Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Be Settled on Liberal Terms

As we marked the 40th anniversary of legalized abortion in America, much was—rightly—made of the cover of the January 14 issue of Time magazine with its accompanying article declaring that “40 Years Ago Abortion-Rights Advocates Won a Resounding Victory with Roe v. Wade. They’ve Been Losing Ever Since.”

If only. Time might not be the oracle it once was, but it is still remarkable that such an article should appear in such a venue. The article noted in particular increased difficulties women are finding in exercising their supposed “right” to abortion because of the many abortion-regulating measures being enacted in states across the country. Ninety-two such provisions were enacted in 24 states in 2011 alone. At the same time, abortion providers dropped from nearly 3000 back in 1982 to less than 2000 by 2008.

Also, for a good while now, polls have been showing that a majority of Americans now identify themselves as “pro-life.” A new survey by the Knights of Columbus even found that no less than 83 percent of Americans now favor some restrictions on abortion. The slight majority of pro-abortion voters registered by exit polls in the recent presidential election may thus have simply indicated temporary success for the Obama Administration’s trumped-up, phony allegation of a Republican “war on women.” This does not seem to be a permanent trend.

The same thing is true of a recent widely publicized Pew Research Center survey conducted in January, 2013, showing that some 63 percent of those responding still oppose overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s misbegotten 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized the lethal practice in all 50 states. This figure has held steady for decades. In 1992 the figure was 60 percent in favor of keeping this horrendous decision in place and in 2003 it was 62 percent. Thus, this “majority” does not agree with the “majority” that describes itself as pro-life.

Probably several factors explain this discrepancy. Many people do not understand that Roe v. Wade actually allows abortion on demand throughout the entire length of a pregnancy for any reason or for no reason, yet the question posed by the Pew survey  included the original false and long exploded claim that it allows abortion only during the first three months of pregnancy; it also only asked whether the decision should simply be overturned or not, thus prompting those who favor allowing abortions to save the life of the mother, for example, or in cases of rape or incest, to think that the decision had to be kept in place to allow legal abortions of any kind.

Most people similarly do not understand how insubstantial and shaky the reasoning behind the Roe v. Wade decision is on legal, constitutional, factual, and moral grounds; even many proponents of abortion agree that it is bad law that could well be reversed on the basis of its manifest defects.

In any case, a growing national trend does seem to be moving, however slowly, in a pro-life direction. Credit for this new trend surely belongs to the pro-life movement in the United States that for so many years of dedicated efforts has unwaveringly opposed the evil of abortion. Of course as long as the Roe v. Wade decision remains in place, the elective killing of the unborn will still be the law of the land. Nevertheless, the fact that significant numbers of Americans have continued to refuse to accept the legitimacy of this Supreme Court decision gives grounds for hope that it can eventually be overturned.

When the Supreme Court handed down its decision, some of us recall the smug satisfaction of the nation’s liberal elites, reflected in and applauded by an approving media. In their view, the “controversial” abortion issue had finally been “settled” by the Supreme Court. The actual words of the New York Times editorial two days after the decision was issued were that “the Court’s seven-to-two decision could bring to an end the emotional and public arguments over what should always have been an intensely private and personal matter”—as if the killing of someone could ever be considered merely “private and personal.”

The almost superstitious awe with which Supreme Court decisions are sometimes regarded no doubt led some to believe that the contentious abortion debate indeed had been “settled.” But that was to fail to reckon with the fact that the supposed settlement went against the fundamental moral conscience of too many Americans, particularly Christians.

The Catholic Church’s uncompromising condemnation of abortion, for example, had recently (1964) been characterized by the Second Vatican Council as an “abominable crime” (Gaudium et Spes #51). People do not generally sit back and accept “abominable crimes” as positive law (or as newly minted constitutional rights) just because an erring court says so.

