Friday, May 11, 2012

Obama, Gay Marriage, The National Convention and the Church Fathers

Obama who was for gay marriage , then against it, now for it again ( he evolved ) is all in the news. I am in a distinct minority as to Obama viewpoint on this. I DO think he takes his religion seriously ,and for some reason I never really thought he bought the gay marriage idea personally. Many seem to disagree with my outlook.

I don't have much to add to what everyone has said as to Obama's evolution.

My first thought was he had all the time in the world to think up theological justifications for this ,and the best he could do was the "Golden Rule " That seems pretty lame. I follow the arguments for Same Sex Blessings /Unions/ Marriage pretty closely and the "Golden Rule" does not seem like on that has a lot of scriptural or theological teeth here.. Catholic Vote had an  post on what the Great St Aug had to say on the Golden Rule which is interesting. See The President, the Golden Rule, and Same-Sex Marriage .

 I might do a little digging into what  the Church Fathers had to say about the "golden rule"  in the future. I know in this age of  Holy Spirit "prophetic action" that is leading to us just discovering  that we got it wrong on a whole host of matters the Fathers are out of style but humor me perhaps. I suspect Obama's viewpoint on the Golden Rule, and it's application to gay marriage and beyond was not a Church Father view , but I will keep you informed of my research.

Catholic Vote also had an interesting observation how the Democratic Party National Convention in North Carolina got a WHOLE more interesting. How the Democrats handle the Convention in North Carolina is touchy and interesting business. There appears to be an effort to have same sex marriage written into the Democratic party platform. How this is handled at the Convention will be a balancing act which I bet will  not happen.

If the Convention becomes the voices of the North Carolina gay oppressed, I suspect the Obama campaign can write off North Carolina. North Carolina is still a Southern State , and even the transplants pick up the ethos of State pride after a while. We may talk bad about our fellow instaters , but don't mess with our state kind of thing.

There has been a lot of discussion this week all over the place if gay marriage is just going to happen and thus opposition is futile. This National Review that is very good reading begs to differ.

What I like about that article goes beyond the gay marriage issue. It shows a truth that predicting the future social and political winds is a tricky business. It's even more tough since everyone just on the account they are walking  around in this day and age think they are the smartest people EVER.

There was the Reformation but then there was the Counter Reformation
The Enlightement was counteracted by a revivial in religious belief
The decadent fast rolling 1920's gave way too much more conservatives decades
The Conservatives 50's gave way to the revolutionary 60's and 70's
The hippie Children of the 60's and 70 later voted for Reagan in great numbers


In other words the projection of future events as to gay marriage and many other matters is rather unclear.



5 comments:

Mark Spears said...

So it bothers you that Obama's position on same-sex marriage "evolved" over time, but it does not bother you that George W. Bush was reelected in 2004 by stirring up anti-gay hatred and then as soon as he and Laura were out of the White House, they went on television speaking about their support for gay rights. You don't for an instant feel manipulated and used by the Republicans when they have spent all of these decades baiting you on these abortion and homosexual issues just to get your vote, but then they are not true believers and when in office they do nothing to promote your agenda? The vast majority of the Supreme Court is Republican as well as Roman Catholic, and it has been that way for several decades, yet they have consistently upheld Roe vs Wade, while overturning ALL anti-gay laws with the Texas vs Lawrence. You people are just being used as pawns by these Republican politicians. One of my correspondents just sent me a statement by the head of the Assemblies of God denomination condemning Obama for his statement on ABC,and saying that they believe that marriage is between one man and one woman for a lifetime. That is just what they say, but that is not what they do! They marry and divorce and re-marry just like they were changing underwear or socks. They have already redefined marriage to mean "one at a time" rather than one for a lifetime. They have already decided that the government of the state has the power and authority to put asunder what they previous claimed that God had joined together. Now they try to claim they are defending marriage by denying the right to marry to gays. The difference between the right wing "Christians" and the President and gays who want to marry is that Obama is trying to do what he thinks is right, and the gays who want to marry are trying to do what they think is right, and the Assemblies of God and other right wing "Christians" are constantly doing what they claim to believe is wrong.

