Thursday, April 19, 2012

Marriage Amendment Hypocrisy

On May 8th, my home state, North Carolina, will allow its citizens to vote on an amendment to the State Constitution which will define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Same sex marriage is already illegal here. The culture warriors just want to put some nails in the coffin. The actual language on the ballot will read as follows...


Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.


I expect the amendment to pass rather easily. North Carolina is a pretty conservative and obviously bible-belt state. For instance, in my small, rural county, in the 2004 presidential election, Bush carried something like 71 or 72% of the vote. That's all well and good. I'm all for people having the freedom to vote for whomever or whatever they choose as long as their vote is informed and not conformed. The problem with this marriage amendment is the utterly sickening hypocrisy of its supporters. Truly brain-dead, mind-numbing dishonesty and hypocrisy. The idea that these people are "protecting the sanctity of marriage" goes beyond dishonesty to just being a damn lie, and if you support this amendment from that position, you're a damn liar.


First of all, nearly half of ALL marriages end in divorce, and here in the south, the bible-belt (including NC), we have the highest divorce rates in the nation (outside of the obvious - Nevada, where what happens in Vegas usually gets divorced in Vegas), considerably higher than those godless liberals in the northeast and those filthy hippies and hedonists on the left coast. My guess is that gays are responsible for less than .0001% of all hetero marriage divorces. I'd venture yet another guess that some combination of money issues and adultery are responsible for about 80% of these divorces.


To conservative cultural warrior North Carolinians who support this amendment: Until I see you demanding and supporting an amendment to the State Constitution banning divorce (and setting financial parameters for marriage which come with criminal penalties when breached, and making adultery a criminal offence), don't you dare come at me with the notion that you want to "protect the sanctity of marriage"...because you're a damn liar.


This isn't a vote to protect the sanctity of marriage. It's a referendum on gays and an attempt to officiate the lives and rights of others, imposing your own religious culture on them. It's pretty sad that Christians have to lie about what it is.


It's yet another case of "Christians" confusing sociopolitical religious cultural bias with matters of genuine faith  - to the point where it not only makes them lesser people of faith, but lesser people period.

53 comments:

  1. I've have been saying this forever to my DH - banning divorce would be much more effective at preserving marriage than banning same-sex marriages. It's strange that none of the people attempting to "protect" marriage ever suggest banning divorce.

    Then again, no-one would ever listen to me because I am in a godless marriage. DH and I got married in a registrar office (uk) which means that no god was invoked in our marriage ceremony - I guess that means our 16 year marriage isn't actually real, even though he is male and I am female :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. "the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State" They want to be darned sure that they can discriminate against people legally married in other states. My lying, despicable, poor-excuse for a pastor (former) is actually lobbying for this. I hope he gets as good as he gives from this world, karma, God, whoever, because IF ONLY life worked that way his life would forever suck for this stand. He has hurt so many people HE KNOWS over this issue. I am sure he won't hesitate to hurt more people he doesn't know, and all in the name of Jesus.

    *sigh* needs me a dandelion break

    ReplyDelete
  3. I posted almost the exact same thing on Facebook earlier. Defining marriage as between "one man and one woman" without also adding "for life" doesn't protect marriage from anything. All it does is ensure that only straight people can destroy the sanctity of marriage. They will rant all day about the "dangers" of gay marriage but I don't know a single straight person whose marriage was destroyed by gay people. I DO know plenty of people who have been divorced or whose parents have been divorced. They will claim that they are defending Biblical marriage, but without "for life" all it does is send the message "Marriage is a very sacred institution...that we will end at any time for any reason."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Couldn't agree more with all of you guys. The greatest threat to marriage, according to ALL available data, comes from those of us who are straight. We destroy about half of all marriages - with no help at all from the gay community.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Adding "for life" does NOTHING to protect the sanctity of marriage, guys. All that does is protect the sanctity of male privilege.

    I thought you were kidding about making marriage an unbreakable contract. What are you guys thinking? Are you both single?

    Marriages end because one or both partners no longer respects and values the other. From my experience, it's the devalued person who most often decides to file for divorce. You think marriage will be holier when devalued spouses just stay and suck it up?

