Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

R-74: Passage poses no threat to our marriage

Letter by Leo and Debbie Regala, Tacoma on Sep. 19, 2012 at 3:59 pm with 93 Comments »
September 19, 2012 3:59 pm

Forty-four years ago, we stood before our family, friends and our Catholic faith community and vowed to be true to each other in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, and to love and honor each other all the days of our lives.

That commitment has guided us through many successes and failures and even overwhelming tragedies. The mutual support has helped us grow as individuals and as a couple. Along the way we were blessed with three wonderful children and two treasured grandchildren. But the strength of our commitment would have endured even without children.

The foundational essence of marriage is the bond that develops between a couple over the years. When friends or acquaintances felt the need to end their commitment, we were saddened but our commitment was not weakened. Nor would our marriage commitment be weakened through the granting of civil marriage to same-sex couples via the approval of R-74.

We believe approval of R-74 reflects God’s unconditional love for all his children. Approval of R-74 provides every person the opportunity to experience the joy we have found in marriage – a joy to share for a lifetime.

Join us in voting to approve R-74.

Leave a comment Comments → 93
  1. MyBandito says:

    Amen.

  2. truthbusterguy says:

    Why is it not disclosed that Mrs. Regela is a democrat liberal state senator from Tacoma. Of course she would be for gay marriage, it’s a liberal cause important to her gay doners.

    She has nothing to lose because she is not running for re-election.

    Gay marriage may not hurt her marriage but it will destroy the institution of marriage. Vote NO/Reject R-74

    And shame on all for not disclosing her political position so readers can judge her creditably on this important issue.

    I hope that pointing this out (telling the truth)will not result in my comment being removed.

  3. sandblower says:

    truthyguy, you should be named nutbusterguy. Your comment is ridiculous. Ms. Regala is a caring, intelligent human being who knows what is fair and just. You, on the otherhand, know little of value.

  4. ThePrincipledPatriot says:

    “God’s unconditional love.” Amen!!! But show me again in scripture where God gives his unconditional blessing to the only sinful behavior that He say is worse than sin, that it is an abomination (i.e. homosexual behavior).

    And show me again in scripture where God gives His blessing to homosexual “marriage?” In both Matthew C19 and Mark C10, Jesus reminds us of God’s command for heterosexual marriage. But, where in scripture is the blessing for homosexual “marriage?”

  5. menopaws says:

    People always make me laugh when they sound off on God’s will……….The absolute EGO of anyone to say with certainty what the Lord is thinking……….They must believe that they are as smart as the Lord is…….I have a strong belief that it amuses him/her too………
    Scripture was a fable. Those who quote it to support their beliefs can do so, but NOT with any claim that it is the actual words of God. Because it is NOT.
    The relationship of two loving people is not gender specific or religious. It is a LEGAL issue and denying equality of rights in a DEMOCRACY is the height of hypocrisy…..So thump away on those Bibles–it has nothing to do with a religious question……..Your religion is NOT my law.

  6. bbsbxringrliars says:

    So a Christian has an opinion other than yours menopause and you go off…Too many the scripture is true as written but apparently you’re smarter than God since you don’t believe…Your Law may not abide my religion so what, who truly cares?! As soon as someone disagrees with you, the ridicule starts, menopause your hate is showing…By the way it is a Republic (for which it stands)and now your ignorance is showing…

  7. “Scripture was a fable.” You’re absolutely sure about this comment are you menopaws? For someone who dislikes certitude, you speak with it routinely.

  8. truthbusterguy says:

    Elected officials should disclose their position to the media. Many do, why didn’t Regala disclose.

    You said, ” Regala is a caring, intelligent human being who knows what is fair and just.”

    She is also a liberal, with a tax and spend voting record, a pro abortion record, pro union record, a 11% business voting record and a lifetime F from the NRA.

    OK, she is a liberal and if for gay marriage, just tell voters who you are. Telling the public you support a law you voted for is not news.

  9. HistoryFan says:

    Have your Civil Marriages with the same civil legal rights that go along with it, if that is truly your reason. However, if your real reason is to redefine the defination of marriage so as to force others to accept your lifestyle, then shame on your intolerance. Leave the institution of God-created marriage alone.

  10. LeePHilI says:

    “truthbusterguy says:
    Sep. 19, 2012 at 6:43 pm Elected officials should disclose their position to the media. Many do, why didn’t Regala disclose.”

    Regala, who has served her constitutents since 1994 was sly enough to slip past the News Tribune Editorial Department when submitting this letter with her legal name.

    Buster thinks he upset the apple cart. LOL

    I suppose if her opinion had something to do with her elected position, the TNT would have mentioned in parenthetically. Otherwise, she’s just another Washingtonian that opposes bigotry.

    Just pondering, since it seems to be a criteria for him/her/it…..I wonder if Pigs has procreated…..

    “God created marriage”……hmmm….thus the failure of so many?

  11. LeePHilI says:

    “She is also a liberal, with a tax and spend voting record, a pro abortion record, pro union record, a 11% business voting record and a lifetime F from the NRA.”

    Translation: Regala is part of the legislature, charged with taxing to pay the bills. She does her job like a mature adult. She opposes women having to give birth to a child who was conceived by way of rape or that might be a medical problem for the mother. She supports those constituents who are organized labor workers, is not swayed by businesses seeking special privilege and is not loved by the NRA because she doesn’t think irrational people should have automatic weapons.

    When I lived in North Tacoma, Ms. Regala earned my vote.

    Since she is much more rational and mature than her detractors, I’d suggest that she make sure that the Tacoma police have been notified that someone is awfully concerned about her personal life and identity.

    You just never know how crazy people are….

  12. LeePHilI says:

    “sozo says:
    Sep. 19, 2012 at 6:32 pm “Scripture was a fable.” You’re absolutely sure about this comment are you menopaws? For someone who dislikes certitude, you speak with it routinely.”

    I can’t speak for menopaws, but I will say that when anyone can PROVE that scripture is more than mythology, I’d love to see that proof.

