Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain was pressed by an influential conservative pro-family group Monday to clarify his stance on marriage and life as it relates to his party’s existing platform.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Society > Politics
McCain Pressed to Clarify Stance on Marriage
By
Michelle A. Vu
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Mar. 18 2008 09:57 AM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Prev1Next
Submit Related News Tips & Photos
Survey: McCain, Obama Supporters Differ Greatly on Poverty
'Christian' Call for Boycott of Bill Maher Film Adds to Satire
Christian Site Claims Obama is Most Pro-Life Candidate
Second Episcopal Diocese Breaks from National Church
Major Global Prayer Initiative for Jerusalem Peace Begins
Pastor John Hagee Recovering after Surgery
Thousands of California Christian Youth Empowered to Defend Marriage
Indian Christians Report 'Peculiar' Police Behavior
Second Episcopal Diocese Breaks from National Church
Assyrian Christians Protest Iraq Election Law
Pope: Modern Culture Pushing God Out
Mother Fights to Keep Twins from Muslim Father
Charity Tells of Suffering in Holy Land
Survey: McCain, Obama Supporters Differ Greatly on Poverty
Thousands of California Christian Youth Empowered to Defend Marriage (132 comments)
Over 800 Scientists Stand Against Language Critical of Evolution (117 comments)
Episcopalians Meet to Apologize for Slavery (33 comments)
'Christian' Call for Boycott of Bill Maher Film Adds to Satire (30 comments)
Palin: I Identify with the Average American Struggles (28 comments)
Biden, Palin Contend for 'Change' Reputation (25 comments)
Islam, Secularism and the Gospel – Part II (25 comments)
Featured Advertiser Links
Comments
God has set the standard for marriage and divorce. Our opinions and judgements regarding who has done what is irrelevant as it does not change the standard. There is a very powerful book on the market today that is written by the author that knows more about this subject than anyone. It is titled the Holy Bible.
That's right, SW. You ARE going to have to accept that there are families that don't adhere to your inaccurately strict definition of what a family is!
Let's just simply agree to disagree. There's no point to prolonging this "dialogue." It's difficult to stay on track with such a "conversation" when all the peripheral issues are brought to the floor.
Unsubstantiated allegations are recklessly made. (ie: Dr. Dobson is against interracial marriages.) Throwing in everything argument including the "kitchen sink" about past justifications against interracial marriages does not weaken the strong arguments justifiying the position against same-sex "marriage."
Those are two separate issues & two very different historical contexts. Any attempts to try to smear one position using the other simply does not reflect sound reasoning. It's just "guilt by association."
No one will change anyone's mind through this exchange. A post-modern worldview will obviously clash with a biblical worldview.
The same threats applied when we legalized interracial marriages, and segregationists often used the bible to back up their positions. In addition, James Dobson is still believed to be against interracial relationships, as was the "Christian" Bob Jones University, as recently as 2000. As for public schools, obviously those books are needed with kids still hating, bullying, and in some cases murdering fellow students for being gay. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Fathers and mothers are never mandatory. They are ideal & God's best design for raising children. All the evidence from the psychological and social science studies back-up such notions. The "suffering" a child faces growing up in a same-sex "marriage" household includes gender confusion & lack of feminine or masculine modeling. These are foundational issues pertinent to self-image, self-esteem, and concepts of proper human sexuality. Ask the many former homosexuals about gender confusion and about how key this issue was in leading them into active homosexual lifestyle choices.
Interracial marriages are not contrary to biblical principles. By contrast, same-sex "marriages" are contrary to biblical principles. Thousands of years of human history cast aside for the venture into a vast social experiment. Who will reap the negative consequences of such an experiment? The list could be endless...
It's great that folks have such strong views regarding the ministry of Focus on the Family. It just shows how God is using the ministry effectively as salt and light in a very anti-biblical culture and society. If a group was not effective, then who would even care what they do or say?
It's wonderful that the freedom exists to disagree and dialogue on the issue of same-sex
"marriage." However, once laws are passed to legalize such relationships then to quote another "great orator"...
