http://news.yahoo.com/black-pastors-bash-naacp-endorsing-gay-marriage-201708256.html Pastors and former civil rights advocates alike are staunchly opposed to the NAACP's decision. Given these people felt the wrath of American prejudice, who saw this coming?
Obviously I did something wrong here. Prejudice and gay rights seem to be the liveliest topics here. I don't really get into the whole gay rights issues. I honestly just don't care, but I have to admit I found this article very intriguing. The black pastors caught me off guard being against gay marriage, but not too much. MLK's associates on the other hand, I was shocked. What was even more shocking is using "A Letter From Birmingham Jail" to decry the NAACP's support for gay marriage.
"...According to Owens, a just law is a man-made code that squares with the law of God, and an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with moral law. Owens also drew from St. Thomas Aquinas and said, “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” “Same-sex marriage is an attempt to do the opposite of what Rev. King did,” Owens said. “It’s an attempt by men to use political power to declare that an act contrary to God’s law and to the natural law is a civil right.”
Señor Garcia, Thank you for such insightful and thought provoking posts. I dare say that your posts have not been unnoticed perhaps the message is simply being ignored? I recently found a fellow forum member who seemed to be a bit intolerant of a biblical view (outside of his or her Humanist faith?). That God-fellow...well His thoughts can be a source of consternation for many who know better (or maybe not at all). Amazing the wisdom those folks of old possessed. Of course nowhere near as enlightened as that which comes from community organizers, activists and folks with political agendas...sometimes I wonder if it wasn't for government jobs and politics (including your favorite street organizers) I think the welfare roles would burst at the seams! I am nor surprised at men and women (of both faith and color) understanding the difference for what they sought and what is now the prize. Their fight was not rooted in a behavioral choice or changing the definition of a word. Please carry on. Found your posts of interest and spot on. Well done. I will remember Owens statement and from who he drew.
Thank you. The simple fact remains, those who are some of the most responsible for today's civil rights are challenging the opinion of gay marriage being a civil right. Are civil rights religious in nature, or are they morally defined accordingly to idealized principles? It speaks volumes when the very people oppressed agree with the very people most likely to restrict their civil liberties.
Negroes, Colored, Black, African American, White, Asian, Native American etc. can be fairly easy to identify. How can you tell if someone is a heterosexual or homosexual? If one of each of the above stood next to each other how do you decide if someone is attracted to the opposite sex or not? Is it in the way one behaves? But absent an act one would simply be classified by their physical appearance. I see the difference between an obvious physical characteristic and a behavioral choice, don't you? In another thread some stated they wanted the 1400 items that come with marriage. Don't know exactly what all of that entails (so I should reserve judgment so I am not suckered) but from a short posted list I would have no problem with anyone having access to these items. Just don't call it marriage (unless it is a man and a woman). I know, traditionalist.
I can't see what's so terrible about calling it a same-sex union. Why does it have to be called marriage?
