have endured after 9-11 that would have been reduced had our marriage been legally recognized.>

Jim began this dialogue – and he also gets the closing word. As I recall the “rules” of debate, that may be appropriate. I am not sure that a “dialogue” HAS such “rules.” It would seem to me that morally Mr. Reed should get the closing comment – IF Brother Wallis gets to open. Of course, it is Brother Wallis’ forum… I hope to see in the future an even and shared exchange of views. For what it’s worth – I agree with Mr. Wallis’ views (for the most part).>

D4P, In re-reading, I want to clarify… I wrote: Consensual sex between a married person and another who is not the spouse I would consider to be “sinful”. That should read: Consensual sex between a married person and another who is not the spouse (and the spouse does not consent or know about it and the spouse expects monogamy) I would consider to be “sinful”.>

Thanks for the responses, MNW. Your conception of sin is certainly different from mine. Do you mean to suggest that it is not possible to disobey God? That He is completely indifferent toward our behavior? That the only standard I (or anyone else) should use in determining the rightness or wrongness of an action is how it affects ME? That seems to me what you are saying.>

Great dialogue. Thanks, Jim, for setting this up. Since we have Jerry Falwell, there will always be something to talk about here. Any chance he’ll come on? “>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0609250209sep25,1,4210361.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed>

Is what Falwell said (tongue-in-cheek I might add) any nuttier than calling GWB a mass murderer? I’m not a big Falwell fan, but…>

MNW, let some others have a chance, please.>

Frank, What is that supposed to mean?>

long and numerous responses>

Do you mean to suggest that it is not possible to disobey God? Disobey? How does one disobey God? That He is completely indifferent toward our behavior? Nope. What you seek…you find. No? I wouldn’t exactly call that “indifferent” would you? That the only standard I (or anyone else) should use in determining the rightness or wrongness of an action is how it affects ME? Nope. I didn’t say that either. Is there such a thing as “right” or “wrong”? I don’t think there is. I believe the idea of “right” and “wrong” are human concepts. Is there such a thing as “loving” and “unloving”? Absolutely. So what does that tell you about your questions regarding indifference and obedience? I don’t think God demands obedience. I think he gave us free will for a reason. To me, there is no “free will” if obedience is required. As for my statement… There is nothing I, or you, could do that would be considered “sin” to God. It’s about how “sin” affects YOU, that matters most. Do you think that being unloving towards another only affects the one you are being unloving toward? Or does it affect you, too? That seems to me what you are saying. Has your assessment changed any after reading what I’ve written now?>

long and numerous responses Well, Frank… the key word there would be “responses”, don’t you think? Besides, who made you thread monitor, Elton John?>

Thank you Jim Wallis for standing up for Jesus-centered values, no matter how politically-incorrect it is to do so. In an era when the modern-day Sanhedrin is quick to demonize anyone who takes Jesus seriously, we need more prophetic, progressive voices like yours.>

Personally I’m opposed to gay marriage but not as concerned about that one, discrete thing as I am a lot of other things. In fact, I’d like to toss an idea out there and see what people on both sides think: To me, “no fault” divorce, under which one party to a marriage can initiate a divorce without cause and without the consent of the other party, has been as bad as, if not worse than, gay marriage. In practice it tends to accelerate marital breakups because the party that files for divorce first has an advantage in subsequent divorce procedings. I would like to see the states revive the old policy of enforcing the marriage “contract” unless either both parties agree to an amicable breakup, or one party can show cause (infidelity, criminal conviction, emotional or physical abuse — there may be others) If I were offered the deal of terminating “no fault” divorce in exchange for gay marriage, I would be seriously tempted to take it. What say the rest of you? Wolverine>

MNW, Thank you. The only reason I mentioned E. John was b/c I saw him on Jay Leno the other night and when this subject came up he could have really grinded an ax but he didn’t. I thought it was a class move on his part. And I’m sorry if I slighted your opinion earlier. I do respect your passionate views and appreciate how the current situation might be holding you back. At least you have someone very special in your life. Hang in there, WE ARE fighting the good fight.>

To me, “no fault” divorce, under which one party to a marriage can initiate a divorce without cause and without the consent of the other party, has been as bad as, if not worse than, gay marriage Perhaps the most insulting aspect of the movement to ban gay marriage has been the assertion that homosexuality is responsible for destroying marriages and tearing families apart.>

Disobey? How does one disobey God? By not following His commandments. Of course, if you don’t believe He gives us commandments (e.g. in the Bible), then I suppose you wouldn’t believe that one can disobey Him. Is there such a thing as “right” or “wrong”? I don’t think there is. I believe the idea of “right” and “wrong” are human concepts. Is there such a thing as “loving” and “unloving”? Absolutely. So what does that tell you about your questions regarding indifference and obedience? But if right and wrong are human concepts, why aren’t loving and unloving also human concepts? Or, can’t loving be “right” and unloving be “wrong”? I don’t think God demands obedience. I think he gave us free will for a reason. To me, there is no “free will” if obedience is required. God asks for obedience, but doesn’t demand it. We are responsible for our choices, and there are often consequences for our behaviors. Do you think that being unloving towards another only affects the one you are being unloving toward? Or does it affect you, too? Being unloving can (negatively) affect both the unloved and the unlovee.>

I heard about RLC today. Finally, another Christian voice!>

I know gay marriage is a hot button issue, but it is also a so-called “wedge” issue, and it unfortunately serves to divide more than produce anything constructive. I’d love to see this blog forum used for the more constructive parts of what both gentlemen posted, not falling into the trap of beating the same ol’ political dead horse. Can we get past deadlocks about abortion and gay marriage? I again point out – for those reading who want to be biblical – that the Bible has infinitely more to say about justice and poverty than about homosexuality, not to mention Jesus NEVER addresses that issue. It is only clever and intentional political strategy from the far Right that has somehow catapulted that issue into the center. It only takes away from the ability to move forward constructively on issues that affect far more people…>

