Ambivalence About the President's Motivation on LGBT Issues
I was hoping the press would give an estimate of the size of the crowd, but it looks like that won't happen today. Lots of people, described as "thousands," demonstrated on the mall today to support civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. The march did not have universal support in the gay community, for instance Barney Frank had called it a "waste of time," but there has been a lot of concern that the President is ignoring his campaign promises to the LGBT population.
Last night he addressed the Human Rights Campaign's 13th Annual National Dinner last night (opening for Lady Gaga). In his talk he promised to end discrimination against LBGT individuals, but the promises were mostly seen as "nothing new." AmericaBlog had a summary this morning of reactions from the gay community to the talk, I'll just copy and paste it here:
Today was National Coming Out Day, by the way.
The march in DC seems to have been successful in terms of numbers and enthusiasm. Here's the AP this afternoon:
I think we can safely say the "hope" thing is wearing thin for some people. Obama made promises during the campaign, and it may be true that, as HRC's Joe Solmonese said last night, "We’ve never had a stronger ally in the White House -never." But gay and lesbian members of the military still have to keep their sexual orientation secret, marriage between same-sex couples is not recognized by the federal government, there is no national law prohibiting employment discrimination against LGBT citizens ... as you can see in the statements quoted above by AmericaBlog, there is widespread belief that nothing has been done and that the President is not serious about doing anything on that front.
I'm a little more optimistic than that, but it has been too long now to say that he's been busy with other things. He's had plenty of time to get the ball rolling. The LGBT community is turning up the heat a little bit.
Last night he addressed the Human Rights Campaign's 13th Annual National Dinner last night (opening for Lady Gaga). In his talk he promised to end discrimination against LBGT individuals, but the promises were mostly seen as "nothing new." AmericaBlog had a summary this morning of reactions from the gay community to the talk, I'll just copy and paste it here:
Andrew is not impressed.8.56 pm. More campaign boilerplate. This speech could have been made - and was made - a year ago.
8.53 pm. His major achievement - the one thing he has actually done - is invite gay families to the Easter egg-roll.
8.51 pm. Again, more of a campaign speech. I've called on Congress to repeal DOMA. Does he think we're fools? He has done nothing to advance this.
8.50 pm. Now we get the campaign speech on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Does he not realize he is now in office? "I'm working to end this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Solmonese has given us the timeline: 2017. This is bullshit.
Pam Spaulding:I'm fresh off of SiriusOutQ's coverage of the HRC Dinner, and I have to tell you, the low expectations I had regarding LGBT policy were unfortunately met on that account. If you're an activist or citizen looking for timelines, actions, use of the bully pulpit, ANYTHING that would indicate to the community that our President was serious about moving on the laundry list of LGBT issues any time soon, you would call it a fail.
Dan Savage:My reaction: a friend has been sending me ecstatic emails about the speech. I just watched it—the speech is every bit as good as the ones candidate Obama gave, as the performance candidate Obama delivered at the HRC/Logo Democratic Primary Debate, as the open letter to the LGBT community that candidate Obama released before last November's election. Imagine all the wonderful things this guy is going to accomplish if he ever actually gets elected president. In other words: sorry, folks, nothing new to see here. Pledges, promises, excuses. Lip service.
NYT says even some people attending the dinner were criticizing Obama.
Washington Post:Obama did not offer specifics on how he would advance the cause of allowing gays to serve openly in the military, or of same-sex marriage, two areas where his inaction as president have disappointed many gay supporters....
Just days after winning the presidency, Obama vowed that he would be "a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans."
But nine months later, many in the community say he has done little to make good on that statement. They accuse the president of putting their agenda on the back burner -- behind Wall Street regulation, health care, climate change and a series of foreign-policy issues. And although his sweeping rhetoric is appreciated, many are concerned that he has so far offered little beyond the symbolic and the incremental.
Politico:President Barack Obama wowed a crowd of gay rights activists Saturday night with an impassioned defense of equality for gays and lesbians, but he offered no new commitments to assuage concerns that he has given a low priority to issues critical to the gay and lesbian community.
Associated Press:Obama publicly has previously committed himself to repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation or act on it. But Obama hasn't taken any concrete steps urging Congress to rescind the policy, and his national security adviser last weekend would only say that Obama will focus on overturning it "at the right time."
Obama also pledged during the campaign to work for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. But lawyers in his administration defended the law in a court brief. White House aides said they were only doing their jobs to back a law that was already on the books.
