Take a Stand for Marriage

[O.F.F.]

Dear Board Members,

This is something I believe most of us can agree on. I know many of you are probably outraged by the same-sex marriages being performed in America - in bold defiance of existing state and federal laws.

I am, too. I just joined the American Center for Law and Justice’s nationwide Petition to Preserve Marriage campaign and added my name to the petition. We must let Congress know how we feel about this critical issue. I hope you’ll also add your name immediately - this campaign must be a success!

Please read the email below from the ACLJ to get more information about how you can help stop same-sex marriage!

----------

This may be your best opportunity to take decisive action to preserve marriage as between one man, one woman.

The ACLJ has launched a NATIONWIDE PETITION CAMPAIGN so you can voice your opposition to same-sex marriage to Congressional leaders - and call for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

ADD YOUR NAME TO OUR ONLINE PETITION TO PRESERVE MARRIAGE TODAY -- and forward on to your friends and family after signing.

www.aclj.net/aclj/Preserv...refer=2031

We want to gather thousands of signatures from ACLJ members like you through this campaign.

We will then forward these petitions to key Congressional leaders:

* Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
* Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle
* Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
* House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
* House Democratic Leader Nancy Pesoli

We will urge them to heed the President’s call on February 24:

“Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife.”

Per the Constitution, two-thirds of Congress must pass a constitutional amendment ... which must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

This is a tremendous challenge.

But IT MAY BE OUR BEST CHANCE of stopping same-sex marriage in the United States!

It is clear that existing state and federal laws may not keep activist judges and local officials from marrying same-sex couples ... even if it means they are committing a CRIME!

Please TAKE A STAND TODAY. Add your name to our online Petition to Preserve Marriage right away.

www.aclj.net/aclj/Preserv...refer=2031

This may be the start of a long, intense fight. But we’re absolutely committed to protecting God-ordained marriage in America.

Already we are fighting to stop same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California - while simultaneously:

* Focusing our resources into both the legislative and legal arenas that can protect marriages as between one man and one woman.

* Working with key leaders in Washington to help pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as being between one woman and one man that will hold up in court.

* Fighting for the national DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT and other defense of marriage laws in various states.

* Taking on organizations in the courts, in local governments, and wherever marriage is under attack.

BUT WE CANNOT DO THIS ALONE.

Make your voice heard today - through our online Petition to Preserve Marriage!

www.aclj.net/aclj/Preserv...refer=2031

Congress must know the will of the people. They must be pressed to take action quickly. They must hear from Americans like YOU!

So please ADD YOUR NAME to our nationwide Petition to Preserve Marriage campaign right away.

www.aclj.net/aclj/Preserv...refer=2031

After you have signed the petition, please forward it on to your friends and family.

Thank you for taking a stand to preserve marriage!
______________________
American Center for Law and Justice
P.O. Box 64429
Virginia Beach, VA 23467
Phone: (757) 226-2489
Fax: (757) 226-2836
www.aclj.org
----------

 

[Susan]

As this is a CO forum, I will not argue with this post. Nevertheless, I do not believe our calling as Christians is legislative restriction of others' behavior.

 

[jenptcfan]

As this issue becomes more and more of a hot topic, we will no doubt be asked to sign petitions. One thing about petitions: please make sure you are a registered voter before you sign any petition. The people who oversee petitions are very nitpicky about the signatures and if there are unregistered voters' signatures on petitions, the petition can become void.

 

[Crazy Liz]

As this is a CO forum, I will not argue with this post. Nevertheless, I do not believe our calling as Christians is legislative restriction of others' behavior.

"CO forum"????

Actually, I think this subject is an excellent one to discuss in this forum, as separation of church and state has always (with a few aberrant exceptions such as Muenster) been a major tenet of Baptists and especially Anabaptists.

OFF, could you explain how your call for signatures on this petition fits with Anabaptist theology or why you have decided to reject Anabaptist theology, at least in this instance?

I think Anabaptists certainly must "take a stand for marriage," but would do it by demonstrating what it really means to live out a godly marriage within a community of believers, not by trying to force anyone else to do or not do something. The essence of Anabaptist/Baptist theology is that living the christian life is voluntary, not imposed (therefore your parents cannot consent to your baptism, but you must submit yourself to baptism) or coerced.

Anabaptists have taken political stands, but such political stands are always to be taken against oppression and in favor of freedom, never the reverse.

Does anyone else see this as an issue of Anabaptist theology? Agree or disagree?