    Marriage works when both partners respect and value each other. Current Christian trends of "complementarianism" which focus on gender roles necessarily devalues women, who they claim were created to submit to men. Men who believe that do not treasure and respect their wives, they patronize them and use them.

    You want marriage to be "sanctified"? Forbid fundamentalists to marry. Divorce statistics will go down in no time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't want to speak out of turn for anyone, but I took the "for life" part of what he was saying more as an attempt to make the larger point than as a literal thing.

      "You want marriage to be "sanctified"? Forbid fundamentalists to marry. Divorce statistics will go down in no time."

      Ain't that the truth.

      Delete
    2. I'm with Shadowspring on the real causes of divorce. Divorce happens when one or both partners break their vows and rather than loving, honoring and cherishing, they dominate, use, cheat, or neglect. I don't think 80% of divorces in high-fundamentalist-demographic states happen because of money problems and adultery. I think a huge dynamic-- larger than anyone will ever admit-- comes from partners fleeing emotional/spiritual abuse.

      The sanctity of marriage is not preserved when you outlaw divorce. The sanctity of marriage is upheld when both parties have equal power to hold one another accountable to keep the marriage covenant. It is covenant-breaking divorce that God is against in scripture-- not the calling-it-quits of the one who kept the covenant only to see it trampled on.

      Delete
    3. I don't disagree (with maybe the exception of the causes of divorce), Kristen. The point that I was making about divorce wasn't meant to be taken literally, but merely to frame a larger point about the hypocrisy of this amendment (and similar efforts in other states) and the real motivations behind it. They aren't trying to protect marriage. They're trying to outlaw lifestyles contrary to fundamentalist Christianity. From the perspective of the cultural warrior's paradigm, divorce is a thousand-times greater threat to the "sanctity" of marriage than gay people are (and that isn't a judgment on my part regarding divorce - I don't worship the "institution of marriage" like fundamentalists do), but they'd rather merely teach against divorce (while still giving themselves the option of it) but take away ALL options for gay people by rule of law.

      Delete
    4. Whew! That's what I thought at first - the "for life" was meant tongue-in-cheek- but Jason's comments sounded serious when I reread them. It seemed to me that he was saying that he really believed marriage should mandated for life, and then the sanctity of marriage would be preserved. It seems like I misunderstood the second time. Mea culpa then.

      Actually, the whole phrase "sanctity of marriage" is a load of bull dung. Marriage is not "sacred". Love is a holy thing. Many marriages through-out history and the world today are business arrangements. Courtship is a business arrangement between the father of the bride and the suitor. Some arranged marriages work out awesome, and true love and respect exists between spouses, and THAT- friendship, love, respect, that is- is a holy thing. Loving faithfulness reflects the Lord's love for his people.

      The worst part of this law- and make no mistake this law is evil personified, and is causing many to turn away from the Holy Spirit to be filled with self-righteous indignation, fear and loathing- is that for the first time since the Jim Crow laws a class of people is being singled out and denied civil rights. And the church- THE CHURCH!- is spear-heading this effort.

      I feel like I am living in post WWI Germany, heading into the '40s...

      Delete
  6. If you would like a laugh, google "gay steamroller." There have been some magnificent web comics generated from Jerry Falwell's comment about the homosexual steamroller literally crushing decent men and women.

    Christine

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm with you, Lewis. I think the "destroying traditional marriage" thing is just a scare tactic. It's been repeated often enough that many evangelicals actually believe it, but if they took a close look, they'd say it isn't so.

    I am not in favor of making/keeping gay marriage illegal. Like you, I feel like it would be imposing a set of religious beliefs onto a nation of people who don't all share that belief. To be frank, I don't think Christians are called to enforce their beliefs on anyone (and whether homosexuality is okay or is a sin is, in itself, up for debate anyway, even in Christian circles!)