And don't forget. While President Obama told the folks attending the HRC dinner that he was busy working with the leaders in Congress to repeal DADT, Harry Reid just sent Obama a letter imploring him to show leadership on DADT, which directly contradicts what Obama told the gays last night. Reaction to Obama's Speech
Today was National Coming Out Day, by the way.
The march in DC seems to have been successful in terms of numbers and enthusiasm. Here's the AP this afternoon:
Thousands of gay and lesbian activists marched Sunday from the White House to the Capitol, demanding that President Barack Obama keep his promises to allow gays to serve openly in the military and allow same-sex marriages.
Rainbow flags and homemade signs dotted the crowds filling Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House as people chanted "Hey, Obama, let mama marry mama" and "We're out, we're proud, we won't back down." Many children were also among the protesters. A few counter-protesters had also joined the crowd.
Jason Yanowitz, a 37-year-old computer programmer from Chicago, held his daughter, 5-year-old Amira, on his shoulders. His partner, Annie, had their 2-year-old son, Isiah, in a stroller. Yanowitz said more straight people were turning out to show their support for gay rights.
"If somebody doesn't have equal rights, then none of us are free," he said.
"For all I know, she's gay or he's gay," he added, pointing to his children. Gay rights advocates march on DC, divided on Obama
I think we can safely say the "hope" thing is wearing thin for some people. Obama made promises during the campaign, and it may be true that, as HRC's Joe Solmonese said last night, "We’ve never had a stronger ally in the White House -never." But gay and lesbian members of the military still have to keep their sexual orientation secret, marriage between same-sex couples is not recognized by the federal government, there is no national law prohibiting employment discrimination against LGBT citizens ... as you can see in the statements quoted above by AmericaBlog, there is widespread belief that nothing has been done and that the President is not serious about doing anything on that front.
I'm a little more optimistic than that, but it has been too long now to say that he's been busy with other things. He's had plenty of time to get the ball rolling. The LGBT community is turning up the heat a little bit.
posted by JimK at 9:16 PM
31 Comments:
Quoting from the tail end of the blog entry,
"If somebody doesn't have equal rights, then none of us are free," he said.
Gays and lesbians are free and equal to accept or reject the terms marriage is offered to all the rest of us. No, that is not good enough, they cry...they would rather redefine it to mean something it has never meant and for the sake of themselves, but a 5% minority, if that. This is short-sighted and selfish.
As to why Obama does not move this issue along now that he has been elected? Well, he can, for the sake of a very small group move their issues forward, but this risks undercutting many other much larger initiatives, like health care reform.
"For all I know, she's gay or he's gay," he added, pointing to his children.
Orin opined:
“Gays and lesbians are free and equal to accept or reject the terms marriage is offered to all the rest of us. No, that is not good enough, they cry...they would rather redefine it to mean something it has never meant and for the sake of themselves, but a 5% minority, if that. This is short-sighted and selfish.”
No Orin, that is NOT good enough. And nobody was crying at the march. YOUR definition of marriage isn’t big enough. As one of the marcher’s signs noted, “We don’t want your acceptance – We want our civil rights.” We’re through with crying. We’re marching and demanding now. (I have 579MB of pictures and video clips from the march. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to put together a video and post it later this week.)
As for “redefining marriage,” you must be the living inspiration for the cartoon character “Word Girl.” She fights evil-doing, misspeaking criminals with good vocabulary and proper grammar. In one episode, she and Captain Huggy Face save a local grocery store from the diabolical, sausage-spawning “Butcher.”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZOAygrQAtk&feature=channel
I’m sure you feel you’re saving society from the ravages of the Giant Gay Gewürztraminer.
As for “selfish,” I fail to see how denying two devoted and loving adults marriage because they don’t meet your semantic standards is anything BUT selfish.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
I marched with PFLAG yesterday, and then met up with my older son and his partner at the Capitol for the Rally. It was a great day.
Time Magazine estimates 200,000. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929747,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
I have confidence that Obama will do everything possible to secure the rights to which he has publicly committed himself. He gets the political framework: His discussion Saturday night of the founding of PFLAG shows that he understands that continuing to move the country in the right direction is key to the needed legislation. And the reluctance of Senators Casey and Stabenow on CNN yesterday to give full throated endorsement illustrates the problem. The political class needs to understand how far the country has moved in the right direction in recent years, and it also needs to understand -- as the President shows he understands -- that now they need to show leadership to get enough people to accept the idea of equality for gay people and that such equality poses no threat to anyone else, so that it will be politically "safe" for the politicians to do the right thing.
