President Obama and “Don’t ask, don’t tell”
On November 4, 2008, when it became clear that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States, there was a lot of reaction from both his opponents and his supporters. This reaction stemmed from the fact that he had promised a lot of people a lot of different things. African Americans were understandably proud that one of their own had just ascended to the highest office in our country, but they were not the only ones who were hopeful that things would be changing for their betterment.
During his campaign for the White House, Barack Obama received a great deal of support from the homosexual community. Part of that support came from his pledge that he would end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy enacted by Bill Clinton. This policy enabled homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they did not divulge their sexual preferences. Asking about those preferences was also prohibited. He also promised to push Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which allowed states to not recognize same-sex relationships as marriages and defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The homosexual movement applauded both pledges.
Personally, I have much more of a problem with repealing the DOMA than I do with allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the
military. I have never been in the military, but I would imagine someone’s sexual preferences would be the last thing on my mind if the enemy was doing their best to kill me. All I would care about is if my fellow soldiers were able to help get the job done. If anyone who reads this has real-world combat experience, I would be interested in knowing if that assumption is correct. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Obviously, any wholesale changes made to military policy has to be supported by the Pentagon. Without that support, it is doomed to failure and so far, military leaders have appeared to be reluctant to end or modify the policy.
As for repealing the DOMA, that’s another story entirely. To be frank, I do not agree with homosexuality. I think it is a choice they have made and not something they are predestined to do. God did not create homosexuals, they made themselves that way. Having said that, I do not wish to see them discriminated against. I also do not wish to see them encroach upon marriage, which is a sacred union between one man and one woman. Allow them to have legal rights through the use of civil unions, but the institution of marriage needs to be left alone.
Since Obama was sworn in on January 20 of this year, homosexuals have been waiting to see if he would make good on his promises. So far, their wait has been in vain. With the economic crisis taking center stage, before he even took office, and with health care reform now dominating his agenda and the news cycles, many have questioned his commitment to their cause. Sunday saw tens of thousands of homosexuals marching from the White House to the Capital. Dubbed the National Equality March, they were demanding that President Obama keep his promises. What they may not realize is that the man has only so much political capital he can expend. Even though he renewed his pledge to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” in a speech Saturday night, the President did not drop hints as to when he would make good on his promise. With other issues taking precedence, he may not be able to push something as decisive as either of these issues through Congress. In spite of their frustrations, the homosexuals may not get their wishes just yet.
I agree with your position on gay marriage and civil unions. While I do not believe in gay marriage I understand that while marriage is a religious institution that it comes with many government benefits that homosexual couples miss out on. I think allowing civil unions is an acceptable alternative for gay couples, it provides them with all of the rights and benefits as marriage.
It seems to me that repealing DODT and DOMA was something that Barack Obama may have been able to accomplish shortly after he became president, I am not sure why he did not start the ball rolling on those issues other than he was afraid of the political ramifications. I think that as his presidency goes on it will be less likely that he will be able to repeal either of those laws. As you said, he has only so much political capital and it seems like he is losing more every day.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Does Lindsay Graham support cap and trade?
I have very mixed feeling s about DOMA; but I think it’s worth noting that marriage is absolutely not a “religious institution.” Marriage is purely a legal status. We do not require any religious presence or affiliation in order to get married. That said, the concensus view of the country is as you described it — that marriage has a religious foundation. The emotional and traditional part of me wants to embrace that definition but the pragmatic side of me says it’s not fair to discriminate against those who choose an alternative lifestyle. I’ll continue to sit on the fence until a stronger argument compels me to choose a side.
Re DADT — Larry got this one bang on. Nice post Larry.
Mike, you made me think. The percentage of Americans who support same sex marriages has reached majority status, and so perhaps we’ll see a Federal law at some point. So two men will have the same certified union as my husband and I do. The only difference between the two couples, then, will be that the former (and their chosen church) will have had their religious rights infringed upon. Seems cut and dry, to me.
Even though I strongly disagree with homosexuality, I do not wish to see them discriminated against. That is why I suggested civil unions as a compromise. It seems to me that there should be a way to give them the legal status they desire, without being involved in what I, as well as many others, believe is a sacred union between one man and one woman.