D4P, “1. First, you obviously don’t consider homosexual sex to be inherently sinful. Is there any situation in which you think consensual sex between adults is sinful?” I, for one, most definitely do NOT automatically consider ALL homosexual sex “inherently sinful”. My question is, how is whether or not it is “sinful” in the eyes of some people RELEVANT to whether or not gay citizens should receive equal treatment before the law??? Stealing is a “sin”, but thieves are not forbidden from marrying (or getting elected to Congress). Murder is a “sin”, but even convicted murderers can marry. (For that matter, child-molesters/murderers can still get married – and then go on to, shudder, have more children!) Adultery is a “sin”. How many of them are your State representatives? How many are married? And on it goes. “2. Given that you can live with a same-sex partner if you wish, why is important to you to be able to get “married”?” For the EXACT SAME REASONS that it is “important” for you to have the right to marry. Oh, and for those 1,173 rights, privileges and obligations that YOU automatically get when YOU marry. Or should that be “marry”? I mean, after all, YOU can ‘live with an opposite-sex partner if you wish’, no? “Is it for practical reasons (like taxes, etc.)” Can be. “for symbolic reasons” Can be. “for religious reasons” Can be. (Mine was.) “I’m not saying you shouldn’t be able to” But SO MANY on the religious right ARE saying exactly that. “I’m just wondering what it is in particular that makes you WANT to get married.” Howzabout equality before the law. You know, the things the Constitution is supposed to guarantee all citizens? And if you TRULY believe, “Perhaps the most insulting aspect of the movement to ban gay marriage has been the assertion that homosexuality is responsible for destroying marriages and tearing families apart.”, then why aren’t you vociferously denouncing the RRR when they repeat that nonsense?>

Bob, It only takes away from the ability to move forward constructively on issues that affect far more people… “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” – MLK The injustice of denying the legal recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples affects EVERYONE. Whether you believe it does or not.>

By not following His commandments. Of course, if you don’t believe He gives us commandments (e.g. in the Bible), then I suppose you wouldn’t believe that one can disobey Him. Why is the bible so important to you? Why do so many people place such faith in a book? You do get that, right? You place faith in a book, and by doing so you displace faith in God. Do you believe the bible is the end all be all “word of God”? That the “commandments” included in that book are the end all be all “voice” of God for all of eternity? Do yo ubelieve God “speaks” directly to you…or is he limited to your book? But if right and wrong are human concepts, why aren’t loving and unloving also human concepts? Or, can’t loving be “right” and unloving be “wrong”? What is love? What does it mean to you to be loving? unloving? Determining something to be “right” or “wrong” requires your limited judgment, does it not? How do you know that something is “right”? Could it be that you perceive something as “wrong” but, in the big scheme of things, in the reality, it is actually “right”? I’ve done a lot of things in my life that I would consider to be “wrong”, or “bad”, and did so at the time I committed them. But in the big scheme of things, I wouldn’t change a thing…and I now look back on those things as “perfect”…exactly as they were meant to be. I wouldn’t be who I am today had I not experienced all of the “bad”…so in the big scheme of things…none of it was “bad” at all. Does that make any sense? It is the “bad” that I have witnessed, committed, and experienced that allows me to recognize the “good”. Do you think you are capable of recognizing and determining what is “right and good” and what is “wrong and bad”? If so, tell me if the following scenario is “right and good” or “wrong and bad”. A couple of thousand years ago it is said that a man walked the earth who could heal the sick and perform miracles. He was a loving, kind, and gentle man filled with compassion and generosity for his fellow man. He was brutally tortured and hung on a wooden cross to die a painful death. Was it “right and good” that he was killed in this way…or was it “wrong and bad”? Was this purported episode in history doused in love or not? God asks for obedience, but doesn’t demand it. We are responsible for our choices, and there are often consequences for our behaviors. Do you think God demanded obedience of the Romans who crucified Christ? Do you think they were obeying God when they tortured and murdered Christ? How else could God have sacrificed Christ if there weren’t obedient soldiers to do his bidding? I mean, that was part of “God’s plan” was it not? In the big scheme of things, do you believe the Romans who murdered Christ were acting out of a greater love or not? Is it so easy to judge the heart of another? It’s easy for me to think that perhaps the soldiers who murdered Christ were being directed in that way…especially given that “the plan” meant that Christ was to be killed…by them. Being unloving can (negatively) affect both the unloved and the unlovee. Or not. It all depends from where you’re looking doesn’t it? It all depends on the perspective and how much one is willing to limit their perception of events. Why is it that some people perceive euthanasia to be “sin”…while others perceive euthanasia to be “compassionate”? Is it one or the other? Can it be both? What is euthanasia? Is it “right” or “wrong”? Is it “good” or “bad”? Is it “loving” or “unloving”? I think the answers to those questions all depend upon one’s perception. I believe that the answers are neither “right” nor “wrong”…they are simply answers. And those answers are a testament to the reality as those who answer them perceive it to be. No one is “right”…and no one is “wrong”. As for loving vs unloving…I believe it all comes down to intent. What is your intention? If you act with the intention of being loving (however you define it)…then, in my opinion, you are “obeying” God.>

MNW, Sorry that my comment possibly came across as calloused to the very real plight of the gay community (and maybe all of us). I don’t mean to make light of the importance of rectifying injustices of all shapes and sizes, and I clearly see your passion for this issue. I guess I am just trying to take the realities of the political situation into account. My point is not that we shouldn’t focus concern and attention there, but I guess I want to transcend the political deadlock and not fall into the trap set by the Right of polarizing the discussion around a couple hedge issues at the expense of a broader platform that includes other moral issues which seem to have been lost in the shuffle, like persistent racial inequalities, income inequalities, poverty, etc. But I don’t discount how real this issue is for some in a very personal and direct way. I know that one could make the case that civil rights or women’s sufferage or child labor were all – at one point – risky and unpopular issues, but that did not preclude people from fighting for them. And they were RIGHT in fighting for them because they were standing for just principles, regardless of the political climate. And eventually, justice won out, thanks in large part to people on the ground standing up for what is right. So, I like MLK’s quote (who can disagree with a well-placed MLK one-liner?), but I also think that – for those in policy-making and legislature – there are political realities that make “doing the right thing” a sticky business. I am all for people – and large numbers of them – taking up the cause of gay marriage… but I also want to expend energy on other justice issues… if injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, then I am equally founded in demanding that our elected officials account for the 40 million living in poverty in the U.S., the billions globally living in abject poverty, the unequal playing field of public education in America, etc. Those issues should be just as central in our national dialogue, and unfortunately, they are not.>