The main point to be understood here is that legalized abortion, like slavery for an earlier generation, is a public policy that cannot be accepted or allowed to remain in place. It must imperatively be fought against even if efforts to do so prove unsuccessful, even if defeats are suffered time and time again. The fight cannot be abandoned. That is the real import of the January 14 Time article. 40 years after the abortion issue was “settled,” the opposition to the supposed settlement continues to increase! What the Supreme Court’s supposed “settlement” really brought about was: 40 years of incessant social conflict and strife for which there is still no end in sight—until the legalized killing of the innocent ceases.

The Case of Same-Sex Marriage
Today another moral outrage looms, indeed is already upon us in a number of ways, namely, so-called same-sex “marriage.” Just a few short years ago, the idea that a man could “marry” another man, or a woman another woman, would have been dismissed by the common sense of nearly everybody. Yet in an era when non-judgmentalism has come to be the rule most often applied to practically every kind of sexual behavior by and among adults—providing always that it is “consensual”!—homosexual behavior too has come to be considered acceptable and as representing just another “alternative lifestyle.”

Actually, homosexuals probably do not want recognition of gay marriage so much as they really just want society’s approval for homosexual behavior. Only a small percentage of them actually do try to “marry”; their unions are quite fragile and temporary; and “infidelity” as well as promiscuity is rife among them.

Hence, just as abortion came to be widely accepted, at least in part, because it got defined as a woman’s right to control over her own life and reproductive capacity—the child hardly ever even being mentioned any longer—so the idea that homosexuals were being discriminated against in the same way that blacks were once discriminated against under Jim Crow has apparently persuaded many people that homosexuals really ought to be allowed to “marry” each other as a matter of simple fairness and equality. That their relationships and liaisons are not, in fact, marriages is thought to be beside the point; the point is precisely to redefine marriage to include homosexual liaisons.

So it is argued. President Obama even assumed it in his Inaugural Address. Left aside, however—in the same way that the life of the child is left aside in the case of abortion—is not only the fact that homosexual relationships cannot be marriages; there is also, significantly, no mention whatsoever made of the fact that they are intrinsically disordered. Homosexual practices formerly considered to be repellent and immoral are now simply declared to be “normal” (at least for homosexuals); it’s supposedly the way “God made them.”

What is remarkable is the rapidity with which all this has come about. Another Pew Research Center poll conducted in November, 2011, showed 48 percent of Americans now approving of gay marriage—up from 35 percent a decade earlier in 2001. A recent Southern Baptist-sponsored poll showed that the number of those believing homosexual behavior to be sinful dropped over the course of one year from 2011 to 2012 from 44 percent down to 37 percent. These trends no doubt continue.

Only yesterday no less than 32 states had enshrined in their state constitutions a definition of marriage exclusively as that of a union between a man and a woman. Yet in the November elections, three states, Maine, Maryland, and Washington, suddenly voted instead to accept ersatz gay marriages, while voters in a fourth state, Minnesota, declined to approve a constitutional amendment defining marriage in the traditional way.

Again, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage in the traditional way for all federal purposes. Yet the Obama Administration has felt able to lay aside the president’s constitutional responsibility to insure that all the laws are being “faithfully executed” by simply ceasing to defend DOMA in the courts—probably in the expectation that sooner rather than later the current legal recognition of traditional marriage will be abolished.

In the face of all these trends favorable to the homosexual agenda, America’s liberal elites are crowing again, with the usual accompaniment from the approving media. Soon the “controversial” same-sex “marriage” issue will be “settled” in favor of a novel definition of marriage that goes against what marriage has universally been understood to be throughout all of human history.

There is a problem, though. Like abortion, like slavery for that matter, gay marriage is not a public policy which serious people with formed consciences can approve or acquiesce in. Rather, it represents yet another instance where what the law may prescribe—and thus claim to “settle”—once again must be opposed and actively fought against by all just and lawful means. Gay marriage won’t be settled as a public policy because it can’t be settled on the liberal terms it presupposes.

