Gay Marriage - Religious Right Choosing the Bible Over the US Constitution?

SeaBreeze

Endlessly Groovin'
Location
USA
This ad was placed in newspapers by the religious right, in the form of a letter to the Supreme Court, full article and link to full ad here. http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06...-denunciation-united-states-constitution.html Hard to believe this has gone so far.




As theocracy arrives in North Carolina and Michigan, the Religious Right, going with its penchant for hyperbolic full-page ads in major newspapers, publicly announced last week that if forced to choose between Bible and Constitution, the Constitution will lose.


Then, almost as though begging us to laugh at them, they used their various propaganda organs like the Tea Party, The Catholic Beat, Christian Examiner, World Net Daily, and so forth, to announce how heroic and great they are for putting their unconstitutional AND unbiblical beliefs on full display.


The ad, which took the form of an open letter to the Supreme Court, appeared in The Washington Post, USA Today, and in other papers, offered us the voice of all the usual suspects – Franklin Graham, James Dobson, Frank Pavone, Don Wildmon, Jerry Boykin, Alveda King and Alan Keyes:


“We will not honor any decision by the Supreme Court which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman.”


Wow, that would be great but these folks have demonstrated their lack of a biblical understanding of marriage, because there is very little in the way of examples of biblical marriages that are between one man and one woman.
We have:
Man + woman where bride proves her virginity or is stoned to death (Genesis 2:24); we have man + woman + concubines (Judges 19:1-30); we have man + woman + woman, the most common form of biblical marriage – polygyny (Deuteronomy 21:15-17); we have rapist + victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29); we have son-less widow + closest male relative (Gen. 38:6-10); we have male soldier + prisoner of war (Numbers 31:1-18, Deuteronomy 21:11-14; we even have male slave + female slave (Exodus 21:4) and man + woman + woman’s female slave (Gen. 16:1-6, Gen. 30:4-5)

I’m out of breath and I still haven’t found 1 man + 1 woman.

The irony here is that it is they wrote to the Supreme Court. The United States Constitution that they say is superseded by the Bible, establishes the authority of the Supreme Court. Therefore, if you think so little of the Constitution, why write to the Supreme Court, and then just tell the justices that if they don’t do what you want, you’re going to ignore them anyway?
Shouldn’t they be writing to the Sanhedrin? Or whining to the Pope?
Well, because they love grandstanding. Here – in full – is how the heroic resisters traitors framed their belief that the Bible supersedes the Constitution of the United States:

"We the undersigned have joined together to present our unified message and plea to the Justices of the United States Supreme Court regarding the matter of marriage.


We are Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian pastors, clergy, lay leaders and Jewish leaders, who collectively represent millions of people in our specific churches, parishes, denominations, synagogues and media ministry outreaches. Marriage transcends our various theological differences and unites us together in one voice.

We affirm that any judicial opinion which purports to redefine marriage will constitute an unjust law, as Martin Luther King Jr. described such laws in his letter from the Birmingham Jail. We are Christians who love America and who respect the legitimate rule of law.

However, we will not honor any decision by the Supreme Court which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman.

We affirm that Marriage, as existing solely between one man and one woman, precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based solely on religion but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart.

We implore this Court to not step outside of its legitimate authority and unleash religious persecution and discrimination against people of faith. We will be forced to choose between the state and our conscience, which is informed by clear biblical and church doctrine and the natural created order.

On this choice, we must pledge obedience to our Creator. While there are many things we can endure, any attempt to redefine marriage is a line we cannot and will not cross."


Here they are pushing their sectarian beliefs – the same sectarian beliefs denounced by the Founding Fathers, by the way – the same Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution they now insist has ZERO validity.


Sounds to me like these guys –
James Dobson, Family Talk; Franklin Graham, President and CEO Billy Graham Evangelistic Association; Robert Jeffress, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Dallas; Jerry Johnson, President and CEO, National Religious Broadcasters Association; Gregg Matte, pastor, Houston’s First Baptist Church; Penny Nance, President, Concerned Women for America; Paige Patterson, President, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life, Staten Island, NY; Pastor Steve Riggle, Grace Church, Houston; James Robinson, LIFE Outreach International; Don Wildmon, Founder and Chairman, American Family Association; Tim Wildmon, President, American Family Association.


Need to find themselves a new country, one where the Bible is the Founding document rather than the Constitution. You see here, power derives from the hands of the people, not from God.

The people have assigned to the Supreme Court, via the United States Constitution, to decide these matters.


You won’t find God in the Constitution. So If you want a place where you tell everybody what God wants and then force everybody else to listen to you, you’re in the wrong country.
 

Wow, SB, difficult to believe this is taking place in a western country. I wonder just how far these people would go to impose their view of righteousness? Stoning women viewed as promiscuous perhaps? Hmm. Where have we seen that done recently? I am not an American, but these zealots scare me.
 

I don't think the intent of the OP was to talk about Gay people... the intent was to show that there are people who would opt for a theocracy by choosing their religious beliefs over the US constitution... the same folks that like only SOME parts of the Constitution.... those that suit them I guess.. Not to mention.. They also must admire the Taliban... another Theocratic organization..
 
Your forgetting religion is a world problem and cannot or will not be solved anytime soon if ever.
The US Constitution is outdated and misinterpreted for years with no end in sight.IMO

No problems with gays as long as they stop shoving it down our throats to be heard.
 
Your forgetting religion is a world problem and cannot or will not be solved anytime soon if ever.
The US Constitution is outdated and misinterpreted for years with no end in sight.IMO

No problems with gays as long as they stop shoving it down our throats to be heard.

It appears to ME that YOU are the one making this thread about Gay people..
 