I agree, Bob. And I also recognize that the issue of the legal recognition of my marriage is one but many issues (and that politicians can’t easily stand up for it without threatening their political life). But that begs the question… WHO WILL stand up for it, if politicians can’t and won’t? In other words…I’m not standing down, until someone else stands up. I’ve no problem with politicians not taking up the cause because of the perceived threats to their political careers…but I’ll be damned if I’m going to let them forget that this issue is yet to be resolved. My hope is that someday a politican will rise above all of the fray and recognize that this one of many issue is really just a refelection of a multifaceted issue that most other issues are a part of. In other words, I hope one day that a politician steps forward and tells it like it is…that gay marriage, abortion, poverty, etc, etc, etc are all the same damned issue…they are all issues of justice and justice being denied. Until then, I will continue to shine light on this one issue and let it reflect the injustice being imposed on this group of people, equally as much as injustice is being imposed on others.>

I live in Canada. Gay marriage is legal, and the sky has not fallen, nor have the heaven’s turned dark with fury to unleash Divine wrath upon us. Come to think of it, we also have harm reduction programs for heroin abuse in Vancouver. We see some social problems through the lens of helping the hurt, containing the harm, and building the foundation for living a good life. Yes we have high social costs, but social costs are always born. The question is what is a good balance between penal/punative measures and harm reduction and helping-hand measures. We in Canada prefer equal rights that include the right to same-sex marriage, decriminalization for minor drug offenses, and a social safety net to assist those who fall to become healthy and productive citizens. Are there problems? Yes. Is it a good balance? Yes. Do I prefer it to the model of the U.S.A.? Absolutely.>

You know, given that Christians are lambasted for only caring about gay marriage and abortion, I am noticing that the only issue anyone wants to discuss on this board is gay marriage. If it’s so irrelevant to the matters at hand (and I agree that it shouldn’t be a tier 1 issue) then why is everyone taking a stab at it?>

Zero Equals… “I live in Canada. Gay marriage is legal, and the sky has not fallen, nor have the heaven’s turned dark with fury to unleash Divine wrath upon us.” Well, we DID get Harper as PM. That’s pretty Divine wrath to me ;{O)>

kevin s., ” You know, given that Christians are lambasted for only caring about gay marriage and abortion, I am noticing that the only issue anyone wants to discuss on this board is gay marriage.” This board is about the left/right split. It has been pretty determined that the ‘right’ only cares about 2 issues and one of them is equality for gay people. So I have a suggestion: you start treating gay people equally before the law and the issue will go away. Well, it will on the left, anyway. “If it’s so irrelevant to the matters at hand” No one ever said it is “irrelevant”. It most certainly IS relevant to the lives of gay and lesbian citizens. What makes YOU think it isn’t? “(and I agree that it shouldn’t be a tier 1 issue)” With whom are you ‘agreeing’? The RRR sure seems to think it should be a ‘tier 1 issue’. And because THEY make it one, it is. If they stop their campaign of lies, hate and discrimination, it wouldn’t be.>

To those who believe in “God” but not the Bible: do you believe in the God that is discussed in the Bible, or do you believe in a different god? And do you believe in Jesus? If so, do your beliefs about Him come from the Bible, or from somewhere else?>

It is interesting to read all the discussion about marriage rights. I think there are really two issues at stake-(1)the rights of the state and all citizens and (2)the rights of churches to hold to a theological position. I do not believe that these rights are exclusive. Marriage should be sanctioned by the state for all citizens equally. It is why we have a Constitution that gives us all equal protection. However, having a state sanctioned marriage does not mean that a particular religion or denomination has to agree and hold wedding ceremonies within the walls of their place of worship.>

I’m puzzled as to all the comments about marriage of same-gender couples, since I can’t find anything at all on that subject in what we’re supposedly commenting upon. Anyway, Jim, thanks for bringing these voices to this blog, starting with my friend Brian McLaren. As President of Consistent Life, I’m also glad to see two of the four folks you’ve invited to share are Consistent Life endorsers.>

Wolverine: To me, “no fault” divorce, under which one party to a marriage can initiate a divorce without cause and without the consent of the other party, has been as bad as, if not worse than, gay marriage It s certainly bad and harms society, but it doesn t affect the institution of marriage. Do bad parents challenge the institute of parenthood? No. They re just bad parents. Redefining marriage does challenge the institute of marriage. curiouser and curiouser: “for religious reasons” Can be. (Mine was.) So religion can be used to support gay marriage, but cannot be used to oppose it? MNW: Why is the bible so important to you? Why do so many people place such faith in a book? You do get that, right? You place faith in a book, and by doing so you displace faith in God. Do you believe the bible is the end all be all “word of God”? That the “commandments” included in that book are the end all be all “voice” of God for all of eternity? Do yo ubelieve God “speaks” directly to you…or is he limited to your book? Does saying the bible is God s word necessarily nullify God s ability to reveal himself in other ways? Along the line of D4P s questions, does this describe you? http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm For one who speaks so adamantly about Love , MNW, you seem to have a lot of hate and anger.>

For one who speaks so adamantly about Love , MNW, you seem to have a lot of hate and anger. Could you please provide an example of this hate and anger…please? I’ll reiterate something I wrote to D4P for you HAC, as I think you might have missed it: As for loving vs unloving…I believe it all comes down to intent. What is your intention? If you act with the intention of being loving (however you define it)…then, in my opinion, you are “obeying” God. intention: A course of action that one intends to follow. An aim that guides action; an objective Hmmmm…an objective…it’s sort of like…something you seek. What you seek…you will find. You wrote: you seem to have a lot of hate and anger Seem? In other words…you perceive “a lot of hate and anger”. It seems like it…but is it really? What is your intention, HAC? What have you been seeking in me? If you want to find hate and anger, I will show it to you. If you want to find Love, seek it. I need only be myself for you to find it. I need do nothing special. What do you intend to find in me? What do you really truly and honestly, from deep within your being, intend to find?>

Redefining marriage does challenge the institute of marriage. How, specifically?>

