Jesus for Gay “Marriage”?

Vandals defaced this pro-marriage sign outside of a Catholic parish in the Diocese of Crookston, Minn.

Think about this: Over the last several weeks, we witnessed four presidential/vice-presidential debates, and not one question was asked about Barack Obama’s historic advocacy of gay marriage. That seems a rather curious omission given the gravity of the issue. No other issue among the candidates is as transformative as this one. Name another issue that involves completely redefining something as ancient as the Garden of Eden. You can’t.

To her credit, Martha Raddatz asked Joe Biden and Paul Ryan, two Catholics, about their faith and their positions on abortion. That, however, was it for any faith-related matters. Marriage was a no-show.

For Mitt Romney, his answer to a question on gay marriage would have been no surprise. The Mormon governor would likely give the standard Christian reply on gay marriage measured against traditional Biblical precepts. As for Barack Obama, however, his answer would be a bit more unconventional, though increasingly common among the Religious Left.

Obama, in fact, cites his faith as instrumental to his support of gay marriage. In his landmark statement advocating gay marriage, Obama, speaking for himself and the first lady, told ABC News: “You know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule … treat others the way you would want to be treated. And … that’s what motivates me as president.”

President Obama had invoked the Golden Rule in support of gay marriage.

As an indication of how he is not alone, consider the thoughts of another liberal Christian, Nancy Pelosi. Congresswoman Pelosi says that her Catholic faith “compels” her to support gay marriage: “My religion has, compels me—and I love it for it—to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination.” Pelosi called Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage “a great day for America.”

There’s much that could be said about Pelosi’s and Obama’s positions, but one thing that jumps out at me is the utter hypocrisy of liberals in reacting to such statements from Pelosi and Obama. Consider:

For eight years, liberals screamedseparation of church and state!” anytime President George W. Bush even dared to mention that he prayed. But now, when Obama and Pelosi invoke their faith on behalf of gay marriage, liberals are fully supportive, applauding loudly and proudly. Instant converts.

To say this is a double standard is a gigantic understatement. I wrote a book on the faith of George W. Bush. I could rattle off dozens of examples of liberals hammering Bush for the most benign expressions of faith. Here are just a few:

When Bush told reporter Bob Woodward that he had consulted his “higher father” before making a decision to send U.S. troops into combat, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell stated flatly, “He should not be praying.” Ralph Nader dubbed Bush a “messianic militarist.”

Or consider another example, provided by Maureen Dowd, New York Times Catholic. What set off Dowd was Bush’s statement in Des Moines, Iowa, on December 13, 1999. The occasion was a Republican presidential debate. The Texas governor was asked to name his favorite philosopher or thinker. He pointed to Jesus Christ.

This was not a surprise to anyone who knew Bush, or knows serious Christians. It was totally genuine, sincere, and certainly completely acceptable—except at the New York Times, where Maureen Dowd launched into orbit.

In an op-ed titled, “Playing the Jesus Card,” Dowd quoted H.L. Mencken, who wrote that religion “is used as a club and a cloak by both politicians and moralists, all of them lusting for power and most of them palpable frauds.” She said that Bush had “finally scored some debate points” by citing Jesus. “This is the era of niche marketing,” explained Dowd, “and Jesus is a niche. Why not use the son of God to help the son of Bush appeal to voters? W. is checking Jesus’ numbers, and Jesus is polling well in Iowa. Christ, the new wedge issue.”

Rather than being sincere about his faith and heart, averred Dowd, Bush had been a scoundrel. “It raises the question,” Dowd preached, of whether the governor wanted Jesus as his “personal Savior or political savior.”

Imagine that reaction. And George Bush was merely saying that Jesus changed his life. He wasn’t going so far as, say, invoking Jesus for his position on gay marriage.

In fact, imagine if Bush had done just that—that is, point to his faith in support of his opposition to gay marriage. How would liberals have reacted? Or, in the current political climate, imagine how liberals will react if and when Mitt Romney (or Paul Ryan) cites his faith against gay marriage.

But if Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi cite their faith for gay marriage? Well, that’s just fine with liberals; in fact, it’s blessedly wonderful. It’s a great moment for faith in the public square.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include God and Ronald Reagan, God and George W. Bush, and God and Hillary Clinton. His latest is The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.

