Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Mormon Church Can’t Operate In The Dark

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn


You’re not the only one filing a brief before the CaliforniaSupreme Court in the Proposition 8 case this week, Jay. Americans United hasjoined with more than two dozen other civic groups to file our own brief. Notsurprisingly, our argument is quite a bit different than yours.

 This dispute revolves in part around some fairly esoteric questionsof Californialaw. I won’t get into all of that. Suffice to say, I do not believe a slimmajority of Californians (or Pennsylvanians, Mississippians, Oregonians, etc.)should be able to strip a minority group of its basic rights by any vote.

 Our brief makes this point. It reads in part, “IfProposition 8 were a proper subject for an initiative vote, then so would be ameasure seeking to amend the California Constitution to bar interracial orinterfaith marriages, to exclude women from certain occupations, to limitfreedom of speech only for certain racial or national groups, or to suspendprotections against unwarranted searches and seizures for members of certainnational groups. As this Court and its federal counterpart have recognized, noperson should have such fundamental rights – even one of them – subject to thevicissitudes of a bare majority of voters.”

 As you know, Jay, there was a time in America whenmajorities were greatly offended by the idea of interracial marriage and soughtto curb it through laws. Had it been put to a vote as a constitutionalamendment in, say, Alabama,there’s no doubt it would have passed easily. That does not make it right. Itwas a grotesque violation of basic rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court was rightto nullify such bans in Loving v. Virginia. (I should point out that plenty of misguided clergysupported these bans, and even cited scripture in framing their argument.)  

 In short, majority rule is great for determining who sits onthe school board; it’s less effective in determining basic rights.

 There is another issue here that deserves a hard look: therole of the Mormon Church and other religious groups in passing Prop. 8. TheMormons say they donated only a few thousand to the effort, but now reports aresurfacing that it might have been a good deal more. The church sponsored Websites, ran phone banks and undertook other activities to promote Prop. 8. Itdoes not appear that this activity was reported to state officials, as California law requires.

 When well-heeled religious groups spend mega-bucks to writetheir pet theological notions into law for everyone else to follow, we have achurch-state problem on our hands – whether you recognize that or not.

 Religious groups have the right to speak out on the socialissues of the day, but I believe they have no right to skirt neutralcampaign-reporting laws that their secular counterparts must follow to the letter.These groups are trying to effect public policy, and the people who would beaffected by that policy have a right to know about it. I discussed this issuerecently with the American News Project. Our readers can see the video here.




Advertisement
Comments read comments(22)
post a comment
Lorian

posted January 15, 2009 at 1:32 pm


I find it extremely frustrating that a church can direct it’s followers to redirect their tithing from the church to a political cause and this does not qualify as the church, itself, making a financial contribution to a political cause.
It is a well-known fact that Mormons are heavily influenced by the directives of their leadership, and can be asked to give ANYTHING up to and including the entirety of their fortune to the church or to any cause the church directs, and they will be expected to comply with such a direction. Many of them, in fact, WOULD comply with this type of direction.
Strong direction and even coercion was brought to bear upon rank-and-file Mormons by their leadership during the Prop 8 campaign. They were instructed to give freely of their time and funds to the cause, and many were told to divert their tithes to the cause. Mormons’ tithes are determined by their Bishop, and are often a requirement placed upon them for them to receive a “Temple Recommend,” the goal of most faithful Mormons, which allows them to attend ritual cermonies in the Mormon Temple of their choice. If they refuse to tithe, their “Temple Recommend” may be withdrawn, at the discretion of church hierarchy. Therefore, a direction from a Bishop or Ward leader, let alone a directive from the “Apostles” or “Prophet” (President Monson), would stand as an absolute requirement to many if not most Mormons to give to a cause in order to continue as a member in good standing with their church.
This being the case, and with requirements having been given for membership of the Mormon church to actually divert tithes which would have been given to church coffers and send them instead to the coffers of the Proposition 8 campaign, it would seem clear that these funds from individual Mormon donors ought to be considered as direct contributions from the Mormon church, itself.
This amounts to nearly the same thing as groups which attempt to by-pass campaign contribution laws by splitting up their overly-large contributions among many different individuals who donate the money as though they were individual contributions.
If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is allowed to manipulate the political processes in our country in this manner, there is nothing to stop them from subverting the political process in any number of ways. If they can coerce their membership into donating massive amounts of money to finance campaigns to spread lies and disinformation to influence the voting public to legislate according to the Mormon Church’s beliefs and policies, then we have reached the end of separation of church and state, and may as well resign ourselves here and now to living in a Mormon theocracy at some point in the near future. They have demonstrated their power and their ability to make this happen. Shall we sit back and watch?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 15, 2009 at 2:43 pm