D4P, To those who believe in “God” but not the Bible: do you believe in the God that is discussed in the Bible, or do you believe in a different god? How many Gods are there? I believe in one God. He is Jesus. He is Buddha. He is Mohammed. He is Lao Tzu. He is me. He is you. He is many. He is one. And do you believe in Jesus? Just as surely as I believe in you. If so, do your beliefs about Him come from the Bible, or from somewhere else? My knowledge of him comes from within. I recognize him most clearly outside of myself as the man described in the bible as Jesus Christ. You see, I believe that he is within me, just as surely as he is within you. I recognize him most in the man named Jesus Christ, but only because it is the bible and the man named Jesus that showed me the way…IN. I could just as easily been shown the same path by following the others, but Jesus is the guide of my family and my heritage, so it makes perfect sense that he would be my guide. Like Father…like Son…or something like that.>

How many Gods are there? I believe in one God. He is Jesus. He is Buddha. He is Mohammed. He is Lao Tzu. He is me. He is you. He is many. He is one. Please stop calling yourself a Christian. Your beliefs line up more with this: “>http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm>

Sorry… that was me.>

In 1 Timothy 1:8-11 the Bible says that laws against homosexual behavior as well as laws against kidnapping and perjury and murder, etc., are “sound doctrine” and are “according to the glorious gospel of God.” It’s that simple. Does God love people in bondage to same sex lust? Yes, desperately. The same as he loves me before and after my born again experience. Though I was not in bondage to same sex lust, there were so many chains on me that I could not break free from by myself, but in Christ, there is freedom. There is no bondage that hell can belch out that can’t be broken by the power of God in Jesus Christ. Don Costello>

Please stop calling yourself a Christian. Your beliefs line up more with this… line up more? The message of Christ and the message of Gnosticism are one and the same, HAC. It’s about the heart…and the knowledge the heart contains. Do you not believe Christ when he tells you “it is written on their hearts”? Let me ask you a question, HAC. And please answer it, as I ask it with the full intention of reaching out to you in the spirit of Love. Do you believe that you are separated from God?>

Dear Don, When I read statements from “Christians” like you who talk about your “freedom” and being “released from the chains of bondage” etc, etc, etc…inevitably you all always refuse to see that you are not free at all…that you are still chained to a book, unable to free yourselves from the writings, ponderings, imaginations, and fantasies of the men who wrote your book. You aren’t free, Don, if you can’t get on with life without having to check your book to make sure you’re living “rightly”…you’re chained to your book just as surely as anyone can be chained to any other addiction. You will not be truly free until you find within yourself everything you need. That is true freedom. The book is but an anchor to this world…let it go and find the freedom that you seek…it exists in only one place…within your heart. Go within…or go without.>

D4P, “do you believe in the God that is discussed in the Bible, or do you believe in a different god?” WHICH “god”? The vengeful, wrathful one that insists on the slaughter of entire populations, or the one that sent a “Son” to preach love of one’s neighbour?>

HAC, You ask an important question… “So religion can be used to support gay marriage, but cannot be used to oppose it?” Not quite the either/or choice you present. If we truly have freedom of religion, then yes, it CAN be used to support same sex marriage. My Church performs them, as does the United Church, the Quakers, the Universalist/Unitarians, Reformed Jews (and soon to be ‘Conservative’ Jews too), many Anglican Churches, Lutheran Churches, Methodist Churches, heck, even an admittedly breakaway Pentecostal sect does. They are seeking to be allowed to perform the rites that are in line with their faiths’ tenets, and to have the resultant marriages recognized in law by the State the same way marriages performed in your Churches are. On the opposite side, not a single denomination is being forced to perform them against their tenets. Your opposition tells our faiths we cannot follow OUR beliefs. We are not saying you cannot follow yours. Therein lies the difference. An example: The Catholic Church does not recognize as ‘sacred’ the 2nd (or 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.) marriages of divorced Catholics, even though these marriages and divorces are perfectly legal. No one is telling them they must perform re-marriages for divorced people. Should the Catholic Church be allowed to force its tenets on other faiths that DO re-marry divorced people? Vice versa, should, say, the United Church which – in following its belief in not discriminating against women – ordains women clergy, be allowed to force the Catholic Church to ordain them too? IMNSHO, your insistance that YOUR beliefs be forced onto people who disagree with them is the TRULY slippery slope.>

Anonymous/HAC, MNW said: “I believe in one God. He is Jesus.” You, uncharitably, demand he “stop calling [him]self a Christian.” Gee, the Bible I know says that if I believe in my heart and confess with my mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord then I shall be saved. I’m sure glad YOU don’t get to set the rules for salvation.>

Don Costello, The Bible ALSO says that slaves should obey their masters, and that women shouldn’t teach or preach. (And we’re not even going to address the putting to death the victims of incest, the denial of communion to the disabled, the putting to death dof disobedient children, the abomination of eating shrimp, etc.). It’s called selective fundamentalism. You asked, “Does God love people in bondage to same sex lust?” Trouble is, we aren’t discussing same-sex lust; we’re discussing same sex marriage, the kind of relationship that results from love (as opposed to lust), and from commitment, and from caring, and from nurturing, and from trust. Do try to address the issue at hand please.>

I find it so strange that people are so fixated on who is sleeping with whom in a loving relationship when people are starving in the world. In my community we believe all “marriages” should be considered civil unions under civil law after that, it is up to the loving couple to make of it what they want. We also refer to our mate as our partner or loving partner. When we starting doing this everything got much kinder or softer or something . . . I don’t know, but sure feels nice. Can we now talk about how we can help stop 30,000 children from dying each day from preventable illness?>

Can we now talk about how we can help stop 30,000 children from dying each day from preventable illness? Do you think justice has to choose between these two issues? Why do those of us who are being denied justice have to be quiet in order for you to talk about these dying children? If you want to talk about dying children, have at it. But what purpose does it serve for you to tell those of us being denied justice to remain silent? Why can’t we talk about both?>

The message of Christ and the message of Gnosticism are one and the same, HAC. Which is what Gnostics, not Christians, believe. So I am correct. Gee, the Bible I know says that if I believe in my heart and confess with my mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord then I shall be saved. No, it says, “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Yours is a minor error, I’ll admit. I looked up the Greek word used here for “Lord.” It is kurios, and refers to one who is supreme in authority – a master or owner. MNW does not confess Jesus as Lord when he equates him to others such as Buddha, himself, or even me. I’m sure glad YOU don’t get to set the rules for salvation. I’ve never thought that, and I am glad I don’t set them either.>

