Obama and gay marriage
President Obama holds the highest job in our land. The one who holds the highest job in the world is almighty God.
His word has not changed: Marriage: one man-one woman. I agree.
If God ever changes his mind on one man one woman, then I will change mine. We would do well to live our lives as our Creator intended or (God help us) reap the consequences.
REID JOYCE
Winston-Salem
Morality, justice and humor
So much to make fun of, so little time. Despite the results of the marriage amendment vote, we on the pro-marriage-for-everyone side have not only the weight of morality and justice, we have humor.
The Fox Nation website headline reads: "Obama flip flops, declares war on marriage."
Really? He declared war ? He'd like it if more people were allowed to get married, but that's declaring war on marriage? Next up on the website: "Romney flip flops, declares war on tax evaders."
I understand that radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh said nearly the same thing as Fox Nation, that Obama has "declared war on traditional marriage."
So far there has been no comment from his first, second or third wives.
It's some small comfort to me that even though evil won the battle, it has provided comedians with a lot of material to keep us cheerful until we win the war.
CARL McDOWELL
Winston-Salem
A civil and religious solution
The voting is over, and the results have been announced. Now, we must recognize the harm done to the relative roles and interests of the government and religious institutions.
Jesus said, "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God, what is God's." Actually, attending to these wise words might have guided us to a rational and equitable solution to marriage and domestic unions, one used in many countries.
The government has an appropriate interest in stable family units to promote an orderly society and must also safeguard the rights of all of its citizens. Religious institutions, on the other hand, have interests not only in stability and commitment but in encouraging family environments promoting morality and faith development.
The solution? There should be a civil ceremony to recognize the commitment and rights of couples, whoever they may be. Couples may then turn to a faith community for a sacred ceremony — with the individual church, synagogue, mosque or other religious institution being free to define the sacramental form of marriage. The civil official should not be saying "by the power invested in me, I pronounce you married," as spiritual authority does not come from the state. Likewise, the religious institution should not be declaring who has access to certain rights — that is the role of government. Other countries have these two ceremonies, one required and the other optional. Why couldn't we be so reasonable?
This amendment has seriously compromised separation of church and state.
DEAN CLIFFORD
Winston-Salem
Amendment accomplishes little
We are a happily married conservative heterosexual couple and we have gained nothing by the passage of the "marriage amendment." The fact that our state constitution now has language about marriage being between only a man and a woman does not change the way we feel about being married or the amount of love we have for each other or the amount of respect we get from friends and fellow workers or the marriage-tax deduction we will see next April 15 or anything else having to do with being married.
So, why has so much time and money been spent to pass this amendment when it accomplishes so little, except to discriminate against a section of society, when we are facing significant economic and social problems?
ALBERTO AND PATRICIA CARRILLO
Winston-Salem
God's will?
Jesus wept. The pseudo, self-styled "men of God" who we heard on TV news saying that the passage of the marriage amendment was "God's will" broke his heart. We are all God's children, gay or straight, and when our children are hurt we weep. Shame on those who would blame God for their own misguided bigotry.
AUDREY MAYVILLE
Winston-Salem
I don't think Fox is even pretending to be a legitimate news operation at this point.
ReplyDeleteI think I deleted my post, Arthur. Was cleaning some old comments on fb, my fingers were quick on the trigger.
DeleteGood afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteLTE 1: As a private individual, you are free to live your life in accordance with whatever faith you espouse. The govt, however, is bound by the US Constitution which is a secular document. It is not the govt's job to uphold religious doctrine.
LTE 2: Fox News should change its name to Fox Opinions or Fox Editorials. I also fail to see how promoting marriage as being open to all couples, gay or straight is considered "war on marriage".
LTE 3: Marriage has had a split duality between church and state since the Catholic church made it a sacrament in the middle ages. Mr. Clifford has done a very good job describing the dual nature of marriage and how this dual nature presents problems when the legal side needs adjustment. I'm not familiar with the two ceremony tradition in other countries, but I suppose the signing of the marriage certificate could be construed as the "state ceremony".
LTE 4: Other than to drive a further wedge between the citizens of NC and to encode religious doctrine in hopes of creating some sort of state theocracy, I see no purpose in having the amendment on the ballot.
LTE 5: Again, it's not the govt's job to uphold religious doctrine.
Marriage is dying all right, but not because anyone in particular is making war on it.
ReplyDelete“Marriage”, as defined by the peckerwoods, is dying from indifference. It is dying from lack of relevance. It is dying for reasons too numerous to mention.
Since 1972, the number of marriages performed in Catholic churches in the US has declined by 60%. In 1972, there were 8.6 marriages per 1000 performed in the church. Last year, that number was 2.6.
In 1965, over 80% of all young adults in the US aged 18-24 were married. Today that number stands at around 45% and falling fast. And of those who do marry, the number who marry in a church is plunging even faster.
More and more people are getting married on the beach, or on a mountaintop, or on their favorite hiking trail somewhere in between. And fewer and fewer are using ministers of the gospel at all. A friend of mine recently got “ordained” through one of those on-line sites so he could legally conduct his daughter’s ceremony in their back yard.
And, of course, as mentioned before, it is ironic that the fundamentalist peckerwoods who were the driving force behind this “marriage amendment” have the highest divorce rate of any identifiable group in the nation, and that goes for second and third marriages as well.
Hypocrite is too good a word for them. Any standard thesaurus provides some delicious alternatives. How about charlatan, the term applied to Billy Graham by Harry Truman? Cheat, con artist, fake, imposter, swindler…all on target. But two stand out in my mind. One is bigot, because that is what they are. The other is Pharisee, which is how they behave.