E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiWASHINGTON – The issue of same-sex “marriage” provokes strong emotions and actions on both sides of the debate with little common ground seemingly to be found. But on Thursday the beginning of an unlikely understanding appeared to emerge at a panel discussion that included Christian conservatives and a gay activist.
(Photo: The Christian Post)Alliance Defense Fund Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull speaks at the Family Research Council's discussion on the California same-sex ''marriage'' event as FRC president Tony Perkins sits next to him on Thursday, July 10, 2008 in Washington, D.C.
All five panelists at the Family Research Council event, with the exception of the gay activist, were against California's ruling to legalize same-sex “marriage.” At the end of the discussion, no one had changed their position although both sides felt they could better understand the issue from the other’s point of view.
On the traditional marriage side, some panelists listed legal problems, including infringement on religious liberty, which resulted from California’s recent ruling that legalized same-sex “marriage.”
Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull of the Alliance Defense Fund gave examples of California churches that have been sued for refusing to perform same-sex weddings. He also questioned how California’s same-sex “marriage” ruling will affect state clerks that do not want to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples because of their religious beliefs.
“What is the problem with the California same-sex ‘marriage’ case?” Bull asked. “There are lots of problems with it that are huge and profound.
“One of them is what radical, homosexual-activists will do with the new institution of same-sex ‘marriage’ and use it as a battering ram across America to blast open new areas that ultimately diminish the rights of Christians to express their faith in their lives and how they live.”
Bull, who has defended the religious freedom of many Christians in gay rights cases, contends that in the end a person’s faith will only be a “personalized, individualized” faith and that you can “think about it but you can’t even talk about it” if the homosexual agenda continues to spread.
Yet he softened after hearing Professor Chai R. Feldblum of Georgetown University Law Center speak about the issue from the other perspective. He had expressed eagerness to talk more with the gay activist after hearing her moderate tone.
Feldblum, who described herself as a practicing lesbian, said she is against the gay community’s lack of respect for religious people’s values. As a former Orthodox Jew and daughter of a rabbi, Feldblum said she understands being religious means engaging in certain conducts.
“My sense of being religious completely intertwined with conduct that I did as a religious Jew,” she said. “If someone had told me that I could be a religiously firm Jew but I couldn’t engage in certain conduct or I had to engage in certain conduct – like I had to turn on the light on Shabbos (weekly Sabbath or day of rest in Judaism) – ‘What is the big deal you are just turning on the light on Shabbos?’
“Ok, let me tell you for a firm Jew if you do not turn on the light for Shabbos. That’s a sin,” she said. “Nor do you facilitate someone else who is Jewish to turn on the light. That’s a sin.”
As a result of her own former religious background, Feldblum said she “can’t stand” those in the gay community that say people of faith should “just get over it” when it comes to performing a legal action that goes against their values, such as a county clerk who believes homosexuality is a sin making a marriage license for a gay couple. Continue »
igh »
Agree: 
Disagree: 
