Friday, December 19, 2008

Which is it? Gay unions or gay marriage?

Al Mohler has a typically brilliant response to the fury over President-elect Obama's decision to have Rick Warren pray at his inauguration. In the process he asks some important questions concerning Mr. Obama's real position on the issue.

Dr. Mohler writes:
Now here is an interesting point. The protest against Rick Warren is that he is an opponent of same-sex marriage. But when Candidate Obama was asked to define marriage during the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, he appeared to leave no room for same-sex marriage: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union." When asked follow-up questions by Warren, Obama endorsed civil unions and opposed a constitutional amendment protecting marriage as a heterosexual institution.

So, what's the difference? Well, as Obama indicated, he is "a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans." Even as he defined marriage in a way that apparently excluded same-sex marriage, he steadfastly refused to do anything to prevent same-sex marriage. Most pointedly, he opposed California's Proposition 8 whereas Warren publicly endorsed it. Before the election, the Obama campaign also provided a message from Michelle Obama expressing hope for the eventual acceptance of same-sex marriage.

In other words, the gay rights community knows that the President-elect will be a reliable friend when it comes to policy. The President-elect virtually promised to do nothing to prevent or slow down the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Read the entire post HERE.

Any thoughts?


Mike said...

...and what happens when we as a society allow for gay marriage (which will happen some day)...take us down that path.

Todd Pruitt said...


I don't really know how to answer your question.

What will happen is that we as a society will be sanctioning what God calls an abomination. I hope that does not happen some day.

Mike said...

seems like we have already done this in so many other areas (divorce, abortion)...I know from an ethical point of view that is a very weak argument but on the list of abominations that are "legal" I can't put SSM as somehow qualitatively more abominable than others.

Canada has legalized SSM since 2005...I am not seeing widespread moral choas or heterosexual marriage having any less meaning than it did before.

On the other side I don't understand why the gay community needs to have the "marriage" moniker...if they are allowed civil unions with all of the legal implications I don't understand the need to have the word "marriage" to describe the relationship. I have heard the arguments from the gay community and I think they are weak.