Larry,
I respectfully disagree with your take on DOMA. At first blush, it makes sense as it strengthens state’s rights. I have, however, always seen DOMA as an attack on and regulation of religious freedom of both individuals and institutions- a Federal, Constitutional area. You and I are free to have our opinions based on Scriptural interpretations as are our chosen churches (mine happens not to recognize homosexual unions). Why is it, then, that gay people and the churches who choose to interpret Scripture more broadly (no matter how wrong you think it is) should not be extended the same Constitutional rights? And let’s just dispense with the silly arguments about bestiality and child-adult marriages that so often come with this discussion. Neither situation is between two consenting adults; there is inherent harm in each and the laws against should continue.
By inviting government to restrict religious practices, you invite a very dangerous slippery slope. I’m always surprised that in our increasingly secular world, the faithful do not see this. What might be next in line for the governement to restrict with respect to your religious freedom, based on popular opinion?
As far as gays in the military…So often, the arguments against come from those who are uncomfortable with homosexuality but I have yet to see any widespread evidence that gays in the military have infringed on other’s rights. We need every patriotic body willing to serve, and a base prejudice is not a good reason for exclusion. Many military men objected to women in the armed forces. If that prejudice had stood, we would be without 20% of the Armed forces today.
The reason may conservative religious groups are in favor of DOMA is because they see it as a line of defense against the encroachment of homosexuals into marriage. I do not see it as an attack on religious freedom and would be curious to know why you think that.
What the DOMA does is prevent states from being required to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in another state. I am not sure how this would be considered a slippery slope.
Larry,
With respect to DOMA…It’s been a while since I’ve read it and you’re right, of course. As the kids say “my bad”. How do you feel about the Respect for Marriage bill, which would replace DOMA?
And a question about your civil union thoughts- what do you mean that you don’t think gay people should encroach on marriage?
Laurie,
I will have to read up on the RFMA and get back to you on that.
This is where my religious beliefs come strongly into play. I feel very strongly that God meant for a marriage to be a sacred union between one man and one woman. This union has several purposes, two of which are procreation and companionship between the two people. My desire to see marriage protected as such has nothing to do with discrimination against homosexuals.
The homosexual movement has went all out trying to portray their relationships to be as normal as the relationships between a man and a woman, but it is simply not so. They claim they only want the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples, which they could get if civil unions were set up properly. They insist however, that they want to be able to marry. That is what I call encroachment upon marriage.
I know this may sound crazy, but that is how I feel about it. Even though I believe homosexual behavior is wrong, I mean no disrespect to them. I hope I explained it well enough so that you could understand what I mean.
I don’t think it sounds crazy. I think it sounds like a religious belief. There are, however, some established and recognized religious denominations that disagree with this belief. Should the Federal government be able to define marriage to a point that religious practices that inherently harm no one are illegal? I’m not gay, not “batting” for a family member or anything like that. Our government and laws have evolved over time and even when large segments of religious organizations disagree (divorce laws are an example), and I struggle with why we can’t evolve on this one.
Laurie, asks an apt question at the end of her post:
“………….why we can’t evolve on this one(?)”
Many of the voices on Larry’s blog are kinda red state, including Larry:
“……..Even though I strongly disagree with homosexuality, I do not wish to see them discriminated against. That is why I suggested civil unions as a compromise.”
When i see this kind of response from the heartland, it gives this less than red state, red neck some hope.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..http://davidwwalters.stumbleupon.com/review/36771571/
Well, David, I think you just complimented me, but I am not for sure.
This, unfortunately, has become a very hot topic. I do not believe marriage to be anything other than between one man and one woman. Period.
I see no rational reason why homosexual couples should get the same benefits as heterosexual couples. This will probably draw the ire of many, but that’s the way I see it. Even civil unions gives them credence, and I just get there. Marriage is a sacred institution, contrary to what some say. God is the one who instituted it, and I believe he qualifies as a good authority.
Here’s something to think about: if there happened to be a wonderful club which had great benefits, many people would probably want to be part of it. To the chagrin of some, there were rules and stipulations in place that had to be met by those wishing to become members. Some failed to abide by the rules and felt slighted, so they cried out loud and continuously. Others said “let’s lower our standards and let them in.”
What just happened? Rules were set aside so people could finally become members of the exclusive club. The exclusive club is marriage – between a man and woman. Anything less is an affront on the institution of marriage. I don’t want marriage to be tainted in any way by the inclusion of those who choose to practice homosexuality.