    It seems to me that the REAL issue for Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin (and I count myself 'on the fence' about that at this point in life)--anyway the REAL issue should be whether or not legalizing gay marriage will send a message to the next generation that embracing a gay lifestyle is okay and normal. Obviously, as I've said, it's not our business as Christians to stop that from happening. But my point is, THAT--the message of homosexuality being normal--is what Christians against homosexuality should be worried about. Yet they continue on with this line about it somehow having the power to destroy regular marriage. Why?

    Honestly, I think it's because that line is easier to argue publicly than a line that rests solely on Christian beliefs about sin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there are many christians who are gay and they continue to go to church and also engage in gay relationships. Some really struggle, some are ok with their being born gay.

      Here is my 2 cents---

      The bible says homosexuality is a sin, yet some are born with that proclivity (we are all born in sin!) I think instead of treating it as a life style choice it should be treated as an addiction, like alcoholism.

      Many gays cry that God does not take away their urges no matter how much they pray or beg...a person born with out legs has to live with that fact every day. A person who is alcoholic has to live every day never touching another sip of booze. A christian in a moslem or communist country wakes up every day with the knowledge they may die that day because of who they believe in.
      We all have problems that God says His grace is sufficient.

      Delete
    2. Anon...That was largely my own view as recently as 3 or 4 years ago. While Paul does refer to it as sin in the biblical canon, we have to take into account that this was PAUL saying this (not God and not Jesus), and we have to take into account that Paul has proven to be more than a little off on a couple of things he said in his letters.

      Once I ceased to view the biblical canon as inerrant and perfect (it's neither), lots of issues ceased to be quite as black and white as they always had been.

      While we're certainly born into an imperfect world full of human sinfulness and stupidity, there's nothing in creation more innocent than a newborn (which had no say in the circumstances of his or her birth) - which also makes the idea of being born in sin not quite so black and white when we think about it.

      Delete
  8. Lewis, thank you so much for blogging on this subject. I feel so helpless, because I am going to a school where:

    a) I have been penalized for not holding to the fundy line in college papers

    b) my peers have gotten 100s for spouting religious bullcrap that doesn't even answer the question at hand

    c) people openly carry Bibles and openly sneer at those who don't fit the bill

    d) my instructor admitted to facebook stalking her students

    e) a professional graduate of this program openly admitted to manipulating a patient in an attempt to deter her from abortion- as an instructor! She expected kudos, and that everyone in the room would of course agree with her lapse of ethics for a good cause.

    So, while my heart is in a place where I would put bumper stickers, yard signs, advocate ceaselessly in public and on the internet to defeat this heinous crime of an amendment, I can't afford to professionally. So thanks for talking about it! I love you, bro!

    ReplyDelete
  9. No hypocrisy amongst the men who are for the amendment, at least - feminism is responsible for, besides abortion and the state of morality in this wicked country, divorce. If those women would just submit, what a perfect nation this would be ... (rank sarcasm, as I hoped you picked up on).

    ReplyDelete
  10. How many Patriarchs are divorced or married to a divorced person? Isn't Doug Phillips such a person. Ha!

    Why not ban childless by choice marriage--makes about as much sense.

    How about men submitting to the authority of women?

    Good grief they things people waste the government's time with........

    ReplyDelete
  11. This isn't even about marriage only. This language would ban ALL forms of relationship recognition. There are places in NC that have domestic partnership registries. Some people rely on those to get health insurance and other benefits. This amendment would end that. In some states with similarly wide ranging bans, courts have even invalidated domestic violence protection for unmarried couples.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's an effort to make only fundamentalist Christians full citizens of the state of North Carolina. Everyone else get off the bus. They're not even leaving room at the back of the bus!

    ReplyDelete
  13. (making adultery a criminal offence) it already is against the law in north carolina just not enforced like 90% of all other laws

    ReplyDelete
  14. Adultery, in many states, is still a crime - USATODAY.comwww.usatoday.com/news/opinion/.../2010-04-26-column26_ST_N.h...Cached - Similar
    You +1'd this publicly. Undo
    Apr 25, 2010 – North Carolina: “Fornication and adultery. ... The laws are some of the last remnants of our Puritanical past, where infidelity was treated as not ...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Which would serve as proof that fundamentalist and fungelical Christianity does indeed hypocritically have pet sins. There's no public outcry over the amount of adultery going on in this state. Probably because some of the loudest anti-gay marriage voices are actively engaged in it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hopewell,

    You wrote:
    How many Patriarchs are divorced or married to a divorced person? Isn't Doug Phillips such a person. ?Ha!