  13. bobcat1a says:

    truthoptionalguy, when did a person’s political affiliation in America disqualify them from thoughtful and caring public comment? Your infantile egoism is handicapping your reasoning.

  14. tellnolies says:

    I see the right is represented by the heavy thnkers here, busted up truth guy, and the piggy.

    All we need is Frankenberry from the left.

    I guess the lunatic fringe deserves it’s say too, lol…

  15. Sonofwashington says:

    It’s really very simple isn’t it? If your religous beliefs have a problem with gay marriage (just as many have a problem with evolution) then don’t allow its sanctification in your church. But please, please, keep your silly religious dogma out of my government that must be, and muste remain, secular if we are to have a free society.

    Marriage is a civil contract affirmed by governmental action wherein all laws must be applied equally.

    The church can hate and ostracize its gay members all it wants, but it should keep its hatred to itself and let the government conduct business in accordance with the rights guaranteed to all under our Constitution.

    As Jesus Christ himself said, “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s…”

  16. normajean says:

    Truthbusterguy:

    Regala” is also a liberal, with a tax and spend voting record, a pro abortion record, pro union record, a 11% business voting record.” And the problem with this is?

    Keep Church & government separate: For those of you who quote what you believe to be ”God’s word”, I believe lack independent thought and common sense. It is written or so they say that man should give 10% of his earnings to the church. How many who quote the word of God actually do this?

  17. BillBrewster says:

    Senator Regala, did you really mean to say “Nor would our marriage commitment be weakened through the granting of civil marriage…?” Is that what our State politicians passed in the House and Senate? Civil marriage? You and your husband have more than a civil marriage, don’t you? The Catholic Church regards marriage as a sacrament. I’m pretty sure that we are talking about 2 different things here. Civil and holy. That is part of the problem as I see it. A same sex couple in no way would weaken my marriage either. But, how many gay couples do you know that would want the Church to perform their wedding and if the Church said no, would walk away peacefully with no retribution? Do you really think that the Church will be able to have an opinion about it without ending up in court?

  18. MyBandito says:

    The same sex marriage law has nothing to do with Holy Matrimony. Churches are under no obligation to perform a marriage. They can set their own standards.

  19. sozo – this comment would qualify as homophobia as it seems to reveal a fear of gays:

    But, how many gay couples do you know that would want the Church to perform their wedding and if the Church said no, would walk away peacefully with no retribution? Do you really think that the Church will be able to have an opinion about it without ending up in court?

    It is absurd, of course, to think that the State would be able to override the 1st Amendment and determine how a sacrament is administered.

  20. MyBandito says:

    The fear that same sex (homosexual) marriages diminish the institution (of marriage) is homophobic.

  21. Bandito says, “The fear that same sex (homosexual) marriages diminish the institution (of marriage) is homophobic.”

    Where do they get these silly terms. By definition the word “homophobic” would indicate a fear of man. What that has to do with homosexuality escapes me. Unless it is twisted to indicate a fear of homosexuals.

    I dont think anyone FEARS homosexuals. I dont think anyone even FEARS homosexual marriage.

    But most do DISAGREE with their agendas.

  22. Doesn’t matter, we live in a country that has separation of church and state. Religious argument against same sex marriage is futile.

  23. Sonofwashington says:

    So XB, other than homosexuals wanting to have equality under the law, what is this agenda of theirs that (according to you) most people disagree with?

  24. LeePHilI says:

    “I dont think anyone FEARS homosexuals. I dont think anyone even FEARS homosexual marriage.”

    Well…there have been many comments that stipulate that homosexual marriage will ruin mankind as we know it

    “But most do DISAGREE with their agendas”

    If you disagree with homosexual marriage, by all means….don’t participate in one.

  25. WBusheyShipsBoatswain says:

    Civil unions don’t extend the taxation, survivorship and custody rights of a recognized state marriage. That’s the issue, not religion.

  26. MyBandito says:

    XBJ98N- google homophobic.

  27. ThePrincipledPatriot says:

    Homosexual “marriage.” When you think about it, it’s an oxymoron! If it’s marriage, then by definition it’s between a man and a woman.

    So, what really lies behind it, is homosexual radicals and their minions trying to force through marriage, via the government, all of society to accept their perverse behavior whether we agree with it or not. Why? Because in the twisted liberal mind, legal means moral!

    Disregard the undeniable data that the homosexual lifestyle and those that engage in it are reaping the natural consequences of their unnatural acts. And, if you show any concern about this, then your “hateful,” a “bigot,” and suffer from the non-sensical, made-up illness called “homophobia.”

    Well, many in society today care too much about this country’s future and it’s children to not expose the homosexual lie! If taking a stand for the devine-designed, traditional, time-honored definition of marriage, which has proven time and time again to be the best for society makes me “hateful?” Then I proudly boast of my so-called “hate.”

  28. mojjonation says:

    Heterosexual divorce rate is above 50%. Numerous heterosexual singles and couples abuse DSHS, CPS, and the foster care system to the tune of millions a year by providing nothing more than a bank account for the state to deposit money for a foster child that they really don’t care about. We have become an obese nation full of “what have you done for me lately” mentalities that seeps into younger and younger minds every year. So yeah, same sex marriage is going to destroy heterosexual marriage. Your soap box is wet cardboard.

    I think people are using their own disgust as an excuse to push forward what they claim is “God’s will”, when their problem lies in what happens behind closed doors. Someone on here said that if you don’t like same sex marriage, then don’t participate in it. Someone else also said that if you have proof that the bible is actually gods word, then show it. If everyone agrees on what the bible says, then why are there so many different versions of it? Seems as if those who chose to interpret it, did so in a different fashion than the last guy.

    Those who are too weak to follow their own dreams, will find a way to discourage yours.

  29. alindasue says:

    Frida said, “Doesn’t matter, we live in a country that has separation of church and state.”