 

[Bonhoffer]

Whilst I agree that gay couples deserve legal recognition I cannot agree to full gay marrage. And before people say "you shouldnt force your religion on others", I must state that I was opposed to full gay marriage before I became a Christian. (and this was when I didnt think there was anything at all wrong with gay relationships)

My arguement against full gay marriage doesnt come from the Bible (as I am strongly for the seperation of church and state) but from the veiw that gay marriage would undermine the cultural rights of traditionalists. (Christians, Muslims and even atheists)

However not to allow Civil Unions would be grossly unfair on the gay community. (who I am full of Gods love for)

The comprimise of Civil Unions allows traditionalists to keep marriage 'special' and for gay couples to have rights I beleive they are entitled to.

I also think that the full legalisation of gay marriage would be bad for homosexuals as the passing of such an act would be likely to stir up an angry backlash against the gay community.

The best thing is to play it safe as we have done in Britian.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Whilst I agree that gay couples deserve legal recognition I cannot agree to full gay marrage.

[...]

My arguement against full gay marriage doesnt come from the Bible (as I am strongly for the seperation of church and state) but from the veiw that gay marriage would undermine the cultural rights of traditionalists. (Christians, Muslims and even atheists)

However not to allow Civil Unions would be grossly unfair on the gay community. (who I am full of Gods love for)

The comprimise of Civil Unions allows traditionalists to keep marriage 'special' and for gay couples to have rights I beleive they are entitled to.

[...]

The best thing is to play it safe as we have done in Britian.

In Britain, do members of civil unions get all the same "perks" as married people (i.e. tax breaks, etc.)? Are they easier or harder to disssolve than marriages? Basically, what distinguishes marriages from civil unions? Just the name? If more than just the name, is it still discriminatory?

I'm curious because this is something the American system of fedralism is having big problems with.

 

[Tenorvoice]

If we (America) as a Nation accept the gay-lesbian marraiges/civil unions it WILL be the down fall of our Nation as we know it. If you look @ history as a whole not too long after a society accepted these things their nations fell or were distroyed, wiped out.


If they pass this law then what is to stop them from passing laws that would allow people/ groups from getting marriaed to eachother say 3 men and 2 women marrying eachother???? NOTHING!!!! We are living in an AMORAL society and I do not see our great Nation standing much longer at all once these things come to pass. There will be nothing to stop them.

We as Christians need to stand together and boldy stand against what our liberal judiciary system is trying to do to us and get the word out there. Inform people of the TRUTH of the consiquenses for there actions.

God is going to judge this Nation some day ( I belive real soon) and nothing will stop His wrath from coming down on us ..less a total revivaland repentance of our country back to Him and Him only. Giving Him ALL the Glory ALL the Honor and ALL the Praise the He so richly deserves. He is the one that controls our very breath and can take us out @ any time that He so pleases.

This is what today was for The National Day of Prayer. We were to be praying for our Nation, its leaders, and law makers.

I hope that every Christian out there participated in it. For it is only through that POWER of prayer that anything is accoplished.

Peace

 

[Crazy Liz]

Would someone PLEASE explain how this specifically fits with Anabaptist or Baptist theology?

 

[Eusebios]

Constitutionaly, legal gay marriage is a slam dunk. It is up to the Church to make a stand and stop abrogating her responsibilities to the state. Just my 2 cents worth.
Eusebios.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Constitutionaly, legal gay marriage is a slam dunk. It is up to the Church to make a stand and stop abrogating her responsibilities to the state. Just my 2 cents worth.
Eusebios.

Your icon indicates you are Eastern Orthodox, a church whose theology has supported the idea of "Christendom" since the time of Constantine. Anabaptists have a very different view of the proper relationship between church and state and the limits of Christian participation in government.

I'm trying to understand what you think it means for "the Church to take a stand." What would that look like? Signing petitions?

The last part of your post "stop abrogating her responsibilities to the state" is very ambiguous. It could mean 2 different things. Are you talking about

1) responsibilities the Church owes the state? If so, could you describe in general terms what those responsibilities are?

or

2) responsibilities the Church owes to someone else, so that the state has stepped in to do something the Church should be doing?

If you mean #2, that could be consistent with Anabaptist theology, but signing a petition asking the state to do more would not be the proper response.

 

[P_G]

While I am not too sure about signing petitions or not signing petitions being proper or right. I suggest on this that you do as the Lord leads and as your heart dictates. But let me share a pastors perspective:

Cival union's sounds good right? Non threatening to the church and it seems only fair right? And as men we want to be fair - it's just a good idea! But what does G-d say?

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

G-d has said that this is an abomination and wrong

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

But since G-d is gracious he will give us the wicked desires of our hearts. So we make cival unions legal and in fact many states have done so.

The next thing which happens is since that victory has occured the homosexual lobby goes after full blown marriage which is what we see today and men will openly disobey the law to accomodate these people. After all it's only right! Only fair they "love" each other. And the Bible predicts that this will happen:

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

And it will soon come to pass that homosexual "marriage" will be allowed and embraced and it will be illegal for a person empowered to marry to "discriminate" against them. Those of us who have the authority to sign marriage documents with be told "you do this or you will be imprisoned"

Sure it will start with judges and river boat captains and justice of the peace's but trust that it will leach into the church. Your pastor will be forced to preform these abominations or face prison time.