At the moment it may seem that it is being settled on these terms, given all the trends running in its favor. Unlike abortion, it is said, imposed on America by a Supreme Court fiat, the homosexual agenda appears to enjoy increasing public and popular support, with victories now in both state legislatures and referenda. Approval of it by young people in particular is growing steadily. Does this mean that gay marriage could be put in place and remain without the stigma attached to abortion?

Actually, no. When the drive for the legalization of abortion began in the 1960s, a massive campaign was launched in favor of what was then too an unprecedented change in public policy and morality. This campaign succeeded in persuading many people and produced the kind of poll and voting results similar to those currently favoring gay marriage.

Historically, the laws of all fifty states had allowed abortion to save the life of the mother; five states allowed it also for a true medical or therapeutic purpose. In 1966, Mississippi became the first state to amend its law to allow abortion in cases of rape. By 1972, no less than thirteen more states had modified their laws to allow it on the basis of various “indications”: rape, incest, child deformity, mother’s health. The legislatures of Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington state went all the way and enacted the same abortion-on-demand regime the Supreme Court would shortly fasten on the whole country. We have had to fight it ever since.

Similarly, what the homosexual rights movement and its secular elite fellow travelers are really going to bring about, assuming they are successful in imposing their agenda, is yet another permanent conflict situation, like that brought about by the legalization of abortion. Many people will again have to remain in permanent and unyielding opposition to this supposed “settlement.” Gay unions cannot be recognized as marriages because they are precisely not marriages. The end result of insisting that they are and trying to establish this by law will necessarily lead to another era of incessant conflict and strife for which no end will again be possible except the eventual reversal of the original erroneous idea.

Kenneth D. Whitehead


Kenneth D. Whitehead is a former career diplomat who served in Rome and the Middle East and as the chief of the Arabic Service of the Voice of America. For eight years he served as executive vice president of Catholics United for the Faith. He also served as a United States Assistant Secretary of Education during the Reagan Administration. He is the author of The Renewed Church: The Second Vatican Council’s Enduring Teaching about the Church (Sapientia Press, 2009) and, most recently, Affirming Religious Freedom: How Vatican Council II Developed the Church’s Teaching to Meet Today’s Needs (St. Paul’s, 2010).

  • Society has slowly becoming free of any moral compass. We have the right to kill our unborn children, participate in sexual behaviour that is harmful to our health and may kill us. At some point reason was replaced by rights under the guise of freedom. A just society protects all its citizens (especially the unborn) and enlightens those who would do harm to themselves to the error of their ways. Today one is called a homophobe (misnomer) if you state the truth – the behaviour is harmful to one’s physical health, and as Christians we believe also to your salvation. Abortion is the killing of a defenceless human being and all reasoning homosapiens should be up in arms fighting to end the killing, killing that somehow they were able to avoid themselves. Yes, there is no morality compass in the U.S. and it is worse in Canada. The word of God instructs us in countless places of the pull between the FLESH and the Spirit. God calls us to seek His will in all things, or we will fall victim to our carnal desires. Man has become more animalistic is the past 50 years than in any other time. We now are “free” to kill our young and copulate with anyone in our path. YES, we are so called free to satisfy our desires in the moment. God help us return to sanity and to the truth!

  • supineny

    “homosexuals probably do not want recognition of gay marriage so much as
    they really just want society’s approval for homosexual behavior”

    “Probably”? I’m surprised you need to speculate. Gay people want marriage because it offers not only an affirming ritual, but most of all because it offers economic and legal protections that straight people have long enjoyed. A marriage ceremony is only for a day, the legal consequences are long ranging. They’ve been fairly vocal about the details, I’m surprised you are unfamiliar with them.

    • Ford Oxaal

      I think the point of the article is that society is being divided on a semi-permanent basis.

      • musicacre

        Once again, the same socialist tactic; find a malcontent group and use them to divide, divide, divide.

        • Ford Oxaal

          Dupes of the devil!

    • publiusnj

      Supineny writes:

      “[marriage] offers [homosexuals] economic and legal protections that straight people have long enjoyed….”