    This is a new one for me. What does this mean? I missed something somewhere. I may have missed a whole lot of stuff. Doug and/or Beall?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, I think that whole argument about gay marriage and/or civil unions damaging traditional hetero marriage is groundless.

    I am 100% for gay couples (or any other couple, for that matter) being able to have a civil union that is legally recognized for, among other reasons, tax and insurance benefits.

    Personally, though, I balk at using the term "marriage", because I am wary of anything that involves redefining words? Is or is not the definition of marriage the joining of one male and one female?

    Even so, we heteros have made a sad spectacle of the whole thing ("marriage"). I quibble with the language used here, but am not bothered by the relationships.

    The fundamentalist argument about gay marriage ruining hetero marriage makes me think that they believe about 80% of our population would go for it, were it made legal.

    Maybe this stems from some deeper issues that some of them have with the whole subject?(especially those who shout the loudest against it?)

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm guessing it's his wife, based on his books where he allows for divorce if a husband has broken covenant with his wife (by cheating or violence, and of course only after she has suffered long in prayer and submission, hoping for change).

    ReplyDelete
  19. The thing is, though it typically bugs me, we redefine concepts (and therefore words) all the time. So, certainly the concept of marriage has been redefined and is being redefined:

    http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/05/18/in-honor-of-california-ruling-that-same-sex-couples-have-a-constitutional-right-to-marriage/

    And that's not even counting the way that individual couples redefine it. There was a co-pastoring couple in Georgia in which the man was gay, the woman heterosexual, and they both knew that when they got married. And you have married couples like the Clintons--He has affairs and she likely has knowledge of this, yet they agree to stay...married. Marriages are constantly being redefined by those who are permitted to enter into what is legally defined by the state as "marriage".

    What's marriage supposed to be about, anyway? Is is a political alliance? An economic arrangement? A love match? Is it all about reproduction?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, those are good questions...could marriage be between three people? A group? Any or all combinations? Or, do we hold the definition to the concept of TWO people?

    I am just thinking out loud here. I do worry about redefining words (though of course it is true that terms are always redefined as time goes on). I always think of "War is peace, peace is war...".

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks for talking about this Lewis. I just found out about Amendment One yesterday, and I totally agree with you. I'm a little sad I can't anymore/yet vote as an NC citizen, but praying for NC voters to be wise next month... and trying my best to spread the word to those who can make a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eh, polygamy has already been done, though it's no longer legal in the U.S. (though it's apparently still practiced). So in at least in the limited sense of a husband having more than one wife, the idea of "more than two people" has been covered. I don't know anything about the history of a wife having more than one husband, or a group marriage, so do chime in if you know about those things.

    Right: I oppose changing the meaning of words in the way you describe. I hate the use of the word "complementarian" to mean someone who believes, or the beliefs of someone who believes, that the christian God placed men in authority over women. It breaks the dictionary (whether looking at the mathematical definition, color theory, or whatever) meaning of the word "complementary", which has no hint of hierarchy in it (which is, IMO, one of the reasons the term was coined: it sounds nice).

    Also, the use of "equal" to describe women and men living within that system would be a joke if it were funny. This gets closer to what you were talking about not liking, and I agree--war is the opposite of peace. Women and men living in a so-called complementarian system are not equal, by a long shot.

    So it depends some on perspective, I guess. Is two people of the same sex partnering for a lifetime, the opposite of marriage? I tend to think that in the case of the word "marriage" that what we're seeing is just the evolution of the word, rather than a conscious redefinition of the word to mean its opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, I see your point. No, not in the sense that "gay" marriage would be the opposite of "Hetero" marriage. To me it would seem that divorce might better be thought of as an opposite, i.e.; the splitting apart vs the drawing together.

