The Ojai Post

Marriage was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for."

Part of what makes the Bible special is that it is an honest (and often blunt) account of the struggles of real people who all deviated from God's design for creation. Just because the Bible is blunt about the failures of people does not prove that we should ignore God's design. Rather, it is compelling evidence that we all need a Savior, Jesus Christ.

say Chad --

Could you please point out the passages in the Bible where Jesus recommends that we amend the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage?

Thank you.

The bible is a pretty loose term. Perhaps it would be more helpful to talk about the old testament and the new testament. And really, all I have to say about all the books of the bible (the Pentateuch and the rest of the books of the old and new testaments) is thank god we stopped using any and all of them as a basis of law hundreds of years ago.

That is, until 11/4/08 with Prop 8!

This is great. Thanks, Suza, for the article and your comments. It's a sign that things are shifting in a bigger way when a mag as mainstream as Newsweek makes this kind of a statement.

Chad, can't you be satisfied with the fact that "you" found your savior? Do you have to push him on everyone else? Can't you just love him and honor him and be happy without all your Bull---that everyone is not OK without your beliefs?

People like you are the problem today. Destroying the minds of thousands of young fanatics who are going to carry on your destructive mission of Christ or bust.

I'm ashamed of you - you dishonor His Name, and I adore HIM, a sweet Christ that only preached love and tolerance for his neighbors without your fanatic attitude of misinterpretation of the Bible and HIS NAME.

"faced with two alternatives -- always choose a third."

Sadly, Lisa Miller of Newsweek has revealed either a very limited understanding of the Bible, or her comments betray an agenda other than accurately representing the Word of the Lord. There is a place for singleness in serving the Lord, but clearly God intended for the vast majority of humanity to enjoy marriage. "Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love" (Ecclesiastes 9:9).

BIblical marriage is one man, one woman for a lifetime. (Mark 10:6-9)

BIblical marriage is about the ultimate intimacy that two people can share. It's described as being "one flesh."

Biblical marriage is all about a man loving his wife like Jesus loved us - self-sacrificingly. (Ephesians 5) It is therefore also about a relationship that ought to reveal the love of God to the world.

Biblical marriage is about an orderly relationship, where the man as the head is held responsible by God for the health, love and holiness of the family. That's why Adam is held responsible for sin in the Garden (Romans 5).

Biblical marriage is about meeting each others deepest needs. The wife finds love and security in her husbands faithful devotion to her. The husband finds the respect he craves from the one who knows him best. "...each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." (Ephesians 5:33)

......................

I respect Ms. Francina for wrestling with some of the deepest and hardest questions in life. God's response to the question posed in the article can be found in Romans 9, and comes down to the fact that He is absolutely sovereign, perfectly just and incredibly merciful. Every single one of us has rebelled against Him (Romans 3:23) and we all deserve to spend eternity apart from Him in hell. The fact that anyone, myself included, ends up in heaven reveals God's grace and mercy. Having said that, God still reserves part of the answer to himself (Isaiah 55:8, Romans 9:20). The good news is that Jesus invites all to come to him for the forgiveness of all of our sins based on the fact that he bore the wrath of God for our sins on the cross. The price has been paid in full, and he graciously forgives all who repent of their sin, and turn to him in faith.

.........................

Those I know who enthusiastically supported Prop. 8 did so not out of a desire to deny anything to anyone, but rather out of a desire to honor God's definition of marriage. We did so not because we lack love for people, but rather because we love God and His glory, and secondly, because we want God's blessing on the USA and California. The Bible says that God blesses obedience (Deuteronomy 28) and that "righteousness exalts a nation" (Proverbs 14:34).

And dvorah, Jesus did preach the most radical love ever imagined but that does not mean that he did not call sin sin. Jesus Christ was sweet with those who were broken, hurting and humble, but he could also be very harsh with the proud, arrogant and those who did not regard the holiness of God (Mark 11:15-17). Followers of Jesus must love like he loved, but we must also hate what he hates (Revelation 2:20-21).

Dan - Ignorant fools like you deserve your bible and your religions prejudices, unfortunately others have to suffer because of your stupidity and your fantasies of God and righteousness.

You know nothing about God or Jesus because if you did, you wouldn't claim to know everything about what "they" meant - you would honor LOVE, and the welfare of your fellow man, instead of your pathetic suppositions and idols of a fanatic God.

We, who love our fellow man and his right to freedom & choice of religion and beliefs - abhor your righteousness & ignorance and wish you would stay in your churches and raise your children to honor all people and their choices withOUT telling them "everyone who doesn't accept Jesus" will go to hell.

You are the abominations, and you are the ones that will burn in the fantasies and dreams of hell. Why? Because it is of your own making, it's your fantasy, not ours.

