OT: Evangelicals frustrated by Bush

[spursfan101]

By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    President Bush left several million evangelical voters "on the table" four years ago and again is having trouble energizing Christian conservatives, prominent leaders on the religious right say.
    "It's not just economic conservatives upset by runaway federal spending that he's having trouble with. I think his biggest problem will be social conservatives who are not motivated to work for the ticket and to ensure their fellow Christians get to the polling booth," said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute.
    "If there is a rerun of 2000, when an estimated 6 million fewer evangelical Christians voted than in the pivotal year of 1994, then the Bush ticket will be in trouble, especially if there is no [Ralph] Nader alternative to draw Democratic votes away from the Democratic candidate," added Mr. Knight, whose organization is an affiliate of Concerned Women for America (CWA).
    Their list of grievances is long, but right now social conservatives are mad over what many consider the president's failure to strongly condemn illegal homosexual "marriages" being performed in San Francisco under the authority of Mayor Gavin Newsom.
    Top religious rights activists have been burning up the telephone lines, sharing what one privately called their "apoplexy" over Mr. Bush's failure to act decisively on the issue, although he has said he would support a constitutional amendment if necessary to ban same-sex "marriages."
    "I am just furious over what's going on in California and over what the president is not doing in California," a prominent evangelical leader confided. "He says he's 'troubled' — he should be outraged. If he's troubled, he should pick up the phone and call [California Republican Gov.] Arnold [Schwarzenegger] and tell him we want action against the rogue mayor who is breaking the law."
    "They can't possibly guarantee a large turnout of evangelical Christian voters if he does not do what is morally right and take leadership on this issue as he did on the war" in Iraq, said CWA President Sandy Rios. ."  

[jn]

A Constitutional Amended to limit freedom is appalling.  

[Randy]

A Constitutional Amended to limit freedom is appalling.

I've heard of a lot of priests who feel that way too.

[Ted]

Don't get me wrong: I believe (even though I'm a conservative) that gays have the right to some form of legal union. I have some sincere, honest questions about this issue. Even though much of my upbringing conditions me to oppose gay marriage, there's a very strong emphasis on teaching tolerance and love, too.

But exactly how does withholding the title of "marriage" from anyone other than a man and a woman remove any freedom from anyone? Homosexuals are still free in most states (and should be in all IMO) to a binding legal union. Is it such a huge issue to gays merely because the majority tells them "no"?

I guess my question is, what's the real issue? Is it so important merely because most of society opposes it? It is another Berlin Wall to bring down? To most of the civilized world, the idea of lawful marriage has for thousands of years meant the union of woman and man, husband and wife. Many literally believe it is ordained of God. Is it so wrong that so many people oppose or even fear such a change?

I've had many discussions with people who are in strong support of gay marriage, and their response to the importance of tradition to many people is usually condescending and disdainful. People who believe or hold on to such traditions are "neanderthals" or are "ignorant" or the new mother of all profanities: "homophobe." As far as I'm concerned, such behavior, such language is NEARLY as reprehensible as calling someone a "fag" or a "dyke."

[Randy]

I think what is interesting in this debate is that anyone opposed to homosexual marriages is close-minded and non-tolerant but in that view those state that they are not tolerant of one's personal beliefs.  I oppose homosexual marriages -- it does go against my religious beliefs -- isn't that my freedom as well?

Next point, since when does sexual preference need to become a protected freedom?  Anyone ever hear of NAMBLA?  If not, go look it up on the internet.  Or how about Polyamory?  What is the next point?  Allowing people to marrying as many as they would like (that has been against the law but people -- just like homosexuals -- have been finding ways around that -- and they changed the name to make it more acceptable).  Where do we draw the line if we begin to decide that whatever people want should be legal in our country?  Beastiality?  Man-boy love?  etc.?  I think we can let the people decide, can't we?  When you say that I'm being intolerant against homosexuals, I, in reply, will tell you that you are being intolerant of my faith.  

[Lurker]

What much of the issue of marriage deals with from a gay point of view has to do with various "rights" that are granted by law to spouses.  Included in these rights are transfer of assets w/o taxation, employer paid health benefits, various federal & state tax benefits, as well as being able to be informed & make decisions on health care, retirement benfits, etc.  If the government under their laws recognized "life partners" as equals to spouses then the issue of gay maariages would disappear.  

It isn't the religous recognition of marriage that they are striving for but the non-secular government recognition.  Once that is achieved then those religions that oppose gay marriages don't have to recognize them....but to openly condemn someone for their beliefs seems hypocritical.

[spursfan101]

I'm liberal and I'm against gay marriage. I think they should have some legal rights though, and that is all they are looking for.  I'm not for them getting married in the church or anything like that.  Were talking legality and money issues, (govt could benefit financially from all this.)

[SPURSX3]

screw the PC crap.  especially after CNN.Com showed one of the first gay lesbian couples was two old bags--------uuuuuuuuughhh, the thought of those two on a honeymoon is just plain disguting!

