Note: I originally posted this on Friday, April 3 just hours after the Supreme Court released their ruling. Because I was chastised by my blogging buddy, Gavin who I highly respect, I decided that I needed to take a breathe and rethink what I have to say. The original post was a little too Jerry Springerish, and hopefully this updated version will be more well thought out, though most of it remains unchanged. I did remove the comments which were left after the original posting, in order to start with a clean slate.
My heart breaks today as I think about what our nation is doing to future generation of Americans. God will not be called a liar or have His word twisted without there being terrible consequences. It is now the law of Iowa that there is absolutely no difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one. The long lasting outcome of the Court's decision is beyond what many can imagine.
I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected—even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me. Duet. 5:9b (NLT) Iowans have now officially rejected God and His Word and our children and grandchildren will pay the price.
The decision makes me wonder if there are any type of human relationship which does not fall under the protection of the law. I remember back in college when I was taking a psychology class, my professor stating that from a psychological standpoint any sexual relationship is permissible as long as it is between consenting adults. The Supreme Court of Iowa has opened the door broadly to a legal acceptance of this idea.
That being the case, how soon will before American polygamists follow the suit of Canadians who have recently claimed in court that they have the right to marry whomever they choose, even if that choice means more than one individual? When that happens, what possible objection can the state make against such things? If a person can marry whomever they choose regardless of gender, why should person be denied the right to marry as many people as they wish? I really wish that someone who supports homosexual marriage would address those questions straight on.
When I think about how all of this is going to affect my children and my children's children, I get sick to my stomach. And when this kind action is combined with the unimaginable debt which is being place around their necks by the federal government, I find it hard not to despair.
hey john, sorry for being a few days late on responding to your posting. holy week happened, what can i tell ya. apologizes for being kurt with you. i meant what i said, but i'd hope you know me and that i know you better than to be 'jerry springer'-ish. for the record, i've done similar to both sides of this issue for treating this as winners and loosers in adolescent at best and not kingdom building, not to mention a poor witness.
my over all stance is that we have a real marriage (adultery/divorce/mistrust/communication/etc) problem before we ever get into homosexual marriage talk. but we are here, and people don't want to wait around to figure out a current issue before finding another one.
speaking as someone within a family with two gay members i 1. love them without condition & 2. hope for them to live a fulfilled life with Christ centering.
1. 'without condition' comes without that awful statement of 'we love gays, but not what they do' because an insensitive slap in the face. they have sex differently than i do. it changes the whole complex of sex and the sex act & for me that is difficult to really comprehend. but when it comes to tending to the love for another person in a monogamous relationship they have the same highs and lows as a married couple does. so if the State wants to recognize their commitment as marriage (which many statesmen have no real good concept of marriage in the first place) then i am okay with for couples to take on a deeper commitment & some protection in dealing with issues of money/health etc. for the church to recognize it, specifically our umc, i'm okay with our stance of not recognizing or sanctioning any marriages as we still seek the spirits movement (which i think is thwarted many times by our own agendas).
2. i know my family members and most of the gay community i know, know the scriptural references that forbid/claim as sin & they would change if they could. many times have tried. so i don't buy the mental disease or experimentation argument (in my understandings). they live with a tension that they believe and God, love Christ, and (in many instances) serve the church. for them this is their life fulfilled and i am not going to try and separate the wheat & weeds.
as this comment gets way to long..
the polygamy argument. i've heard that and i'm not sure i find that viable, but i am also not one that has investigated it to grand depths. plus i find it somewhat alarmist in nature when its presented.
in your statement the one distinction is the separation of marriage built in the courts and 'redefined' in legislature. one can affect the other (usually the courts being affected by legislature) but it still comes into a popular vote in the end. which i would bet would not come to the polygamy support.
Posted by: gavin richardson | April 14, 2009 at 07:40 PM