Which is what Gnostics, not Christians, believe. So I am correct. No, HAC. It is what I, a Christian, believe…so you are incorrect. Just because YOU believe that you, and people who believe as you do, are the “only” Christians, does not make it so. You may be a True Christian (TM), which I am not, but that doesn’t mean that you, and other True Christians (TM), are the only ones who follow Christ…nor does it mean that only you, and people like you, get to claim that only you follow him. In fact, I don’t see you following Christ at all. I see you following Peter, and Paul, and Luke, and Matthew, and etc, etc, etc. I see you following a book…and the teachings of the authors of your book…not Christ. Just because Paul says something or Peter says something or Matthew says something or wheoever says something doesn’t mean that Jesus said it…but you don’t seem capable of comprehending that fact.>

No, it says, “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Well…according to Paul anyway.>

I’ve read it quite a few times in these postings and in Wallis’s writings that the Bible talks a lot about poverty and says nothing about prohibiting abortion. This line of reasoning is faulty for a few reasons: 1) the Bible does not directly prohibit slavery, but would anyone criticize abolitionists for being too “narrow-minded” in focusing so much on slavery? Would you vote for someone who was going to spend billions on poverty but also supported the enslavement of blacks? If you believe that abortion is the killing of innocent life, then you must also accept that abortion is worse than slavery, for an attack on life is worse than an attack on liberty. I feel a okay with being a single issue “exclusionary” voter, because there are some things that are just too awful to support. 2) It is only very recently that people have started interpreting Jesus’s teachings on poverty as meaning “care for poverty must be done coercively through the government.” It has generally been interpreted as meaning that it should be down charitably (ie, voluntarily). Is taking money from some people and giving it to others really “compassionate”? God cares more about the PROCESS than the end result. We see that again and again in scripture. 3) Poor people in biblical times were generally homeless and without food.They also did not have the same rights as others. The average poor person in the US has all of these things. Obesity, not starvation, is one of the biggest problems among the poor in the US. Let’s get our terms right, please. The three points above seem pretty straightforward. I have NEVER heard Wallis, McLaren, et al. address these points, yet they provide the strongest evidence against their political/theological positions. Do any left-leaning people here have anything to say about these points?>

1) If you believe that abortion is the killing of innocent life And what if you don’t believe that all abortions are the “killing of innocent life”? I don’t believe that all abortions are the “killing of innocent life”. You do. Why do you believe that your belief should trump my belief when it comes to the law? 2) Is taking money from some people and giving it to others really “compassionate”? Yes. compassion: Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it. 3) Obesity, not starvation, is one of the biggest problems among the poor in the US. And what about the starving millions who aren’t blessed to be Americans? Are they not important to Good Christians (TM)?>

MNW, On point #1, well…that’s a whole other debate. Point #2: I can wish to relieve the suffering of others but still recognize that it is wrong to forcefully take money from people to give it to others. Point #3: I agree that we should help starvation in other countries. I question the morality of forcefully taking money from people to do it. Again, true charity involves giving your own possessions. Jesus never said “Take from someone else and give to him who asks of you”. He said that YOU need to give to him who asks of you. I wish tax policy would be debated more and we’d get past statements about Bush’s “reverse Robin Hood” policies. And only Falwell engages in demagoguery? Give me a break.>

It is what I, a Christian, believe…i> AS WELL AS what Gnostics believe.>

Dang it… stupid formatting error…>

On point #1, well…that’s a whole other debate. Hey, dude, you brought it up. I’m just sayin’. Point #2: I can wish to relieve the suffering of others but still recognize that it is wrong to forcefully take money from people to give it to others. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. The dollar bill you have in your pocket is NOT yours. It belongs to the government. You just happen to be it’s caretaker at the moment. Do you recognize that Caesar imposes taxes in order to build roads, etc in order to support the betterment of the common good? Do you not recognize that Caesar imposes taxes on the wealthy in order to support the poor because that supports the betterment of the common good? Point #3: I agree that we should help starvation in other countries. I question the morality of forcefully taking money from people to do it. Again, true charity involves giving your own possessions. Jesus never said “Take from someone else and give to him who asks of you”. He said that YOU need to give to him who asks of you. Yes, Jesus did say “take from someone else and give to him who asks of you”. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s was a direct response to the imposition of taxes by Caesar. Do you think someone like Robin Hood gets into heaven? Or do you think his stealing takes precedent over his intentions?>

AS WELL AS what Gnostics believe. Previously, HAC, you stated: Which is what Gnostics, not Christians, believe. You implied that if one believes in Gnostic thought that one cannot possibly be Christian. I proclaim that one can be both a Gnostic and a Christian…which is what you seem to be implying…now. Do you agree that one can be Gnostic and Christian?>

MNW, “Render unto Caesar” was meant to confound them and also command their respect for the government that is in place. Jesus was not giving any statement about a just economic system. You’re reading way into things. To say that all of my money is rightfully the government’s is just ridiculous. Regarding Robin Hood…the road to hell is paved with good intentions, of course. Stealing is always wrong. The ends do not justify the means.>