I know you don't think it is so but look at history look at what man does to other men in order to enforce the right to their sin. And the Bible fortells that day too!

Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Yes the mark of men and their rules instead of the phalactery or Teffilin which is the mark of G-d. The outward indication that a man follows the Lord or follows the devil.

Brethern I for one will go to prison one day over this. Who knows perhaps be exectuted. And thats ok for to live is Christ and to die is gain.

If you think this is overboard, doom speak, too radical I suggest you look at history before you put your fingers on that keyboard. Who would have thought 6 million Jews would have been executed in a 4 year span because of "a good idea" of men.


Blessings

Pastor George

 

[Eusebios]

Your icon indicates you are Eastern Orthodox, a church whose theology has supported the idea of "Christendom" since the time of Constantine. Anabaptists have a very different view of the proper relationship between church and state and the limits of Christian participation in government.

You are correct Liz, in stating that I am in fact Eastern Orthodox, though a member of the OCA which is rooted in a much more western frame of mind. As a former Anabaptist I have a fair idea of the ecclesiology, including the ideas of Church/State relations, you're point is well taken.

I'm trying to understand what you think it means for "the Church to take a stand." What would that look like? Signing petitions?

No, signing petitions is not what I had in mind at all. Signing petitions is all well and good, but , IMHO, largely symbolic and rarely substantive.

The last part of your post "stop abrogating her responsibilities to the state" is very ambiguous.

I can understand this, though it wasn't my intention.

It could mean 2 different things. Are you talking about

1) responsibilities the Church owes the state? If so, could you describe in general terms what those responsibilities are?

or

2) responsibilities the Church owes to someone else, so that the state has stepped in to do something the Church should be doing?

If you mean #2, that could be consistent with Anabaptist theology, but signing a petition asking the state to do more would not be the proper response.

I do indeed mean #2. I am of the opinion that marriage, as sacrament, is properly the function of the Church, a duty she owes to God and to her people. When put into the purview of the State,it becomes, in essence, property of the State and hence subject to the laws thereof. That is why I say in the first part of my post , that legally, gay marriage is a "slam dunk". The Civil War Ammendmends, and thier interpreattion in the courts, including but not limited to The US Supreme Court make that abundantly clear. In our particular legal system here in the US, I believe that petitions are, as I said largely symbolic , and somewhat pointless(though I'll admit to having signed them on occasion). I also believe that DOMAs arer legal fictions that will not stand up to any serious court challenge.
I've likley said too much. I think we may agree in principle. It is neither my place, or intention, to debate this issue in this forum, merely to add my 2 cents worth, think I've already spent a nickle.

 

[Crazy Liz]

You are correct Liz, in stating that I am in fact Eastern Orthodox, though a member of the OCA which is rooted in a much more western frame of mind. As a former Anabaptist I have a fair idea of the ecclesiology, including the ideas of Church/State relations, you're point is well taken.

Thanks for clarifying. Please don't go away just because you're not Anabaptist anymore. I think you could contribute something valuable to this discussion without violating the forum rules.

(I once considered becoming EO myself, so I have a great respect for your POV. Perhaps sometime we could talk about some of the surprising similarities between Anabaptist and EO theology, even though they seem to be opposites on the surface - but that's for another thread and another forum, if I understand the rules correctly. Do you think it would be permitted in General Theology or Ecclesiology?)

I do indeed mean #2. I am of the opinion that marriage, as sacrament, is properly the function of the Church, a duty she owes to God and to her people. When put into the purview of the State,it becomes, in essence, property of the State and hence subject to the laws thereof. That is why I say in the first part of my post , that legally, gay marriage is a "slam dunk". The Civil War Ammendmends, and thier interpreattion in the courts, including but not limited to The US Supreme Court make that abundantly clear. In our particular legal system here in the US, I believe that petitions are, as I said largely symbolic , and somewhat pointless(though I'll admit to having signed them on occasion). I also believe that DOMAs arer legal fictions that will not stand up to any serious court challenge.
I've likley said too much. I think we may agree in principle. It is neither my place, or intention, to debate this issue in this forum, merely to add my 2 cents worth, think I've already spent a nickle.

Although Anabaptists would not use the word "sacrament," I think everything you have said here is consistent with Anabaptist theology. There are some difficulties with putting marriage under the jurisdiction of the church instead of the state, but I know there are groups working on ways to legally accomplish just that. I was hoping we could have a discussion about whether and how Anabaptists might participate in this movement, rather than the political movement to ban gay marriage and/or change the no-fault divorce laws.

 

[Tenorvoice]

What we as Christians need to do is use our power of voting and get those that are in power that are making those types of desicions out of there.

