This blog has taken me weeks to write. The reason why is that this topic treads on deep and divisive waters. This topic is one where I depart from my spiritual upbringing and defer to my constitutional upbringing. Being that as it may I must say that my spiritual teachings have taught me not support gay marriages. However, constitutionally I believe civil unions are just and should be defined and regulated by the individual states. Accepting people for what they are instead of what they do is a lesson that many should learn. Either way most of us believe that “all have fallen short” however, the bible is clear in its views on homosexuality. The bible is also clear about other sins that we typically overlook. Either way this is not a biblical blog.
The center of concern at hand is that the LGBT community is outraged by the selection of Rick Warren to give the prayer of invocation at the Presidential Inauguration. The groups feel betrayed by Obama, because Obama‘s pledged support for many of their causes. Warren has always been very critical of the LGBT communities. But is that not his job as a minister of the gospel? I think the problem I have is that some point to the fact that if someone was this outspoken against African-Americans, that African-Americans would be have been up in arms protesting their selection to pray at the inauguration. Is it a sin to be black? Let me answer that. For centuries there was a widely misunderstood text in Genesis that purported that Noah cursed his son Ham. Ham is known as the father of those of African decent. But a closer look at the bible shows that Noah actually cursed Canaan (Genesis 9:25) and as we know the Canaanites were wiped out. So using this text to justify black servitude was wrong, misquoted, misguided and sinister to say the least. There is no mistaking the bible's feelings toward the lifestyles presented in the LGBT communities. The argument that they do have constitutionally granted rights is correct and I encourage them to continue argue with their local states for those rights and recognition. We as americans should assist them in that arguement. I do believe that everyone in this country regardless of sexual orientation should be afforded the same civil rights. I also support a separation of church and state. A better argument would be that there should be no invocation prayer rather than an argument on the philosophies of the deliverer of the prayer.
The selection of Rick Warren is Obama’s attempt to walk in the middle and to bring both sides of the aisle in. It is brilliant. During the dual interview with McCain and Obama it was clear that the crowd was pro McCain and anti Obama. Let’s put this in perspective it is the equivalent of McCain winning the election and asking Al Sharpton to offer the prayer of invocation. That would never happen. So people should look at the gesture for what it is an effort to bring both sides together, unify the country and show both sides that there is some common ground.
What do you think?
3 comments:
I had no idea that people were "outraged" at this decision. I can understand how certain people could be disappointed, but outraged. I mean the man is just praying. Inviting the spirit of the Creator to be present at the service.
As to President-Elect Obamas decision to choose a man that is directly opposed to only a few things that he ran for is basically genius. This proves to the world that he is not a "my way or the highway" type of person, a refreshing change from present day leadership.
Jason
I think that the LGBT community has all the rights that I do as a married straight person. They can buy a house, get health insurance, buy a car, and even adopt a child. Therefore I can't say I have seen them oppressed.
The truth is Rick Warren has been very open about his stance on "gay marriage." The way I look at it, whether its Rick Warren or Jose L. Martinez (pastor) doing the prayer... they are still religious leaders who are going to oppose gay marriage.
I remember watching the Vice Presidential debate where the candidates were directly asked about gay marriages and their stance on it. Both candidates answered "me and my running mate feel its unconstitutional and will not change the constitution on that subject." Therefore that tells me that Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin were all against gay marriages. So why is the gay community in an outrage? they knew that Obama is against that.
If anything Obama picking Rick Warren is a sign of him showing that he is setting the example of wanting to unite this country. He could have picked Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or TD Brooks... I think Obama is serious about wanting a "change for the good of this country."
This is a tough issue for us as Seventh-day Adventist Americans, who profess to hold the Bible as our only source of God's word, because the answer to the gay marriage question from an SDA perspective is in direct opposition to our position as citizens of the United States. I think your identification of this fact in your blog is laudable because many people simply side with their religion or their country without taking the time to analyze how or why they might be in opposition to each other. I think we are to live in the world and not be of the world; as a result, should we be supporting something that we disagree with? I don't believe the U.S. should take rights away from the LGBT community because they are human beings, but at the same time would I vote for the legislation of something which I am against from a moral standpoint? It's a tough question and I'm not sure I have the answer right now.
Post a Comment