    But you bring up an interesting point with the polygamy thing. It does suggest that there is a precedent in our society for there to be some sort of definition of marriage. Again, here, one could argue,how is polygamy less "moral" than a bunch of unattached people running around randomly having children? Yet, one is "legal", one is not. Same kind of thing that people throw at you if you have ANY misgivings about the gay marriage concept. "Look at all the awful, adulterous, miserable and destructive relationships that we see among hetero marriages!" is a common (and true) refrain.

    Let me interject- I DON'T think polygamy is ok! Just using it as an example.

    One more point, and this is a good one- fundamentalist Christianity has elevated re-definition to a fine art.Never mind the Communist platform in Animal Farm! Check out the strange and astonishingly inaccurate definitions of "Character" words put out by the Gothard crowd! (That's my take, anyway)

    As far as "complementarian" meaning "equal but different"- isn't that alot like the theme of the segregated south- "seperate but equal"? Sounds fishy.

    Thanks for listening.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am South African. When the idea of gay marriage was before law-makers shortly after the first democratic elections, Christian groups suggested that a gay civil union be legalized and gays have the same legal rights, but the word marriage be kept for a man-woman relationship.
    I can sort of get that. I believe in treating humans equally, but agree that the word "marriage" already have a meaning.

    By the way, my country did not agree with that. They came from the pretty understandable view (very understandable here) that separate, but equal institutions (marriage for straight people; civil unions for gays or for straight people who want to call their relationship that) are seldom equal. They chose to allow gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Good for South Africa. Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a featured interview on the DVD "The Bible Tells Me So", exploring the relationship between faith, family and homosexuality. Excellent DVD, I highly recommend it. Also "Through My Eyes" from gaychristian.net.

    Jesus was all about people, not laws. He did not advocate isolation for lepers, he touched them and healed them. He did not consider the woman with the issue of blood nor the prostitute who was his feet "unclean", he touched them and met their needs, honoring them publicly in the process. Ditto the woman caught in adultery.

    The beauty of these DVDs is that it introduces the viewer to good Christians who love the Lord, and as they grow discover they are gay. They were not abused. They were not from bad families. They were not "recruited" into the "gay lifestyle". Far from it! They hid and denied their sexual orientation, confused and afraid. It took time for them to understand that God loves and accepts them as they are. For some, they never made it there.

    Our brothers and sisters in Christ have killed themselves rather than live with our disapproval and rejection. These are our brothers and sisters IN CHRIST! They are the ones we are commanded to love as Jesus loves us; the ones with us whom the world will bear witness to our love for one another and know we are disciples of Jesus.

    That changed everything for me. Gay people are not strange outsiders, foreigners, ungodly heathen, etc. They are, in many instances, my brothers and sisters in Christ.

    That changes everything.

    ReplyDelete
  26. >"I believe in treating humans equally, but agree that the word "marriage" already have a meaning."

    And the exact meaning of that has varied extremely widely through the centuries and varies widely from culture to culture. There are older cultures that at some points had forms of same-sex marriage. If not legally, then socially. Most American Indians tribes, certain African tribes, some parts of China for example.

    What we understand as "marriage" today is less than 200 years old. Less than 150 years ago, women had no distinct legal persona. They didn't own their property and they didn't even exist fully as far as the law was concerned. Even the notion of marrying for love is relatively new. For much of history, marriages were arrangements between families to divide property. If the couple liked it each other, good, but it wasn't a requirement. For centuries, people who married for love were considered foolish. That's what mistresses were for - at least for men.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Absolutely "equal in being but different in role" smacks of "separate but equal"! It's pretty obvious to me, as well: I don't see how people in churches and other systems that promote sex/gender hierarchy can miss that, though it could be in part because it's better than what came before it--"women were created as inferior beings".

    That kind of redefinition drives the editor side of me beyond nuts, as well as ticking off my sense of justice.

    Shadowspring, your review of "For the Bible Tells Me So," makes me curious about the film. I've long (in truth, probably *always*) viewed people who are gay as...people. And there's no reason that they should be singled out and denied the ability to get legally married. But your passion about the movie/the subject makes me curious. Thanks for speaking up!