      Like what? A different filing status under the income tax laws (or hospital visiting rights or intestate succession)? Straight marriage was thousands of years old before our greedy politicians even conceived the Income Tax Amendment much less the “married filing jointly” filing status (and that status often involves a marriage penalty rather than a benefit if the truth be told). In all events, marriage wasn’t created for the filing status; the filing status was created to pander to certain voters.

      The idea that marriage is a bundle of privileges created by the state to encourage “committed love” is ahistorical and places the cart before the horse. Marriage existed long before this state to which we now find ourselves subject (i.e., the USA). Marriage has never been about a bundle of privileges; rather, it is a relationship that–until the state started mucking around with the divorce laws and the traditional taboo on adultery–always involved substantial obligations and limitations on freedom. Hence the still extant sobriquet: “the old ball and chain.”

      Yet in the current discourse, those real obligations so necessary to a stable home envoronment for the raising of children (and therefore so unnecessary to a “homosexual marriage” wherein a “partner” can sire or dam a child only by going outside the “marital res” to conceive a child with or through someone not part of the marriage) are ignored and marriage is conceived of as unrelated to the rearing of children. Supposedly because many heterosexual couples do not have children (either because of volition or physical incapacity), marriage in the rhetoric of gay marriage supporters is about state encouragement of “committed loving relationships” of whatever sort the participants wish to engage in because, after all, love is love Well, it that is the case, why should the state be involved at all? What reason other than old fashioned religious moralism would favor a restriction to loving relationships between two individuals rather than polygamous or polyandrous arrangements? And if child-bearing has nothing to do with marriage, why the still extant bans on marriages within close degrees of consanguinity? In fact, all those questions will come to the fore should “gay marriage” stand, not because of any “slippery slope” but because of the illogic of the gay marriage proponents’ argument that marriage has no relationship to child-bearing. “Gay Marriage” turns marriage on its ear because two people quite incapable of making a family through their sexual congress are deemed capable of doing so in the eyes of the law.

      • supineny

        well, in terms of ‘what gays want’ I think you’re wrong. They really do want the various legal benefits of marriages, and there are enough sites out there that detail what the various benefits are that I won’t get too far into it here. But the benefits of legally recognized marriage involves taxes, insurance, hospital protocols, inheritance, real estate, immigration, the list goes on and on. Not to mention that with marriage comes the possibility of divorce, and the division of assets — married couples have recourse to the legal system to sort out property disputes, child care and child support disputes with their former partners. Not that good Catholics get divorced, but you can see that there are a lot of ways the state plays a role in marriages. A marriage ceremony is powerful symbolic moment, but it only lasts a day — whereas the legal consequence go on and on.

        • musicacre

          What I find a little peculiar is that you claim to know what gays want, You say..”They really do want the various legal benefits…etc”. You seem to assume they are all narrow, and you can speak for them all. I would never presume that I know what all heterosexuals want, because that is a massive diverse group of people from all walks of life with differing life experiences, different locales, differing levels of political interest, (or none) etc. I see people as people and for most people, sexual acts don’t define their humanity.

          • supineny

            I generalize. Nonetheless, the legal benefits of marriage is much discussed in the gay community. On the anecdotal level, i know it was a concern for two gay couples I know who got married. One couple got married quietly with a single witness — they only wanted the legal benefits. They’d already lived together for 40 years and we well integrated in their families’ and friends’ lives as a couple, there was no need to enhance that. But the legal benefits, they could really use that.

            So, true, I’m sure that for some, gay marriage is all sorts of other things — romantic, revolutionary, sexy, theatrical, fun, symbolic, whatever. But there is ample evidence that the movement that is trying to gain marriage rights for gays is concerned with securing the same legal benefit for gay couples that straight couples have been enjoying all this time. I won’t try to post links to support this, as it seems that posts with links get moderated on this site, but if you search “gays legal benefits marriage.”