4,934 views

Categories:Uncategorized

71 thoughts on “Jesus for Gay “Marriage”?

  1. Ray says:

    Anyone claiming there is something reverted about being gay — or associates gays with Pedofilia needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. Gays have nothing to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases Deal with your issues in your church and leave other loving people alone!

  2. Joanne S. says:

    Are you aware that those who speak out against gay marriage in Canada, where it’s legal, are subject to prosecution for hate speech? Clergy speaking out against gay marriage have been arrested for doing so, in violation of their religion and free speech. Do you really want impressionable kids indoctrinated in schools that gay marriage is just another alternative lifestyle? Do you care that kids raised in gay households have much greater psychological problems?
    Traditional marriage is the bedrock of society, and redefining marriage to mean something other than between a man and woman is dangerous. Business people have been forced to recognize gay marriage even though it violates their conscience (note the couple who were fined thousands of dollars for refusing to photograph a gay wedding). It opens all kinds of issues we haven’t even debated in this country.
    You don’t throw out thousands of years of marriage and family before you evaluate its effect on society.

    1. Randall says:

      Canada is a socialist hellhole wasteland, a place where freedom goes to die. The quality of life is second world. It’s no surprise that gay marriage and socialized medicine reign supreme in countries like this. Americans, if we keep electing liberal democrats, “America’s retarded little brother” Canada is our future. Look, and be afraid.

      1. Crandall says:

        I see you share Ann Coulter’s brand of Christianity, using the word “retarded” as an eptihet. Maybe this will change your atrocious outlook and open your heart at least a little bit: http://specialolympicsblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/an-open-letter-to-ann-coulter/

        1. Randall says:

          I see you don’t follow any brand of Christianity at all, BufordJr/Rich/ragingcatholic.

      2. Janet says:

        WOW you are hateful and vile! I bet your abusive to your family — mean person!

    2. GREG SMITH says:

      Dear Joanne -

      Two points:

      1) Canada does not have an equivalent to our First Amendment. The comparison is apples and oranges and;

      2) While I don’t believe that the children of gay parents have any more psychological problems than other kids, even if they do, prohibiting their parents from getting married or worse, opposing any efforts by society to make these families’ lives easier won’t help them.

      Pax tecum,

      Greg

    3. This is not true at all. More lies and fear mongering.

  3. MARA says:

    Paul, what exactly is your point? People interpret the Bible in all different ways. You interpret the Bible by accepting whatever the Catholic Church says. Did Jesus ever talk about gay marriage? No. Did He ever talk about abortion? No. So the Catholic Interpretation must be formed by something other than what Jesus said or didn’t say. Catholics from Ireland to South America are making abortion legal in order to protect women’s rights. That being said, there are millions of Catholics who don’t accept all the doctrines of the Catholic Church and that’s their right. They believe the Catholic Church is wrong on some or many issues and obviously don’t believe that God speaks only to the Catholic hierarchy. That’s the way it is. You mix religion and politics, a very dangerous mixture and then complain about the politicians. Live your life as you please but accept the fact that many people in the world don’t agree with you and many people in the world don’t interpret their Bible or their God as the Catholic Church does. The Catholic Church says all their doctrines come from God. Where’s the proof other than from the words and interpretations directly from the Catholic Church? There is none. You can’t use Bible passages because those passages can be and are interpreted in many different ways. What makes the Catholic interpretation right? Nothing other than the Catholic Church saying that their interpretations are right. That’s not proof of anything. The human race is not stupid. We have inquisitive minds and are naturally curious. Ask us to blindly follow something or someone and many of us say no. We will search for the answers rather than accept blindly.

    1. Randall says:

      People interpret the Bible in all different ways. But there is only one correct interpretation and that is the one advocated by the Catholic Church.

      1. Ayn Rand Paul Ryan says:

        Unfortunately, Randall is not intepreting the churches interpretation well. (It sounds better in Latin.)

    2. Matthew_Roth says:

      Can you read? His point is the hypocrisy of the liberals invoking Jesus’ name to support gay marriage yet they rip apart anyone who opposes them using faith as the basis for their opposition to gay marriage. Did you completely miss the part about George Bush taking a shellacking from the liberal media when he talked about his faith.

