Obama & Democrats are wrong on Homosexual Marriage
You and I know that marriage is not a partisan issue.
We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents, coming together to support something bigger than party: God's own truth about marriage.
Sadly, though, the Democrat party this week officially and formally became the party of gay marriage.
Yet, apparently still fearing public backlash over some issues, Democrat party leaders reversed the effort to strip the word "God" from the platform, and they put the word "Jerusalem" back in the party platform, to widely spread boos and catcalls from their delegates and audience during a questionable voice vote.
Still, they nevertheless unhesitatingly adopted gay marriage as core to their party platform:
Freedom to Marry. We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.
Michelle Obama gave a beautiful speech about her husband at the convention this week.
But the First Lady also endorsed gay marriage--as a core civil right--as a major part of the American struggle:
… if a young preacher could lift us to the mountaintop with his righteous dream, and if proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love, then surely, surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American Dream.
Not every Democrat is on board with the President and First Lady's program. I know from your letters and emails.
I also know because Rev. Bill Owens was at Charlotte as the conscience of the party and the nation.
Major religious leaders from the heart of the black church gathered with Rev. Owens to tell the delegates: You do not represent the whole party… and you do not represent the conscience of the nation.
We will not let any politician, or any party, suppress our voice!
We will stand up for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, oriented (if we want to speak of orientation!) towards the good of children.
Only marriage can give children a mom and dad united in one family!
No other union can do that — and another kind of union masquerading as marriage, but denying this essential part of its definition, is no marriage at all!
What's at stake? Well, consider Brazil: there, courts imposed gay marriage. Now, registrars are shocking the conscience of the nation by imposing polygamous unions.
The BBC is reporting that a union between three people, two women and a man, in Sao Paulo is causing major outrage.The publication says that public notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, based in the city of Tupa, feels the couple is entitled to the same family rights that traditional couples have.
And, after all, why not? The principle articulated by the beautiful Michelle Obama from the Democratic party platform—'you can marry anyone you love'—has no stopping point, no core, and no rootedness in truth, especially God's truth.
God created marriage. He gave us that gift—not government.
Respecting His will and His design is what you, and I, and NOM and its allies stand for.
The fights these days grow intense. Absurd campaign finance laws prevent me from going into detail with you about the national fight for marriage now taking place deep in blue states, but in November the people of Washington, Minnesota, Maryland—and that one other blue state I can't mention legally—will decide the future of marriage in decisions that will reverberate to the Supreme Court.
Ted Olsen, who led the legal efforts challenging California's Proposition 8, is now desperately backpedalling, trying to keep the Court from reviewing his handiwork in that case. Why? Because he's afraid he will lose.
The case challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 is "an attractive vehicle" for determining "whether the States may discriminate against gay men and lesbians in the provision of marriage licenses" — but the Supreme Court should pass on the case, lawyers challenging the law say, and let stand an appeals court ruling that strikes down the 2008 amendment on narrow grounds.
But we know Who wins in the end, don't we?
Thank you for giving NOM the privilege—the absolute privilege—of being your voice for marriage.
We fight and we win because of what you have made possible.