I would expect that Time Magazine would estimate the marchers to number 200,000 (can't fool me, try less than half that). They inflate the numbers on events they support, deflate on events they don't. Time Magazine can't be read for accurate news reporting. Neither can many other major magazines.
It's a shame.
this is really subjective but from the pictures and video I saw, the crowd looked a lot sparser than the heath care rally a few weeks ago
Orin,
That's easy for you to say: you don't have to suffer the consequences.
Nor, still, do you have any concern for those who do suffer the consequences. Tough luck for us, right? Lucky for you.
Like it or not, and we do, marriage is the only legal mechanism established for protecting the most intimate of human relationships. Gay couples need marriage for the same reasons their straight peers need marriage, and neither are either short-sighted nor selfish for wanting their relationship to be protected.
As an aside... I could hope you live long enough for your children, and their lives, to wipe that smug look off your face. I could, but I'm not that sort of person.
Sadly, far too many people learn by personal regret rather than by empathy and foresight.
Don't be one of those people.
Hay, Orin!
I gots a great idea -- why not match gay couples with lesbian couples, and then have them bet married in 'traditional' man/woman pairs. They can then 'accept' the terms you propose and receive ALL of the benefits of Traditional Marriage™®© whilst still keeping their same-sex pairings.
And as there has to be TWO men and TWO women to form the two Traditional Marriage™®© couples, there will always be two Mommy-Figures™®© and Daddy-Figures™®© at hand to foster Children Raised RIGHT™®©.
There could even be a central agency which -- for a fee -- would arrange such marriages, pairing same-sex couples to opposite sex same-sex couples with similar interests and political outlooks.
This agency could also facilitate divorces and re-pairings and marriages when one or the other same-sex couple move to a different city due to job transfers, etc.
It'd be a small price to pay for the cost-savings they'd reap as Traditional Marriage™®© couples who receive the 1300+ federal benefits -- AND the peace-of-mind that they aren't freaking out, disgusting and revolting sensitive individuals such as you. After all, you could be satisfied that they're Just Very Good Friends™®©
I've got a better idea, Hazumu
if you've got feminine-type guys who are attracted masculinity
and masculine-type girls who are attracted to femininity
why not pair them up?
shouldn't that work for everyone?
Hey, anonomii!
Reminds me of the joke in the Marine Corps: "If the Corps wanted you to have a spouse, they'd have ISSUED you one!"
You make love and attraction sound like a trip to Home Depot or Lowe's -- 'Yes, that one'll do (hope the self checkout isn't blocked up by morons...)'
Why don't you go think of one of those things about same-sex sex that gives you such delightful shivers of disgust and revulsion. You KNOW what I'm talking about...
no disgust or revulsion, Hazu
I just think masculine-feminine partnerships form the basis of stable societies and, thus, should receive support and encouragement from society in general
same gender relationships aren't optimal and while I have no trouble permitting them, we don't need to and shouldn't expend public funds supporting them
Instead, "deluxe", we will (and do) spend billions every year trying to patch up the ugly divorces and family violence that your kind perpetuate in the name of "family values", not to say caring for the children of broken homes who have been abused or abandoned by their breeder parents. Good advertising for the virtues of heterosexual marriage I say!
At least you have conceded the "right" of LGBT folks to join in this farce called "traditional marriage" ("same gender relationships aren't optimal and while I have no trouble permitting them...")
Breeders ROCK!!!
Grantdale writes,
Orin,
That's easy for you to say: you don't have to suffer the consequences.
Oh, but I do...just as I will suffer the consequences for being "out of step with the times".
Nor, still, do you have any concern for those who do suffer the consequences. Tough luck for us, right? Lucky for you.
Were that it so simple...I have not once felt the way you describe since I have come to know closely gays and lesbians that know me as a close friend (and yes, they know I am opposed to same-sex "marriage"). I have seen in the past, I see now and will yet see many kind, loving, tender gay and lesbian relationships. I am not indifferent to that fact. That does not mean I am ready or willing to toss aside the normative standard for natural marriage to appease the rage of our contemporary and oh-so modern times.
Radical egalitarianism has such a tight grip on our culture that many are either unwilling or unable to question such a prejudice, or think a second time about what they advocate. I am willing to question that prejudice.
Like it or not, and we do, marriage is the only legal mechanism established for protecting the most intimate of human relationships. Gay couples need marriage for the same reasons their straight peers need marriage, and neither are either short-sighted nor selfish for wanting their relationship to be protected.