    WBusheyShipsBoatsw said, “Civil unions don’t extend the taxation, survivorship and custody rights of a recognized state marriage. That’s the issue, not religion.”

    That pretty much sums the issue up. It’s not the government’s place to place religion based limits on what it “legally” constitutes a marriage. R-74 doesn’t “redefine marriage”. It’s merely reaffirms the legislature’s action to remove religion based limits that shouldn’t have been in a government document to begin with.

    As I’ve said before, according to my church (I’m LDS) and my personal beliefs, acting on homosexual urges – inborn or otherwise – is a sin. So is having a fling with your best friend’s wife. Both behaviors can have a degrading effect on the family and, by extension, society as a whole.

    That said, one of the things that separates the United States from the rest of the world is our Constitution and the defined freedoms that it contains. One of those freedoms, considered important enough to be in the very first defining amendment, is the freedom to not have our religious affiliation dictated to us by the government – what many people paraphrase as “separation of church and state”.

    That right is VERY important to me. It is that right that I believe created the right environment for the Lord to work through the prophet Joseph Smith and return His church in its full form to the earth in these latter days. (I’m not here to argue beliefs. I’m only stating why freedom of religion is so important to me.)

    However, in order to preserve my rights to worship according to my own conscience, I must preserve that right for others too – even those who disagree with me. If we were to start basing laws on religious beliefs, whose religion do we start with? mine? yours?

    Homosexual behavior is a sin. However, it is the churches’ place to say so, not the government’s. In the eyes of the government, the marriage document is (or at least should be) just a recording of a contract that combines families made between consenting adults. Period.

    (Yes, theft and murder are sins too. Yes, we have laws against theft and murder… but then we are getting into issues of one person’s rights interfering with another person’s rights. That’s a totally different situation.)

  30. LeePHilI says:

    “Well, many in society today care too much about this country’s future and it’s children to not expose the homosexual lie! If taking a stand for the devine-designed, traditional, time-honored definition of marriage, which has proven time and time again to be the best for society makes me “hateful?” Then I proudly boast of my so-called “hate.”

    There are many who feel exactly the same about mixed race marriages. They will tell you that “God” doesn’t agree, that the children will suffer, or that marriage of the same race is even “time honored”. Up until the early 1970s, this pile of malarky was “law” and “definition”.

    Fortunately, sane minds overturned such bigotry.

  31. “I can’t speak for menopaws, but I will say that when anyone can PROVE that scripture is more than mythology, I’d love to see that proof.”

    Sorry LeeP, not my job to prove anything to you. Some people live in a very tiny world. Anything that won’t fit into the wee box that is their skull does not exist. As I said, a tiny, close and rather claustrophobic world. Not much room in their for the gloriously ineffable. My sympathies.

  32. LeePHilI says:

    sozo –

    Thanks for reminding me of how Christians operate. They have no proof of the “truth” they assert, and when challenged, they insult their challenger.

    I know….you’ll prey for me (typo intended)

  33. alindasue says:

    sozo,

    While I also believe in the truthfulness of Scriptures, it can also be said that those who refuse to accept anyone else’s disagreeing beliefs also are limited to “the wee box that is their skull”.

    Actually, when it comes down to it, aren’t we all?

  34. old_benjamin says:

    Leephil, there is a mountain of evidence. If you’re serious, you might begin with Josh McDowell’s work, e.g., “Evidence that Demands a Verdict.” There is a vast literature to which McDowell can provide an introduction.

  35. old_benjamin says:

    “Marriage is a civil contract affirmed by governmental action wherein all laws must be applied equally.”

    It is applied equally. You can marry anyone you choose of the opposite sex. What is at issue is redefintion of marriage to include individuals of the same sex.

  36. old_benjamin, yes, bigots said the same thing about interracial marriages and were laughed out of court. I will love to see if the anti-gay marriage crowd tries to use that argument in court again since the judges had such a good time showing how ludicrous it is previously.

    The court ordered that Virginia and other states that had defined marriage as between two people of the same race to redefine it to include people of different races.

    The reason they did so is that marriage is a basic human right and the right of an individual to choose the person to marry without government interference for no reason at all is a basic human right.

  37. ThePrincipledPatriot says:

    LeePHill,

    Who said anything about interracial marriages? We are talking about homosexual “marriage.” We are talking about perverting the institution through government force.

    Race is a God-given characteristic. Homosexuality is not. Race and perversion are not comparable. Think, will ya!

    mojjonation,

    “50% divorce rate” is an old, wore out stat used by homosexuals to justify their debased form of marriage. It has been debunked for years. Keep up if you can.

    alindasue,

    Is the Prophet Joseph Smith you talk about, the same Joseph Smith who was a treasure seeker, renowned for his tall tales, and claimed to have found some gold plates in New York? The same guy who claimed to have had a vision from a spirit in which he was commanded to start the Mormon Church because Christianity was an abomination? The same guy who Mormons believe is greater than Jesus? The same guy that Mormons teach we will all stand before to be judged instead of being judged by God? The same guy that Mormons teach died a martyr so that if you are a Mormon, you too, may become a God?

    Don’t get me wrong, I applaud the stance the Mormon Church took and still takes in California on marriage (Prop. 8). Just be careful. There are those out there who know who the Mormons really are! And we really need Romney in the White House!!! Agreed?

  38. ThePrincipledpatriot, what you are saying then is that gay people are not human if they do not have the basic human right to choose the person they want to marry. That was the first argument the racists used about blacks, that they were somehow not human enough to get all the rights that other humans had.

    Sexuality is a God-given condition for almost all people. Prove that it isn’t since you made that assertion.

    To be accurate, one would have to say that the rate of divorce is falling, that the old 50% statement is on the high side, but only by a bit.

    PolitiFact has it a between 40% and 50% over the lifetime of the marriage.