Give up this lunacy and go have some fun! Invite the neighbors and let us all rejoice in JESUS'S NAME with flowers and joyful celebration that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL TO LOVE AND ADORE EACH OTHER - IN ANY GOD DAMN WAY WE WANT TO! AMEN.

And don't worry, you're in good hands, Jesus is already praying for you.

Thank you, everyone, for your comments --both the ones I agree with and the ones I question.

One thing my dad and I agree on is that we are both thankful to live in a country where we can at least express all these different points of view.

Rights for all, all men are created equal and people being able to love whom ever they want, should NOT be up for opinion or different points of view...It's an inalienable right of living in the United States of America.

Christian fanatics should have nothing to do with this right. If you don't want to marry the same sex, great, DON'T. But what right have you to tell someone else, who happens to be a Buddhist or Christian or Aethist who he or she should marry?

It's disgusting that this issue is up for opinion, just as it's equally disgusting to see the sham that marriages have become (and I'm talking about the ones between men & women). You call those marriages? Half of the ones that do make it are miserable. All you have to do is take a look at your own so-called "Christian marriages" and see what a sham they are.

And yet you would deny another's happiness even tho your marriages don't work. Good Lord, what is wrong with you? Let's hope you are eventually "truly" saved from yourselves.

The good news, of course, is that God in his sweet love and mercy loves everybody -including the Christian fundamentalist, who in their blindness feel they're the only ones who deserve it.

Clarification for Comment #11:

When I wrote, "express all these different points of view," I did not mean to imply that one group of people have the right to impose their point of view on another. On the contrary!

Thank you Dan for at least responding to the question asked and going to the trouble to provide the bible scriptures to justify your beliefs. While I do not agree with your positions, I feel a little sick at the way you have just been attacked on this page.

i second Nukebuster's comment. the scriptural list is great (most of the time all we get is vague, uncited admonishments).

i'm not interested in making an enemy of Dvorah (or anyone else), but i feel a need to clarify that when she says "we" in the context she's created, it doesn't include me. i agree with most of the underlying premises, honey, just not the delivery.

Dear Nukebuster and Evan,

I'm glad you spoke up. I was trying to create an atmosphere where everyone feels comfortable to air out their opinion. I do not want to see anyone attacked here for having a different opinion.

Thank you,
Suza

When I used the term We, I meant those who feel like me, and certainly not "ALL" people who do or don't believe in Prop 8.

and frankly I'm tired of trying to sound "fair" and friendly to a group of maniacs who would use "God" to further their fanatic agendas. I know if I met Dan or Chad I would probably adore them, they are probably wonderful people who honor their father and mother, love their children and would probably help me in a pinch because they also care about others.

And yet they are fundamentally "tweaked" and completely irrational, and that is also fine, if it didn't stop others from enjoying the liberties that we're offered to them by "God" and Country.

From my perspective - I'm getting mad at part of my "human" family for hurting my feelings and being mean to "others" because they're still teenagers and they haven't learned to play nice. I'm having an argument with them, but that doesn't mean I don't still love them! I just can't stand what they're doing and I'm tired of saying it nicely!

HOWEVER, my family and I can sit down to a thanksgiving dinner...because it's obvious that no matter what I say or do, they're not going to be "kind, rational, fair, or understanding of other's rights. So what can you do? You yell, complain, cajole, accept and kiss them afterwards. And when that's done, we can still sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, cause WE ARE FAMILY

Personally, I'm offended when people claim that the bible is in any way an authority on anything having to do with the governance of this country, state, county or city. The bible is a nice blank verse string of stories with a lot of good ideas and a whole lot of bad ones. It is nothing more. People who are members of religions that center on the bible,(in order of age) Judaism, Christianity(all flavors) and Islam(both kinds), are more than within their rights to believe anything they like. But to cite that oft mistranslated tome as an authority in the context of a modern democracy is offensive. We would not look kindly upon a schizophrenic stumbling into congress spouting nonsense and trying to enshrine his hallucinations into our laws, why should we allow any religion to do the same?

Thank you Dvorah! I understand how you feel!!

As you can imagine, I have gotten into heated arguments with my father and sisters over the years. But in the end we make peace and continue to support and love one another as human beings.

What helps me not to stay mad at my dad is to try to understand where his Fundamentalist Christian viewpoint comes from (in general, not just his belief about marriage).

He was raised a Catholic. When still in his teens he was drafted and ended up three years in a Japanese prison camp. I think the horrors and atrocities he experienced convinced him that human beings cannot save their own souls and that the devil is real. After the war he joined the Pentecostal church. He does not budge in how his church interprets the Bible. But, for example, if his pastor had a gay child and the pastor changed his thinking, that might create an opening in my dad's mind to see things differently. But me trying to reason with him is to no avail.

