Sometimes, I am teased about the intensity of my life. Or the issues upon which I focus. Well, my eyes cannot help but see a battle between good and evil. In my vocation of helper — as a wife, mom, grandma, friend and neighbor, I should be alert to what is happening in the culture around me so that I can speak up. Warn. Shine light in darkness.
On May 9, President Obama thumbed his nose at God and publicly endorsed same-sex “marriage.” Will those who have been slumbering now wake up? Here’s what Doug Phillips, President of Vision Forum Ministries, has to say:
“For two decades, the frog has been in the pot while the temperature has been slowly turned up. On May 9, it was finally cooked and served to the American people in a sauce so thick as to cover the rancid flavor of the dish.
“The process began with the Bush presidencies and their toleration for homosexuality. It was advanced in full by the Clinton Administration. It has now reached its logical zenith under Obama. So we should not be surprised by the official announcement that the President of the United States of America has finally declared to the world his opposition to the historical, common law and biblical meaning of marriage. President Obama may be remembered for many things, but few are as fundamental in its treason to his countrymen, to his oath of office and to the living God, then his decision to use the presidency to redefine a definition of marriage that was established on Day Six of Creation and has been the benchmark of civilization for 6,000 years.”
Phillips rightly notes that on May 9, 2012, the President of the United States of America crossed a line. He rightly claims there is “no return without repudiation and repentance. Terrorists are dangerous. The economy is a real and present danger.” But, “just as the holocaust of the unborn imperils the safety of this nation, so does the leader of the Western world” who dares to raise his fist at the Heavens. In opposing the Creator of marriage, this president places generations in jeopardy. “Marriage,” Phillips writes, “is the bedrock institution of society ordained of God and meant to be protected by the state.” But, this president has endorsed the perverted and dangerous practice of Sodom and Gommorah. It is a perversion which cannot grow civilization. It is a perversion that cannot exist on its own. Two men or two women may desire to “marry” and be parents, but they must depend upon the procreative act of others.
President Obama came into office saying he wanted to transform America. Should we be so surprised that that is indeed what he is trying to do? Should we be surprised that he is carrying out the wishes of those who fill his re-election coffers? God is not surprised. He has allowed kings and rulers throughout history who were enamored with themselves and careless with human life. At such times, God called His people to contrast good with evil, light with dark, despair with hope.
President Obama will be remembered by historians. I would think, however, that he would rather be remembered for uniting rather than dividing; for building rather than tearing down, for bringing order rather than creating chaos. Tampering with marriage — created and defined by God — will weaken our nation. Make us vulnerable to enemies. Place children at risk.
In the midst of chaos, there is always Jesus Christ. Jesus is God; therefore, He is the creator of marriage. Changing His definition of marriage to tickle someone’s fancy goes against His very being. His very Word. We can assure friends and family that Jesus is serious about marriage.
So serious that He calls Himself the Bridegroom for His Bride, the Church.
Ezerwoman's Blog 
Sexual Menu?
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Commentaries of others, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Life issues, Parenting & Education, Relationships, tagged children, faithfulness, future of marriage, generations, harm, infidelity, Iowa, man, Mercatornet, monogamy, New York, parenting, same-sex marriage, sexual menu, social trends, suffering, woman on July 16, 2011| Leave a Comment »
I disagree. So does Michael Cook, the editor of Mercatornet. In his article of July 11, he asks: “Anything else on the menu?”
He offers three reasons why the legalization of same-sex “marriage” will, indeed, affect our culture. All come from authors featured in the New York Times. First, Michael Cook notes the commentary of Katherine M. Franke, a Columbia University law professor. She confessed that she really didn’t want to marry her long-time lesbian partner anyway. Why lose the flexibility and benefits of living as domestic partners? Cook quotes professor Franke, saying as far as she was concerned, “we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security.”
“One choice in a menu of legally supported relationships?” Cook asks. “How long is the menu?”
Cook offers a second reason why legalizing same-sex “marriage” will impact society by highlighting another article in the Times by Ralph Richard Banks. Banks is a professor at Stanford Law School. What comes after gay “marriage”? Banks “puts his money on polygamy and incest” because legal prohibitions on either practice are losing strength. Society forbade them in the past because they were seen as “morally reprehensible;” therefore, society felt “justified in discriminating against them.” I follow Banks’ reasoning. Just as homosexual advocates are working hard to shift our thinking and normalize the behavior God calls a sin, so will advocates of polygamy and incest.
Two more behaviors, Cook notes, are added to the “menu of [sexual] options.”
The third reason why legalized same-sex “marriage” will have a domino affect on the culture is voiced by Dan Savage. The Times describes Savage as “America’s leading sex-advice columnist.” He is syndicated in at least 50 newspapers. Here’s what Cook writes about Savage. “Savage, who claims to be both ‘culturally Catholic’ and gay, thinks that gay couples have a lot to teach heterosexual couples, especially about monogamy. Idealising monogamy destroys families, he contends. Men are simply not made to be monogamous. Until feminism came along, men had mistresses and visited prostitutes. But instead of extending the benefits of the sexual revolution to women, feminism imposed a chastity belt on men. ‘And it’s been a disaster for marriage,’ he says. What we need, in his opinion, is relationships which are open to the occasional fling — as long as partners are open about it.”
Cook continues, “Traditional marriage — well, actually real marriage — is and has always been monogamous and permanent. There have been and always will be failures. But that is the ideal to which couples aspire. They marry ‘for better or worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part’. The expectation is exclusivity in a life-long commitment.”
Cook believes that legalization of same-sex “marriage” will most assuredly “affect the attitudes of young couples who are thinking of marriage a decade from now . . . it will be one of a number of options . . . they will have different expectations . . . marriage will include acceptance of infidelity, will not necessarily involve children, and will probably only last a few years.”
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” in New York say it’s good for marriage. Cook concludes:
“In a way, they’re right. Just as World War II was good for Germany because out of the ashes, corpses and rubble arose a heightened sense of human dignity and a democratic and peaceful government, same-sex marriage will heighten our esteem for real marriage. But in the meantime, the suffering will be great.”
Amen.
Mercatornet: Navigating modern complexities
Check it out!
Read Full Post »