    50% isn’t “debunked”, it is just slightly out of date.

    http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/feb/20/stephen-sweeney/steve-sweeney-claims-more-two-thirds-marriages-end/

  39. old_benjamin says:

    Tuddo, you don’t get it. Current LAW requires that marriage partners be of opposite sexes. You are trying to argue that same-sex marriage is a right even before it is enacted in law. Marriage is in fact a privilege pending compliance with legal requirements, just like the privilege of operating an automobile. There is no unrestricted right to drive, and there is no unrestricted right to marry.

  40. menopaws says:

    I am a person of faith…..I just don’t believe that I need to club people over the head with it and make them live by MY religious beliefs……..I also majored in religious history and doctrine written by scribes is NOT the word of the Lord…….
    Second, I believe in equality under the law…….the Bill of Rights, the Preamble of our Constitution…..Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness………..Since when does ANY church get to interfere with that??? My tax $$$$$$ should not be spent in pursuit of any religious agenda. Let these people alone and their pursuit of happiness is none of your business and should be legally justified as a matter of equality in the eyes of the law…….For a bunch of people who claim they want less government intrusion–you sure seem to want that intrusion when it involves something you don’t approve of……….MYOB and worship as you please….And, be thankful you have the freedom to do that. Don’t use your faith as an EXCUSE to curtail others freedoms….I honestly do not believe in a God who punishes those who love……

  41. old_benjamin says:

    Menopaws, there are few countries in the world that allow same-sex marriages. It isn’t just the U.S. where it is uncommon and it isn’t just Judaeo-Christian cultures that oppose it. There is a world-wide aversion to it. Sometimes common sense does make good sense.

  42. old_benjamin, just like the laws against interracial amrriage were null and void because marriage is a basic human right, so too will any state’s laws restricting same-sex marriages.

    No court has ever said that marriage is a privelege. It is a basic human right in the USA because the Supreme Court said it was in several court cases.

    Justice Ginsberg today said that at least one of the several court cases that have found DOMA to be unconstitutional in lower courts will probably be heard by SCOTUS in the next session of the court.

    Some of gthe cases are very narrow in scope and some very broad. i suspect the court will start with the narrow ones, like they usually do and not make seeping changes at first. Over time, though, they will help change the laws in all the states, just like they did with interracial marriage.

  43. old_benjamin says:

    Tudds, freedom of speech is a basic human right, but you can’t say anything anywhere anytime.

    Yes, marriage may be a basic humn right, but it is still subject to regulation. There is no court ruling that says same-sex marraige is a basic human right, just as there is no court ruling that says marrying your sister is a basic human right.

  44. old_benjamin, the courts have not stated specific types of marriages are a right, only that marriage itself is a basic human right and the right to choose the person to amrry is a basic human right. They said in several court cases that marriage may only be restricted if it causes ahrm to others, to people in the marriage or to democracy.

    The court in the Virginia case did not state that interracial marriage was a basic human right. They said marriage itself was a basic human right and the state had not proved that any harm would come from such marriages.

    In order to restrict marriage in any way, states must show that ahrm will be a result.

    In cases involving minimum age limits for marriage, several states had to lower their ages because they could not prove harm, even though the states said it was a redefinition of the way marriage always had been since their state was founded.

  45. alindasue says:

    ThePrincipledPatriot,

    About the only things you got right in your questions about Joseph Smith are that he lived in New York and that he died as a martyr. The rest was pretty much as inaccurate as you can get and still be talking remotely about the same topic.

    Joseph Smith was a prophet, no more. He was the same as Moses and Joshua were in their day. He was the same as Thomas S. Monson is today.

    The only being who might possibly maybe be even remotely greater than or even at the same greatness as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is His Father, our Heavenly Father. No prophet of the church past or present has ever claimed otherwise.

    As I said, I am not here to argue religion. However, if you would like to know come correct facts about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you can find all the answers you seek on the mormon.org site – or if you just want some short and quick facts, you can check out the Mormonism 101: FAQ at
    http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101

    The country may possibly be ready for a Mormon in the White House – but, no, Mitt Romney is not the one. I will not be voting for him.

    Now, let’s get the topic back on R-74. Sorry for the diversion, everyone.

  46. I would vote for homosexual marriage IF they stop their ridiculous “gay pride” parades and protests. Trade.

  47. The paradox is that many of the anti-marriage equality folks are some of the most vehement Islamophobes when their Scripture-based beliefs about homosexuality are identical to the Taliban’s.

  48. “I would vote for homosexual marriage IF they stop their ridiculous “gay pride” parades”

    Did you like the last St Patricks Day parade? How about the parade up in Poulsbo for Viking Days? Using your “logic”, maybe we should stop letting the Irish and Scandinavians get married.

  49. averageJose says:

    Do the folks in the St. Pat’s or Vicking parade sport giant dildo’s and such?

  50. “I would vote for homosexual marriage IF they stop their ridiculous “gay pride” parades and protests.”

    e-hill showed one side of the hypocrisy in that comment. Here’s another side.

    I would like to see a lot of borderline licentious displays in public toned down a bit, but the huge majority of them are for heterosexual participation. Naming just a few: Mardi Gras in New Orleans, “show us your (XXX)” at every Spring Break gathering, wet T-shirt contests, Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders, nude bike races all over the world, and the list goes on.

    What I don’t support is government censorship of these legal activities.

    Any linkage of granting basic human rights to a group based on the activities of a minority of that group is totally unacceptable.

  51. I guess wlake also supports denying blacks equal rights and marriage until they stop using obscenities and rude gestures in performances of rap music.

    In the long run, we will find out that no one can vote on a basic human right except the Supreme Court.

  52. Unfortunately, because we are bent and broken, we DO tend to retreat into the dark little cavern of our skulls, alindasue, all of us. I was simply making the point that despite that inclination, some have come to appreciate the unknown, the unfathomable, the ineffable, the mystery of a God and a universe too big for our eyes to see or our minds to comprehend. Contemplatives invite believers to descend to the heart and experience God, not in cerebral, intellectual way but in a truly spiritual way.