Katy Anders said...

I can't remember the last time anybody mentioned the party platform after the Convention.

So, in light of the fact that these platforms are passed at the HEIGHT of silly season in election years - when even a candidate's tie pin (or lack thereof) can grab headlines for a week, I have to think this can only mean that the party platforms don't say ANYTHING.

As far as what your other commenter said... Religion is at its worst, it seems to me, when it gets down into the "controversy of the hour" nonsense.

What's the Catholic position on, say, the Obama birth certificate issue?

Having an answer to that would cheapen what I think of bringing the eternal into my life.

Andy said...

"George W. Bush was reelected in 2004 by stirring up anti-gay hatred and then as soon as he and Laura were out of the White House, they went on television speaking about their support for gay rights."

I believe Kerry was also against SSM. Hypocrisy runs deep in both parties, I don't think anyone is disputing that here.

"The vast majority of the Supreme Court is Republican..."

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "is Republican", but there are currently 5(R) appointees vs 4(D) appointees. Not overwhelming.

"...yet they have consistently upheld Roe vs Wade, while overturning ALL anti-gay laws with the Texas vs Lawrence."

There have been at least few articles on this blog on how judges are different from law makers and how a justice should rely on the constitution and precedent as opposed to the Bible and Catechism. Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising that a Catholic majority high court make rulings inconsistent with Church teachings. A fundamental error is to assume judges are passing judgment on what is moral as opposed to what is legal.

"That is just what they say, but that is not what they do! They marry and divorce and re-marry just like they were changing underwear or socks."

I agree this is pretty discouraging and serial heterosexual monogamers have very little high ground from which to speak. However, at some point you have to look towards the ideal. Just because legislators or police officers break the speed limit does not mean there should not be a speed limit.

"The difference between the right wing "Christians" and the President and gays who want to marry is that Obama is trying to do what he thinks is right, and the gays who want to marry are trying to do what they think is right, and the Assemblies of God and other right wing "Christians" are constantly doing what they claim to believe is wrong."

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, but I think all sides are trying to do what they believe to be right. The fact that there may be those AoG members (I'm not sure why you keep singling them out here) who divorce seems like a canard. I frankly don't know if AoG believe divorce is wrong or not. However, even if they do, I'm sure they believe forgiveness is as easily obtained for homosexual behavior as it is for divorce.

Mark Spears said...

I "singled out" the AG because their leader, George O. Wood had issued a statement against the President that day, and one of my friends who is in that organization sent it to me. And as I have a life-long association with people from that organization, I know that they say one thing about marriage and then live in a completely different manner. Being homosexual is a personality trait which a person does not choose and can not change. I can not be forgiven for being homosexual any more than I can be forgiven for having blue eyes or for being left handed. Making marriage vows and then choosing to break those marriage vows and make similar vows to a completely different person is an act of deceit and treachery. It is absolutely nothing like having a personality trait which you did not choose and can not change. I was not aware that any Christian denomination considered sin to be "easily" forgiven. It is my understanding that they teach that it was necessary for God to sacrifice His Only Begotten Son, for sin to be forgiven.

Andy said...

Again, I think we are somewhat talking past each other. At least from a Catholic point of view, being a homosexual, meaning being attracted to someone of the same sex, is not sinful. It is homosexual sexual acts which are. The "born that way" Lady Gaga-esque argument can easily be shown to be ridiculous by applying logic. It is a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. If your contention is that it is not sinful to act in accordance to any such impulse you may be born with, then all the deadly sins are fair game. If I was born with an addictive personality, I could with a clear conscious engage in anything from heroin use to alcoholism to kleptomania to compulsive sexual behavior and justify the action by saying "well that is just the way I was born." In fact, I'm not sure anyone commits a sin for which they do not have at least some predisposition.

My point on forgiveness of homosexual acts versus culpable divorce, is that I am not aware AoG considers one to be any worse of a sin than the other. I doubt they simply look the other way when a member gets divorced.