If we as a Christain comunity of voters were to all stand up for our beliefs and vote the way that we should we could make some major changes in the way that things are run in this counrty (get the liberals out). THe problem is , that very few of us are willing to take that stand, willing to stand out in the "world" and follow what God says in His Holy Word.

Our whole society has become nothing more than humanistic and egalitarian. They want nothing to do with God. They have the mind set of "...if it feels good, do it". "that may be what you belive and that is ok as long as it does not interfear with my beliefs."

We need to stop siting idley by while our country goes to the dogs. I get so frustrated when professing Christians do not want to do or to stand up for what God says in His Holly Book The Bible.

All of the answers to our problems in life can be found there. BUt no one wants to spend the time in it and learn what He has to say about it.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Tenorvoice, can you give a theological rationale for your position that is consistent with Baptist or Anabaptist theology about the appropriate relationship(s) between church and state and/or Christians and the state?

 

[seebs]

I personally believe that the state has NO BUSINESS AT ALL telling churches what they do or do not do.

I don't, personally, have any objection to the state performing "civil unions" for pretty much anyone - two men, three women and one man, whatever. What I object to is the connection between state marriage and church marriages.

Are same-sex marriages sacramentally valid? Probably not in most churches. Are marriages between atheists sacramentally valid? Not in most churches. My marriage isn't valid in a Catholic church (I'm a second husband). However, it is socially useful to extend to me the legal benefits of marriage. For instance, my civil "marriage" gives us a better chance of affording a home, and thus settling down and becoming (most likely) better citizens. It gives some legal insurance to my wife in the event that I should turn out to be a crappy husband and want to ditch her. It will, should we have children, provide them with protections as well. It creates a more stable society.

Thus, I think the government, if it is to offer any kind of civil union, offer it to everyone, including people that my church would never dream of uniting in a sacred marriage. I believe the government should step away from the use of the term "marriage", because what they perform is not the same as a marriage. If they ever offer the legal benefits without the term, I believe we will likely try to "trade up" to a civil union, because I do not like the implication that the state of Minnesota has any interest AT ALL in a question that is, frankly, entirely between me, my wife, and God.

This has nothing, in my mind, to do with the question of whether a given marriage is valid in God's eyes, or anything else. That's not the line of work I think the government should be in. I want them focused on questions like "will this social policy increase the economic stability of our state", and I believe that legally binding civil unions will do so whether or not they are "marriages".

 

[Tenorvoice]

lets get this straight "seperation of church and state" is not what most people think that it is.

It is NOWHERE in the Constitution of America.....It was only in the middle of a letter Jefferson wrote to a good friend of his. Before you start throwing that out into the open you have to understand what is ment by it. Do some research on the subject before you argue it! http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

 

[seebs]

lets get this straight "seperation of church and state" is not what most people think that it is.

There are a number of things claimed about it.

However, the separation of church and state is something that I think churches benefit from greatly, and as such, I want it. If you don't feel the establishment clause implies separation of church and state, then we should be lobbying for an amendment to guarantee it. However, I have never found any credible reason to believe that the establishment clause is not intended to create exactly that - total separation between all church functions and all state functions, with no interference of one in the other, either way.

This is what I think we should seek; the alternative is to set a precedent whereby our churches can be controlled by the government, and I think it's clear that we don't want that.

 

[Crazy Liz]

lets get this straight "seperation of church and state" is not what most people think that it is.

It is NOWHERE in the Constitution of America.....It was only in the middle of a letter Jefferson wrote to a good friend of his. Before you start throwing that out into the open you have to understand what is ment by it. Do some research on the subject before you argue it! http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

I'm not arguing it from the perspective of constitutional law, but from the perspective of Anabaptist theology. Anabaptist theologians were advocating separation of church and state long before the US Constitution was ever thought of. I have asked you for a theological argument (from a Baptist or Anabaptist perspective) not a legal argument.

This is not a legal forum, but a Christian one for Baptists and Anabaptists.

I guess you need to do some research on that before you will be ready to argue.

Here are some links for you:

http://www.gty.org/~phil/anabapt.htm

http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2001/01/daily-01-21-2001.shtml

http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps017.shtml

http://www.anabaptists.org/ras/31e30.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_anabaptism.htm?terms=cal

...and a lot more here

Maybe the reason I wasn't getting any response to my requests for Baptist or Anabaptist theological arguments is that nobody here knows much about Anabaptist theology?

 

[seebs]

I don't know; I am apparently fairly close to traditional Quaker theology, and Quakers are vaguely Anabaptists, but I'd be interested in seeing more exposition on what you mean by "Anabaptist theology".

My basic argument for separating church and state is simply that the walk with God is necessarily a personal one, and you cannot possibly help people be good Christians by enforcing Christian morals as laws.