Full Acceptance Will Be Mandatory:
1) My civil rights to object to homosexuality as an idea will be gone.
2) Same-sex relationships and homes are tolerated in society today. Our nation has no existing problem where same-sex couples are evicted from their neighborhoods because of how they live. Americans tolerate such relationships.
But this is not about mere tolerance. Instead it is about forcing everyone to fully accept these unnatural families.
3) Only months after legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison! Say the wrong thing; go to jail. The same will happen here.
4) Every public school in the nation would be forced to teach that same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality are perfectly normal –- Heather has Two Mommies in K-12. Pictures in text books will be changed to show same-sex couples as normal.
5) Your church will be legally pressured to perform same-sex weddings. When courts — as happened in Massachusetts — find same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional and fundamental human right, the ACLU will successfully argue that the government is underwriting discrimination by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor natural marriage.
6) Gay and lesbian people have a right to form meaningful relationships. They don’t have a right to redefine marriage for all of us.
--By Glenn T. Stanton
You quote this Stanton as if he were some great orator, when in fact he is a minion of James Dobson and his Focus on the Family (or as I call it, Focus Only on the Families We Like). As for that #2, he warns that kids would view husband/wife or mother/father relationships as optional--as opposed to what, mandatory? Is that the kind of fascist state he envisions for America? (Actually, I believe so.)
Equally disgusting is your assessment that same-sex parenting amounts to "child-suffering." The most suffering a child faces in this situation is discrimination and hate from fascists or the children of fascists he/she would encounter at school--and that's not their problem, it's yours. This same kind of fear-mongering was used when interracial marriage was legalized and people didn't want to be "forced to accept it". And lies were spread that children of such marriages were doomed to miserable lives. Same lies, different people.
A Vast Social Experiment Inflicted on Children
1) No society, at any time, has ever raised a generation of children in same-sex families.
2) Same-sex “marriage” will subject generations of children to the status of lab rats in (name of debate opponent’s) vast, untested social experiment.
But we know how the experiment will turn out:
1) America has raised millions of children in fatherless families for three decades and that experiment was a stunning failure by every measure!
2) We know how damaging it is to raise children in intentionally fatherless families. Let’s not create more child-suffering to satisfy adult desire.
How Your Same-sex Family Will Harm My Family
1) If this were just about your family, there would be no real danger. But same-sex “marriage” advocates are not seeking marriage for you alone, but rather demanding me — and all of us — to radically change our understanding of family. And that will do great damage.
2) Your same-sex family will teach my little boys and girls that husband/wife and mother/father are merely optional for the family and therefore, meaningless.
3) I will never allow my (grand) children to be taught that their gender doesn’t matter for the family. Their masculinity and femininity matter far too much, as does everyone’s in this auditorium.
--By Glenn T. Stanton
This is easy. If you want to know where McCain stands on marriage, just ask his second wife Cindy, whom he met in 1979 while married to his first wife.
Four Key Points:
1) Same-sex families always deny children either their mother or father.
2) Same-sex family is a vast, untested social experiment with children.
3) Where does it stop? How do we say "no" to group marriage?
4) Schools will be forced to teach that the homosexual family is normal. Churches will be legally pressured to perform same-sex ceremonies.
Marriage Is Always About the Next Generation:
1) A loving and compassionate society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families.
2) A loving and compassionate society never intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families, which is exactly what every same-sex home does.
3) The same-sex family is not driven by the needs of children, but rather by the radical wishes of a small group of adults.
4) No child development theory says children need two parents of the same gender, but rather that children need their mothers and fathers.
-By Glen T. Stanton
SqueakyWheel - What are you talking about? First of all, an amendment that would outlaw divorce would get rid of all divorces - no one would be able to have them. To say that gay marriage is a threat to "traditional marriage" makes absolutely no sense. How does a man marrying (or getting a civil union if the word marriage makes you uncomfortable) another man or a woman marrying another woman do anything to affect my or your marriage? It doesn't. What does affect it is lack of communication, infidelity, trust issues, lack of intimacy, etc. I've never spent a second worrying about what gay marriage might do to my marriage. And I would bet most haven't either. I have thought about what divorce might do to my marriage though - the answer there is self-evident.