Let me get this straight. An American citizen has the right to vote however he or she wants to and has the right to donate money and volunteer to support whatever political causes and opinions they want to. Except if that person happens to be a member of the Mormon church. In that case, it is some big bad boogeyman church trying to establish a theocracy? Like any other church, the Mormon church gives advice but does not control the actions of its members. People smoke, drink, shop on Sundays and watch R-rated movies in Utah–regardless of the Mormon church’s stance on those matters. And what about Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake City’s openly gay mayor?
Face it, you have somehow decided that American citizens have no right to political expression if they happen to belong to the Mormon Church. I understand you are frustrated that the vote didn’t turn out the way you would have liked it to, but stop trying to place the blame on anyone but the actual voters in California. Everyone knows that, no matter how much money is spent on propaganda, voters cannot be forced to vote any certain way. They make their own choice.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted January 15, 2009 at 2:51 pm


Your Name,
You have missed the point here. Human rights are a matter of constitutional law and NOT majority rule. Reverend Lynn did a very good job of explaining this.



report abuse
 

Russell

posted January 15, 2009 at 3:20 pm


No tithing was redirected. All money spent was out of the private citizen’s pockets. The members of the church continued paying tithing as they would have normally done.
Second, acting on homosexual thoughts requires a choice. One can’t choose not to be black, or hispanic. It is a physical impossibility. While on the other hand someone who desires to act out on homosexual tendencies can choose not to. To act is a matter of choice.



report abuse
 

Brent

posted January 15, 2009 at 3:49 pm


What makes this a civil rights or human rights issue?
Will the will of gays be forced on others who find it goes against their moral compase?
Is that taking away human rights of that individual?
Are schools teaching that it is okay to be gay when parents believe and teach their children that it is not because of thier moral values?
Is that taking away the rights of parents?
Can the parents opt out thier children from this class if it goes against thier beliefs?
Are gay people and non gay people protected under the law at present?
Are gay people allowed to move freely as non gays?
Are gay people allowed to freely voice their opinions?
Are non gay people allowed to freely voice their opinions?
How does gay marriage benifit humanity?
How does gay marriage prevent one from living a normal life?
What makes marriage a right?
Is this a human rights issue?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted January 15, 2009 at 4:12 pm


What makes this a civil rights or human rights issue?
Answer: The U.S. Constitution
Will the will of gays be forced on others who find it goes against their moral compase?
Answer: Your moral compass is as worthless as your belief in fairy tales.
Is that taking away human rights of that individual?
Answer: You make a false premise and then base a question on it. Typical of a religionist.
Are schools teaching that it is okay to be gay when parents believe and teach their children that it is not because of thier moral values?
Answer: Most parents, especially religious parents, are not qualified to teach their children about morals.
Is that taking away the rights of parents?
Answer: Another question based on a false premise.
Can the parents opt out thier children from this class if it goes against thier beliefs?
Answer: Sure, and then their children will be anti-social under-educated like their Christian parents.
Are gay people and non gay people protected under the law at present?
Answer: No they are not.
Are gay people allowed to move freely as non gays?
Answer: No they are not.
Are gay people allowed to freely voice their opinions?
Answer: Sometimes.
Are non gay people allowed to freely voice their opinions?
Answer: Yes, in this country.
How does gay marriage benifit humanity?
Answer: It benefits the people in a gay marriage.
How does gay marriage prevent one from living a normal life?
Answer: It doesn’t.
What makes marriage a right?
Answer: The law.
Is this a human rights issue?
Answer: Yes it is. Too bad you cannot understand this.