    My personal belief is that God provided a glimpse of himself and his desire for his children through the Bible. I am not naive. I recognize that not everyone views the Bible as holy writ. And I would never interfere with their freedom NOT to believe. But, and this is for you menopaws, whether one takes the Bible literally or metaphorically (or some combination thereof) it is the truth-revealed in the narrative that matters. When you use “fable” in a derogatory connotation, you forget the truth and moral guidance are frequently delivered via story. That’s why Jesus taught in story.

    Sorry to be verbose. I am weary of the shallow understanding exhibited here when it comes to the Bible, Christianity and God.

  53. sozo, yes, I agree with you, and I know that Jesus would vote for same-sex marriage based on what is in the Bible. Unfortunately, some Christians forget totally about Jesus and base everything on Paul’s heresies and the Old Testament.

  54. averageJose says:

    LMAO “Jesus would vote for same-sex marriage based on what is in the Bible”

    Enlighten us…

  55. I had no idea tuddo that you were privvy to the Divine, knowing what Jesus would do. Nor did I know that you had insider information regarding the heretic known as Paul. Wow. What are you doing spending time on this pitiful little blog?

    Jesus would “vote for same-sex marriage” would he? You’re quite sure of that? I’m wondering if Jesus would vote at all!

  56. ThePrincipledPatriot says:

    “Jesus would vote for homosexual “marriage”,” is based on scripture where? In both Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9, Jesus confirms God’s command for marriage in that it is the promise between one man and one woman, only! When did Jesus change His mind on marriage? After liberal academia sometime in the 70’s declared that the genders are now interchangeable? After homosexual fanatics sometime in the 80’s invented a illness (“homophobia”)to label as “intolerant” anyone who believes in God’s command for marriage?

    Jesus speaks numerous times about sexual immorality. When did He change His mind on debased sexual behavior? Sometime in the 90’s when homosexual extremists declared that marriage since creation has been “unjust” “iniquitous” and “injurious?”

    It’s simple. Homosexual “marriage” will completely redefine marriage for everyone. And, if you disagree with this new definition of marriage, you will be on the wrong side of the law. That is an attack, a full-frontal assault on religious freedom and liberty. Is it not?

    Why? Because by law, if marriage is undefined, women can legally be called “husband” and men “wives.” Children will soon be taught that they can “choose which gender they wish to be!” That homosexual “marriage” is the same as traditional marriage. That there is no distinction between fatherhood and motherhood. Marriage will become meaningless. One can then be arrested for “hate-speech” for advocating traditional marriage.

    Then there are the tax questions. Organization’s mission principles questions. Curriculum questions. Business owner and professional questions, etc., etc., that those in support of perverting marriage, don’t seem to care about.

  57. alindasue says:

    tuddo,

    Based on my understanding of the Bible, I would be more inclined to think that He wouldn’t vote at all. He tended to stay out of politics.

    When it came to matters of law, He seemed concerned with only two:

    37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
    38 This is the first and great commandment.
    39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt alove thy neighbour as thyself.
    40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

    (Matthew 22:37-40)

  58. alindasue says:

    Oops, sorry about the typo. “alove” is supposed to be just “love”. I copied and pasted the text off the lds.org website and thought I had deleted all the footnote annotation links, but apparently I missed one.

  59. sozo, I have a similar text as you do, but closer to the original in Greek and Aramaic. As I said, “based on the Bible”….

    Jesus hated hypocrites and elitists who used ancient texts and political power to deny compassion, care and equality to the poor and minorities. He voiced tghis often,a nd thus, alindasue, did get involved in politics.

    Politics is what got him crucified. He took stands that were deemed dangerous to the Romans and to the oligarchs who the Romans allowed to retain power.

  60. Tuddo wrote: The reason they did so is that marriage is a basic human right and the right of an individual to choose the person to marry without government interference for no reason at all is a basic human right.
    ———————————————————-

    The right of free sssociation may be called a basic human right but I doubt that the principle applies to marriage as it is currently defined and widely understood. I have had it with the lame argument that granting homosexual unions the title of marriage is simply the recognition of a basic human right. It is a blatent search for the respectabily and sanctity that the gay community recognizes as missing from their unions.

  61. averageJose says:

    Again, Tudds, enlighten us. Point to the part in the bible that you base your assertion.

    Also, show us where Jesus “hated”.

    Please, keep digging… it’s comedy gold. ;)

  62. [Jesus] “did get involved in politics” did he? Of course a modern “progressive” would interpret Jesus’ actions as political because the left presumes that it’s governments job to do what in fact Jesus called on individuals to do. Nowhere is there anything that would suggest that Jesus saw the government in the same light as said liberals of today do. It is your job, and mine, to look after widows and orphans and feed the hungry.

    Further he clearly spoke out against sexual immorality and in light of the time and culture this most certainly included homosexual acts. He read and quoted OT scripture often, and said he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. In other words those things that were indicated as morally reprensible in the law remained morally reprehensible.

    He was always kind, always compassionate, even to those whose sins caught up with them like the adultress about to be stoned. But remember that when that scene came to a close he did not say to her…”So go…and whatever feels good, do it!” He said go and “sin” no more.

    With Christ as a model, it is actually quite feasible to love and care for homosexual friends, and to respect the freedom granted to them by the creator WITHOUT blessing and supporting a redefinition of marriage.

    Like you old doc, this is about a “search for the respectabily and sanctity that the gay community recognizes as missing from their unions.”

    We should all be more concerned about a government that is going to “govern” our speech IMO.

  63. I could write a book about it, but many already have been. One of the best places to start is:

    http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348

    John Howard Yoder, a Mennonite, takes a true anabaptist stance on Jesus and His politics. Any person who comes to earth to create a new order and relationship of power between people is acting politically.

    Yoder argues successfully, since this book is a standard seminary textbook.