      1. Bush Lacked Shells says:

        His point is nothing.
        His hate is shining through.
        Defending him is worthless.

    3. Joanne S. says:

      Jesus did talk about marriage: He said that “from the beginning,” God made man and woman, and the two shall leave father and mother to “become one, and the two shall become one flesh.” Two men and two women do not complement each other biologically or can create new life from their unnatural acts. When you ignore nature, you suffer the consequences, both physical (diseases) and emotional. Kids in gay households suffer psychological problems way more than kids raised by a mother ands father.

      1. MARA says:

        The quote you mention is from the Old Testament. Jesus didn’t yet exist.

        1. Randall says:

          The Bible is divinely inspired, and Jesus *is* God. Therefore, He did indeed say it. If you were a Catholic, or even a Christian, you would know this.

          1. MARA says:

            Randall, if you are correct, then Jesus impregnated His own mother.

          2. Angelina Steiner says:

            MARA, God’s Law is eternal. MORAL LAW!!!! Don’t matter baby if it is in the Old or New testament. WOW, you like to argue but you sound like a CLOWN!

          3. Angelina Steiner says:

            Mara, you are uneducated in theology, thus, you need to troll out of here!

          4. Brangelina says:

            Angelina you seem to be missing quite a bit of Theology yourself. You have no expertise worth listening to.

          5. Angelina Steiner says:

            Give me some scriptures support for your stupid arguement!
            TROLL! What are your arguments?
            You have words coming out of your mouth, BUT THEY ARE MEANINGLESS! God’s moral law is not eternal?
            Get out of here, LIBERAL supporter of baby killing, CLOWN!

          6. Matthew_Roth says:

            Not only that, but Mark Ch 10 rings a bell, where he re-affirms the Law.

          7. im4truth4all says:

            Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit, not Jesus Christ. It appears that most of the people writing these replies are totally ignorant of the old and new testament.

      2. Love not Hate says:

        Just because you can create life from your unnatural life is no reason to ruin it for others.
        It really isn’t your business who is complimentary and how people have sex.

        1. Angelina Steiner says:

          So, it’s okay to have sex with dogs, is that your style? The style of the REPROBATES!

    4. Angelina Steiner says:

      Mara,

      If you are a Christian, then you are an embarrassement. The Church is the bride of Christ. Jesus said: “Blessed are you when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake…”-Matthew 5:11
      You are the one Persecuting the Church! ABORTION is the murdering of the innocence babes in the wombs. MARA, you mouth does the work for the DEVIL! You are so dense that you can’t see that MURDERING BABIES is WRONG.

      1. Beer Steiner says:

        Tone it down Church Lady – you are not morallly superior to anyone here. Just more vocal in being a clown.

        1. Randall says:

          Catholics are morally superior by definition. Sorry if you don’t see it that way, atheist troll. But your eyes will be opened on Judgment Day when you are found unworthy and cast into the lake of fire, where the flame is never quenched. BTW I’ll be pointing and laughing from up above :) “told ya so!!!”

        2. Angelina Steiner says:

          Beer Steiner,

          You are the CLOWN. The world is in a mess, and you name is “beer.”

          Are you an alcoholic CLOWN?

          I’m telling people off so that they don’t go to hell. Unlike you, clown!

          Here’s verse for dense CLOWN LIKE you:

    5. im4truth4all says:

      Jesus Christ did condemn homosexuality. He said “Whoever hears you hears me;
      whoever rejects you rejects me.” (Luke 10:16)

      Since Saint Paul condemns homosexuality, it is the same as Jesus Christ condemning it.

    6. lisag says:

      The point is that there was one Christian church for 1500 years until Luther made his protest. That church is the Catholic church who put together the bible. The church is first based on sacred tradition of Jesus and the apostles and then the bible was written. The fact that there are dissenters and sinners in the Catholic church is not surprising. There have always been people who thought they knew better.

  4. Patrick says:

    It’s interesting. On the one hand, gay civil marriage will affect such a minute percentage of the US population that it is arguably not worthy of time during a presidential debate. On the other hand it speaks to such a core right of American’s – the right to marry – that it is extremely important to the few who are fighting to gain this right, as well as to the rest of us who understand the implications of being denied a core right.