report abuse
 

James

posted January 15, 2009 at 4:40 pm


Gay marriage is not an equal rights issue. All males and females have equal access to marriage.
What gays and lesbians want is a new definition of marriage based on adult sexual preferences.
However, gay men are unequal to being wives and mothers and lesbian women are unequal to being husbands and fathers.
By nature, gay men cannot be women and lesbian women cannot be men – by nature they are not the same.
Why is gay marriage necessary? Children do not need gay marriage.
Adults do not require gay marriage. Government does not require gay marriage.
In short, the human race does not need or require gay marriage. Can you make a logical and necessary case for gay marriage?
Human society has been created, formed, and has thrived without gay marriage.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted January 15, 2009 at 5:00 pm


Answer: Your moral compass is as worthless as your belief in fairy tales.
Rebuttal: This is like saying, “my moral compass is better than your moral compass.” So in other words it is okay for you to impose your will on someone else, but not for them to do the same back?
Answer: You make a false premise and then base a question on it. Typical of a religionist.
Rebuttal: Followed by your non-answer. Calling a question false does not address the substance of the question. Maybe you missed the substance.
Are schools teaching that it is okay to be gay when parents believe and teach their children that it is not because of thier moral values?
Answer: Most parents, especially religious parents, are not qualified to teach their children about morals.
Rebuttal: And where are these qualifications to teach morals spelled out, and who decided them? And how are your credentials to render such a verdict and better than those of the original questioner? Your response has no substance.
Is that taking away the rights of parents?
Answer: Another question based on a false premise.
Rebuttal: Do parents have the right in the USA to oversee their children’s instruction or not? You are side-stepping questions through mere name calling.
Can the parents opt out thier children from this class if it goes against thier beliefs?
Answer: Sure, and then their children will be anti-social under-educated like their Christian parents.
Rebuttal: Your own bigotry speaks for itself.
Are gay people allowed to move freely as non gays?
Answer: No they are not.
Rebuttal: And a current example of that in California would be … ?
Are gay people allowed to freely voice their opinions?
Answer: Sometimes.
Rebuttal: And a current example of that in California would be … ?
How does gay marriage benifit humanity?
Answer: It benefits the people in a gay marriage.
Rebuttal: And how does that benefit society at large? By propagating the species?



report abuse
 

Brent

posted January 15, 2009 at 5:03 pm


Results:
No morals
No respect for humanity
lack of education or understanding
Dishonest
Selfish
Presumptuous
Hateful
Just testing to see what kind of person would respond.



report abuse
 

Boyd

posted January 15, 2009 at 5:19 pm


Boris,
I would have expected no less from your type. You can’t enter into an honest and thoughtful discussion, all you can do is slander and belittle. I love the lefts tactic of not having anything valid to say so you just try and tare the person apart.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 15, 2009 at 5:29 pm


Regarding tithing: No tithing was used during the Prop. 8 campaign by the Mormons. Members were not “allowed” to contribute their funds to the campaign in lieu of tithing. The only question asked of Mormons regarding tithing is, “Are you a full tithe payer?” From that point it is a matter of personal integrity.
Regarding homosexuality compared to racial bigotry: The Mormons do not condemn one for their thoughts and desires. Action is required to commit sin. Therefore one can have homsexual thoughts and not act on them and remain in “good standing” in the church. Comparing homosexuality to race is a poor comparison at best. One does not choose to be, for example, black. No one can act differently to not be black. Race is a gift from God. Attitude can change, cultures can be adopted, but no choice can be made to alter the color of one’s skin. The evidence will always be there.
My heart goes out to those who must deal with homosexual feelings. But like they choose to act on those feelings. In life we choose to act or be acted upon. Those who act choose their own path.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted January 15, 2009 at 7:19 pm