    ReplyDelete
  28. They should just be honest and make it read:

    "Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman at a time is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

    Which is still a bad thing for a number of reasons, including the kerfuffle this will make for, among other groups, heterosexual couples cohabiting or in common-law marriages, especially those with children. (I'm assuming this also means that NC won't recognize common-law marriages, legal same-sex marriages, or domestic partnerships from other states). What a mess.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I loved the movie. It follows four Christian families as their children come out to them, and the way they handle the new revelation.

    The most poignant story, and the most relevant to me personally (sad to say),is the story of the mother who first estranges and then loses her lesbian daughter to suicide. At one time in my life, I would probably have done exactly the same thing, and for exactly the same reasons. It is such a shame that her daughter lost her life before her mom would start questioning the fundamentalist dogma she was following so blindly.

    But then that mom's faith, like mine, was unwillingly co-opted by fundamentalism. We believed in Jesus, so we went to church, which is what people who believe in Jesus do, right? There, we were taught that God ordained our pastors and leaders, and in order to please God we were to follow them. So we did. Even when it cost us our families, we would have continued to follow our pastors because it was God's will. I've seen it happen too many times.

    I am really fortunate that I was able to sort out following Jesus from following fundamentalism before it cost me or my child so tragically much. "For The Bible Tells Me So" is a great movie, for explaining how hard it is for people to make that distinction.

    As far as Amendment One goes, check out this link where a co-sponsor disavows the proposed law:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzqYxsSc8nM&feature=youtu.be

    ReplyDelete
  30. (Hi COM. Seen this little web piece. I saw it not long ago. Autumn)

    GOD TO SAME-SEXERS: "HURRY UP!"

    (written by a friend in 2003)


    Even the God of the entire Bible is behind the gay rights movement----and I'll prove it.
    (Although this paper focuses on lost persons in the "Northeastern Bermuda Triangle" outlined roughly by New York City, Montreal, and Boston, I'm sharing it with everyone everywhere.)
    You who identify with GBLT (no, not Gay Bacon Lettuce & Tomato!) already know about your own history. So for the unlearned I'll include some info on it, much of which is on the internet.
    Gay activist John McKellar has stated: "The major media are all nonstop advertisements for the gay lifestyle, so how far are they prepared to go in denying free speech to Christians, Muslims, and Jews?....No major world religion has ever accepted homosexual behavior. And if [gay] activists had any sense of history, they'd realize their own lifestyle is a symptom of an overurbanized, relativized culture heading into decadence."
    Thomas Jefferson revealed that in Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive sex organ was the penalty for sodomy, and he himself authored a bill penalyzing sodomy by castration. The same internet article, "Homosexuals in the Military" by David Barton, also stated that sodomy , homosexuality etc. were regarded as felonies in early America and were even punishable by death in New York, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Vermont!
    You GBLTs have traveled far. You are now helping to fulfill two big signs that Jesus said (in Luke 17) will characterize life on earth just before His return to it: "days of Noah" (physical violence) and "days of Lot" (your GBLT ancestors).
    Even the New York Times has expressed amazement over the suddenness and pushiness of today's campaign for legalizing same-sex marriage, and Prof. David M. Halperin wrote that "lesbian and gay studies scholars" have led the way in fighting against policies that "criminalize gay sex or limit access to abortions."

