Sanders changes mind on gay marriageMayor supports effort to overturn state ban
By Jennifer Vigil
STAFF WRITER
A tearful Mayor Jerry Sanders made a dramatic shift yesterday, explaining that he can no longer oppose same-sex marriages because he does not want to deny justice to people like his daughter, who is a lesbian. Joined at a late afternoon news conference by his wife, Rana Sampson, the San Diego mayor announced he will back a City Council decision to support same-sex marriage before the state Supreme Court, where California's ban on it awaits review. (To read the rest of the story, click here.)
I can't say I'm surprised at this latest happening in the political/gay world. I guess we should give Mayor Sanders some credit for speaking his heart on this issue. However, do we elect these officials to speak (and vote) their hearts or the hearts of the people/constituents they represent? I'm pretty sure that the majority of the people in San Diego and California still are not in favor of gay marriage. If I know my political process properly, there will still need to be a vote of the people to make this pass in California as well as San Diego.
So, the question is, "Is this really that big of a deal? If a gay couple marry does that really affect the heterosexual couples out there? That's what I hear a lot of people saying, basically just "Leave 'em alone and let them do what they want, how can we deny them their love?" (Which in a matter of words is what Mayor Sanders said.)
Whatever respect I had for Mayor Sanders just got knocked down a few notches. He is not making this decision based on moral grounds, that is Biblical moral grounds, he is making a very public decision based on emotion. If we don't have a solid ground (the Bible) from which to make decisions from, then we let our emotions sway our choices.
I believe it comes down to a basic understanding of scripture. If you believe (as I do) that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes, then homosexual marriage is wrong in God's eyes. It is important to remove this issue from the emotional, "But I know someone who is gay and really love them" type argument into what God has to say about it. Otherwise it's just one person's view against another's.
What do you all think? What implications does Mayor Sanders decision have for us here in San Diego?
Here is a little bit of humor in the midst of these heated and often emotional debates of the gay marriage issue. The gay population has managed to kidnap both the word "gay" and the rainbow and use them for their own personal agenda. I'm kinda bummed about that. Especially when you consider what the rainbow really stands for, a reminder that God will not longer flood the earth because of man's sinfulness.....hmm...
17 comments:
Evan - I agree with you. Every time we legislate sin as a legal option, we open the door for more people to consider it. After all - if it's legal, it's got to be OK, right?
(From David)
I'm disappointed with Jerry Sanders... and fearful that he will contiue to shape public policy to suit his daughter. For example, if she doesn't keep a clean house, will Jerry cut funding for trash removal? If she lives in debt, will Jerry still balance the SD budget? If she likes to drive fast, will he remove speed limits?
Heterosexual unions are the basis for life on Earth. I don't believe that humans have the brain capacity, wisdom, etc., to successfully reinvent the system of life. Surely, any changing of the basic rules will eventually result in calamity.
- David
I know what the Bible says, and I believe it is important to remember, read, and reflect...but is it our job to judge what's right and wrong for other people? It's easy to tell people it's wrong to be jealous, greedy, or lustful because we have all experienced it. I can reference the Bible and say "I know this because this is what happened to me.." I think it's hard to tell someone it is wrong to be gay because I haven't experienced it. I have no idea what being gay is like. I can tell them it's wrong because it is in the Bible, but I really don't know or relate to how they are feeling or what they are experiencing. According to the Bible it is also wrong to be Muslim or Buddhist, but we don't outlaw it. I get your point that if we open the door, then being gay will become mainstream...so what? God gave us free will. What we choose to do with it is between us (the individual)and God. We are all just a bunch of sinners, from the beginning that's they way we will always be. We should embrace or sinning, that's what makes us who we are and what makes us realize just how much we need God. I really like rainbows. If you like rainbows you should wear them. Who cares if people think you are gay. We should take back the rainbow with pride (no pun intended)and wear them not because of what they symbolize, but because they are pretty and we like them.
To anonymous:
Maybe without realizing it, you are doing exactly what I am trying to help us all avoid, forming an opinion on this issue from an emotional stance. It really doesn't matter if you or I haven't experienced what it is like to be gay. It's about what God says on the issue.
I will never say this is an easy issue to argue. It is a VERY emotional issue, and thus the temptation to let our emotions form our opinion instead of looking to God's word.
Don't look at it so much as "our job to judge others." It's our job to read the scriptures and when someone goes against that, speak up. "Speaking up" may be posting on a blog site such as this or actually talking to someone about it, and voicing what the Bible says when someone asks. It's important to say, "It's not about what I think, but what God has to say about it."
I believe you really have to misconstrue the Bible to justify homosexuality.
The problem that I have with gays becoming mainstream is that it goes directly against what God says. I believe any time we do that as a society or people we are asking for God's severe judgement. Hence, the reference to the rainbow. It was many awful, repeated acts of sin that brought such judgement from God to flood the earth and kill everything off.
What I find striking is that your post seems to favor a theocratic government. Sure, moral whitelists are more expedient to legislate with than a democracy, but there are several drawbacks. If I remember my US History class, I think our forefathers thought this was a bad idea.
