Marriage Amendment
I was just browsing the Louisville Courier-Journal's website and came across their Readers' Forum which is on Southeast Christian Church's support for the Kentucky Marriage Amendment. Reader Will Meyers acts as if it is strange that Southeast would support Marriage.
David Rodger writes that the campaign to amend the Kentucky Constitution is "black-hearted bigotry." This is not the case. The KMA is solely about defining marriage for the Commonwealth of Kentucky as a union between one man and one woman. It is important this institution be so defined because activist courts are ruling by edict (as in Massachutesetts) and bypassing the legislative process and setting themselves above the will of the people. This overeager judiciary is reoding democratic principles that have held this nation together for nearly 230 years. It is because of a compassion for society that marriage should be defined as one man, one woman. The heterosexual nature of marriage is what propagates society. The marriage of a man to a woman help to restrain the aggressive impulses that single men often have. Both man and woman have separate and equally important inputs into the raising of children. And these inputs are beneficial to the child's psychological makeup and to the wellbeing of society. There is more to "one man, one woman" than the convenience of tradition, and it is by no means "black-hearted bigotry."
Mique Davis seems to think that Southeast is trying to start the U.S. down the road to Theocracy. How ludicrous! This claim is so irrational. The only reason Southeast supports the KMA is because Southeast believes that the Biblical definition is best for society for both religious and secular reason. Marriage was designed that way by God (with religious and secular benefits). Southeast constantly affirms the place of democratically elected government in American society. But Southeast does believe that law must have a moral basis; otherwise, law is not anchored to anything but the whims of the populace.
Becky Skaggs feels that "conservatives" are selecting groups to put on a "chopping block" to remove their rights. First, there is no right to the government recognition of marriage. Government provides certain recognitions to legally married couples in order to promote the common good of society. Government doesn't have to do this. We, as citizens, are not entitled to these recognitions as a right of our existence. Anyone can get married. Anyone. Gays can even have civil services of marriage. Gays can marry. But the government decides which marriages it will legally recognize and endorse. And, by "the government," I mean the people.
Sarah Dunn has missed the point. As I have just finished stating, marriage is open to everyone, but legal endorsement of marriage is a privilege reserved to the people through government. Sarah also points to some hypocracy at Southeast, but she does not state it clearly. In absence of any clarification, I would have to assume she means something about divorce. But, once again, where is Southeast cupable in this issue? Divorce has been allowed (but not preferred) in the Bible for over 3,000 years. Abraham was permitted to grant divorces to the early Israelites. Jesus reaffirmed that divorce is permissible. But Jesus also stated that God would prefer that couples resolve their differences and continue in marriage. Southeast stands behind the example of Jesus and does everything it can to promote healthy, Christ-centered marriages. In the end, it is easier to work through momentary troubles (excepting physical/psychological abuse), that it is to live through the sorrows brought about by divorce. Actually, if people would marry for the right reasons to begin with, there wouldn't be these problems.
Marriage to too important to society to leave it open to the whims of an overreaching judiciary. Vote "Yes" on the KMA.
"Southeast's campaign for the marriage amendment only serves to alienate more people from the Gospel, and to further perpetuate the myth that "sinners" (in their estimation) don't deserve equal treatment in our secular society."Actually, it is the Gospels that reaffirm the sanctity of marriage. And Southeast makes no presumptions about anyone's sins -- they hold, and always have held, that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). Southeast is also a champion of "equal treatment in our secular society." Anyone can get married, if they wish. Gay or straight, any man can marry a woman; any woman can marry a man. That is the definition of marriage -- one man, one woman. Everyone deserves and will get equal treatment from Southeast Christian.
David Rodger writes that the campaign to amend the Kentucky Constitution is "black-hearted bigotry." This is not the case. The KMA is solely about defining marriage for the Commonwealth of Kentucky as a union between one man and one woman. It is important this institution be so defined because activist courts are ruling by edict (as in Massachutesetts) and bypassing the legislative process and setting themselves above the will of the people. This overeager judiciary is reoding democratic principles that have held this nation together for nearly 230 years. It is because of a compassion for society that marriage should be defined as one man, one woman. The heterosexual nature of marriage is what propagates society. The marriage of a man to a woman help to restrain the aggressive impulses that single men often have. Both man and woman have separate and equally important inputs into the raising of children. And these inputs are beneficial to the child's psychological makeup and to the wellbeing of society. There is more to "one man, one woman" than the convenience of tradition, and it is by no means "black-hearted bigotry."
Mique Davis seems to think that Southeast is trying to start the U.S. down the road to Theocracy. How ludicrous! This claim is so irrational. The only reason Southeast supports the KMA is because Southeast believes that the Biblical definition is best for society for both religious and secular reason. Marriage was designed that way by God (with religious and secular benefits). Southeast constantly affirms the place of democratically elected government in American society. But Southeast does believe that law must have a moral basis; otherwise, law is not anchored to anything but the whims of the populace.
Becky Skaggs feels that "conservatives" are selecting groups to put on a "chopping block" to remove their rights. First, there is no right to the government recognition of marriage. Government provides certain recognitions to legally married couples in order to promote the common good of society. Government doesn't have to do this. We, as citizens, are not entitled to these recognitions as a right of our existence. Anyone can get married. Anyone. Gays can even have civil services of marriage. Gays can marry. But the government decides which marriages it will legally recognize and endorse. And, by "the government," I mean the people.
Sarah Dunn has missed the point. As I have just finished stating, marriage is open to everyone, but legal endorsement of marriage is a privilege reserved to the people through government. Sarah also points to some hypocracy at Southeast, but she does not state it clearly. In absence of any clarification, I would have to assume she means something about divorce. But, once again, where is Southeast cupable in this issue? Divorce has been allowed (but not preferred) in the Bible for over 3,000 years. Abraham was permitted to grant divorces to the early Israelites. Jesus reaffirmed that divorce is permissible. But Jesus also stated that God would prefer that couples resolve their differences and continue in marriage. Southeast stands behind the example of Jesus and does everything it can to promote healthy, Christ-centered marriages. In the end, it is easier to work through momentary troubles (excepting physical/psychological abuse), that it is to live through the sorrows brought about by divorce. Actually, if people would marry for the right reasons to begin with, there wouldn't be these problems.
Marriage to too important to society to leave it open to the whims of an overreaching judiciary. Vote "Yes" on the KMA.
Posts