    I said early on that the Bible's God is behind you GBLTs. Yes, He's behind you and even pushing you down the dead-end road you have insisted on taking. Several scary Bible passages show that God will actually "program" those whose motto seems to be "HELL-BOUND AND HAPPY!": "the Lord God...gave them up to desolation" (II Chron. 30:7); God "gave them up to uncleanness," "gave them up to vile affections," "gave them over to a reprobate mind" (Rom. 1:24,26,28); "God shall send them strong delusion" (II Thess. 2:11); and "he which is filthy, let him be filthy still" (Rev. 22:11).
    Now that you GBLTs have invented strange architecture (closets opening on to main streets instead of bedrooms!), have traded limp wrists for clenched fists, and are fighting for shame-sex marriage, I wonder if you will be happy when you've turned New York into New Yuck, Boston into Bah!-ston, and other places into Messychoose-its, Nude Hampshire, Vermin, and Cana-duh (where at least the maple leaves will be blushing!). And of course I should include Hell-A and San Fransissyco which, appropriately, are in Quake-ifornia!
    So what are you waiting for? Since you're bent on fulfilling the predicted end-time Noah/Lot days (your way of helping to make the Bible even more believable!), and since seemingly you'd rather discover the "wrathful Judge" side of Christ instead of His "merciful and loving and forgiving" side, can't you speed up your role and get it over with? You're holding up the true and everlasting peace that God wants to give to the whole world!

    (You're free to reproduce and distribute this non-copyrighted paper everywhere including the internet. You're also free to use a different title with it, if you wish.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You writing is so disgusting, no wonder you post as Anonymous. However you are not hidden from God,and on the day you stand before him and he announces "Depart from me, I never knew you." you won't be anonymous anymore. All of creation will watch you turned away from the Great Feast of the Lamb and his beloved sheep.

      As my son says, it will certainly "suck to be you" on that day.

      ps Thomas Jefferson says offending members shall be cut off for those committing sodomy? Then someone quick and cut off Mark Dricsoll's member, because he calls for Christian husbands to sodomize their wives.

      pps Lewis, thanks for putting the post through so we can all see the depth of the hatred in the hearts of people who call themselves Christians but are really Bibliolaters. Ugly, but people need to be aware.

      And finally:

      All those in NC please get out and vote against Amendment One!!

      Delete
  31. A slight aside--"Common-law marriage" has not been recognized in a number of states for years: because of the fear that a cohabitating same-sex couple who fit the definition would step forward and use common-law recognition of marriage to claim that the denial (by their state government) of their union was illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  32. That may be true for states that banned common-law marriages in the past 20 years (Ga., Id., Pa., and Oh.), but probably not for earlier dates. Massachusetts, for example, banned common-law marriages in 1646, and my state has never acknowledged them (however, we are scheduled to have legal same-sex marriage in January 2013).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Joy. Thanks for the clarification :)

      And congrats on legal same-sex marriage recognition in your state in January 2013!

      Delete
  33. 59% to 41% it passed done deal in north carolina

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Likely within a couple of decades, more thoughtful, intelligent, and reasonable people will overturn it, just like slavery and segregation.

      Delete
    2. i dont think them quiet compare but sure it wont stand

      Delete
  34. divorce is higher in south because mom gets upset if you shack up that's redneck for live together and northerns (yankees) dont care just keep shacking, so census dont tell the whole story lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. That morally justifies it.

      Delete
    2. Hee hee Anonymous IS satire, no?

      Delete
    3. I'm pretty sure I know who "Anonymous" is, and I think I can safely say that Anon probably doesn't know what satire means.

      Delete
    4. i dont know who you think i am but just thought divorce rate stuff is mostly a joke and i certainly know what SATIRE is and someone needs a little humor thank you dont judge falsely Lewis
      Satire -composition in which folly or a FOOLISH person is held up to ridicule
      lol

      Delete
    5. You're probably my FB friend who posted an ambiguous status update about being "falsely accused" roughly about the same time this comment was submitted.

      Another word for you to look up: irony.

      Delete
    6. dont have FB sorry here one for you
      concupiscence lol

      Delete
  35. http://www.facebook.com/people/Red-Barren/100002905223947

    and

    http://ntmfansite.blogspot.com/

    Satire at its finest.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'm sorry you think that. Gay marriage doesn't hurt straight marriage, but it does open a door for people to define things even more loosely than we do already; sex is not considered very important largely by society anymore, and this is another way to say that gay sex should not only be considered normal, but what, sacred? It goes beyond accepting gays as members of the community, and this law is often supported by people who speak strongly against divorce, so they are far from hypocrites. Getting rid of no-fault divorce is the answer, not divorce period.

    Jennifer

    ReplyDelete