[Ted]

Randy, I don't think you meant one of the things you said, and I'll point it out before someone is all over you like Oprah on a ham. I highly doubt you are "intolerant of homosexuals." You may oppose homosexual marriage, and you may believe that homosexuality is unnatural in the eyes of God, but I doubt you are intolerant of the people themselves. Am I right?

Anyway. I share your core beliefs about this issue. Here's how I see religion and government in the U.S. We are not a church state. People are free to use their sex organs however they want, even if it seems clear to most that the way many use them is not a normal function of the human body. If you've ever been part of the creation of a new life, it's hard to imagine anything more fitting and perfect. Anyway, I digress.

I don't believe in homosexuality, but I also understand that one religious theology cannot drive the laws of a truly free land. I don't expect our republic to allow Christianity to rule the way Americans live their lives. But I do expect our republic to allow the people to decide, for the people, by the people. The worst attack on the Constitution, IMO, is that which takes government out of the hands of the people. If you live in the U.S., you are subject to law that is not determined by what accomodates everyone and everything. It is the law as it is written by elected officials whose only power comes from the people. For the freedom endowed through the Constitution to stay strong, elected officials may not and must not act contrary to the will of the people. The mayor of San Francisco is flaunting freedom in the worst way as far as I'm concerned.

[Randy]

Randy, I don't think you meant one of the things you said, and I'll point it out before someone is all over you like Oprah on a ham. I highly doubt you are "intolerant of homosexuals." You may oppose homosexual marriage, and you may believe that homosexuality is unnatural in the eyes of God, but I doubt you are intolerant of the people themselves. Am I right?

Ted,

You are correct -- I was trying to say that because I oppose homosexual marriages I am taken as being "intolerant of homosexuals."  That is the viewpoint that has been expressed -- anyone disagreeing with their stance is "intolerant" while forgetting the fact that they are intolerant of our beliefs.  Several schools instituted the "day of silence" here in my area and school officials saw anyone who didn't participate as being "intolerant" -- even when students expressed that it was against their faith.  I don't hate people who are homosexuals but I certainly don't believe that what they are doing is right -- and I believe that I should have that right based on my beliefs.  Canada has some really scary laws when it comes to this area -- you can't talk against or write against homosexuality -- it's protected.  

[Lurker]

But, Ted, where in the Constitution does it say that marriages must be by parties of different sexes?  At this point it is not a Constitutional issue.  It is based solely on the law of the State.  And the way most laws in the US get made, modified or repealed is by challanges.  Although I don't know what the law in California is....the reports seem to indicate that it does not endorse gay marriages.  However until someone like the mayor in SF stands up & challenges the law there will be no discussion as to whether it is a just law or not.

It is not a flaunting of freedom at all.  In fact it is the exact opposite.  It is the exercise of freedom...an issue that our country was founded on.  Now if the exercise of that freedom violates laws then the recourse is to charge the person with a crime and give them their day in court.  Racial segregation was the law until it was challenged.  Should that challenge have never happened?  Did Rosa Parks "flaunt her freedom"?

[Lurker]

I don't hate people who are homosexuals but I certainly don't believe that what they are doing is right -- and I believe that I should have that right based on my beliefs.

You can believe that what they are doing is incorrect, immoral or just not right...but to impose your interpretation of what is right upon others or to persecute them for their beliefs does lean towards being intolerant.

[Randy]

So sexual preference is now equal with racial equality?  I sure hope not!  It's one thing to discriminate based on a person's color -- I don't agree that this is the same as sexual preference -- and I don't believe that homosexuality is right -- it's a chosen lifestyle and while I strive not to condemn anyone who chooses it -- I also don't want them to condemn my rights to oppose it.  To put sexual preference equal with racial equality paints people who oppose this based on their faith no room for their opposition.  Homosexuality is not a "new" preference and it's a preference -- I don't see people choosing what color they want to be.  I believe that they have the freedom to choose for themselves how they will behave behind closed doors as long as it is between two consenting adults who are of legal age.  However, I oppose the recognition of that legally and I don't believe that sexual preference is equal with racial equality.

[Randy]

You can believe that what they are doing is incorrect, immoral or just not right...but to impose your interpretation of what is right upon others or to persecute them for their beliefs does lean towards being intolerant.

And isn't forcing of their lifestyle upon my belief system also intolerant?  Please explain to me how it isn't?

[spursfan101]

Research has shown that for the majority, homosexuality is not "chosen." I don't think people wake up and say, "you know what, I feel like being persecuted today, really feel like being disowned from my family, I think I'm going to be gay from now on."

I have a cousin who is gay, he came out a few years ago, but I knew when we were 5 years old that he was gay!  He was always that way. He has had several girlfriends, but being with them had always been forced. HE tried to do the right thing in the worlds eyes, but he never felt right. He's openly gay, in a stable relationship in Seattle, and Ive never seen him happier.  (Surely Ted, you have a gay member in your family, everybody at least has a gay cousin who can confirm this!)  

And SORRY X3, my gay cousin is off the market, so quit asking if he's available! :lol: