From and email he sent to church members:
"For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion - not just Christianity - has defined marriage as a contract between men and women," Warren wrote. "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population."
He explains his support in this video.
He mentions in the video that both Obama and McCain defined marriage as between a woman and a man when they took part in his debate at Saddleback. Here's Obama's full answer:
WARREN: There's a lot more I'd like to ask on that. We have 15 other questions here. Define marriage.It would appear that Obama wouldn't have a problem with Prop. 8 since he opposes gay marriage and thinks the states should decide the issue.OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix. But -
WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?
OBAMA: No, I would not.
WARREN: Why not?
OBAMA: Because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It's been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that -- about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.
Biden appears to support it in the VP debate:
But even though he opposes gay marriage, he stated on the Ellen Show that he opposed Prop. 8:
IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.
It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
[...]
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
If I lived in California I'd truly vote against Prop. 8 And btw, Barack and I opposed a similar attempt nationally that there was an attempt to talk about a constitutional amendment which I think is regressive, I think is unfair and so I'd vote no on Prop. 8Here's the video of the Ellen Show where he made that comment.Clearly he's flip-flopped but has Obama? Obama believes the states should decide this issue and has stated that he opposes gay marriage, so you'd think that he would be for the citizens of California deciding this issue themselves and that he would support the measure since he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.
BTW, why in the world didn't Ellen ask him why he said that he opposed gay marriage during the debate? Seems like a natural question, afraid that her candidate might flub the answer?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
To borrow again from NPR, as I'm sure Michael got his 1960 interracial marriage story from the life of Sammy Davis, Jr., recently featured ...
The DNA of an African American male will indicate that he is male. The DNA of a gay male will indicate that he is male.
The gender testing at the Olympics in Beijing drew criticism from Jennifer Finney Boylan (her NYT Op-Ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/opinion/03boylan.html?ref=opinion ) because gender is a spectrum!
Here's the Talk of the Nation interview - http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2008/08/is_gender_testing_fair.html
You want to see others lose their civil rights so that you can practice your religion. That's righteous? That should be allowed? That's what you're asking for.
No, I said that if protections were in place, I'd be a lot more favorable toward gay "marriage".
But the gay agenda is not interested in that.
Gillian, you are a perfect example of a person who writes without asking. I do have gay friends and they know where I stand. One of the coworkers I get along best with is lesbian, another is bisexual.
I've lost friends to AIDS. It is a terrible death. I want it stopped. But I also want religious freedoms protected.
There can be both - civil unions for all, marriage in the hands of the church, religious protection from lawsuits for all.
You, Gillian, are as ignorant as you call me. And as hypocritical.
our constitution does not deny the right for homosexuals to marry. maybe some might interpret the bible as doing so.
the good news is that this country is not a theocracy. i'm not about to let right-wing xians turn it into one.
i'm sick of the christian agenda. maybe it's time for homosexuals to start their own religion so they can have their own religious protection of gay marriage and finally these intolerant xians will shut their blabbing mouths.
once and for all xians need to understand that they this is not a christian nation, this is not a theocracy, this is not a country governed by the bible.
No, but it should be governed by the Constitution, not by ideological judges.
i'm sick of the christian agenda. maybe it's time for homosexuals to start their own religion so they can have their own religious protection of gay marriage
That actually falls into line with what I've said right here.
Get the government out of the marriage business. For "business" purposes, have civil unions that any two people can enter into (my old maid aunts for example, could have saved tons of money while living into their old age together).
no... no "civil unions" is that what hindu couples call their relationship? is that what christians couples call their relationship? is that what atheist and agnostic couples call their relationships? no, marriage is not a word that applies only to christians, and it isn't only a religious term.
homosexuals have the same right to marry, and i refuse to stand idle while christian fundamentalists try to turn this country into a christian theocracy. you have no argument against same-sex marriage except that you think the bible says that it's not normal. so what?
it is governed by the constitution. the constitution protects equal rights to all u.s. citizens regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual preference. it would be nice if bigots and racists and religious fundamentalists would realize that. judges who recognize that basic fact are not ideological judges, or "activist judges." you show us where the constitution denies marriage rights, mzellen.
treating such relationships between same-sex couples as "business" issues is demeaning and pathetic. and by the way, simply claiming that you have a few gays and lesbians around you doesn't boost your "gay cred" a single bit.
and what does AIDS have to do with this? AIDS isn't some sort of "gay disease." jeez. you people really do live in the precambrian age.
if you want your religious freedom and your priest/pastor/whatever will only marry heterosexuals, then i suggest you exercise your religious freedom and marry someone of the opposite sex. GLBT aren't out to stop you from doing so. and they certainly aren't out to make you marry someone of the same sex.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.