Pastor Ron´s last blog ..Left-Wing Stooges – Not Funny at All!
This has nothing to do with DOMA, but does speak to your assertion of God’s rules.
You would agree, wouldn’t you, that there are many leaders of legitimate, Christian faiths who disagree with your interpretation? Do you agree that they should be able to practice their religion as they see fit, as you would have them extend you the same courtesy? I think the “club” here is religion, and I’m a bit shaky on telling others what their rules should be, as long as nobody is harmed.
Laurie,
I do not mean to answer for Pastor Ron, as I am sure he is well able to do. I would say this, however. There are parts of the Bible that are subject to interpretation, that is true. A lot of that has to do with prophecy. However, there are parts of the Bible that are as plain as day. In other words, there is no interpretation involved. Such would be the scriptures concerning homosexuality. I can give you chapter and verse where the Bible condemns the act of homosexuality and those who practice it.
I mean no disrespect towards other Christian faiths, but if they can honestly say that the Bible says nothing about the act of homosexuality, then one of two things has happened. Either they have removed those passages or they are completely ignoring them.
Read Romans Chapter 1:26-27 to see what I mean.
Larry,
Says you and your particular brand of faith…Other, legitimate Christian faiths also all have Biblical passages that support thier way of thinking. What makes you “right”- because it’s what you fervently believe? There are othere who believe differently and just as fervently, yes? As long as you are not forced to celebrate the same thing, then you actually have nothing to say about another’s religious practices. Your church is most certainly not the original interpretation of Christian worship, yet your evolved point of view is free to exist. Others should have that right as well.
Laurie,
As I said in my earlier comment, there are certain parts of the Bible that are open to interpretation. With all due respect however, I don’t think you are going to find a Biblical passage that supports homosexuality. It simply doesn’t exist. As long as one believes the Bible, then there should be no question about that.
I have no intention of trying to stop religious practices other than my own, but this debate has nothing to do with religious practices. It is about what is right and what is wrong. By no stretch of the Bible or one’s imagination can homosexuality be called right or normal. That is one of the basic reasons why some of us believe a homosexual marriage has any business being called a marriage.
Sorry to have missed much of this discussion; duties have called me to take care of other things, too.
Laurie, my position has everything to do with DOMA and my views concerning marriage as it relates to scripture. Many people wield the argument which asserts everyone’s interpretation of scripture is perfectly okay. That stance is certainly not scriptural, as Jesus himself attested to. He threw out money changers and legalists from the temple. They thought they were right, too, but Christ understood differently and forcefully showed them the door.
As far as interpreting scripture, I submit the following in both the King James Version and English Standard Version:
2 Peter 1:20-21(KJV) 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Peter 1:20-21 (ESV) 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
As Larry has already correctly stated, some things are just as plain as day. Such is the case with marriage. There are no scripture references which embrace marriage between people of the same gender; rather, scriptures plainly speak to the fact it is ordained by God solely between a man and a woman. Again, there is no private interpretation there, just what the scriptures dictate.
Yes, I stand firmly by the fact God is against homosexuals marrying. The scriptures do not declare “he who finds a husband finds a good thing”; the scripture says in Proverbs 18:22 (KJV) “he who finds a wife finds a good thing.” God thought so much of marriage between a man and a woman, he showed up at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (John 2 for the story). Finally, Genesis 2:18 speaks of God’s love for the man he made in his own image. The Lord felt it wasn’t good for man to be alone, so he made a woman. This is the natural order of things.
You might say I am a staunch advocate for marriage between a man and a woman; if you did say that, you would be correct. I am for the defense of marriage and not its destruction by staining it with something contrary to scripture.
Pastor Ron´s last blog ..Left-Wing Stooges – Not Funny at All!
Pastor Ron states:
“Many people wield the argument which asserts everyone’s interpretation of scripture is perfectly okay. That stance is certainly not scriptural, as Jesus himself attested to.”
-So let me get this straight, Pastor Ron. We, as a nation must allow “certain” people who will “properly” interpret” god’s will to make our laws so we can be a “christian nation”?
This would be a very dangerous turn for our democracy to make.
Allowing our legislative process to be governed by “…..men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” strikes me as most un-American and un-democratic to say the least.