To say that all of my money is rightfully the government’s is just ridiculous. Ridiculous as it may sound, it’s the truth. Do you realize that tomorrow you could wake up and the government could decide that the money in your pocket is worthless…and claim a new monetary standard? It’s quite highly unlikely but the government has every right to do so, and has during this country’s history. Put it this way. Most Europeans woke up one day and discovered that their francs, marks, and lira were worthless…that if they didn’t have Euros they had no money…and all because their governments decided to do away with the old money and bring in the new. Clearly, these governments gave ample warning, etc for their people to convert, but the money is not yours, it is the government’s and the government can do with it whatever it wants. Smart governments, though, don’t just decide one day to devalue their money…without, of course, giving ample warning of their intentions. Regarding Robin Hood…the road to hell is paved with good intentions, of course. Stealing is always wrong. The ends do not justify the means. Is killing always wrong? Is there such a thing as a “just war”? Is lying always wrong? Is there such a thing as a “white lie”? It isn’t so much the “crime” one commits, or the “commandment” one violates…so much as it’s the intention of one’s heart when doing so…don’t you agree? I highly doubt God would condemn Robin Hood…that is, to say, IF the intention in Robin Hood’s heart was compassion. Do you disagree? Or are you going to continue to argue that stealing is ‘always wrong’? Who are you to say what is right and what is wrong if you know not the intention of another’s heart? This is not to preclude the laws of the land…in affect that, stealing would be always “wrong” if stealing is against Caesar’s laws. If a man, carrying several rifles, automatic weapons, and boxes of ammunition, walks into an elementary school. Is it “right” or is it “wrong” to kill him after he has killed several of the students in that school and while he still hold hundreds more hostage? Is killing “always wrong”? What do you guess, is the intention in the heart, of the police officer that pulls the trigger, killing the man and potentially saving the lives of hundreds of innocent schoolchildren? Do you think God will judge this police officer as a murderer? Do you think God would proclaim that “killing is always wrong”?>

MNW, On the first point…I agree that the government can take my money away from me, but I still do not believe that the money is RIGHTFULLY the government’s. This gets into the area of private property, too. Do you think it would be just for the government to take away all of my property just because it wanted to? Pretty much everyone would say that that would be fundamentally immoral. That is my point. Yes, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is wrong. Yes, it would be sinful for someone to steal from some people and give it to others. God desires obedience always.>

MNW: Do you agree that one can be Gnostic and Christian? No.>

HAC, I really would like you to address the concerns and answer some of the questions I asked in my post of 09.27.06 – 10:39 am The answers are vital to my understanding of your position. Thanks>

HAC, I see MNW has similar concerns about why you think your beliefs get to trump ours. Your reply (“On point #1, well…that’s a whole other debate.) is merely an evasion. Why DOES the ‘right’ believe their religious beliefs get to trump the beliefs of those who are not of your religious persuasion?>

God desires obedience always. Prove it.>

What’s wrong, HAC…have you run out of arguments? Or are you just tired of defending your silly and illogical position?>

Going back a couple days… HAC wrote (regarding no-fault divorce) It s certainly bad and harms society, but it doesn t affect the institution of marriage. Do bad parents challenge the institute of parenthood? No. They re just bad parents. Redefining marriage does challenge the institute of marriage I could not disagree more. The scripture understands that marriage should be a permanent thing. In the Bible divorce is strictly limited, and only allowed because of the hardness of human hearts. The traditional weddings vow attests to this: “til death do us part…” No-fault divorce changes this aspect of marriage, allowing either party to end a marriage almost on a whim. A permanent union is reduced to a convenience. This is a huge change, certainly comparable to that of allowing homosexuals to marry. Your comparison to “bad parents” completely misses the point. Like gay marriage, no-fault divorce is a legal change, with implications that go far beyond the failures of an individual or a couple. Sorry to pile on from the right, HAC, but homosexuality is not the greatest threat to American families out there. Wolverine>

homosexuality is not the greatest threat to American families out there. Homosexuality is not a threat to any family at all. The acceptance of homosexuality, however, is quite a threat to certain people’s beliefs about homosexuals. Y’see, it becomes harder and harder to harbor contempt for homosexuals when all of the fallacies regarding their lives and their “lifestyles” are exposed as the fallacies and falsehoods that they, in reality, are.>

I would like to speak to Jessie and others who share his ideas. The following paragraph is his 1st in a series of arguments. “1) the Bible does not directly prohibit slavery, but would anyone criticize abolitionists for being too “narrow-minded” in focusing so much on slavery? Would you vote for someone who was going to spend billions on poverty but also supported the enslavement of blacks? If you believe that abortion is the killing of innocent life, then you must also accept that abortion is worse than slavery, for an attack on life is worse than an attack on liberty. I feel a okay with being a single issue “exclusionary” voter, because there are some things that are just too awful to support.” Slavery is the legalized abduction and violent subjugation of another person. Jesus said that any such person was a fellow bearer of God’s image. “What you do to the least powerful person, you do to me” A slave owner has the right to imprison, beat or kill the slave. To be a slave owner is to base your life on the threat of violence and murder. Your attempt at moral comparison is deeply flawed. I would argue that there are things even worse than murder and the ideas of the neo-cons, the religious right and the Bush white house have led both to murder and to even worse things. So far no children have been spared to justify these horrors. For those many of us who do not accept the Bible as a literal transcript of God’s thoughts but a culturally mediated record of faith, there are few things more clear than that the body of law and the nature of worship has changed dramatically over the centuries. Paul said the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. I would say that throughout history all expressions of literalist fundamentalism and all pursuits of absolute cultural, racial , or national purity have led to wars, torture, and slavery. The outposts of civility, generosity,and harmony are always a product of social and religious ideas which respect others, and which alow for civil discourse and compromise. Jessie’s 2nd paragraph and response “2) It is only very recently that people have started interpreting Jesus’s teachings on poverty as meaning “care for poverty must be done coercively through the government.” It has generally been interpreted as meaning that it should be down charitably (ie, voluntarily). Is taking money from some people and giving it to others really “compassionate”? God cares more about the PROCESS than the end result. We see that again and again in scripture.” This simply will not hold water historically. Coercion by the government exists throughout human history as do examples of government services for the poor. These include everything from merit based government jobs in ancient China, to food sharing among tribal peoples, to the gathering and redistribution of grain by an Egyptian Pharoah under the advice of Jacob’s Son Joseph in the Bible, to land redistribution in Mexico, to food, medicine and and education for the poor in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. Yes taking money from some people and giving it to others is very often compassionate. When Southern slave-holders lost their slaves and slaverey-derived wealth it moved America in the direction of greater compassion. After WW2 the U.S. had the highest taxaton on the rich and the least income disparity. We also had the best health in our history, and the best and most universally shared properity. Recently Evo Morales nationalized Bolivia’s Gas and Oil, Before his action 82% of the oil profits went to the oil companies and 18 % to Venezuela. Now 82 % goes to Venezuela and 18% to the oil firms who complained but did not leave. This is already greatly benefiting the poor of Bolivia. God does not buy the theory that wealth inequity is a result of individual merit and his prophets throughout history have railed against this notion and called for redistributing wealth.( You heap up treasures for the last days. You have lived in pleasure on the earth and been found wanton as in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and killed the just.. James” Do you want a very long list of scriptural references? By the way, the word liberal appears several times in the prophets and always as a very positive term of praise. Joseph>

