Comments on: Rick Warren at Christmas: We Don’t Have to Agree

By: Osborn4

Osborn4 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

What an incredible message. Thanks for noticing and bringing it forward for discussion.

If folks, especially Christians, can't see that this is the heart of Jesus' ministry here on Earth, then we just as well skip Christmas altogether.

By: jgogek

jgogek — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

This is not about having a nice discussion or coming together as a community or anything like that. It's about civil rights, and there can be no common ground. Either gays and lesbians have the civil right to get married or they don't. Marriage has been labeled a civil right by the US Supreme Court in Loving v. State of Virginia. That case also stated that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment guaranteed marriage for all regardless of race. Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that marriage is a civil right that is subject to equal protection. And, the California court stated that gays and lesbians cannot be denied the same right to marry as everybody else because of equal protection.

The next step is for the courts to decide whether equal protection applies to gays and lesbians. There can be no common ground such as instituting marriage for straights and civil unions for gays and lesbians; that's very similar to "separate but equal". We can't have two-tiered marriage for straights and gays. This will not end until all have equal protection under laws allowing the civil right of marriage for everybody.

Read more

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

"Read more" indeed, jgogek. And when you do you'll find that historically, defining marriage as an institution between a man and a women has been a core belief for thousands of years – virtually since the beginning of humanity. So to suddenly muck around with that, is a cause for serious reflection and consideration. I don't devalue your situation. However, from my perspective (and the perspective of millions of others) the issue isn't focused as much about allowing the gay community to marry. It's about changing an institution that has been such a vital cornerstone of civilization. That's worth thinking about. What a man and woman share together is different from what a man and man or woman and woman share. In personality, physicality, temprement, and more. But in the meantime, as Rick says, we can still love each other and respect each other's views. After all, isn't that the "tolerance" the gay community has preached for so long?

By: Chad Fickett

Chad Fickett — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The gay community is hypocritical. They have preached tolerance for years now when they should practice it, they cannot.

God Bless

By: ChangeRevolutionFan

ChangeRevolutionFan — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Hi jgogek,

I took your exhortation to read more. From a legislative standpoint, both Blake v. Nelson in 1972 and Fernandez v. Robles in 2007 — cases that argued for same-sex marriage that were argued in the state Supreme Courts of MN and NY, respectively — ruled that Loving v. Virginia could not be applied to same-sex marriage, or any other definition of marriage outside man/woman. Thanks for encouraging us to read more about this issue, even though it seems to only hurt your cause…

By: Rich Kirkpatrick

Rich Kirkpatrick — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“Who ever came up with the idea that you have to agree with everybody on everything in order to love them?"

AMEN

Really, we have to model this as you say because of the backlash and blacklisting. I feel that a 50s-styled witch hunt from the far left is about to ensue if it has not already begun. Obama is wise to use his intellectual image to show he can sit at the table with Warren, given that they do not agree on many issues. How many pastors get in the door like that? Warren must believe what he is saying here to be let in.

About the comment above: Intolerance of religious people is a new bigotry. It is a civil right to have freedom of religion. We have to see rights both ways in this conversation. We can then have a reasoned conversation. Please.

By: jgogek

jgogek — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Nice sentiments and well expressed. But it does not really matter what you or I or anybody else things about the morality of gay marriage or whether the institution of marriage between man and woman must be protected to save Western Civilization. The fact is that the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia found that marriage is a fundamental civil right, and that the equal protection clause of the 14^th amendment guarantees that right to everybody regardless of race. (Some say that because the word “marriage” is not in the Constitutional, marriage is not a civil rights issue. But in the United States, the US Supreme Court decides what’s constitutional and what’s not, and the court does that through case law. In Loving v. Virginia, the court state clearly that marriage is a personal right.) Now, Loving v. Virginia said nothing about equal protection for gays and lesbians. But the California Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that equal protection for marriage applies to gays and lesbians. Proposition 8 did nothing to change that, and I believe it will be struck down for exactly that reason. Eventually, I believe that that the US Supreme Court will find that equal protection in the civil right of marriage applies to gays and lesbians. If the court is forced to take the issue head-on, it could only deny that right if justices find that there is an overwhelming harm to society by allowing gays and lesbians to marry. Bob (above) and his ilk will say that there is such a harm. I don’t think it can be proven. So, this is a long way of saying that it’s a civil rights issue. Our opinions on the morality, etc. of gay marriage have no bearing on the subject