DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

I disagree with this amendment. Right now I'm not sure I like any amendment to the constitution. This is such a gut reaction to what is happening in our society. I honestly don't think that people are really thinking here. Let me ask you this, has the Supreme Court really interpreted the constitution correctly in the recent past? Did the Supreme Court correctly interpret the constitution in Roe v. Wade? How will this amendment be any different? It just gives an activist court fodder to impose more of it's judical legistation over our lives. Mark my words if this passes in the end the Court will use this amendment against the very people who are actively seeking it. What we really need is a Supreme Court that has the balls to really interpret the constitution the way it was originally intended. I'll get off my soap box now.

Grace and Peace,

Thomas

Thomas,
The fact that it might be misinterpreted by the Supreme Court isn't a reason to go against it. There's an ancient Jewish belief that once a society accepts homosexuality as normal, that society is in it's dying hour. Marriage, by design, can only be a union between a man and a woman; any use of the word "marriage" for other unions is a lie. Once gay "marriage" is legalized, it gains a legimitacy it did not previously have, so we must do all we can to stop it.

By the way, the Catholics have always taught that abortion, gay marriage, multiple marriage, and incestuous relationships are the fruit of contraception.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Don't get me wrong I completely agree with you on homosexuality and the definition of marriage. But do you honestly believe that a constitutional amendment will change peoples beliefs and actions? If our society and the individual in that society do not repent and turn back to God, homosexuality will become the norm regardless of whether there is a constitutional amendment or not. The only thing the constitutional amendment gets us more imposition into our lives by the federal government and its legistators, the Supreme Court.

Grace and Peace,

Thomas

P.S. And of course all the ills of present day society are rooted in the Protestant Reformation. That's a given. ;)

Thomas,
At least you realize contraception is rooted in the protestant reformation ;-)

I agree that the nation needs to repent in a very serious way, but often government regulation can either legitimize or demonize (so to speak) certain actions. For instance, when abortion was legalized, most of the country was against it and horrified that this could happen. But now, thirty years later it is often seen as odd for someone to be truly pro-life (particularly in the case of rape, etc). The amendment can't change people's minds or hearts, but a ban could make some stop and think about why a government would choose to ban such a union and how it would affect our future. At least a ban would be a public acknowledgment of the truth of Christian thought on marriage. This is why I support the bill (and why I'm urging my representatives in both houses to do so).

God bless,
Jay

Here in Virginia, the Marraige amendment was approved, thank God. However, there was a faction that attempted to sway the vote the other way. Interestingly enough, there were a group of clergy who banded together to rally support against, believe it or not, the amendment. Among the 280 clery who signed the "statement" came from Presbyterian, Episcopal, United Methodist, Baptist, United Church of Christ, Unitarian, Jewish, Lutheran, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Metropolitan Community Church, Mennonite, and Brethren traditions. The most interesting clergy of note is the Jewish involvement considering Jay's statement above:

"There's an ancient Jewish belief that once a society accepts homosexuality as normal, that society is in it's dying hour."

Now to be fair here the group's contention is that the amendment will not provide protection to unmarried couples and their children--legal, physical, and medical. They rationalize their decision by saying, "Even those of us who believe that the state should reserve legally sanctioned marriage for unions between a man and a woman agree that this amendment goes too far." So once again it seems that liberalism runs rampant even among those who are supposed to lead in a moral fashion. In my mind it is a delusional point of view similar to handing out poison that is flavored and looks like chocolate. Enticing and seemingly benign, but not necessarily the best choice for a morally starved secular society longing for clear principles.

The group finishes their statement by saying, "Our faith traditions teach us that God desires justice, kindness, and mercy. There is no place within our faith communities or within our Commonwealth for an amendment that punishes unmarried couples and their children. Ballot Question #1 will not protect marriage, but it will harm families. As religious leaders, we urge Virginians to vote "no" on Ballot Question #1. IT IS THE MORAL CHOICE" (my emphasis).

Thank God for the Catholic Church and it's leaders here in Virginia who urged all 650,000 Catholics to vote "YES" for the amendment and truly make the moral choice according to God's law, not man's whimsical desires. If I were a part of any of those congregations or "faith traditions" as they say, I would have to seriously take stock of what was being sold as truth, but in actuality liberal Christian rhetoric. May Christ guide all of those men and women who lead those congregations to His truth and not their version of it.

For a full read of the article here is the link: http://www.votenova.org/node/1149

In Christ and by His grace,
Matthew

Post a comment