I have nothing against people worshiping as they see fit, but your attitude is scary.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..http://davidwwalters.stumbleupon.com/review/36858503/
“…………Read Romans Chapter 1:26-27 to see what I mean.”
-Says Larry
This is the scary attitude which i referred to in my previous reply to Pastor Ron. So, if we are a “christian nation” as many on the right like to believe, then our laws should be based upon the apostle Paul’s interpretation of what?……when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, the 4 gospels weren’t even “in print”
Did Paul speak for god? Why doesn’t god just speak for himself, if he is indeed omnipotent?
Oh, and in which of the 4 accepted gospels did Jesus teach us about the evils of homosexuality? If god is seemingly so preoccupied with gay sex, why didn’t he(are we sure god is a man?) have his son speak a bit more on the matter? Why did god speak to only Moses(-as we have it in Leviticus?
Why do we only obey certain parts of Leviticus, and not others? (Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. -Lev.19:27) Seems like i was sinning when my 1st Sgt told me to get a haircut!
David W. Walters´s last blog ..http://davidwwalters.stumbleupon.com/review/36858503/
First let me address your question of why God doesn’t speak for himself. Put simply, God is God and He can do what he wishes. Since the time of the Old Testament, he has chosen to speak through men, instead of appearing Himself. I can’t explain that, but that does not take away from his omnipotence. He could easily appear to you or me, if he chose to do so.
Please explain to me how believing a behavior such as homosexuality is wrong and immoral is a scary attitude. Why is it that a behavior that is completely and fundamentally against the laws of nature is getting a free pass and those who stand up and say they are against it are labeled as someone to be afraid of. People like Pastor Ron and myself are not advocating the mistreatment of homosexuals or anyone else. Neither do we wish to stand by and allow homosexual activists to take over the debate and push their agenda down our throats.
I have said this before, but if they only wanted access to the same legal rights as married, heterosexual couples, then they could gain those rights through the use of civil unions. Instead, they continue their encroachment upon the sacred institution of marriage. Their quest is to normalize their homosexual behavior, to make it appear as normal as the behavior of heterosexual couples. Despite their attempts, it will never be thus because it is so against nature.
David, I have no idea where you came up with the notion I said only “certain” people can interpret God’s word. God’s laws are certainly good, but some would say that’s just my take on the matter. Do you not think it’s a good thing to stand against murder, rape and theft. Well, that’s just one person’s idea. Why not let everyone do as they see fit?
It is painfully clear you have no understanding of scripture or regard for God. Anyone can look up scriptures, as you have done; the real matter is having a relationship with God. It seems to me your big issue is not with we Christians; rather, it is with the God we serve. In order to understand God’s word, you must be led by God’s Spirit.
1 Corinthians 1:14-16 (ESV) 14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
Lastly, do you think men who find their strength in a relationship with Christ and empowered by God’s Spirit pose a threat to our nation? Are you saying God’s people can’t govern well enough to be a positive influence on people’s lives? If so, you haven’t even read much of the history of our great nation.
This sure has come a long way from “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Pastor Ron´s last blog ..Left-Wing Stooges – Not Funny at All!
Boy, ain’t that the truth.
These are dangerous waters yet for some reason I feel compelled to dip my toe in, again. I said at the outset that marriage is a legal status and not a religious institution. Several of you have made arguments that would suggest you strongly disagree. I understand that argument and said so earlier — the country generally holds the view that marriage is a “sacred” institution. So let me ask a simple question: if a man and a woman are married in a civil service performed at town hall by a justice of the peace are they, in your view, married?
I’ve probably framed that question badly — let me try again. Are those of you who see marriage as a religious institution offended by a couple who are not married in the church? The question is meant to differentiate between the legal marriage between a man and woman and the religious marriage. Can a man and woman be married in a religious sense but not in a legal sense? Because they certainly can be married in a legal sense but not a religious one. I’m curious if you are bothered by those who chose a non-religious wedding and marriage?
Mike,
I can say for myself that I am not offended by a couple who chooses a non-religious wedding.
Mike, that’s a fair question. I certainly have no problem with someone getting married outside a church building. I’ve officiated several weddings in settings other than a local church. I have also known people who were not married in a church, and they were very married.
Pastor Ron´s last blog ..Left-Wing Stooges – Not Funny at All!