Your Name: (January 15, 2009 2:43 PM)
“Face it, you have somehow decided that American citizens have no right to political expression if they happen to belong to the Mormon Church. I understand you are frustrated that the vote didn’t turn out the way you would have liked it to, but stop trying to place the blame on anyone but the actual voters in California.”
So apparently, not only are California gays not allowed to marry someone of their choice, they’re not even allowed to criticize the people who made that happen.
Your Name: (January 15, 2009 5:29 PM)
“My heart goes out to those who must deal with homosexual feelings. But they choose to act on those feelings. In life we choose to act or be acted upon. Those who act choose their own path.”
we care as much about your pity as we do your disgust.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted January 15, 2009 at 7:51 pm


Jason your attempts at rebuttals are both at once sad and hilarious. Boris ruins rebuttals from religionists.
Rebuttal: This is like saying, “my moral compass is better than your moral compass.” So in other words it is okay for you to impose your will on someone else, but not for them to do the same back?
Boris says: I’m not imposing my will on anyone. But I’m sick of hearing that atheists have no grounds on which to be moral from people who get their morals from an ancient and absurd book of fairy tales and lies.
Rebuttal: Followed by your non-answer. Calling a question false does not address the substance of the question. Maybe you missed the substance.
Boris says: The question had no substance because it was based on an asinine assumption.
Rebuttal: And where are these qualifications to teach morals spelled out, and who decided them? And how are your credentials to render such a verdict and better than those of the original questioner? Your response has no substance.
Boris says: Each person must adopt their own moral principles as they become more educated.
Rebuttal: Do parents have the right in the USA to oversee their children’s instruction or not? You are side-stepping questions through mere name calling.
Boris says: They do, but home schooling is child abuse and should NOT be legal.
Rebuttal: Your own bigotry speaks for itself.
Boris says: Ridiculing bigots is hardly bigotry.
Rebuttal: And a current example of that in California would be … ?
Boris says: That they can’t get married to each other?
Are gay people allowed to freely voice their opinions?
Rebuttal: And a current example of that in California would be … ?
Boris says: Not one gay oriented talk radio show perhaps?
Rebuttal: And how does that benefit society at large? By propagating the species?
Boris says: Marriage isn’t just for making babies. It’s for making people happy. Admittedly this doesn’t work the way it should most of the time.



report abuse
 

HiveRadical

posted January 15, 2009 at 10:25 pm


There was no ‘skirting’ of the law by the Mormons. Individual’s in our faith chose to act on the principles of our faith. If any instance of acting on a person’s ideological tenets needs to be documented for us to have full political transparency then we are WOEFULLY lacking ANYTHING approaching such.
It’s ironic that the one institution enumerated in the constitution to not be meddled with by the government is EXACTLY the instrument many want to use to destroy the privacy of our Churches and their own private affairs. The constitution never said any thing specific about protecting non-profit or special interest groups but IT DID SPECIFICALLY lay out such for religions.
And as per the claim that Prop 8 is impotent in the face of the law is only defensible if you are willing to ignore the fact that the sex of individuals matter, the irony here is that even the Supreme Court in it’s long standing view with the intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause demonstrates that the sex of individual’s can, and in some cases should, impact and cause variances in the laws and legal definitions.
The combination of sexes in a partnership has a real impact on the dynamics that flow from it. To deny such is to deny the reality left us by the blind watchmaker after ions of evolutionary forces on the biology and sociology of mankind. To think that a juvenile attempt at mutating the words ‘equal’ ‘rights’ and ‘marriage’ is in and of itself an adequate argument or reason for abandoning a key component of societies central social unit is an error that, if applied, would decimate our civilization for generations upon generations.