Second, during his campaign for governor, Mitt Romney told Log Cabin Republicans that he would not attempt to circumvent a Mass. Supreme Court decision in favor or against gay marriage. The court sided with the plaintiffs, and Romney spearheaded an effort to stop it because he felt it is wrong. Politicians are people (not polls or platforms). They have families. Changes of heart. And (sometimes) primary races that cause them to move to the left or right of center to gain support of a base.
In my opinion, if you don't like it, vote them out of office.
To anonymous #2,
A theocratic government is not really the point here. Certainly I'd like elected officials to make decisions from a godly perspective and world view. I believe in the long run that would not only honor God, but would be the best for the human race.
In this instance with Mayor Sanders, he happens to be misrepresenting the people of San Diego with this issue. I can't say that I have hard data on this, but I'm guessing that the majority of San Diegans are against gay marriage. If that is the case, then his decision misrepresents his constituents. His decision also goes against what God says about homosexuality and whenever we chose to go against God there will be a price to pay.
You are right, politicians are people with hearts, feelings and emotions that can pursuade their decisions.
So yes, lets vote him out and see if Steve Francis can do a better job...although I need to do some more research on him before I would back him 100%.
Re: Government
I have strong opinions about this issue, but I also have strong opinions about government. I believe to often people do not like the outcome of a political process cry foul. In a representative government, politicians are given a term to make decisions regardless of poll numbers.
I guess what I am saying is that I would rather both sides stick to criticizing the decisions being made (judicial, legislative, executive) rather than adding charges of misuse of a political system.
Someday the majority of San Diego residents will be for gay marriage (IMO). If that day came to pass and you still passionately dissaprove, then perhaps your issue is only with the policy, not how it was placed there.
Re: theocracy
I have no problem with people voting by faith, or for people that share their faith. However, in a plural society legislation of morality has to come through a mutual consensus that reaches beyond an individual's or denomination's interpretation of a particular version of a translated scripture of a single major religion.
When people see their gay friends and family in happy and healthy relationships, they have trouble understanding the opposition. I believe this is the single largest challenge for the social conservatives in regards to gay marriage. It is hard to reach a moral consensus when the only arguments can be made from interpretation of scripture that not everybody shares.
-Anonymous #2
Anonymous #2
I'm really not that thrilled with our political process myself. It seems that to get elected to office today you need to be "tolerant" of everyone and their lifestyle choices (and I'm not just talking about the gays here).
The current Mayor Sanders issue for boils down to how one views the Bible and what it says regarding homosexuality. I believe the Bible is clear in both the OT and NT on this issue. I also believe you end up twisting scripture and "your interpretation" of it when you somehow justify homosexuality from the scriptures.
The thing I see is that America is becoming desensitized to homosexuality...People no longer are even aware that homosexuality is a sin.
This is part of the seperation between Christians and the world government. Mayor Sanders is basically condoning what God calls a sin....as a result, young people are becoming desensitized to the serious sin that homosexuality. The next generations will now no longer no the difference between sin and righteousness.
In my book we hate sin but not the sinners, as we are all deserving of death...Look at the Bible in old testament days...God made it clear that He did not want His people in a sinful environment ( thus, the stonings and harsh punishment...can anyone say Sodom and Gomorrah?). Thankfully, under the blood of Jesus, we can be forgiven...but the point is that we don't want to be associated with sin and in a sinful environment.
Yeah, the downside of being part of a ethnicity and religiously diverse democracy is that your state is tolerant (even protecting) of many different ways of life. The up shot is your state is tolerant (even protective) of yours.
I am not going to debate you on your scripture because I am not Christian. Your arguments are an appeal to the Bible, an authority that we don't share.
I am surprised at your use of quotes around interpretation. They seem as if you not only disapprove of an interpretation that accepts homosexuality, but disapprove of personal interpretation of the Bible at all. I always thought one of the most striking tenants of the protestant reformation was belief that nobody should stand between an individual and their relationship with God. Worship did not require organization, ornamentation, or dictation by an authority, and that the Bible should be translated into every language for for individuals to read the word of God for themselves.
Don't get me wrong. I believe you can profoundly disagree with interpretation all you want. However, I think interpretation of scripture itself is one of the basic foundations of somebody's personal relationship with God. Somebody might disagree with you on interpretation of scripture, but that doesn't mean their faith doesn't run as deep.
-Anonymous #2
Anonymous 2, as Christians we are all called to the same standard...The problem with everyone having their own interpretation of God's word is that they can twist it into anything they want it to be.
While they are different forms of expression in worship, God's law is the same for all....that is something where personal interpretation is put aside.
The Bible very clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. Yet, people will try and twist things to make their own conscience feel better and justify themselves.
Neil, your language seems to judge the faith and conviction of people that disagree.
"Yet, people will try and twist things to make their own conscience feel better and justify themselves."
We are at an impasse on these issues. Christianity is not my faith. We are going to have a difference of belief.
However, I do believe reading scripture is interpreting scripture (whatever religion). I have never encountered a branch of faith (liberal or conservative) that did not give context, weigh passages, or give implicit summaries of scripture (aka interpretation).
For instance, as an outsider to Christianity, I've never understood (Lev. 25:36, 37). Specifically:
"Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God..."
This series of passages, in black and white, frowns heavily on lending for interest. How can you justify loans in our Capitalist society without giving context, weighing passages, or giving implicit summaries of scripture?
-A2
To A2,
As a life-long, never ending, always learning, student of the Bible, a seminary grad and pastor for 20 years... I will admit that it is not always easy to interpret the Bible. It gets real messy when all of us humans get our hands and minds into it and foul things up. God is clearly trying to give us guidelines for living and now we do our best to see how his words fit for our lives today.
It is everyone’s task to do their best to read the words of God and take them literally for what they mean. I have no doubt that everything written in the Bible, every rule or law had a reason to be written. Even if it was just for that time and place, God had a reason for that (seemingly) obscure and meaningless law.
There are issues in the Bible that are clearly meant for a time and place. Many of the Old Testament laws were written for a specific time and meaning. Not all are necessary for today.
The one you mentioned, Lev. 25:36-37 is talking about having compassion on a countryman who is poor. Lending him money without charging interest is a kind thing to do. Poor Israelites were to be assisted in every way and without usury.
This doesn't mean that we have to necessarily carry that principle into our lives today, (I'm obviously paying interest on my house loan, and I don't think God is frowning on me for it) but it also wouldn't be the worst thing to do, lend a poor friend money without charging him interest. That would truly be a "Christian" thing to do now, wouldn't it?
With the issue of homosexuality as well as other social issues, laws, rules, 10 commandments, fruits of the Spirit etc. unless we read the Bible in the same way, you are right we are at an impasse.
And that is an important point. Unless we are working from the same foundational reference point, then it's every person for themselves in deciding what is right, wrong, moral etc. Without a clear standard to work from then homosexuality or anything else can be right or wrong for whoever and however they feel.
To me, this is a "Wild West" mentality, everyone taking the law into their own hands. I will continue to use the Bible as my guide for life, seek to understand all of God's laws in both the OT and the NT and see how I can take meaning from that for my life today.
Some laws/issues transcend time and culture, others were meant for a time and place.
To me, the issue of sexuality and homosexuality is a timeless issue. We don't have to look at OT passages only for guidance on this issue.
Take Romans 1:18-27, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Please explain to me how you can interpret those verses in any other way than speaking against same sex relationships.
To me, it doesn't take genius to figure out how sex works best between two human beings. I know the homosexual lifestyle is about more than sex, yet when it comes down to basic biology, the homosexual population cannot procreate. Can you honestly tell me that the anus was designed for penetration from a penis? Without getting any more graphic, I'd like to think that a basic understanding of human sexuality shows how a man and a woman fit together in a sexual relationship.
A2, I do respect your views and where you are at this place in your life and please don't take this post as condesending. I'm am just doing my best to explain to you what I base my decisions and life choices on.
However, unless someone has become a Christian and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, they will never be able to see more clearly the Biblically principles God is trying to show us.
I am praying for you that you will seek God and that he will make himself real to you especially in your understanding of the Bible.
Godspeed my friend,
Evan
Basically Jerry Sanders reversed a stand that the conservative base that voted for him wouldn't support. He has little integrity, just like the Sunroad thing. Just another crooked politician, and that is what we should be angry at him about not the issue of gay marriage.
You are right Connie. For Jerry Sanders it does come down to being a crooked politician, as well as having (evidently) no Biblical basis from which to make decisions such as the one on gay marriage.
My point is that every branch of faith interprets scripture:
"There are issues in the Bible that are clearly meant for a time and place. Many of the Old Testament laws were written for a specific time and meaning. Not all are necessary for today."
Your faith and study of the Bible is what has defined passages to be for all time or a specific time.
You said that reading the Bible is a difficult life long process, yet you have belittled others that have gone through the same process with different conclusions.
Do you liken your interpretation to be as infallible as the Bible itself?
I also disagree with biological argument. If the anus was not meant for penetration, then why would it be erogenous? From an evolution and creationist perspective, the anus could have just as easily been non-erogenous to penetration. So why is it?
Also, why is the homosexual population consistently between 2-10% of the general population for all cultures for all time?
Heterosexual couples produce homosexual offspring, guaranteeing there will always be a homosexual population. However, homosexuals (when they procreate), are no more likely to have homosexual offspring, guaranteeing there will never more than the average (2-10%) percentage of homosexuals in a population.
Both evolution and creationism are based on the idea that everything is here for a reason. Why is there a homosexual population? I don't know. Why do women lose fertility when they age? I don't know. But I think there is a reason.
Anonymous,
Obviously we can go round and round here. I do hope to communicate in love and not belittle anyone. I'm sorry if I did that.
RE: the interpretation issue with homosexuality. To me, it doesn't take a theological genius or Hebrew or Greek expert to just read it right off the page. Again, when you read a passage like Romans 1, I'm not really sure how you can interpret it any other way.
Meanwhile I will pray for you that God's love and grace will come into your heart. Unless we are open to what God wants to teach us from the Bible, then we will end up viewing it from our own lens and not Gods.
Grace and peace my friend.
Post a Comment