            And I think this point is lost on many on this site. For some reason, this aspect of the debate is something that people here cannot even acknowledge, really. It’s not like they even express disapproval of it –they simply cannot, for some reason, admit that it is a concern. So I mention it to put it on their radar, they should at least know. I think it might be helpful to see that, quite apart from any symbolism, gay people are mostly fighting for something tangible.

  • Ford Oxaal

    Well said! It is diabolic — these issues have set up semi-permanent divisions in our society. The losers are the generations to come! This is how history repeats itself — some recycled form of bad morals. “We have but to change our morals.” So says Polybius of the demographic winter of the Greek city-states. I learned this from a recent brilliant article by Stephen Mosher of the Population Research Institute at pop.org. “The remedy is in ourselves,” says Polybius. Nobody listened, and that was the end of the Greek city-states. Today, though, we have more hope. We have the force of the Catholic Church — a large body of people — that simply need to stick together. Perhaps that is why God is using Obama to focus Catholics on the real “social justice” issues of the day — issues of the survival of American society and what’s left of Western Civilization (Harvard grads today would not know who Polybius is — or care! — too busy at “sex week” — can you believe it?)

    • musicacre

      I’ve often thought that myself; perhaps Obama is there to be a catalyst (rallying point) for Catholics to come out of the fog and stand together in what we believe. Maybe a last chance, last stand….

  • Thots

    One useful way to think about gay marriage is that gay parenting is the abortion of a parent — one or the other biological parent — of the child.

    Wombs for sale. Smells like human trafficking, or organ harvesting.

    Women should resist.

    Unlike abortion, which has never been and will never be discussed with children in our public schools, gay parenting will be held up as an equally valid formation of family. Heather has two mommies? Well, there’s a lot of money to be made in writing stories for the inevitable quota of books that will have to be bought for elementary school libraries to be read at story-time to kindergartners. Don’t kid yourself that you can tell your five-year-old boy in the privacy of your own home that you hold as an ideal that he will grow up to marry a woman to have children.

    It won’t just begin and end at story-time. All the reading and math textbooks will have to meet a quota of text and photos depicting happy “gay parents” with children. Yes, even the word problems in the math textbooks.

    There are no stories about mommy’s abortion, and aborted siblings, in elementary school libraries, let alone a quota of text and photos.

    Our ability to protest abortion is still possible in our country 40 years later because we don’t teach it as a good thing, in our public schools.

  • Lisa

    Please indicate your sources for the following paragraph:

    Actually, homosexuals probably do not want recognition of gay marriage so much as they really just want society’s approval for homosexual behavior. Only a small percentage of them actually do try to “marry”; their unions are quite fragile and temporary; and “infidelity” as well as promiscuity is rife among them.

    Especially the “quite fragile and temporary” — my gay nephew specifically asked about that, and I don’t have an answer for him.

    • musicacre

      I have a friend whose son (was the same age as me) couldn’t keep track of all his unions and eventually committed suicide, while still in his 20’s. He always made fun of me when he saw me, saying my boyfriend and I (now my husband,) were square. He was an adult and she (his mother) didn’t feel she could interfere with his life, which he wouldn’t have listened anyway. He was constantly partying and even belonged to an inventory company that does major stores after closing time. They all went on the road together with this kind of work. He was living in a town (city) where gay clubs are numerous and he only associated with these people.

      • supineny

        but if we are examining anecdotal evidence, I could just as easily say that tomorrow night I’m having some old friends over — they met in a West Village gay bar in the 1970s in the course of making their rounds and have been together ever since. And I know plenty of gay men who have had numerous ‘unions’, and get on with their lives awfully well — hold jobs, maintain friendships, are reasonably happy. I live in a big city where ‘gay clubs are numerous’ and it is hardly unusual to meet people who go to them — the suggestion that these clubs breed a class of depressed and suicidal people seems a bit, you know, overheated shall we say?

        Anyway, on the other hand, if somehow you’ve managed to not know many gay people, I suppose you could continue to base your estimation of the entire gay population based on this one guy.