    1. Randall says:

      Hey, I’m in the 0.5% of Americans who own a blue house across the street from a green house. Do I get “special rights” for that too?

      1. GREG SMITH says:

        Randall: YES. Your property taxes are the same, all other things being equal, with the owner of the green house. My lesbian office mate and her wife deserve the same deal on taxes etc. as my wife and I do.

        Pax tecum,

        Greg

      2. Ruby Slippers says:

        OK Randall we all think you are special. Your special understanding is rightly wrong.
        No go into your blue house before some body lands a house on you.

  5. The Constitution says that all Americans should to be treated equally under our laws. That’s the reason that the protections that come from our marriage laws should be extended to gay couples. That Obama chose to cite his faith as a reason for supporting marriage equality simply reinforces this. Dick Cheney supports marriage equality as well. He said that “freedom means freedom for everybody”

    1. Leila Miller says:

      Then it should be extended to gay siblings as well, right? You said “all” and”equality”.

      1. You can marry your sibling or cousin in most states already.

        1. Patrick says:

          ragingcatholic , I think that is inaccurate with respect to siblings.

          Nonetheless, Leila Miller, there are many strong public policy reasons that we should not allow people who enjoy close, personal, familial realtionships from forming marriages. You KNOW that. And I’m not even talking about close relateives bearing children – which is a whole separate kettle of fish from marriage. Your argument is a red herring when the question is gay civil marriage between unrelated persons.

          1. actually, it isn’t.

          2. Leila Miller says:

            Patrick, how so? He said “all” and “marriage equality”. Now he’s making qualifications? That’s fine, marriage should have qualifications. That’s the point. People should not say “all” and “marriage equality” when they really don’t mean it.

          3. Patrick says:

            @Leila Miller, I agree. Civil marriage should have qualifications …. qualifications that make sense and air fair. Prohibiting a gay couple – who live together and share a life and raise children together — from civil marriage is senseless and unfair.

          4. Leila Miller says:

            I think it’s fair and makes sense that marriage is heterosexual in nature. Now what? Also, why couldn’t two gay siblings “share a life and raise children together”, too? And, finally, are you saying that all of America, and pretty much the rest of human history was “senseless and unfair” until we woke up about 10-15 years ago? And will we say that about denying siblings marriage rights as well, fifteen years from now?

          5. Is She r Real? says:

            Leila – God gave you a brain, and does not want it returned unused.
            If you want to promote you bigotry, trying not looking ignorant at the same time. Your siblings gay and straight are not happy with you for the insults that you suggest. Try being closer to Christ in your comments, or just do not comment.

          6. Angelina Steiner says:

            She is closer to Christ than you, clown. She follows the Bible which condems SODOMY and she reverence the Word of God, unlike you – clown. She keep God’s commandments, unlike you – Clown!
            You just throw out the word “bigotry” yet you are the true “BIGOT.”
            You are an ignorant bigot for being against the Word of God!!!

          7. Patrick says:

            @google-fcf8b9cf5ee8dc08a4df0135c5371b4e:disqus : I can’t tell if you’re serious in your response, because you are quickly and flippantly hitting 3 separate issues, but I will give you the BofD and reply: (1.) The sibling question is not worthy of a reasoned answer for a few reasons, including that it’s not an issue of concern in our country, but I will say that there are obvious, strong social policy reasons that close family members who already have dynamic relationships with significant meaning to them (e.g., the authority of a parent as related to the dependence of his child or the compex mix of sibling rivalry/sibling interdependence and support) that no one in their right mind would ever suggest that our laws and public policies should be changed to encourage these existing dynamic relationships to be changed into a marriage. Again, it’s not really an issue in the USA and its “theoretical value” to this argument is nil. ( 2.) No one is saying that human history is senseless to have supported and promoted marriage for millenia. Quite the opposite. It’s such a good thing that it should be made available to a few more people who are asking for it. You know, like when you asked us if we would please let you vote in our elections and we said, sure, let’s broaden our voting laws to include Leila and other women. That didn’t make voting senseless – just the part of it that excluded you. (3.) “Marriage is heterosexual in nature” is a raaaaawther meaningless, conclusory statement. In fact, it’s the whole question at hand. First of all – it’s not “natural” in that it does not arise from or out of nature. It’s a man made arrangement. We get to decide what it means to us, what it’s requirements are, who can access it, what the rights and obligations are that should be attendant to it. Please note that in this country we have VERY few legal requirements attendant to marriage and if you really break them down and examine them you have to conclude that it is senseless and unfair to deny it to gay couples.