report abuse
 

NightLad

posted January 15, 2009 at 11:40 pm


HiveRadical
>>> “The combination of sexes in a partnership has a real impact on the dynamics that flow from it. To deny such is to deny the reality left us by the blind watchmaker after ions of evolutionary forces on the biology and sociology of mankind. To think that a juvenile attempt at mutating the words ‘equal’ ‘rights’ and ‘marriage’ is in and of itself an adequate argument or reason for abandoning a key component of societies central social unit is an error that, if applied, would decimate our civilization for generations upon generations.”
I think the biggest issue I take with most opponents of same-sex marriage is how they fabricate facts to justify their opinions.
When you can’t defend your opinion using a secular legal standing (which this form of marriage falls in to), you fall back on the chant “society will come to an end!” This same tactic has been used by similarly-minded groups about women having the vote, women in the workforce, interracial marriage, the end of segregation, equal access to divorce, and the list goes on.
Gay couples already exist in relationships. Some of those couples have been together probably longer than you’ve been alive. Yet under the law – the Civil, Secular Law – those people are treated like complete strangers. That’s what this is about.
And you defend that with made-up facts and scare-tactic propaganda about the destruction of society if (according to anti-gay group estimates) “less than 1% of America” is able to attain Civil, Secular Marriages to protect their relationships and their families.
Same-Sex Marriage is an ever-growing reality in our world. The sky has not fallen. Canada, American’s mirror in nearly every respect, is truckin’ along just fine with same-sex marriage. America, on the other hand, chooses to side with nations such as Saudi Arabia and China when it comes to its option of Homosexuals and our place in society.
Well, they say you are who you hang with.
Your Name
>>> My heart goes out to those who must deal with homosexual feelings. But they choose to act on those feelings. In life we choose to act or be acted upon. Those who act choose their own path.
When you say “homosexual feelings” you are talking about sex.
When I say “homosexual feelings” I am talking about love.



report abuse
 

PI

posted January 16, 2009 at 1:46 am


NightLad: I think you misunderstand Your Name. I didn’t get “homosexual feelings” = sex at all. I read that as “feelings of attraction to people of the same sex”. Marriage is not an individual civil right. It is a promise between two people (and God) to not have sex with anyone else forever and provide a stable social environment to have, raise, and train the next generation of people. States protect this institution because it has proven to do so in the past. I know there are bad heterosexual marriages. More than there should be. But any suggestion that same sex marriages will on the whole be better than heterosexual marriages, that somehow gay couples would produce better families than traditional ones is naive at best. I think a lot of people are worried about 1)what would happen in a bad same sex family, 2)the societal implications of this social experiment, and frankly, 3)the wrath of God. Even if they’re wrong, people don’t want to take chances with the wrath of God.
Fact of the matter is, gay marriage won’t kill traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Cohabitation and “no-fault” divorce laws did that a long time ago, which eventually produced the climate for the idea of gay marriage to gain such traction. But this is a line in the sand for a lot of people, myself included, that they will not cross.
But really, imho, the gay community at large (though there are certainly exceptions) doesn’t care nearly as much about marriage and stable home environments as it does about being seen and heard and accepted. All the rights and liberties of heterosexual people are also afforded homosexual people, under the law. They just have to fill out a different form (keep in mind this is a world of difference from using a separate bathroom) or check a different box. One of the least convincing arguments in favor of same sex marriage is that a gay couple can’t file a joint tax return. Seriously?
Just trying to make some sense out of this…