        • Bob

          There has been many aspects of our society where the “moral bar” has been lowered significantly over the last forty years. Take television, for example. Forty years ago we had shows such as “The Brady Bunch”, “The Flying Nun”. Now we have “Two and a half men”, “Cougar Town”, etc. Look at the acceptability and proliferation of strip Joints (or are laughably called “Genlemen’s Clubs). Divorce rates have skyrocketed. We’re even sending our 13 year old girls off to public school dressed in their sexually provocative “prostitots” clothing. Pornography is a $20 billion a year business. Anything goes now. This has paved the way for the greater acceptance of the gay lifestyle. We’ve become a society of moral slouchiness, and we’ll pay for it some day. Acceptance of the gay lifestyle and sodomy are just further signs of a society in a moral decay free fall.

      • Think for a moment what would make someone take that route though. Often it is the shame caused by overly-moralistic judgments that the gay man is wrong that pushes him to seek validation in shallow sexual relations with people who are extremely attractive and willing to have sex right after meeting them at a bar. If you read the book “The Velvet Rage” it talks about what causes people to engage in the activity your friend’s son engaged in. Most of it is from what a gay man who is now a therapist saw with his own clients as he helped them move past it.

        This new generation of young gay and lesbians do not face the same shame when they are raised by parents who recognize that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Further, when you recognize that what you want is true emotional connection with another human being as opposed to shallow sex on demand you search for a true lasting partner.

        The short of it is if people like the author here would stop insisting on calling gay and lesbian people disordered, the world would have many more gay and lesbian individuals entering into healthy relationships.

        • musicacre

          I’m not going to try to defend facts. All I gave are the facts of this situation. You both are drawing a lot of insinuations and conclusions. The mother of this guy, never judged him. But his own personality, as I said was very aggressive and hostile. I don’t know why you want to canonize every gay person. I saw him numerous times when I went to visit my friend, and he always had attitude toward me even though he never bothered to get to know me. You are philosophizing, I’m talking about a real person who is no longer alive. Interestingly, years later when I enrolled in a psychiatric nursing course, I noticed the word ” deviant ” was always used to describe homosexual behavior. Not the person, the behavior. This was from the textbooks in the 80’s.

          And by the way, supineny, I have known a lot of gay people, when I was a health care worker many years ago in a nursing home, more were, than not. The supervising person who was hiring, was also gay. You can say I am overheated if you are offended by this story, but I only gave the facts. Sorry if you can’t accept them.

          • I don’t doubt that this person you knew acted in a way that was self destructive. It is a tragedy that he ended his life so young. The topic at hand from the initial comment was the question of whether or not gay men are capable of lasting commitment. I was attempting to provide an explanation for why men such as your friend’s son who find commitment difficult. Many young men spend their 20s partying and having sex with multiple partners. This phenomenon is not limited to gay men.

            • musicacre

              Yes, I realize that. MY kids have see a lot of that destructive behavior in the university. A person can change, but it can pave the way for troubled future.

    • Laura Paxton

      I’m not sure about this paragraph either. I’ve known many gay couples who have stayed together and been faithful far longer than straight couples. Especially lesbian couples do well at this. In today’s society, straight couples are often even more pathetic at maintaining marriage. You are right though that homosexuals want society’s approval for their behavior more than actual “marriage.” Your article is good and I agree with almost everything else in it. I’d like to know the source also.

  • Dorothy

    Mr. Whitehead complains that President Obama did not acknowledge Catholic teaching
    about homosexuality in his Inaugural Address (“…no mention whatsoever was made
    of the fact that [homosexuals] are intrinsically disordered.”) I cannot imagine
    why President Obama should have referred to a Catholic teaching that has been
    explicitly repudiated by virtually the entire medical establishment all the way
    up to the World Health Organization. I think it is long past time for the
    Church to expunge this teaching from its catechism. It is past its pull date
    and is beginning to smell like last week’s fish.

    Mr.Whitehead also makes the mistake of repeatedly denying that same-sex marriage
    is possible when in fact it is not only possible but actual. Such marriages
    have been performed in parts of Europe and North America for over a decade.