    From the book:

    “The first thing to say about the biblical picture is that Jesus is a public figure,” he writes. “He uses political language. The authorities perceive him as a political threat and put him to death because of it. The legal basis for his crucifixion in the Roman record books was the charge that he was an insurrectionist.”

    and:

    “Jesus gave (his followers) a new way of life to live. He gave them a new way to deal with offenders — by forgiving them. He gave them a new way to deal with violence — by refusing to respond with violence. He gave them a new way to deal with money — by sharing it. He gave them a new way to deal with problems of leadership — by drawing upon the gift of every member, even the most humble. He gave them a new way to deal with a corrupt society — by building a new order, not smashing the old. He gave them a new pattern of relationships between man and woman, parent and child, master and slave, in which was made concrete a radical new vision of what it means to be a human person. He gave them a new attitude toward the state and toward the ‘enemy nation.'”

    The Bible nowhere says that homosexual love is a sin (read the passages in Greek and you will know that it does say that men who are married should not lay with one another, since that is another form of adultery, which is a sin, and that rape, sex used for idol worshipping and other forms of lust are not compatible, but nowehere does it state that the same kind of love that a man and a woman has is wrong between same-sex couples.)

    Christ was a model and said that no one shoulod use earthly power to control or abuse and would cry at what the right wing evangelicals have done to distort his message.

    Denying equal rights to an oppressed minority and using the Bible as a basis would be the exact opposite of His way.

  64. Tuddo, marriage has now existed for thousands of years but it has taken those same thousands of years for the gay community to consider that they have a “basic human right” to call their activities a marriage? You are definitly going to have to come up with something better than that.

    Yoder’s arguments may conclude that Jesus was a political figure but Mr. Yoder certainly does not maintain that homosexuals have a “basic human right” to call their unions a marriage. That leap of reason remains the philosophical province of liberals who continue subscribe to the “if it feels good, do it” theory of any human activity.

  65. oldoc, as I’ve said, it was SCOTUS who said marriage for humans is a basic human right and humans are free to cghoose anyone they want without government involvement. Not just whites, not just young people, not just Christians, not just heterosexuals – huimans.

    The only conclusion I can reach from the anti-gay amrraige folks is, like whites before them in their views of blacks, they just don’t think they are human and worthy of human rights.

  66. I have no problem with Yoder’s use of the word to talk about the impact Christ had. I take issue with the way liberals have appropriated the notion to defend the position that it’s government’s responsibility to control its citizens.

    Interesting to me is how folks here, and elsewhere, think Christians speak out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to Jesus, and yet fail to see the ways in which liberals “use” Jesus and likewise end up sounding contradictory. Jesus is cool when it’s time to talk about increasing folks’ dependency on government via welfare, but it’s very uncool to suggest that he embraced standards of morality regarding our personal conduct.

    And back to our original point, I find it ludicrous to imagine Jesus pounding the pavement for any candidate. No doubt while that sort of thing was going on, he was off alone in prayer. That is the more valid picture of Jesus based on my reading of the gospels.

  67. sozo, I am amused that you think of liberals view of freedom and equality for all is “control” of its citizens.

    I know that you support freedom only for your sect of Christian zealots and ridicule other people’s beliefs. It comes out in every one of your posts, but please realize that the people wanting to control society and restrict freedoms here are the conservatives, not teh libnerals. gay amrriage will not impact any conservative’s marriage or impact any conservative’s views. Government will bnot force a conservative chucrch to marry same-sex couples.

    Jesus said to let God make the decisions on morality and human conduct, not to judge others, and ordered his followers to stay out of that discussion, not involve themselves in trying to control others, and not to try to create His kingdom on earth. His orders were to teach, not control or legislate.

    Right-wing Christians violate jesus’ commands when they try to control others through laws on morality. If an action harms others or harms society, do something about it.

    The harm right now is that loving couples are restricted from the benefits of marriage, our society is restricted from the benefits of stability that marriage offers, so therefore we must remove that harm.

  68. notimetobleed says:

    Has anyone ever considered that same sex marriage is not really God’s concern, but rather that the real test is how we go about treating one another along the way?

  69. I find it interesting that the only record of Jesus becoming violent was in his disgust of temple merchants yet the current day temple merchants spend so much time demonizing everyone else based upon what Jesus didn’t say about homosexuality…….

  70. averageJose says:

    LOL tudds. Your task was to Point to the part in the bible that you base your assertion, nd show us where Jesus “hated”.
    Referencing a different book doesn’t qualify. Surely, there are plenty of other books that show the opposite of the book you cited… and surely you would reject them.

    So, you made a claim… back it up with citations.

    …………..
    LMAO… “Right-wing Christians violate jesus’ commands when they try to control others” … meanwhile Pakistan asks the U.N. to criminalize blasphemy and the middle east burns (supposedly wink=wink) from a movie trailer nobody saw… comedy gold.

  71. averageJose says:

    loving couples are restricted from the benefits of marriage
    Another knee slapper strawman… no, they are not… they just haven’t been able to convince a majority to change the meaning of a word. ;)

  72. averageJose, I am not one of those Christians who take quotes out of context from the Bible. If you want my answer, and don’t want to read a scholarly book that goes into detail about what Jesus said, and the context and hiostorical setting that surrounds it, then I will just say, read the Bible, its all there.

    Far-right evangelical Christians love to take snippets totally out of context from the Bible and do not believe in scholarly study. I think the Bible was written by fallible humans, translated by fallible humans and its message twisted and turned by fallible humans. It is only since the 20th century that evangelicals have insisted it is infallible and the KJV is totally accurate. I do not worship the Bible, I worship Jesus.

    It is obvious that you and I disagree about religion. That is fine, but it is also one of the best reasons to remember that religion has nothing to do with how this issue will ultimately be settled.

    Will the Supreme Court agree with past decisions that marriage is a basic human right?

    Will the Supreme Court agree with past decisions that say a person has the right to choose whom to marry wiothout government interference?

    Will the Supreme Court agree with past decisions that say that restrictions to marriage must be based on the harm they do and not on majority sentiment?

