Monday, July 25, 2011

Let the People Vote

Ruth Fremson/The New York Times

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg officiated at the wedding of two of his staff members, Jonathan Mintz, left, and John Feinblatt. The couple's two young daughters, Georgia and Maeve, were there to celebrate.


Tens of thousands of Christians and social conservatives lined the streets of New York yesterday, praying and asking the state legislature to "let the people vote" on redefining marriage.

More than 10,000 showed up just in Manhattan, praying aloud as the "marriages" began.

Hispanic Christians sang hymns and held their Bibles as they walked along the street.

Pastor William Gillison, African American pastor from Buffalo, publicly expressed outrage that "a handful of legislators paid no attention to millions of New Yorkers" on the issue of marriage.

He said, "We are upset because you violated our law that is older and greater than New York."

You may recall that the New York lawmakers were trying to make nice with the churches that believe homosexual behavior is sin and should not be elevated and celebrated and that natural, biblical marriage should not be redefined, by writing some so-called "special protections" into the law for them.

Pastor Gillison was upset about that as well and told the protesters, the press and the politicians, "Before you voted, we didn't need 'special protections', we were already protected by the existing law."

This was not a one day event. The people of New York are organizing. Unlike Washington State, New York does not provide for citizens to directly petition to put the marriage issue on the ballot.

Here's what they are going to do. And here's what the lone Democrat senator who voted against so-called homosexual "marriage" in New York had to say.

Many of the organizers were announcing that this was not a one day event, but the beginning of a "movement" to defend and protect natural marriage. The only recourse in New York is to vote those lawmakers, especially the four Republicans who redefined marriage, out of office and replace them with lawmakers who will support and defend natural marriage.

Pro-marriage leaders feel they can accomplish this by 2015 or 2016 and get the legislature to vote to refer it to the people.

State Senator Rubin Diaz
, D-Bronx, stressed that no hateful comments or expressions would be tolerated. He called for "peaceful, prayerful" expressions of dissent and a call for the issue to be put on the ballot.

I searched the news sources this morning and could not find any incidences where there were expressions of hate toward individuals, although I am certain some will report that there were because anyone who does not celebrate homosexuality and so-called homosexual "marriage" is automatically tagged as a" bigot."

He also asked the Republican Mayor what he was thinking--- saying, "In a city where teachers and public employees are being laid off, and fire houses are being closed for lack of funds, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided to spend city funds to have government open on a Sunday to perform same sex weddings."

There are different kinds of Republicans. Please keep that in mind. The goal of Christians and social conservatives should not be to merely elect a "Republican," rather to elect someone who authentically supports natural marriage, the sanctity of life and family.

He urged the thousands in attendance to boldly protest the homosexual "marriage" law with the same intensity as the Apostles testified the resurrection of Christ following Pentecost. He said, "Christians should not retreat in fear as the Apostles did following the crucifixion and before the resurrection."

Senator Diaz has also said Christians need to "organize better" against homosexual "marriage" and that Christians often "pray too much and act too little."

While the party of perversion continues, it may prove to be more than a celebration of casting off traditional values, it may also become the catalyst for biblical Christians and social conservatives to wake up and act on their beliefs.

Diaz and other leaders strongly question the polls and surveys that supposedly show a majority of Americans now support homosexual "marriage."

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active.

::Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

11 comments:

  1. I searched the news sources this morning and could not find any incidences where there were expressions of hate toward individuals, although I am certain some will report that there were because anyone who does not celebrate homosexuality and so-called homosexual "marriage" is automatically tagged as a" bigot."

    Unless you're counting the death threats against Sen. Diaz himself. But that doesn't count as hate or bigotry because homosexuality confers virtue on its practitioners virtue that transcends that of mere breeders.

    ReplyDelete
  2. These are serious questions I'd like someone here to answer:

    Why does your religious belief that homosexuality is a sin trump this couple's (or any same-sex couple's) right to obtain a marriage license to protect each other and their children?

    If gay people are allowed to marry, you do not have to alter your religious beliefs in any way. You are not forced to compromise your values in any way. Your church does not have to marry gay people. You don't have to attend a gay wedding. If you believe it's a sin, simply don't do it.

    But why must everyone else live by your personal, chosen religious belief system? Why can't the rest of us chose our own personal, religious (or otherwise) belief systems and live by those without government interference or preference? Why must the children in this photo live in an unmarried family because of your religious beliefs? Why must these men forego the protections marriage affords each of them for the sake of your religious beliefs? What do you gain putting obstacles in the paths of these families that you don't even know?

    How many of your rights would you give up because of my belief system? What if I thought Christianity was evil and I got a sizable number of people to agree with me? Would you give up your marriage to appease me? Would you sit back and let it be voted away? Would I even have that right? (No.)