Many gays and lesbians protect their relationships in the here and now, and this is not as much about marriage "equality" as using the power of the State to proclaim as equal something that is not.
As an aside... I could hope you live long enough for your children, and their lives, to wipe that smug look off your face. I could, but I'm not that sort of person.
While I do find many moments of personal happiness in my life...whether it be in a good movie (like "Dial M for Murder" which I saw this last weekend), a cup of really good coffee, or even that rare expression of love from a teenage daughter...when I reflect on the course of Western Civilization I am sad, not smug.
Sadly, far too many people learn by personal regret rather than by empathy and foresight.
We all have regrets...that is part of what it means to be human, to make mistakes. Empathy is a good value if it is informed, indeed tempered by, wisdom and moral clarity. Or, as is a constant theme of my postings in this forum, it is good to be smart - however, it is better to be wise.
Time to get some sleep...good night.
Don't be one of those people.
"At least you have conceded the "right" of LGBT folks to join in this farce called "traditional marriage" ("same gender relationships aren't optimal and while I have no trouble permitting them...")"
you're misinterpretting my post
I don't, in fact, believe gays have the "right" to redefine marriage to include their relationships
...toss aside the normative standard for natural marriage to appease the rage of our contemporary and oh-so modern times
Oh brother, Orin. In the Old Testament, marriage included one man and as many wives as he could afford. Was that "natural marriage" to you? What happened to change that definition to one man and one woman? It was the US Supreme Court who decided in Loving that marriage would be expanded to include mixed race couples. Your assertion that the definition cannot be "tossed aside" or changed, especially that it cannot be expanded so that it does not eliminate the right to marry for anyone who has it now, is preposterous.
And Orin, since when are EQUALITY and LIBERTY "rage[s] of our contemporary and oh-so modern times?" Our Founding Fathers set up this nation based on the idea that all men are equal and possess God-given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
ALL MEN, not just white men
ALL MEN, not just male men but WOMEN too
ALL MEN, not just straight men
you forgot:
ALL MEN, not just those who don't engage in beastiality
Hey Bea -- Tell your story to the president!
maybe gays should vote Republican
from the San Francisco Chronicle:
"President Obama, we're still waiting.
On Saturday night, the president reiterated his commitment to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forces gay men and women to conceal their sexual orientation while serving in the military. The policy was a mistake from the day in 1993 it was proposed by President Bill Clinton: Those who serve this country should not have to compromise their honesty to do so, and a nation that is fighting terrorism should not compromise its ability to recruit and retain an effective force - whether the issue is translators or combat soldiers.
Meanwhile, in Sacramento, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two bills by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, that represent actual progress on gay rights: One designates May 22 as Harvey Milk Day, the other recognizes the same-sex marriages from out of state that were performed before Proposition 8 took effect.
Obama's words were nice, but what is needed is real action to end myriad vestiges of discrimination against gays and lesbians."
Whatever happened to that GOP idea to change "the antiquated provision of the constitution that requires our president to be a natural-born citizen" so Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President?
The WorldNetDaily explained it back in 2003:
Schwarzenegger for president?
Senator proposes eliminating restriction on foreign-born citizens
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says he did not do it for the "Terminator," but his proposed bill would allow foreign-born citizens such as actor Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for president of the United States.
"I believe the time has come to address the antiquated provision of the constitution that requires our president to be a natural-born citizen," said Hatch, according to the Herald News of Fall River, Mass. "It has long outlived its original purpose."
Hatch's bill, introduced last week, would allow anyone who has been a citizen of the United States for 20 years to run for the highest office.
The senator said it's "most disturbing" that "scores of foreign-born men and women who have risked their lives defending the freedoms and liberties of this great nation" are ineligible for the presidency, the Herald News reported...
Now the WND has now become "natural-born Presidents only central!" And uh oh, look out! The Washington Independent reports that WND's chief birther, Orly Taitz, got herself in a spot of trouble in Georgia:
Orly Taitz Sanctioned for $20,000
The “Birther queen” has been slapped with a five-figure fine for “wasting the judicial resources” of the Middle District of Georgia, where she’d filed one of her numerous lawsuits demanding that President Obama prove his citizenship before deploying soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan...
