Obama says Jesus Supports Homosexual Union

[Gerald Creasy]

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him "less Christian."

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."

Full Article

Article has link to an audio copy of Obamas idiotic comments.

[one love]

Gerald you know the Obama supporters will say they dont care about his morality or beliefs... Sad how people do not see how this can effect preachers

[Full Quiver]

this, along with his comments about abortion, is solid proof that he has not been involved with Christianity and a real church for the past 20 years but involved with a social and political organization under the guise of a church which has an agenda that Christians do not support

[stevenson]

I couldn't agree more!

[soulsearcher]

It would also seem to prove that he is NOT "secretly" a Muslim. It's my understanding that Muslims have zero tolerance for homosexuals, even putting some to death.

[rough_rider]

It would also seem to prove that he is NOT "secretly" a Muslim.

That, or he is just trying to get the gays vote. Once he makes it to office it's off with their hands and feet .

[dolfan]

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,"

I have a similar opinion, but not for the sake of same-sex unions. I think the government should be out of the marriage business altogether, that government should not distinguish between "married" and "not married".

This comes from doing divorces and seeing the mess they create, the resources they cost, and the realization that the divorce laws are set up so similarly to corporate dissolutions regarding property and child custody laws are what they are without regard to marital status, and that courts (at least in Alabama) don't really care about marriages or no-marriages one way or the other when it comes to divorcing parties and awarding custody, property rights, etc., such that the bottom line is that what we have is a significantly huge proportion of court resources devoted to managing the distribution of property and placement of kids based on what amounts to contract law and corporations law instead of anything faintly resembling marriage at all.

This is not about liberties and rights, so I make myself clear. I'm not in favor of granting any special status to homosexuals. In fact, they can already form LLC's or other entities as they wish to formalize their unions, and enter property-sharing and cost-sharing arrangements so similar to what the law treats as marriages that, as far as the black-letter law is concerned, there's not a lot of difference. Civil unions are, truly, already legal in all 50 states.

Look at it this way. If two guys enter a civil union and then dissolve that through whatever you want to call it ("divorce", for example) the law is going to set down a basic list of equitable principles to give some minimal equity to the parties so that one person does not have and exercise an unfair advantage at the expense of the other under the circumstances. Well, that's what divorce laws do now and that's exactly what corporate or partnership dissolutions do now. The only difference, and I mean the only one, is the child equation.

Let's look at that question, then. Say a man and woman never marry and have kid(s) together. Custody is disputed and support demanded. Guess what? No question of the fidelity of the parties to each other in the relationship enters the equation. The best interest of the children as between the two people is the only question. And, honestly, in real divorces where the parents of these kids have been married adultery or some other marital fault is only a pretext for an award of custody that the court wants to make, and most of the time it is only a small part of the rationale. The bottom line here is that the same set of laws applies to both situations: child custody statutes. They put no premium on marriage. The most common theme seen in custody disputes where marital fault does matter is in situations of abuse, and even there the laws are marriage-neutral. So, it is entirely a matter of application of the laws and the mere presence of status, not the principles on which the laws are created, that makes "marriage" a factor.

So, in my own personal opinion, every state should enact laws which recognize the contractual or corporate basis of these relationships without calling them marriages. Divorces would be dissolutions. Custody and support issues would continue to develop along the same tracks as they currently do and have for decades.

These laws would be structured as corporation or other business entity dissolution laws are, and most of these "relationships" could dissolve with no one ever entering a courtroom.

I think, too, and again just my opinion, that marriage is a sacrament, a holy thing, and that it is best preserved and managed by the church. In other words, I think the church has sole and plenary jurisdiction over all things spiritual --- and the government agrees, since it will not make ecclesiastical decisions. No more "no fault" divorces, because divorces, truly, would only be issued by church authorities based on their application of biblical standards and "church law". The ease with which people hook up and unhook now would not be made easier. It'd place a huge burden on the church to communicate to and inculcate people within them on what biblical marriage means. Personally, I think the church would rather have the government make those hard decisions rather than tackling the hardest questions itself, choosing instead to "counsel" in an environment where it sees itself as having no stake in the outcome. Put that burden on the church, and I think Christian divorce rates would plummet far below the "dissolution" rates of non-Christians.

My .02

[forestwalker]

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,"

I have a similar opinion, but not for the sake of same-sex unions. I think the government should be out of the marriage business altogether, that government should not distinguish between "married" and "not married".

That's pretty close to my own opinion. The government has no right to the word marriage and ought to be forced to abandon its claim to the power to regulate and define it. I do agree, though, that marriage (or stable families and folks producing children at least) are social goods and the government is justified in encouraging them to the extent that it can do so (tax benefits, legal/workplace protections, etc.) and in providing some degree of fairness in dissolving relationships in a contractual sense.

So in theory, I don't have a problem with gay civil unions. I'm not convinced that gay relationships provide the same social good as hetero relationships but if society thinks so, so be it. At the same time, though, I have to recognize that the political question before us goes way beyond the strictly rational argument above. As you say, gays already have the legal rights they claim to be seeking through "marriage". The agenda is not what they claim. The goal is not legal equality, it's a religious and, especially, social redefinition of "marriage". Stripping the government's right to the word would sideline that agenda (politically at least) but that ain't gonna happen.

I think, too, and again just my opinion, that marriage is a sacrament, a holy thing, and that it is best preserved and managed by the church. In other words, I think the church has sole and plenary jurisdiction over all things spiritual ... Personally, I think the church would rather have the government make those hard decisions rather than tackling the hardest questions itself, choosing instead to "counsel" in an environment where it sees itself as having no stake in the outcome. Put that burden on the church, and I think Christian divorce rates would plummet far below the "dissolution" rates of non-Christians.

I very strongly agree with most of this. The last sentence, though, is wishful thinking. We're too atomized and so is the church. "You won't give me a divorce? Fine, the church down the street will," or "the church doesn't have authority over my personal decisions." We'll just have millions of Henry VIII's. Very few Americans, even American Christians would be willing to surrender their individualism in favor of going back to the old limitations of community bonds.

[dolfan]

Forestwalker, you're right on all counts. Part of my thoughts are, indeed, wishful thinking and pollyanna-ish in their assumptions.