Joseph, In the political sense, refers to those who wish to change the existing paradigm. In Australia, John Howard is considered liberal, even those he is moving his country in a direction that we would define as more Conservative. You are committing an error of category. With regard to Chavez, the ends don’t justify the means. He does, in fact, redistribute. He also annexes property, arrests dissidents, and is increasingly hostile to free speech and human rights (particularly activists and journalists). History teaches us that when government decides it has the solution to something, then it usually decides it has the solution to everything. So I cannot join you in your hearty endorsement of Chavez or his beliefs.>

MNW wrote: Y’see, it becomes harder and harder to harbor contempt for homosexuals when all of the fallacies regarding their lives and their “lifestyles” are exposed as the fallacies and falsehoods that they, in reality, are. What exactly are those “fallacies and falsehoods”? Wolverine>

Kevin addressed this to me “With regard to Chavez, the ends don’t justify the means. He does, in fact, redistribute. He also annexes property, arrests dissidents, and is increasingly hostile to free speech and human rights (particularly activists and journalists). History teaches us that when government decides it has the solution to something, then it usually decides it has the solution to everything. So I cannot join you in your hearty endorsement of Chavez or his beliefs.” kevin s. Kevin, I never gave a “hearty endorsement” of Chavez or his beliefs. I was using his actions as an example of positive wealth redistribution. However, your allegations against Chavez are not accurate and sound like a parroting of mainstream media baloney. There is a vigorous opposition press in Venezuela and while there is concern about “dissident groups” funded by the Republican party You will have to cite actual incidents of non lawbreaking dissidents arrested for political speech to convince me that Chavez arrests dissidents or human rights workers. The most recent Human Rights Watch bulletin had only one thing to say about Venezuela, that Chavez was a friend of Castro . It had a lot to say about the human rights violations of the Bush administration laying out the worst review in its history as a human rights reporter describing torture and unlawful detention. Your other statement that “History teaches us that when government decides it has the solution to something, then it usually decides it has the solution to everything.” Is naive and silly in that one could remove the word government and substitute the word religion, or monarch, or people with big egos, or capitalism or communism for the word government and come up with an equally true and relatively useless statement. I don’t intend to be mean here but it sounds like you are repeating someone else’s ideas intead of speaking from your own mind and heart.>

What exactly are those “fallacies and falsehoods”? The fallacy that the lives or “lifestyles” of homosexuals are significantly different from yours…for starters.>

Could you be a tad more specific? There are lots of people with very different lifestyles from mine: astronauts, professional athletes, the clergy, just to give a few examples. The simple fact that someone’s lifestyle is “different” from mine does not mean I disapprove.>

Do you “disapprove” of gay couples falling in love, committing to one another in marriage, and living their lives together as one?>

Aside from the obvious difference we have on the morality of homosexual sex, there is another difference in how we see marriage. I suspect that you see marriage as something that the state creates and can redefine as it sees fit. I see marriage as an institution that predates the state, and that the state recognizes. In the process governments have some power to shape marriage at the margin, but the government is not in a position to overhaul it and is wise not to try. That’s not to say they haven’t tried in the past. In the past state governments have attempted to add racial limitations to marriage, something that never belonged there. And no-fault divorce undercuts marriage as well. But in its essence, marriage is a more-or-less permanent relationship between a man and a woman. At least that’s how I see it. But the reality is that there’s nothing in the law preventing homosexuals from falling in love and forming a permanent relationship — in essence gay marriage. What’s preventing the reality of gay marriage is not so much the law as lack of interest among homosexuals. In those jurisdictions that have recognized gay marriage, the applications for marriage licenses from gay couples have generally been far less than anticipated. Look, like I said before, I don’t see gay marriage as the gravest threat to society or to the institution of marriage. No-fault divorce has done more damage than gay marriage is likely too. If you want the government to recognize gay marriages, I have two possibilities for you to consider: 1. Offer conservatives something valuable in exchange — such as stricter limitations on divorce generally. I suspect that if the gay community is patient and creative the possibilities may be much greater than you have been led to expect. 2. Just be married. Don’t ask for permission from the government. Have a ceremony if you think it helps. Lots of us will roll our eyes but we won’t stop you. Present society with the reality on a large scale and put us in a position where we have to acknowledge it as something more than an occasional legal controversy. I can’t blame you if you feel put upon. I don’t think gays, as a general rule, choose their orientation, and I do think that gays should be treated with dignity. In the past western society has reacted to homosexuality in irrational ways and in some ways does to this day. That is something we should repent of. But that’s not the same as saying that homosexuality is healthy or should be encouraged, or that homosexual relationships are as healthy, on average, as heterosexual ones. The awful fact is that the gay community, for all its past successes, is not in a position to demand gay marriage in most of the US. Is that fair? I’ll admit that’s debatable. But it is what it is.>

That’s fine, Wolverine. You’re free to believe whatever you want. But the truth is, my marriage will be legally recognized in every state of this country, whether you approve or not. Someday it will happen. It’s only a matter of time. I believe you already know this, but I’ll let you continue in your denial. It serves no purpose for me to push you. All that matters is that I continue to push my government. Whether you accept me as a gay man, fully human or not…whether you accept my marriage as the loving, sacred bond that it is or not, is of no concern to me. That concern belongs solely to you. I’m whole in my relationship with God. I’m whole in my relationship with life. I’m whole in my relationship with my partner. The legal recognition of marriage serves an important and integral part of supporting that wholeness and keeping it intact. Legal marriage provides a plethora of responsibilities, benefits, rights, and priveleges. The purposes of these apply to the wholeness and well-being of gay couples equally as straight ones. The intent of legislation serving married couples applies equally to straight couples as it does to gay couples. From medical decision-making to property law to tax law, the laws created to serve couples in marriage equally serve gay couples. You can’t deny it. What I don’t get, though, is why would someone who seems to be a pretty decent-hearted person wish to deny these protections and life-serving benefits to others? What purpose does it serve to deny another person the right to make medical decisions on behalf of someone they’ve committed to spend their life with? What purpose does it serve to deny another person the right to claim the body of their deceased partner…a partnership borne in life and sworn to beyond death? What purpose does it serve to deny another person the same rights and benefits of marriage that you, yourself, enjoy and that the vast majority of Americans take for granted? What purpose does this discrimination serve? How does this discrimination benefit society? Help me understand, Wolverine. I have a hard time reconciling how those who profess to follow a master and teacher of compassion and love think they’re practicing compassion and love towards other people by denying other people such important protections and rights. Protections and rights meant to serve the health and well-being of the people of a society. I have a hard time comprehending how those who profess to abide a God represented by justice, can advocate such blatant injustice. Help me understand, Wolverine…because I just don’t get it.>