[Excerpt of Judge Land's ruling]
Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court. When she filed the Rhodes case, counsel indicated that it was urgent that the matter be heard because her client was facing imminent deployment. The Court rearranged its schedule, took time to read the legal papers, and conducted preliminary research in preparation for the hearing. The Army had to activate its legal team on short notice, sending a Major from the Army Litigation Division in Washington, D.C. and a Captain from the CONUS Replacement Center at Ft. Benning. In addition, the Assistant U.S. Attorney had to accompany them. Like the Court, the government attorneys had to prepare in an expedited manner for the hearing. During the week preceding Captain Rhodes’s deployment, the Court was in the midst of a jury trial. Therefore, the Court had to alter the trial schedule to conduct the hearing during an extended lunch break, thus affecting other counsel and jurors. The Clerk’s Office was burdened by Ms. Taitz’s inability to follow the Court’s rules regarding pro hac vice admission and the Court’s rules for electronic filing. On five separate occasions in a short period, the Clerk’s Office personnel error-noticed counsel for her failure to follow simple rules. At the hearing, counsel failed to make coherent legal arguments but instead wasted the Court’s time with press conference sound bites and speeches.
fascinatin', Bea
Bea,
The point is, the senator suggested passing a new LAW, so that everyone would be clear that natural-born citizens could be president.
He did NOT say -- "hey, let's hide the fact that Arnold isn't a natural born citizen and pull the wool over everyone's eyes!"
Get the difference? The GOP wanted to PASS a law -- not BREAK the law.
Previously I wrote,
..toss aside the normative standard for natural marriage to appease the rage of our contemporary and oh-so modern times
To which Aunt Bea rather obtusely replies,
Oh brother, Orin. In the Old Testament, marriage included one man and as many wives as he could afford. Was that "natural marriage" to you? What happened to change that definition to one man and one woman?
Are you asking the question because you truly desire to know and understand, or simply to toss some cliche ridden rhetorical red herrings? How about I assume the former (rather than the later)?
The interesting thing about polygamy is the rather divided way it is regarded. Biblical law allows polygamy while biblical narrative depicts every polygamous union as a thing departing from the ideal. There is not a single union of polygamous couples that is depicted happily. So, while biblical law allows (mostly I suspect as a compromise to the cultures that surrounded Israel) multiple marriages, biblical narrative condemns such unions.
Were such unions "natural" to me, you ask? Certainly they were if it matters at all that the sexual union of Solomon with any number of his many wives could lead them to give birth to children. This is something gays cannot do without a female egg provider, or that lesbians can do without a male sperm donor. To most minds unclouded by political prejudice it is understood that the union of a man and a woman is natural in that it has the potential to realize something more enduring than sexual pleasure (which while a good, has a limited value to a civilization).
What changed that definition (from polygamous to monogamous)? Good question, but one I will not be able to address tonite...ask again another time and I might just have some sort of answer.
Sorry, there is a limit on the number of characters per entry...the 2nd part of my reply to Aunt Bea,
It was the US Supreme Court who decided in Loving that marriage would be expanded to include mixed race couples.
While you and other advocates of same-sex "marriage" continually attempt to recast the Loving decision as an expansion of marriage, nothing could be further from the truth. The Loving decision was a recognition of what marriage is about: the union of a man and a woman. Anything that separated men and women as race was in this instance was clearly discriminatory. How homosexuals and their advocates can turn this around and seek the blessing of the judiciary to a socially revolutionary experiment that separates some men and women and allows that also to be called marriage is truly baffling.
Your assertion that the definition cannot be "tossed aside" or changed, especially that it cannot be expanded so that it does not eliminate the right to marry for anyone who has it now, is preposterous.
And I thought conservatives are narrow-minded? Yikes. While natural marriage will continue for those of us that understand more than the most narrow of aspects of marriage, accommodating the desires of those that want to redefine it will require the State to play along, making everyone a party to this grand scale of "let's pretend". At some point in the not too far off future this will not be enough for those pushing same-sex "marriage", just as laws against employment/housing discrimination based on sexual orientation are no longer sufficient.
And Orin, since when are EQUALITY and LIBERTY "rage[s] of our contemporary and oh-so modern times?" Our Founding Fathers set up this nation based on the idea that all men are equal and possess God-given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And gays and lesbians have to a large extent achieved equality and liberty, free to live as they please. What is being sought now would make the State a party to violating the laws of Nature and Nature's God, something our Founding Fathers could not give assent to.
ALL MEN, not just white men
ALL MEN, not just male men but WOMEN too
ALL MEN, not just straight men
Our freedom is given to us with a purpose, when we abuse that purpose our freedom is diminished. This does not happen because Pat Robertson or some other idiot televangelist prays for the judgment of God; rather, it happens as naturally as the Law of Gravity. You can rail against it (and me for merely explaining and reminding you) all you want, but if you climb up a rope in a gym and let go of that rope, you will fall no matter how much you may disbelieve the Law of Gravity. And as my Junior H.S. PE teacher reminded the class I was in, "the fall is beautiful; it is the sudden stop that really hurts."