report abuse
 

NightLad

posted January 16, 2009 at 6:21 am


PI
>>> Marriage is not an individual civil right.
Not so long ago, neither was the right to vote… for women, at least.
From Canada to Israel, even in America, the question of whether or not the right to Secular Civil Marriage should apply equally for same-sex couples is being answered with a ‘yes.’
>>> It is a promise between two people (and God) to not have sex with anyone else forever and provide a stable social environment to have, raise, and train the next generation of people.
Go down to City Hall, ask for a copy of a Marriage Licence, then read it.
Nowhere does it mention God. Nowhere does it mention a promise to provide a “stable social environment” for x-number of children, let alone to ‘raise and train’ them.
These promises might have been in the marriage vows you made in Church, but they do not exist in the only form of Marriage the government recognizes; Civil Secular Marriage, which begins and ends in the legally binding secular document known as a Marriage Licence.
At the conclusion of your marriage ceremony you and your spouse sat down in front of your gathered guests and signed this same piece of paper. Then your chosen witness’ signed it. Until that moment your entire ceremony, while valid in the eyes of your Church and your God, meant nothing to the government. Only until you signed that Secular Civil Document were you married in the eyes of Uncle Sam.
This is the sole form of marriage I’m talking about; signing the legal document; the same paper Atheists and Hindus and Catholics and Baptists, and yes, even Mormons sign to be wed in the eyes of the Government. I believe most people either don’t understand the distinction, or they just don’t care.
>>> States protect this institution because it has proven to do so in the past.
States do not protect marriage. They do not create rules to force people to remain together, and they do not even require mandatory counselling for couples who wish a divorced. They do not even limit marriage to couples who are ‘serious’ about it and intend to remain together.
Consider:
Two drunken strangers can get married at a Drive Through in Vegas, as long as they have $100 and are male/female. Celebrities can get 48 hour marriages and then toss them in the trash. Death-row inmates, who’ve lost every right a person has, including the right to live, can still get married over the phone if they find somebody – and this despite the fact that they will never physically touch their bride/groom, let alone raise children. Heck, I can marry a lesbian to enjoy the tax-breaks of being married… who is going to know?
Yet… a loving gay couple who’ve been together for 40 years, they are treated like strangers under the law.
No, I’m sorry, but the State does not “protect marriage.” The only time you hear the words “protect marriage” is when it is being slyly used to really mean, “exclude homosexual couples.” I guess it just sounds better.
>>> “But any suggestion that same sex marriages will on the whole be better than heterosexual marriages, that somehow gay couples would produce better families than traditional ones is naive at best.”
I agree with you. Gay people are people, with all the same faults and flaws as straight people. Our relationships aren’t perfect; our families aren’t perfect. But I do not believe that this means we are unworthy of recognition under the law.
>>> ”I think a lot of people are worried about 1)what would happen in a bad same sex family, 2)the societal implications of this social experiment, and frankly, 3)the wrath of God. Even if they’re wrong, people don’t want to take chances with the wrath of God.”
1) The same things that happens in a bad heterosexual one. Shall we ban those, too?
2) Invalid. We are not talking about some pie-in-the-sky theory, same-sex marriage exists in nations the world over. Look for yourself; even within America it exists in certain places.
3) Until America declares itself a Theocracy (like Iran), what your God may or may not feel about it has no bearing on the Civil Secular form of Marriage we are discussing here.
>>> ”Cohabitation and “no-fault” divorce laws did that a long time ago, which eventually produced the climate for the idea of gay marriage to gain such traction.”
I don’t believe that heterosexual divorce had anything to do with the gay community wanting our relationships to be recognized by the government, so that we will be entitled to the same protections and rights that you possess.
More on that in a minute.
>>> ”But this is a line in the sand for a lot of people, myself included, that they will not cross.”
If you are heterosexual, than it is a line you would never desire to cross. You can’t fall in love with members of your own gender. You would never be in the type of relationship with such a person as to want nothing more than to spend the rest of your lives together.
To quote the bumper sticker: If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one.
But what’s up with forcing your opinion on the rest of us?
>>> ” But really, imho, the gay community at large (though there are certainly exceptions) doesn’t care nearly as much about marriage and stable home environments as it does about being seen and heard and accepted.”
Thank you for at least prefacing that statement with “imho”.
Perhaps people said the same thing about the African-American Community back in the day. I don’t know. I do know that Coretta Scott King, widow of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was an ardent supporter of including GLBT people in the Civil Rights movement. But what would she know…? ;)
I disagree with you. We are not talking about some arbitrary, abstract cause people may banter around just to have something to discuss. We are talking about people’s lives, families. How deeply would you care about this topic if it were you? Why do you think I feel any different?
>>> “ All the rights and liberties of heterosexual people are also afforded homosexual people, under the law. They just have to fill out a different form (keep in mind this is a world of difference from using a separate bathroom) or check a different box.”
Sorry, I’m not entirely sure what you meant by this. What ‘form’ are you talking about?
>>> ”One of the least convincing arguments in favor of same sex marriage is that a gay couple can’t file a joint tax return. Seriously?”
– Why should the gay widower be forced to sell the home he and his partner shared all their lives because he can no longer afford payments, when both he and his partner paid into the same social security system you and your spouse have. He gets nothing because under the law he and his partner were nothing. Strangers. Yet if his spouse had a vagina, he’d be entitled to benefits.
– Why should the spouse of a dying man or women be denied visitation rights, or have their power-of-attorney contested and nullified by the spouses’ blood relatives who disowned him decades ago?
– Why should the gay couple who signed a civil partnership certificate in their State fear that if something happened to one of them while in a state that did not recognize their partnership, the other would be treated like a complete stranger? (What a fun way to plan a vacation, and heaven forbid they had to relocate b/c of a job or whatnot)
Just a few of the concerns faced by GLBT couples, that you can take for granted, because your Federally Recognized Marriage Certificate (the civil, secular document you and your spouse signed) entitles you to all these rights and dozes more.
I am sincerely glad to speak with you, because if you are trying to make sense out of what the GLBT Community wants, and why we want it, than I am eager to understand why some members of society are so dead-set against it.
Have a good day.