Wolverine, You were given only a partial answer to your question: “What exactly are those “fallacies and falsehoods”?” The falsehoods and fallacies include comparisons of our committed, loving, adult, consenting relationships to beastiality, necrophilia, Satan’s spawn, rape, incest, child molestation, cannabalism, the cause of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, etc. The right constantly reduces us to mere acts and “lifestyles”. Does that illuminate anything for you?>

MWN: First off, you have to understand that, for most conservatives, and especially Christian conservatives, marriage is already damaged institution. Nearly half of marriages end in divorce (the percentages for evangelicals aren’t a whole lot better, I’m sad to say) and the percentage of children raised in single-parent homes has been rising steadily for decades. And now there are demands that marriage be expanded to include gay relationships, without anyone offering anything to shore up the institution. Now remember, none of this is being done by the legislatures, it’s mainly being ordered by the courts, who are prone to be trapped by the foolish consistency that is the hobgoblin of small minds. Once they decide that the legislature cannot distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, who can say for sure where they will stop? Why must it be limited to two? It is quite possible that the line of cases that begins with gay marriage will end with polygamy, with potentially drastic consequences for society. It’s not just about homosexuality, it’s about preserving what conservatives see as a fundamental institution of our society from radical transformation that would make gay marriage look like adding $10 to speeding fines. You may disagree, but right now I would say that the religious right fears activist judges much more than it fears homosexuals. If you look at the Constitutional amendments that have been offered, they haven’t been straight prohibitions on gay marriage. The amendments are mainly directed at judges. A gay marriage bill that went through the legislature would remain valid under the most popular proposals. If gay marriage is to become the law of the land, it should be done by legislatures and with the consent (or at least forbearance) of the people as a whole. Disapproval of homosexuality is a significant factor in the religious right’s resistance to gay marriage. But it is not the only reason and it is not necessarily the most important reason. Wolverine>

Wolverine, “And now there are demands that marriage be expanded to include gay relationships, without anyone offering anything to shore up the institution.” Why blame gays seeking equality for the fact that you think marriage needs shoring up? Especially considering that, as you said, “for most conservatives, and especially Christian conservatives, marriage is ALREADY damaged institution. Nearly half of marriages end in divorce (the percentages for evangelicals aren’t a whole lot better, I’m sad to say) and the percentage of children raised in single-parent homes HAS BEEN RISING STEADILY FOR DECADES. [All emphasis mine, but the words are yours.] “Now remember, none of this is being done by the legislatures” Not true. In California, the Legislature passed laws allowing gay marriage and the Governator vetoed them. “it’s mainly being ordered by the courts” Could that be because courts deal with what is JUST, not what is popular? Spaking of being “trapped by the foolish consistency that is the hobgoblin of small minds”! “Why must it be limited to two?” Because we are discussing the public commitment of 2 people. More than 2 means lack of commitment. DUH! “It is quite possible that the line of cases that begins with gay marriage will end with polygamy” No more likely that the line of cases will include legalizing beastiality, necrophilia, rape or child molestation. Please try an original ‘argument’, and leave off with the demeaning comparisons. Thanx in advance. “with potentially drastic consequences for society” How does treating all people equally before the law have “drastic consequences for society”? Here I thought it was guaranteed in the Constitution. “It’s not just about homosexuality” YOu sure do seem to try and make it so. “it’s about preserving what conservatives see as a fundamental institution of our society from radical transformation that would make gay marriage look like adding $10 to speeding fines.” Again thanks (NOT!) for the demaning comparison. However, time for a reality check: this “fundamental institution” will not, and does not, change for conservatives. They are NOT being forced to have same sex marriages. For them, it will always be 1 man, 1 woman (at a time, apparently). “You may disagree, but right now I would say that the religious right fears activist judges much more than it fears homosexuals.” Ya mean like the religious (and secular) left feared the activist judge who made George W(armonger) Bush a “president” in 2000? “If you look at the Constitutional amendments that have been offered, they haven’t been straight prohibitions on gay marriage.” A lie. “A gay marriage bill that went through the legislature would remain valid under the most popular proposals.” Not in Kalifoinia. “If gay marriage is to become the law of the land” You make it sound like we’re tring to make it mandatory for all people. “Disapproval of homosexuality is a significant factor in the religious right’s resistance to gay marriage.” So? Disapproval of homophobia is a significant factor inthe religious and secular left’s support of it. Yer point? Oh, I know what yer point is – that YOUR religious tenets trump ours. The heck with THAT, I say. “But it is not the only reason and it is not necessarily the most important reason.” Tell THAT to Messrs Dobson, Perkins, Foulwell, Swaggart, Robertson, Santorum, et al.>

I must admit that one section of my earlier post was done sloppily. When I referred to constitutional amendments, I was focusing on the federal level. At the state level a number of amendments have been passed that are more restrictive and would appear to rule out legislative action. Because I had been focusing on state legislatures, I should have made this clearer. Wolverine>

That having been said, the basic thrust of the post remains intact and, if anything, is stronger. Where gay marriage has been implemented, it has been through the courts, not through the legislative process. The resort to constitutional amendments (as opposed to regular lobbying of legislatures) is due to concerns about the courts. Gays would have been better off to have gone through the regular legislative process. They would have had to wait longer, and used persuasion rather than hectoring, but the wins would be more permanent. For better or for worse (to coin a phrase) this is a democracy. If a majority is cheesed off enough, all the courts in the country can only do so much.>