"The interesting thing about polygamy is the rather divided way it is regarded. Biblical law allows polygamy while biblical narrative depicts every polygamous union as a thing departing from the ideal. There is not a single union of polygamous couples that is depicted happily. So, while biblical law allows (mostly I suspect as a compromise to the cultures that surrounded Israel) multiple marriages, biblical narrative condemns such unions."
I may have some minor quibbles with Orin here but he's right that monogamy is always presented as the ideal in the Bible.
What non-Christians often fail to understand is that not all descriptions of the actions of biblical characters is an endorsement of those actions. Christians understand that all men are sinners, even the protagonists. Indeed, that's a key part of the central message of the bible.
Solomon married a pagan and the result was his involvement in idol worship. David had Uriah killed so he could marry his wife (Solomon's mother).
These are obviously not examples of biblical righteousness.
Look at the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. God say "you shall not covet your neighbor's wife".
It's not plural.
deluxe writes,
I may have some minor quibbles with Orin here but he's right that monogamy is always presented as the ideal in the Bible.
LOL! Only MINOR? lol...ok, I'll take that as a compliment.
What non-Christians often fail to understand is that not all descriptions of the actions of biblical characters is an endorsement of those actions. Christians understand that all men are sinners, even the protagonists. Indeed, that's a key part of the central message of the bible.
Exactly.
"LOL! Only MINOR? lol...ok, I'll take that as a compliment."
I had to say that Orin. we Presbyterians think we're the only true church.
I seem to remember Jesus saying something about "hypocrites" -- or is that being removed from the Conservipedia Bible Retranslation Project?
Jeez...and I always thought of Presbyterians as being relatively open-minded people - especially when it came to practicing the Golden Rule, adhering to the tenets put forth in the Sermon on the Mount, and the Ten Commandments.
Deluxe: have you ever given any consideration to the reality that not everybody agrees with your particular religion or even your interpretation of your Bible?
Passing sanctimonious judgments on others is not the Christian way.
Per the New American Standard Bible, Biblical laws include:
Exodus 21:10 - If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or (A)her conjugal rights.
Deuteronomy 21:15–17 - 15"If a man has two wives, the one loved and (A)the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,
16then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn.
17"But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the (B)beginning of his strength; (C)to him belongs the right of the firstborn.
Deuteronomy 25:5–10 - 5"When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. (A)Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.
6"It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that (B)his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
7"(C)But if the man does not desire to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, 'My husband's brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.'
8"Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, 'I do not desire to take her,'
9(D)then his brother's wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and (E)spit in his face; and she shall declare, 'Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.'
10"In Israel his name shall be called, 'The house of him whose sandal is removed.'
It sounds like polygamy was considered necessary and that dispersions were cast on men who did not take in their brothers' widows and produce sons to be named for the dead. In Leviticus, as we all know, there are laws barring same sex unions.
Maybe someday, Orin, you'll explain how is it that you rationalize the Biblical laws barring same sex unions are to be followed, but the Biblical laws requiring polygamy are to be ignored.
While you and other advocates of same-sex "marriage" continually attempt to recast the Loving decision as an expansion of marriage, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Loving decision was an expansion of marriage. That statement is exactly the truth.
The Loving decision expanded marriage to include couples who previously were prevented BY LAW from marrying each other. Naysayers at the time, including the judge who convicted and sentenced the Lovings of "violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages," said such marriages violated God's law. The judge suspended their jail terms but insisted they leave the State of Virignia for 25 years, and said:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Look at that, another person who thought he knew "what God intended."
In fact, at the time, the Virginia state court concluded that the state's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id. at 90, 87 S.E.2d at 756. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.
It was the racist fear of producing "mongrel" children by "corruption of" white "blood" that was used to justify the need for Virginia's anti-interracial marriage laws. Far from encouraging the production of children, anti-interracial laws were meant to prevent couples from procreating "mongrels" by "the corruption of blood."
And Orin, some people still believe mixed race children are to be avoided. Here's one who believes that.
This guy reminds me of you and your arguments against same-sex unions.
From AOL News
No Marriage License for Interracial Couple
By MARY FOSTER, AP
HAMMOND, La. (Oct. 15) - A white Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.
Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."...
Except for marrying them to the person they love.
Click the link to read the rest of the article.
Post a Comment
<< Home