report abuse
 

Jordan

posted January 16, 2009 at 6:39 pm


An open Letter to “Rev Barry Lynn”
It is indeed unfortunate that you, purporting to be a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, have taken up the gauntlet of “Seperation of Church and State” and that you also champion the right of homosexuals to gain the right of State recognized marriage. And what is most disturbing to me, as a bond servant of my Lord Jesus Christ, is that you do so under the guise of some presumed religious or secular authority.
If you were to do the research, you would find that the US COnstitution does not use the words…”Seperation of Church and State”. This term was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to a group in Pennsylvania or Ohio.
The framers of the US Constitution did not reject God from being a part of the government of men, but rather, feared that the government would infringe upon the rights of freedom of religion or the freedom to worship God as each man saw fit. During the early years of our nation, it was a law that all men attend church on the Sabbath. It was common place to see school classes being held within churches. And much of our early moral values were rooted in the the teachings of the Holy Bible and the laws which God wrote upon the hearts of men!
Since that time has long gone from us, we, the enlightened and highly educated man, choose to remove all mention of and reference to God from our Schools, our Political Organizations, our Government, our High Courts, and for the most part, from our personal lives. So be it! For it is written: “In the last days there shall be a great falling away from the faith.” (1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Th 2:3) The doctrines of devils will be preached from the pulpits of our churches. This we now see, which is evidenced by your own perverted and corruptable version of the Gospel of my Lord, Jesus Christ.
My heavenly Father did not call me to exhalt myself, but to proclaim the Gospel of my Lord, and King, whose kingdom is eternal and without end. But HE called me that I might prepare the Bride of my Holy Lord, for the wedding supper of the Lamb of God is at hand.
And now, will you take up the cause of those who live in open rebellion against the gospel of my Lord and hopefully, yours? Or have you exchanged His gift of life for the doctrine of devils? Thinkest thou that God is blind? By granting the hgomosexual legtimacy in state sanctioned marriages, do we not lay the foundation for our little ones that they might embrace this deviant and abhorant lifestyle without guilt or conscience? For if the society of man proclaims the legitimacy of homosexual unions and marriages, does not the government sanctify this form of abhorant behavior as acceptable in the sight of our youth? And in so doing, will not many many more blind souls fall into the pit that was prepared for the devil and his angels?
Wherefore do you champion such a cause, oh blind leader of the blind? For it is not my rebuke that is upon you, but the rebuke of my Lord who purchased me by His precious blood. For surely my Lord commeth like a theif in the night, that He may claim that which is His, and then shall the man of evil be revealed to the world, and they shall love and adore him. How is it that you now prepare his way, so that many innocent and blind ones may be lead like dumb animals to the slaughter?