    What is particularly offensive about Mr. Whitehead’s article is that he claims, without
    any basis whatsoever, that homosexual unions are “quite fragile and temporary.”
    He doesn’t even bother to qualify this calumny with words like “sometimes” or “often.”

    I find it highly ironic that this article appeared on the same day that we read of
    Jim Nabors’ marriage to his partner of 38 years. (Jim Nabors = TV’s Gomer

    Mr. Whitehead’s lack of self-restraint in making such dehumanizing characterizations may result from his apparent rejection of Christ’s teachings about judgment. Whitehead
    seems to think “non-judgmentalism” is an error that should be expunged from
    scripture. I would prefer to see the words “intrinsically disordered” expunged
    from the catechism.

    • Bob

      you obviously know nothing about Catholic Chuch teaching.

      Jim Nabor’s “marriage” for 38 Years means that he has probably been committing the mortal sin of sodomy for 38 years. His soul is in danger of eternal damnation. I know men that have committed adultery by cheating on their wives for 38 years but they ain’t right either.

      Your misinterpreting what scripture meant by judging someone’s heart versus judging their actions.

    • Bob

      there’s probably a lot of things you want “expunged” from the catechism. I’m guessing you really dont know or understand what the Church meAns by “intrinsically disordered.” I guess you know more about the teachings of Christ than the Catholic Church and you were given the authority from Christ Himself to interpret His teachings.

      Not a good idea on your part to attack the Catholic Church and it’s teachings without first trying to study or understand the Church’s teachings.

    • Laura Paxton

      I agree with the two commenters below. The Catholic Church isn’t run by popular poll or even “medical opinions” which change dramatically through history. More importantly, Dorothy, “non-judgmentalism” isn’t present at all in scripture. Mercy and forgiveness following repentance is in scripture. “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,” comes from Aleister Crowley, not Jesus. Jesus didn’t come to say, “Hey, everybody- it’s cool. Anything goes. I’ll just die here for you and then you don’t have to think about morals again. I took care of that. Peace out!” When Jesus says, “Don’t judge lest you be judged,” He does not mean no judging is done. God is the judge and the Bible repeatedly stresses that we are and will be judged. After Jesus tells the crowd who are there to stone the woman, “Let you who is without sin cast the first stone,” He also says to the woman, “Go and sin no more.” Sin implies judgment. Letting people know when they sin and endanger their souls is a “spiritual act of mercy.” That’s different from just pointing fingers as if we don’t sin ourselves.

  • hombre111

    Nor will it be settled on conservative terms. Not when the split over the issue is 50/50 after so many years of arguing. It would help if people would actually listen to each other to see where they are coming from.

  • I appreciate the hope afforded here.

  • The GOP may not “Go Gay” anytime soon … but sooner or later they’ll have to come to grips with the fact that vilifying Gay Americans is no longer a vote-getter for them. Back in 2009 a CBS News survey found that while only 18% of Americans over the age of 65 supported marriage equality for Gay couples, 41% of American under the age of 45 supported it. That was FOUR YEARS AGO, and the generational shift in attitudes among young people toward their Gay friends and family members is accelerating.

    Even conservative columnist Andrew Stuttaford grudgingly acknowledged this: “I fully understand (even if I do not agree with) the idea that same-sex unions are a threat to conventional marriage and I fully understand those who argue that opposition to gay marriage is a fundamental principle too important to be abandoned for reasons of political expediency, but these findings should, I reckon, at least be some sort of warning to those who assume that the GOP’s current position on this issue will continue to be a vote-winner.”

    30 years ago most Americans were not aware of any Gay friends, family members, or co-workers. Today most Americans ARE aware, and they have become dramatically more accepting and supportive of the Gay people and Gay couples in their lives. And social networking sites like Facebook have made the proverbial “closet” virtually obsolete. The Republican Party ignores this growing acceptance at their own peril. The economy is important, yes … but your friends are PERSONAL.