Gays as Political Pigskin

Senate panel OKs gay-marriage ban – Yahoo! News:

“The measure passed 10-8 on a party-line vote. Specter said he voted for the amendment because he thought it should be
taken up by the full Senate, even though he does not back it. The gay-marriage ban is one of several hot-button social issues Republicans are raising to rally conservative voters ahead of November’s congressional elections.”

Specter, a master at doublespeak, knows his politics. On the one hand, he says he is opposed to the first amendment in American history that would abridge the rights for U.S. citizens but he ensures it goes to a debate in the Senate where ostensibly it could be sent to the states for ratification. Why? Because in an election year that debate will energize voters to vote GOP, even if it’s against their interests. He knows the amendment probably will not pass or get killed on floor debate, but the voters’ ignorance, hatred, and/or fear will energize them for the fall. Talk about wanting it both ways! As a black man who has witnessed the effects of the GOP’s racist “Southern Strategy” and coded race baiting with”welfare queens” and Willie Horton, I know how first hand how cynical and evil this is.

3 thoughts on “Gays as Political Pigskin”

  1. Three statements:
    1.) You can’t equate homosexuality with being black because practicing homosexuality is a sin that has to do with behavioral deviance whereas being black just means that your skin color is different from other people’s skin color and has nothing to do with behavioral deviance.
    2.) It is bigoted for people to keep homosexuals from getting jobs, homes, cars, attending church, etc. It is bigoted for people to assault homosexuals just because they are homosexuals. I think there should be (and there are) stiff (no pun intended) penalties for those who seek to physically harm homosexuals or prevent them from having the basic things that allow them to live.
    3.) It is not bigoted for people to protect the institution of marriage from further demise since it has taken such a bad hit from the upsurge in divorces which is a direct result of the feminist movement of the 60’s. Protecting the institution of marriage is the result of people respecting what God setup to keep the people holy.
    The Bible is clear in these
    following scriptures about marriage and homosexuality:
    Leviticus 18:22
    Matthew 19:4
    Romans 1:18-27
    1 Corinthians 6:9, 18
    1 Corinthians 7:1-40
    What is most clear here is the fact that from the time of the Levites all the way through the 1st Century Church homosexuality had been looked at as a grave, grave sin.
    The key solution here is to give homosexuals the freedom to conduct whatever business they may do within the secular realm without offending people who love God. This means civil unions with legal equality at best. This gives to “Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God, God’s.” Any endorsement of homosexual marriage by the state is the equivalent of having that entire state stick their middle finger up at God.
    And I am not about to do that.

  2. 1) Behavioral deviance is not sinful. MLK was a deviant. He did things many did not. Deviance is not a sufficient condition for sin. I look at the fruits of behavior, not behavior itself to make a judgment on whether or not it is sinful. Otherwise, we simple are imposing our fear and ignorance.
    2) The same argument could be made for black people in a white supremacist society. That is a key moral deficiency in that view. You are either a full citizen or you aren’t.
    3) Marriage today is a thoroughly modern invention. It has not been this static institution that has undergone recent decline. There have been an increase in divorces from feminism primarily because the institution of marriage has been an enslaver of women for millennia. Now they have the right to divorce as men did always. As late as the 18th century, wives had no legal identity apart from their husbands, they couldn’t own property, and women were literally at the mercy of their husbands for their economic well-being. Is that the kind of marriage you wish to return to and protect from decline? I say good riddance. As women have made strides, marriage and our societal institutions have been forced to change. Lord knows it hasn’t been pretty. Women now are equaling men in infidelity, for example. But this has zero to do with affording the legal rights of civil marriage to homosexuals, which is what I endorse. In fact, I endorse no marriage in any religious institution having the force of law, that way we keep the two separate. Also, civil unions can’t be separate but equal to marriage since we know how as black people how good that works out.
    The state should have nothing to do with God. It’s our job as citizens to love God or not for that matter.
    As for the Bible being clear, it certainly is. The Bible teaches us that sex between men (Lev 18:22), much of seafood peddled by Red Lobster (Lev 11:9-12), and our national symbol are all abominations (Lev 11:13), not simply unclean like pork (Lev 11:26), but abominations. So this country give a serious middle finger to God by its choice of national symbol, the fact that we don’t forbid work on the Sabbath, allow women to divorce their husbands, we don’t ban shellfish, slavery is illegal, …
    Paul is an interesting figure and I’m am glad you brought him up. For all his diatribe in Romans 1:18-27, he never seems to have a negative word for slavery, the ownership of human beings, but precisely the opposite (Eph 6:5-8). Contrary to being a state of “employment,” the Roman state enforced the property rights of slaveowners could do as they wished with their property. If we know this to be evil, then why would Paul speak to enforce an evil institution? Paul condemns many sexual practices, but he praises Abraham (Rom 4:1-12) who had concubines, sex slaves for his personal pleasure, as a moral exemplar of great faith. No words for his supposed immorality. By the way, I think you will find Paul’s take on Leviticus interesting (Rom 4:13-15).
    My point is that the moral code found in Leviticus and Paul’s code are quite temporal, situated in the times, and thus imperfect and above all, must not be equated to God’s moral code. You respect them, follow them, disagree with them, or praise them. All are viable options, but you can’t put it on God’s lips. If you do then slavery, can’t be evil today or at any time since he allows it to be in his Word as a viable institution for God-fearing Christians and Jews. God’s morality is timeless. Evil is evil for all time.
    Homosexuals have committed, family nurturing relationships with children right now. Barring them from marriage just curtails their equal protection under the law and hurts their children while doing nothing to protect the institution of marriage from the onslaught of divorce and infidelity, or the lack of love or commitment.

  3. Is homosexuality a sin? Yes it is! Should the state then be allowed to prohibit people from engaging in activities which are clearly sinful? NO!! Why? Because what people define as sinful has changed over time. Remember the adultress that Jesus saved from stoning? That’s how serious a violation of the marriage vow was treated back then (for women only – although polygamy had fallen into disfavor by that time in Jewish society). Now? No legal prohibition against sex outside of marriage for either man or woman, although it is grounds for divorce.
    My point is that I can reconcile that which I find morally reprehensible to the authority that the polity cedes to the government without being inconsistent. I will not attend a church where gay marriages are performed, and churches should not be coerced by the government to perform marriages that are inconsistent with church doctrine. The state, however, may grant licenses to whomever it deems fit, and so be it.

Leave a Comment