report abuse
 

Byron

posted January 18, 2009 at 11:01 pm


NightLad wote:
– Why should the gay widower be forced to sell the home he and his partner shared all their lives because he can no longer afford payments, when both he and his partner paid into the same social security system you and your spouse have. He gets nothing because under the law he and his partner were nothing. Strangers. Yet if his spouse had a vagina, he’d be entitled to benefits.
– Why should the gay couple who signed a civil partnership certificate in their State fear that if something happened to one of them while in a state that did not recognize their partnership, the other would be treated like a complete stranger? (What a fun way to plan a vacation, and heaven forbid they had to relocate b/c of a job or whatnot)
Just a few of the concerns faced by GLBT couples, that you can take for granted, because your Federally Recognized Marriage Certificate (the civil, secular document you and your spouse signed) entitles you to all these rights and dozes more.
Looks to me that these are all things dealing with FEDERAL government and not the state. If you have a problem with how your Social Security works then talk to your Congressperson or Senator NOT the state in which you live.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 28, 2009 at 9:50 pm


How strange certain members of the human race has become. Doing just the opposite of God’s desire for us. Ever wonder why? I have, in my oppinion it is anger and rebellion and pride related. Why would a normal human choose to hug a tree and not a baby? why would one save a whale and euphanize a family member that they might have to be responcible for. maybe some dont want to be bothered by anyone so their time is spent selfishly on themselves. they really cant have others doing things that would make them feel guilty azbout their self centered ways. So getting rid of Gods people and mostly God and His ways , would seem like the important thing to do. Why so much anger at others who follow God? Have some people really lost contact with reality? I cant believe how much people have changed for the worse. How angry they get for the so-called right to get rid of an unwanted baby. There is a degree of hatred for life that becomes a mental and mostly a spiritual illness. Criminal, crazy hatred, unGodly,Maybe this is the depraved mind spoken of in the Holy Bible. Yeah and just how far will it go? If their children, the ones that are allowed to live by the parents great grace, mis behave, will they be taken out of this world to some convenient state of evolution. Which only happens after a few deaths? Oh come on! Just how crazy is it getting here. Its a shocker that they wont let our children pray but wow they dont even let their own flesh and blood children live. That kind of reasoning is not of Holy God. I mean really hug a tree and kill a baby? God’s way is perfect for everyone and all. Can some people really think they can play god and make rules based on self centered ideas of freedom.Who put thse ideas in their heads. This life is not a game… not a rehersal… choices are very important…God is a big God.. a forgiving God



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted October 19, 2009 at 8:38 pm


Interracial marriage is a lot different from homosexual marriage, the former being acceptable in the Bible and the latter not. You’re comparing apples and oranges here. Moreover, the recognition of homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right as defined by history.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 19, 2009 at 9:01 pm


Apparently you’ve never read the Bible, Nehemiah in particular. There we see the Bible God’s view of interracial marriages and the children born from them very clearly. The Bible God is a bigot and a racist.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.