    I believe yes, you probably believe no. We’ll see. The only reason I have any doubts is the right-wing activist judges who tend to make up their own rules as they go along rather than respect precedence.

  73. SCOTUS will not elect to hear gay marriage cases but, instead, will continue to view the matter as best left to the individual states. DOMA is still the law of the land in spite of the Obama administation’s insistance that the Department of Justice take no action that is seen as an inforcement of that existing law. The SCOTUS is under no judicial obligation to view as precedents the actions of State courts or the courts of foreign counties.

  74. tuddo wrote: oldoc, as I’ve said, it was SCOTUS who said marriage for humans is a basic human right and humans are free to cghoose anyone they want without government involvement. Not just whites, not just young people, not just Christians, not just heterosexuals – huimans.

    The only conclusion I can reach from the anti-gay amrraige folks is, like whites before them in their views of blacks, they just don’t think they are human and worthy of human rights.
    ____________________________________________________

    If SCOTUS has already decided the issue as you claim Tuddo, why are we discussing the matter? Because no such SCOTUS decision has been made except perhaps in your own mind. DOMA contains the definition of marriage and it is the law of the land. SCOTUS has not ruled DOMA unconstitutional.

    As a thinking individual I am certain that you could arrive at more than just the quite flimsey conclusion that you have provided regarding the views of opponents of gay marriage.

  75. oldoc, DOMA is the law only in some states. Appeals courts have ruled it unconstitutional, so it is not in force in those states. It has been found unconstitutional in seven federal courts.

    Appeals court decisions are only valid in their circuit, but no court where it has been tried has yet ruled it constitutional.

    My discussions are based on those courts’ analysis. I would call the arguments “persuasive” rather than “flimsy” because of all the courts that have sided that way.

  76. averageJose says:

    averageJose, I am not one of those Christians who take quotes out of context from the Bible…bla, bla, bla.

    Translation— ‘I can’t back up my claim that’ “Jesus would vote for same-sex marriage based on what is in the Bible”

  77. “I know that you support freedom only for your sect of Christian zealots and ridicule other people’s beliefs.”

    That, tuddo, is patently absurd. Please bring forward posts of mine that in any way validate this observation. Please. If you can show where I have ridiculted other people’s beliefs and supported freedom for my “sect of Christianity” which, btw is ???

    I support freedom for all people and would not support interference of that freedom unless it meant harm to another, such as abortion and assisted suicide which, in the eyes of many are tantamount to murder.

    Gays are free to live their lives as they choose. So are adulterers despite the emotional scars they leave on the children in their midst. That freedom, however does not mean that society at large must affirm these choices.

    You are quite selective in your reading of Jesus’ words. I suppose you think he made no references to hell and damnation either.

    And speaking of absurd…”Jesus said to let God make the decisions on morality and human conduct….” This is YOUR interpretation of scripture. First of all if you are Christian, you acknowledge that Jesus and God are one; second, Jesus spoke clearly about moral conduct. Like so many liberal Christians, you confuse judging as in assessing right and wrong with judgmentalism. Apples and oranges.

    We make judgments about right and wrong all the time. You and your cohorts on this blog certainly do, just as you have done regarding gay marriage.

    Your erudition in theology is not an adequate mask for your warped perception. And for the record, we all have warped perception based on personal understanding and bias. It’s just that some of us know it and some of us clearly don’t. Arrogance is an unsavory quality tuddo.

  78. sozo, you are a member of one of the Presbyterians PC(USA)churches who voted to beak away due to their stance on allowing gay ministers. You said so yourself and that you supported the break.

    (Remember our discussion about your church allowing unrepentant people to be ministers who have committed a sin that Jesus did talk about, divorce, while wanting to exclude gays, something Jesus never said was a sin?)

    I only need to point to the post above that calls my perfectly legitimate and theologically documented views a “warped perception” to see where you ridicule other’s beliefs.

    It may be different than mine, but I don’t view your views as “warped”, just different.

    My views on gay marriage have nothing to to with religious morality, unlike yours, so, if you mean “right and wrong” from a religious and moral sense, then no, I didn’t make my decision on that basis.

    The Constitution does not need to Bible to be a great governing document, and is all the test we need to determine how to treat people legally in a secular world.

    If we excluded everyone who someone thought was a sinner from getting married, then no one could get married.

    Arrogance is an unsavory quality, and that is why I continue to search, not get too comfortable with my beliefs and continue to ask the question that the Constitution demands we ask, how will gay marriage cause harm and what is the basis for saying it will?

  79. averageJose says:

    You must have missed the other part, tudds…

    And for the record, we all have warped perception

    Play victim much?
    ……

    Soooo, no citations to back up your claim what you think Jesus would vote for.

  80. averageJose says:

    My views on gay marriage have nothing to to with religious morality

    That’s kooky… I thought that’s what you based your belief that jesus would vote for homosexual marriage on.

  81. Tuddo wote: oldoc, DOMA is the law only in some states. Appeals courts have ruled it unconstitutional, so it is not in force in those states. It has been found unconstitutional in seven federal courts.

    Appeals court decisions are only valid in their circuit, but no court where it has been tried has yet ruled it constitutional.

    My discussions are based on those courts’ analysis. I would call the arguments “persuasive” rather than “flimsy” because of all the courts that have sided that way.
    ______________________________________________________

    Not a SINGLE court has ruled that the definition of marriage contained in DOMA is unconstitutional and you know it! I will be the first to agree that homosexual unions should be treated equally regarding such issues as bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration but that is not what you are aguing now, is it? It is not the same and never will be regardless of how you personally view the legal and moral issues involved.

    Section 3 of DOMA has been found unconstitutional in seven federal courts on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration. As of 2012 five of those cases are awaiting a response for review from the U.S. Supreme Court. The definition of marriage is not found in Section 3 of the code. As you are well aware, judging a certain section of a law unconstitutional does not negate the entire law.

  82. averageJose, I think Jesus would votye for gay marraige. My own vote has to do with secular reasoning and the Constitution.