Unfortunately, ifeel, McCain is not in the habit of standing his ground. And I agree if we really want to protect marriage, we should not only ban divorce, but we should make infidelity a crime as well. Why have the Newt Gingriches, Bill Clintons, and Rudy Giulianis of the country escaped prosecution for so long?
Divorce is contrary to God's design of biblical marriage. Remarriage after divorce is an even more complicated issue upon which Christians may have different views.
Politically and culturally, outlawing divorce via a Federal amendment to the Constitution would not be the best solution to decreasing divorce. There are many other practical approaches to lowering the numbers of divorces.
State covenant marriage laws are an excellent alternative to encourage counseling between married couples on the verge of break-ups. Statistically, most divorces occur over "low-threshold" conflict issues which may be resolved with mutual efforts of concerted communication & counseling.
When pastors & other ordained ministers within a local community all agree only to marry couples who have undergone pre-marital counseling, this helps to dramatically improve the odds of weeding out potentially poorly matched marriage partners. The marriage penalty tax should be eliminated permanently to give incentive for stronger marriage foundations.
Not all societal problems can be addressed with a constitutional amendment. However, the significant issue regarding the fundamental definition of marriage is one such exception. Marriage between one man and one woman is absolutely critical to the foundation of families. When the institution of the family crumbles, society crumbles.
Squeakywheel - Would you also get behind an amendment that would outlaw divorce (and of course remarriage) except in instances of unfaithfulness?
Those who are against same-sex marriage but are against the federal marriage amendment do not have a proper grasp of the practical legal implications of their position. If the definition of marriage is left up to the states as it is now, then some states will eventually legalize same-sex marriage--as in Massachusetts, while other state will not recognize such "marriages." The "full faith & credit" clause of the Constitution mandates that states recognize & give benefit to each respective state's laws. So that when one is married as a same-sex couple in Massachusetts then another state will be forced to recognize that same-sex marriage in due time. Courts in all 50 states will eventually receive challenges to current marriage laws. All it takes is one rogue judge to rule in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage in any one state to overturn any state constitution marriage amendment.
The result will be a potential hodgepodge of 50 different definitions of what marriage may be when the states define marriage. Only a federal marriage amendment will simply define marriage as between one man & one woman, with consistency and reasonableness. Once and for all, any differences from state to state will be resolved. The Constitution exists to serve the people; the people does not exist to serve the Constitution. As ingenious as the writers of the Constitution were, it is still only one source of law, interpreted by 9 imperfect & fallible justices of the Supreme Court.
The Federal Constitution allows for the process of amending it, when appropriate. It does not make a mockery of the Constitution. There has since been 27 amendments added to the Federal Constitution. The country did not get have a constitutional crisis when such amendments were added. Our country will not have an earth-shattering crisis when a federal marriage amendment is added. THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. period.
I am against same-sex marriage. However the constitution defines what should be left up to the states and what should be done by the federal government. I'm sure when they set this up they never thought they would have to define marriage or any other Biblical mandates. To say that if a person is not for the federal marriage amendment is for same-sex marriage is unfair. I have printed the constitution in order to read it and try to understand what would fit under states rights or not. A different interpretation of the constitution does not
For example when Fred Thompson was running for president he voted every time for life. The only thing that he voted against was the Human Life Amendment. For that he was accused by some to be pro-abortion. At least the National Right to Life people did not think that way. They endorsed him along with several local chapters.
I do not know the answer to this BUT in this country the law of the land is our constitution. All laws are supposed to line up with it.
The federal marriage ammendment would be the worst thing to happen to this country since the Iraq war - it makes a mockery of the constitution. It will never pass and I hope McCain stands his ground.
McCain cannot have it both ways. He must be crystal clear about his support for the federal marriage amendment or he will lose the support of many Christians around the nation. I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports same-sex marriage. Nor can I vote for a candidate who supports the death of unborn embryos sacrificed at the altar of research.