          8. Angelina Steiner says:

            Marriage between a man and a woman is not a “man made arrangement.”
            Paraphrasing from the Book of Genesis: From the beginning God made one man and one woman and the two shall become one flesh.
            This is GOD made arrangement. This is the Judeo-Christian outlook in life which is NATURAL. This is NATURAL LAW. For there is nothing natural about the so-called “Pride in Thongs Parade.” Civil Rights for sodomy? Pride in THONGS? Give me a break!!!

          9. Matthew_Roth says:

            Bingo. Why does marriage equality stop at gender but not number or incest?

  6. I see LOVE says:

    I think that people should treat EVERYONE with dignity and respect. It is not respectful to ban someone from accessing the same legal rights that you keep for yourself.

    1. I’m not sure how anyone could dislike this comment.

      1. BAM in RI says:

        I fully agree!

      2. Randall says:

        I’m not sure how anyone could advocate sexual perversion and the murder of untold millions of unborn. Yet, here you are anyway.

        1. Anon says:

          Your a fanatic with a Sinful mind! Mean! The perversions is the hiding of thousands of pedofiles in the Catholic Church! Explain your way out of that one!

          1. Angelina Steiner says:

            According to the John Jay report, 80% of the abuses were done on boys ages 13-18. These were HOMOSEXUAL abuses. Anon, why don’t you explain your way out of that one!

          2. Angelina Steiner says:

            “wrong!” Is that your argument? Why don’t you explain yourself? Why is it “wrong”?
            You got no argument! You got no facts! You just have words coming out of your mouth but truly you are brain dead!

          3. Anon says:

            You’ve got it all wrong pedofiles are pedofiles and gays are gay — they are not the same! How many were Priest’s? And how many were Catholic I’m not saying all priest are pedofiles or that all Catholics are Pedofiles — that would be ridicules — if a pedofile man choses a boy that is not gay that is pedofilia!

          4. Angelina Steiner says:

            Fool, do you know the definition of a “phedophile”?

            According to the American Psychiatric Association (June 2003) APA statement:

            A pedophile is a person who is primarity or exclusively sexually attracted to children who have not reached puberty (under the age of 14).

            As I said before, according to the John Jay report 80% of the abuses were done on boys 13-18 years old. Get it 80%? ARE YOU THIS DENSE? These WERE not pedophile abuses, THESE WERE HOMOSEXUAL ABUSES!

          5. lisag says:

            Anon, the church did not hide anyone. Those attracted to the young go where they can be satisfied. You might as well say that schools, scout troops, youth athletics and other religious organizations hide them as well. Children have suffered greatly by the breakup of the family and single parenthood where children are more easily available for grooming and attack by these sick people. Society is more aware of how much help these people need and how they cannot be allowed to be around those they abuse.

          6. Anon says:

            I wont argue with that. My argument with the Catholic Church is why does even the Pope have his hand in moving them and hiding them even after years and years of proven sexual abuse to yes mostly boys — its horrible!

    2. Joanne S. says:

      Perhaps we should legalize pedophilia too.

      1. Anon says:

        Since they are hiding in your Church you better think about Pedofiles! Stop hiding and being intolerant of others — except for Pedofiles!

        1. im4truth4all says:

          85% of the cases were not pedofilia, it was homosexuality. That’s the problem with political correctness,

      2. I think pedophilia has a victim, but ask you local priest, they probably know more about it than anyone else.

        1. Randall says:

          Such anti-Catholic rhetoric! Have fun burning in Hell, peeps! :-)

          1. Janet says:

            I smell a troll — a Catholic – entitled hateful troll! Randall, I think you are in Hell!

    3. Randall says:

      Well, it looks like raging”catholic” was BANNED from this website!!! LOL

    4. Joe M says:

      I see LOVE. So, you also think that farmers are wrong because they have a right to subsidies that nobody else does? Odd argument. But, ok.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.