    Your position seems self-centered, elitist, and hypocritical, and I'd love some serious answers.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is a desperate need in America for those OUTSIDE the churches to hear the TRUTH IN LOVE! (Former muslim Shahram Hadian is doing a fabulous job with his TIL project discussing sharia law.) Christians need to crank up the Letters to the Editors, participate in the call in talk shows, and gently witness to their friends and family members. This is the least we can do in these confusing, stressful times! Love means you do not condone evil, destructive behaviors. It is cowardice not to tell those around you who are going the wrong direction what is the way to Jesus and eternal life.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Faith and Freedom Staff12:51 PM, July 25, 2011

    Joel. We could not publish your post because it contained a link. Please re-post it without the link.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tony - First. Allow me to say that I appreciate that you ask these questions. I only hope that you are truly asking in search of some answers, explanations & hopefully a deeper understanding of some basic & vital facts. If we can keep it at a civil level w/ that purpose in mind, progress is possible. If not, we'll only have meaningless rhetoric. So, at this point, there are really only 4 things that must be explained & agreed upon. It is the matter of source, intent, perversion & protection.
    As with anything, the intent & purpose are inseperable from its source. So our jump off point would naturally be, "Where did marriage come from?". Like it or not, agree or not, the fact is that marriage is an institution created by The Creator. God created man (Adam) as a complete human. In seeing that being alone was not good, God created woman (Eve) from Adams rib. He took a part of a complete, created a 2nd part with the inteent that the 2 parts would make a more complete whole when brought together & joined in marriage. With me so far Tony? We cannot seperate the spiritual aspect because it is the source. That would be like trying to understand Disneyland w/o acknowledging Walt & his intent, purpose & dream.
    This bring us to perversion & protection. Please do not take the word perversion personal. It simply means to use something in a way other than intended. At that level, we can all agree that a vehicle can be used in ways that it was not intended. Most often the result is tragic & the bad attention that receives is usually projected upon the vehicle & not the person's choices. There are consequences for perverting anything. Simply continuing to pervert & attempting to get others to accept, ebmrace & permit these perversions does not make it anything but what it is. So then, it falls as a responsibility to those that understand the original intent, value & power to protect it from mis application. You see, the opposition is not really directed at you or even your community. Not anymore than the opposition to drinking & driving is directed at anyone & everyone who drinks or drives. It's is regarding the deadly combination of the two. Nobody in their right mind would stand up & say, "Hey there are a lot of folks who wanna drink & drive. So, they should all ban together, ID themselves as a class of people, fight for their "right" to behave badly & attack anyone who says no to that". It is absolutely not acceptable to simply stand by & allow it. That would be weakness & a severe deriliction of a sacred trust. As for the "imposition" of a religion on your daily live. You have to know that our fine nation was founded as a Judeo-Christian Nation& the subsequent ideologies that go along with it. I'm disappointed & apologetic that our education system has mis-taught. Sadly, this is the case & we must take responsibility to educate ourselves.
    I will leave you with two last thoughts to consider. Marriage is a gift & institution from God not any government. As such, Marriage is a covenent not a contract. Their is a massive difference between the two. Please allow yourself the time to research & undrerstand them.

    Thank you,
    Dan
    Spanaway, WA

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan, I appreciate your answers, and by all means there's no reason for the conversation to devolve into insults. But I do have some replies.

    There are two parts to your response. In the first, you claim that marriage is an institution created by the Creator. That's fine, but right away you dived right into your personal religious beliefs. We are referring to the institution of *civil* marriage, which bestows rights and responsibilities on citizens through the government. Religious marriage is an entirely different matter, and churches can and have always been able to marry or not marry anyone they want. The marriages performed in New York are clearly created by the government, not God (although many churches have chosen to participate, too). Why should you be able to ban me from CIVIL marriage because of your religious beliefs?

    In the second part, you argue that tragedy can often result when something is "used in a way other than intended" and that there are "consequences for perverting anything." You seem to be making a blanket argument against change, but we change civil institutions all the time... including marriage (see polygamy bans in Utah and lifting interracial marriage bans). So, sometimes the consequences of changing something can be good, as surely these changes to marriage have been, right? Your argument should not be against change in general, but against THIS change. And that argument seems to be that you don't want me to marry because your religious beliefs dictate that you should not marry a member of the same sex, and therefore, I must adhere to that belief, too.

    Your comparisons to drinking and driving are not legit because the negative consequences of such actions are clear, whereas the supposed negative consequences of gay people marrying, in as far as I can tell, all stem from being against a specific religious belief of parties not even involved. Why should our government elevate your religious belief over those who may disagree with you, especially since the change in law does not force you to do anything that violates your religious beliefs or values?

    Do you not see the benefit of a government that does not inflict the religious faith of any one group on any other, but instead insists on treating each of her citizens equally, without exception, while granting us all the freedom to choose our own value systems and beliefs?

    I hope you will consider this too...

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  7. Marriage has been changing as a legal institution nearly constantly over our nations history, wives were given equal rights, protections from abuse, and the right to say no to sex, rules for divorce were changed, making it much easier to end a marriage, inter-racial couples were allowed to marry, yet none of these changes to the institution were put to a public vote. So next time Gary and other opponents of marriage equality demand a public vote, acting as if ANY change to marriage without a public vote were unprecedented, ask yourself one simple question, why do they never cite precedent? Here's your chance, Mr Randall, name one instance in which a change to civil marriage was subjected to a public vote?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan,

    You lost all of the rational thinkers when you stated "Like it or not, agree or not, the fact is that marriage is an institution created by The Creator".

    Facts are provable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's like a game of telephone; several thousand people showed up to all the rallies combined, NOM - the organizer - claims 10,000, then Gary comes along and ups the ante claiming tens of thousands which would be 20,000 at a bare technically true minimum 30,00+ in common usage! What a joke. Just to contrast attendance at New York City's gay pride parade was over 2,000,000 this year! So wow you guys have 5% of our support in New York - now that's something to cheer about!

    ReplyDelete
  10. 7:14 -- Not only that but NOM bussed a lot of those people into the city. The busses arriving are on video...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Live and let live...live your life the way you want to and don't try to dictate how other people should live theirs. That's my philosophy.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.