    Some philosophers say that morality is the collective code of conduct of a society. In that context, in our secular society, marality then would be defined by our laws absed on the Constitution and founding documents.

    Taken in that sense, then perhaps morality is what I am basing my decision on. However, many people equate religious views with morality, including sozo, so I tried to amke clear the difference and why I think we must base laws on our secular code.

    If it harmed people or made religious people engage in conduct that was against their religion, then I would probably be against t, but gay amrriage will not force anyone to do anything different than they do today except to acknowledge in our laws that gays are humans and have all the human rights that anyone else has.

  83. You are incorrect about my church affiliation tuddo. And regardless of what church I belong to, I in no way wish to limit the freedom of others to worship as they wish or not worship at all.

    I consider myself a dynamic person, ever in a state of change. I try to
    “live inside a question and coexist with the tensions of uncertainty” but that doesn’t mean that I choose to ignore moral mandates found in the Bible which is where I take my moral cues.

    It is my personal opinion, drawn from many sources including a relatively long life of varied experiences that while we may not be able to see any ill effects from sanctioning gay marriage in the moment, over the long term it will cause a further deterioration in the institution that I think God himself established, the marriage of a man and woman who raise children together. I believe children need a male and female presence in their lives in the role of parents. Because I believe this, I cannot, with integrity, support gay “marriage.”

    This does not mean I wish any ill will to gay couples. Heck, I’m even willing to admit that some gay couples make better parents than some heterosexual couples, but I believe we should do what we can to sustain the ideal, the norm.

    I am not homophobic or mean-spirited; just trying to live a life of integrity.

    btw the quote above is Sue Monk Kidd

  84. averageJose says:

    “I think Jesus would votye for gay marraige”

    We got that. You stated you based that on the bible and I am interested where or what part. Maybe something Jesus said. For example…

    Mathew 19
    4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]?

    So,based on the bible, knowing Jesus was born and lived under the Law of Moses, He endorsed the Law of Moses, and since the Law of Moses explicitly condemned homosexuality, then couldn’t we infer that Jesus also condemned it?

    So, Tudds, throw me a bone and help me understand how your conclusion that “Jesus would vote for same sex marrige” is based on the bible.

  85. averageJose, it would take a book, and that book is already written. I am sure you would disagree with it, but, like I said, it is used extenseively in seminary as one view of how Jesus interacted with the poor, sinners, disenfanchised and outcast in His society.

    How Yoder says it is that, “what Jesus renounced is the compulsiveness of purpose that leads the strong to violate the dignity of others.”

    “Jesus promises that forgiveness, freedom, love, and self-negation, in all their feeble ineffectiveness, will prove more powerful and creative than every system and every countersystem which subdivides the human race into rich and poor, comrades and enemies, insiders and outsiders, allies and adversaries.”

    If you must have a verse or two, then take these:

    “Whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the left. If he sues you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, only so can you be the children of your heavenly Father who sends his sun and rain to good and bad alike.” (Matthew 5:39–45)

    Even if you think gays are doing wrong, then you are to treat them as you would want to be treated. It is not up to you to take liberties or freedoms away from others, but to treat them as your equals.

  86. MyBandito says:

    Ah, yes. The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

  87. averageJose says:

    Ok, I get it. You based it on a book other than the bible. If you would have just said that in the first place we could have made this much simpler.

  88. averageJose, why, oh, why, do I keep falling for it when I think you want to have a mature conversation and all you want to do is take a cheap shot?

    So, take a cheap shot at the verses I provided. They mean nothing to most neocons. Christians who actually follow Christ’s vision of the world would never attack a country that had not harmed it for the purpose of establishing a different kind of government.

    And, for neocons who are Christians, wbhat does “turn the other cheek” mean to them?

    Those were rhetorical questions. I’m through with this thread.

  89. averageJose says:

    Cheap shot? Your namecalling and claiming I took a cheap shot in the same post? Kooky.

    How do the verses you provided in any way, shape, or form support your contention that Jesus would go against the law of Moses?

    It’s sad when people assume that because Jesus loved everyone and associated with prostitutes, tax collectors (funny that they were bad guys even then), robbers, etc., etc. that he endoresed their behaviour. Did it ever occur to you he was offering them salvation from their sins?

  90. averageJose says:

    btw, what was immature in anything I said. I’d really like to know.

  91. averageJose says:

    Here tuddo

    http://www.publicchristian.com/?p=39

    This is one person’s take on the verse you provided.

  92. tacomascene says:

    Google: “Books of scripture”
    Top-listed link: “Religious text – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”

    Wikipedia: “Religious text”

    “List of sacred texts of various religions:”

    Asatru, Atenism, Ayyavazhi, Bahá’í Faith, Bön, Buddhism, Cheondoism, Christianity, Confucianism, Discordianism, Druidism, Druze, Ancient Egyptian religion, Etruscan religion,
    Ancient Greece, Hermeticism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, LaVeyan Satanism, Mandaeanism, Manichaeism, Meher Baba, Native American Church, New Age religions, Orphism, Pastafarianism, Rastafari movement, Ravidassia, Samaritanism, Scientology, Shinto,
    Sikhism, Spiritism, Sumerian, Swedenborgianism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Thelema, Unification Church, Urantianism, Wicca, Yârsân, Yazidi, Yorùbá, Zoroastrianism

    And then to all this, we have one U.S. Constitution…”that all men are created equal.”

    (Women must not have existed when the Constitution was written, maybe, eh?)

    I remember the 50’s very well, and the 60’s and the 70’s and the 80’s and the 90’s, etc., etc. etc., and self-serving bigotry and hypocrisy wound up having to be chastised by our Supreme Court.

    To the religious and racial fanatics, I will simply say, “Get a life.”

  93. averageJose says:

    Tudds, are you saying Jesus out with the prostitutes, tax collectors, thieves, etc., etc., because he endorsed or accepted their behaviour?

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0