Spring Break
Guest Column: Churches justified in their opposition to gay marriage
Jeff Lemke
Issue date: 3/2/09 Section: Opinion
n a bitter article on Feb. 13 about California's Proposition 8 that banned gay marriage in that state, Collegian columnist Alex Stephens equates the upholding of traditional marriage to a form of persecution against those who want to do away with that standard which has stood since the dawn of humanity.
He advocates the removal of the tax-exempt status for churches that speak up about this, apparently because they dared to involve themselves in the fight to uphold what they felt was right.
Not only would this be unconstitutional, this argument also reflects an intolerance and bigotry of its own.
Apparently it's perfectly OK for anyone to advocate for liberal, secular and un-Christian causes, but it's not OK for any religious individuals or groups to fight for what they believe God has spoken about and what they believe is best for society. It's OK for the religious to distribute their money and food, but not their ideas.
Stephens wonders what happened to the so-called separation of church and state. The answer is that it has never existed in the way he and most people seem to think it has.
While the Constitution forbids the government from establishing a national religion or favoring one denomination over another, nowhere does it decree that churches or people of religious convictions cannot influence society and the government. If that were the case, it would be a form of religious oppression, which is precisely one of the things colonial settlers were fleeing in Europe.
This is all one country. What's legalized in one state will often affect other states eventually, especially if it's a foundational change to a universal institution such as marriage.
The stated goal of homosexual activists is to get liberal activist judges to legalize gay marriage in one or more states, make sure to get any residency requirements for gay marriage abolished, encourage out-of-state gay couples to come to that state to marry and then to have those couples return to their homes states and start legal fights there to force those states to recognize their marriages and finally legalize gay marriage too.
He advocates the removal of the tax-exempt status for churches that speak up about this, apparently because they dared to involve themselves in the fight to uphold what they felt was right.
Not only would this be unconstitutional, this argument also reflects an intolerance and bigotry of its own.
Apparently it's perfectly OK for anyone to advocate for liberal, secular and un-Christian causes, but it's not OK for any religious individuals or groups to fight for what they believe God has spoken about and what they believe is best for society. It's OK for the religious to distribute their money and food, but not their ideas.
Stephens wonders what happened to the so-called separation of church and state. The answer is that it has never existed in the way he and most people seem to think it has.
While the Constitution forbids the government from establishing a national religion or favoring one denomination over another, nowhere does it decree that churches or people of religious convictions cannot influence society and the government. If that were the case, it would be a form of religious oppression, which is precisely one of the things colonial settlers were fleeing in Europe.
This is all one country. What's legalized in one state will often affect other states eventually, especially if it's a foundational change to a universal institution such as marriage.
The stated goal of homosexual activists is to get liberal activist judges to legalize gay marriage in one or more states, make sure to get any residency requirements for gay marriage abolished, encourage out-of-state gay couples to come to that state to marry and then to have those couples return to their homes states and start legal fights there to force those states to recognize their marriages and finally legalize gay marriage too.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 41
Craig Hawley
posted 3/02/09 @ 1:22 AM MST
Well said , and may God Bless you.
Separation of church and state was never intended by the founding fathers. What it actually says is the government can't ESTABLISH a national religion. (Continued…)
Brian
posted 3/02/09 @ 9:46 AM MST
As a person, I totally agree that everyone should be able to voice their opinions and that it is unfair to say that churches should not recieve tax exemption becuase of said opinions. (Continued…)
charles
posted 3/02/09 @ 10:48 AM MST
i did not choose to be straight, i just am. sexual orientation is clearly not a choice, but an inborn preference. as for traditional marriage, it has gone through many changes over the millennia, mostly being oppressive to women. (Continued…)
Registered Independent
posted 3/02/09 @ 12:27 PM MST
Response to Jeff Lemke's letter:
Not to mention the fact that the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution
specifically protects the free expression of religious beliefs, in all of its various forms. (Continued…)
Carol Anglin
posted 3/02/09 @ 1:36 PM MST
Sad to say, Charles, but we do choose our sexual preference! As state by God himself in the Bible, homosexuality is a sin and an abomination before Diety. (Continued…)
Jeff
posted 3/02/09 @ 6:36 PM MST
Marriage is by definition a religious institution. It has become a political issue because the government has adopted the title "marriage", and given specific rights to those who are officially joined by it. (Continued…)
Appalled
posted 3/02/09 @ 7:05 PM MST
This is a response to Carol Anglin:
You spew the hateful and judgmental sentiments that make people the world over hate Christians and God. I doubt that Jesus himself would approve of your methods of expressing your dislike for the lifestyle of homosexuals. (Continued…)
Julia
posted 3/02/09 @ 7:15 PM MST
This is such garbage I want to scream. The forefathers intended to keep religion separate to prevent dictatorships and dangerous religious beliefs from starting wars like we see in the Middle East and throughout history. (Continued…)
SUHEET
posted 3/02/09 @ 7:28 PM MST
Yes Jeff, youre the one who's is facing discrimination, whose views are not being tolerated. That's kind of like saying "Blacks and whites should not marry!" Of course, you're entitled to that opinion, but at the same time it's a small-minded worldview. (Continued…)
Ana
posted 3/02/09 @ 8:51 PM MST
Good Job Carol! And good job guest writer! People against gay marriage are not speaking up bc they know they will be yelled at for being a hater, homophobe, and bigot. (Continued…)
Post a Comment