I don't go to church so not driven such ways at all. But I do know the laws of the US, the Constitution, our fundamental guidelines for life have come from the religious backgrounds of our founders. To my thinking we do have a strong tie to the religions of our past. We do not want those laws we have now disturbed and changed much at all. Fairness to all is not something to be tossed.

The reason some may interpret this to be a gay consideration is that many of the gay groups are demanding they get full usage of our Constitution and laws which include marriage and legal rights. I say why not? At the same time I am sure the various churches do have some good questions to ask about that. Are the Jewish worried about Gays? I don't know. Are the Christians worried about Gays? Some are, some are not, rather a confusing situations. Are the followers of the Koran a problem? Yes, and very publicly they protest the Gays by killing them publicly in some areas.

I am hoping time will help us fix this national and world wide problem without so much hate and violence.
 
Bob,Not all Moslems preach hatred. Most are peace loving moderates, who, of course, receive no press. Extreme Zionists are also a problem in some areas, yet hardly representative of Jewish people as a whole.
 
I thought my post made the openness of my post to be obvious. Apparently I did not word it completely or correctly enough.
 
Where I have a stark choice between following the law and following my conscience, which is informed by the teachings of Jesus, I like to think that I would follow my conscience whatever the consequences. For this reason I admire conscientious objectors to killing who go to gaol rather than join the military. However, it's not always so black and white. A conscientious objector to killing may choose to serve as a non combatant medic, thus serving country and God at the same time.

The above paragraph is intended to show that there is no reason why a person of certain religious convictions needs to impose them on anyone else when it comes to same sex marriage. The laws are not going to impose same sex marriage on them personally so there is no real conflict of conscience, just a feeling that something is amiss. It's the same in a lot of other areas - those who see intoxication as a moral problem are not forced to imbibe and so on.

However, everyone, the religious and the secular, all have a right to an opinion and an equal right to express that opinion.
 
Its sad that people so passionately feel the need to have others live according to their particular view of the world. They do not even know those other people. They themselves lose nothing. All in order to conform with the " sacred" writings of some unknown bronze age individual, repeated to their ears and influencing their thinking on a weekly basis.
 
Just finished watching a TV documentary about the making of the Australian film "Priscilla Queen of the Desert" followed by a Q and A session on the subject of homosexuality, AIDS and the campaign for recognition/equal rights and same sex marriage, early gay pride protests and the Sydney gay Mardi Gras. The characters in the film played by Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce and Terence Stamp were based on real drag queens and a trans sexual from that period. Even some of the events in the script were taken from real life at that time.

A lot has changed over the decades since male homosexuality was a crime punishable with imprisonment. The biggest change has been in public attitudes. For the record, one of the Q and A panellists was Julie McCrossin, a well known comedian and TV personality who, as a lesbian, was involved in the early protests and the Mardi Gras. Julie is a worshipping member of the Uniting Church in inner Sydney where she is a member of the church council. I do wish people would get their heads around the idea that not every church has a narrow view on this topic.

We should have a bill before parliament later this year to amend the federal marriage act to allow legal recognition of same sex marriage but it hangs in the balance. It all depends on whether the Prime Minister will allow his government members to have a free vote or whether he will bind them to a no vote. Public opinion is mostly behind a yes vote and if it happens, same sex marriage will become legal in every state and territory at the same time. It's really only a matter of time now.
 
Where I have a stark choice between following the law and following my conscience, which is informed by the teachings of Jesus, I like to think that I would follow my conscience whatever the consequences. For this reason I admire conscientious objectors to killing who go to gaol rather than join the military. However, it's not always so black and white. A conscientious objector to killing may choose to serve as a non combatant medic, thus serving country and God at the same time.

The above paragraph is intended to show that there is no reason why a person of certain religious convictions needs to impose them on anyone else when it comes to same sex marriage. The laws are not going to impose same sex marriage on them personally so there is no real conflict of conscience, just a feeling that something is amiss. It's the same in a lot of other areas - those who see intoxication as a moral problem are not forced to imbibe and so on.

However, everyone, the religious and the secular, all have a right to an opinion and an equal right to express that opinion.

Well said, Dame Warrigal! If you disapprove of gay marriage, don't do it! Problem solved
 
Just finished watching a TV documentary about the making of the Australian film "Priscilla Queen of the Desert" followed by a Q and A session on the subject of homosexuality, AIDS and the campaign for recognition/equal rights and same sex marriage, early gay pride protests and the Sydney gay Mardi Gras. The characters in the film played by Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce and Terence Stamp were based on real drag queens and a trans sexual from that period. Even some of the events in the script were taken from real life at that time.

A lot has changed over the decades since male homosexuality was a crime punishable with imprisonment. The biggest change has been in public attitudes. For the record, one of the Q and A panellists was Julie McCrossin, a well known comedian and TV personality who, as a lesbian, was involved in the early protests and the Mardi Gras. Julie is a worshipping member of the Uniting Church in inner Sydney where she is a member of the church council.I do wish people would get their heads around the idea that not every church has a narrow view on this topic.

We should have a bill before parliament later this year to amend the federal marriage act to allow legal recognition of same sex marriage but it hangs in the balance. It all depends on whether the Prime Minister will allow his government members to have a free vote or whether he will bind them to a no vote. Public opinion is mostly behind a yes vote and if it happens, same sex marriage will become legal in every state and territory at the same time. It's really only a matter of time now.

Agree, +1.
 
"The Birdcage" was a great movie that took a light look at homosexuality. It was done so well that it could change attitudes about sexual differences...
 
"The Birdcage" was a great movie that took a light look at homosexuality. It was done so well that it could change attitudes about sexual differences...

Homosexuality and family relationships too. It probably broke new ground at the time.
 


Back
Top