1.28.2006
|
"it is a moral issue and not a civil rights issue"
This is the statement of the Rev. Jonathan Weaver, pastor of Greater Mount Nebo African Methodist Episcopal Church in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. It was in response to the attempt by a few self-appointed opinion-makers, including one activist judge in Baltimore, to legalize same-sex "marriage" in Maryland. By those pushing this part of the gay agenda, extension of benefits to those who violate God's law is called a "civil rights issue."
This is a too-clever-by-half campaign strategy. People, black, white, brown, any color, who know God's law have little trouble seeing the falsity of the comparison. Although this may be a shock to the liberal elites in politics and the media, it should come as no surprise that many in the black community are not buying gay "marriage" as a "civil rights issue."
Black people have suffered mightily, and have found, as we all can, solace in the loving arms of Jesus Christ. They, and we all, suffer with Christ on this side of the Cross. Some of us know it, and attempt to live their lives accordingly. In this camp I would very much include the Rev. Weaver and many, if not most, in the black communities around the nation.
The Rev. Weaver is quoted in a front page article in today's WaPo. The surprise is that many guilty white liberals, probably including the vast majority of those who write and edit the Post, think that denial of marriage benefits to gays is a civil rights issue. Combining that with the notion that blacks are on the plantation according to Miss Hillary, and must, accordingly, vote for "progressive" issues (read: tax and spend), surely they'll be solidly in favor of same-sex "marriage."
Survey says, "Not so fast with your assumptions." Which is why such an article is actually placed on the front page of a national newspaper.
Finally, when I write "God's law" I refer, of course, to Scripture. No, not advocating any kind of a theocracy. Just advocating what the Founders of America would not have questioned: that there are certain acts that are abominations unto the Lord, and those should be to us as well. Any government that violates these precepts in its laws will find itself on shaky moral ground.
Sex between two men, or two women, is clearly one of those abominable things, and there is no inherent "civil right" to break God's law. Let's never confuse unwarranted benefits with rights.
| technorati tag | Christianity|
This is a too-clever-by-half campaign strategy. People, black, white, brown, any color, who know God's law have little trouble seeing the falsity of the comparison. Although this may be a shock to the liberal elites in politics and the media, it should come as no surprise that many in the black community are not buying gay "marriage" as a "civil rights issue."
Black people have suffered mightily, and have found, as we all can, solace in the loving arms of Jesus Christ. They, and we all, suffer with Christ on this side of the Cross. Some of us know it, and attempt to live their lives accordingly. In this camp I would very much include the Rev. Weaver and many, if not most, in the black communities around the nation.
The Rev. Weaver is quoted in a front page article in today's WaPo. The surprise is that many guilty white liberals, probably including the vast majority of those who write and edit the Post, think that denial of marriage benefits to gays is a civil rights issue. Combining that with the notion that blacks are on the plantation according to Miss Hillary, and must, accordingly, vote for "progressive" issues (read: tax and spend), surely they'll be solidly in favor of same-sex "marriage."
Survey says, "Not so fast with your assumptions." Which is why such an article is actually placed on the front page of a national newspaper.
Finally, when I write "God's law" I refer, of course, to Scripture. No, not advocating any kind of a theocracy. Just advocating what the Founders of America would not have questioned: that there are certain acts that are abominations unto the Lord, and those should be to us as well. Any government that violates these precepts in its laws will find itself on shaky moral ground.
Sex between two men, or two women, is clearly one of those abominable things, and there is no inherent "civil right" to break God's law. Let's never confuse unwarranted benefits with rights.
| technorati tag | Christianity|
posted by John Luke at 10:38 AM
Welcome. My name is John Luke Rich, (very) struggling Christian. The focus here is Christianity in its many varieties,
its fussing and feuding, how it impacts our lives and our society, with detours to consider it with other faiths (or lack thereof).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home