I just watched the movie Milk. I had to drive all the way to Santa Barbara to see a movie starring an actor many claim should get an Oscar for his role. Why? My guess is that most theaters still find the "gay" content controversial. I highly recommend that you who opposed Proposition 8 see the movie.

Harvey Milk was the first openly gay man elected to public office. He was assassinated at close range by a man he worked with, a conservative, Bible thumping bigot.

We all know the story of Martin Luther King, Jr. We know about the two Kennedys, we know about Indira Gandhi. We don't know about Milk. Why? I'm guessing it is because the issues he worked for are still too controversial.

I've been romantically involved with people of my own gender since I was 22. I had never heard of Harvey Milk until this film was released. He should have been one of my heros, but he was closeted by history.

Thirty years ago, in 1978, California almost passed Proposition 6, which would have required the firing of all gay teachers and any school faculty or staff who supported them. The arguments used by the Christian Right (the force who brought the bill to the floor) were just like the arguments used in favor of Proposition 8 - that our children would be taught deviance and recruited into the gay lifestyle. Thirty years later we still have gay teachers and "we" still only account for about 10% of the population - I guess the recruiting hasn't been very successful.

Harvey Milk was among the activists who took the Proposition down. He did it by making the "gay" voice heard - by letting people know that they know us and they even like us. He knew that polls showed that people voted 2:1 against the Propostition when they knew they knew one of us.

In 2008, too many of us stayed home, stayed afraid. Our job now is to avoid the "pronoun game," hiding the gender of our significant others. Our job is to expect people to accept us. Your job, you wonderful heterosexuals who see that everyone deserves Equal Rights, is to let people know that you know gay people, that they surely do too, and that we're not such bad folks. We all win when hatred takes a back seat to love.

You & your Dad are a perfect example of what it means to be a family. Can't live with them and can't live without them. It's a constant human dilemma...What to do?

And Spk - what an insightful analogy...The Bible (from my perspective) is "literally" a hallucination, albeit occasionally an interesting one - that continues to cause so much unhappiness for so many. Those who believe (cause they can't live up to it) and those who don't believe (because they have to put up with those that do)

Now Jesus on the other hand only offered love & happiness...If you want the "light" then go to the source of the Light, instead of a barely visible pale reflection, i.e. the bible.

And By the way, I am one of those die hard heterosexuals, HOWEVER... you find me someone who loves and adores me and wants to "try" and spend the rest of their life loving me and helping me be the best that I can be - then you can sign me up for the other team and call me anything you want i.e. a Lesbian, a dyke or a fru-fru..

and that goes for my kids too - they have my blessings to find true love where ever it finds them (except of course with a close-minded bible thumping coo-coo...)

Attack the Christians! Lump them all together and make arguments about their beliefs and their lifestyle! Call them out on public forums! We like it so much when they do it to us...

What we shouldn't be doing is yelling at each other from behind our computer screens like a bunch of ill-informed teenagers on Myspace.

that's beautiful, heather!

even if "Milk" does come closer than SB, there's a proposed boycott of Century Theaters (the main corporate movie-houses on Main and Telephone in Ventura) because the CEO of their parent company donated heavily to support Prop 8, and shouldn't be allowed to profit from the story of Harvey Milk while clearly opposing his values.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but apparently that's what it's going to take. The YES side was sooo well organized and the NO side was sooo quiet. They will continue to be organized. We've got to get louder. Today is Day Without a Gay and it's also Human Rights Day. This is a human rights issue. Keep your bible, keep it close, worship it, observe it, follow your faith, we won't get in your way, but keep your hands off the constitution. Faith and bigotry shall not go hand in hand.

Amen!

"Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality... Gay people don't choose to be gay. At what age did you choose not to be gay?"

-- Jon Stewart, interviewing Gov. Mike Huckabee on "The Daily Show"

Suza, thank you for posting the link to this article.

Underneath my anger at the imposition of one belief system on others, I find myself bewildered by the whole argument.

How can anything in my life be damaged by two people who love each other engaging in a ritual that declares that love to their family and friends, and who then can support each other in that relationship?

How can my marriage possibly be somehow lessened by that?

As I look to my friends and family, many of the most loving, committed long term relationships I know of are between gays and lesbians.

In a world that is desperate need of kindness, community, and support, why in the world should anyone argue with love?

And for the Christians out there, if Jesus is love, how could this possibly be offensive? Really?

#28 Dear Leigh - You said.."if Jesus is love, how could this possibly be offensive? Really?"

Because the people you're talking to believe that "they are doing the work of Jesus. Can you imagine their hubris? Unbelievable!

How do you have a discussion with someone who thinks they are doing God's work and keeping God's commandments? There is nothing you can say. How can you argue with the "bible", God's spoken word? IT's crazy and impossible to have a normal friendly discussion with these people.

And that's why it's no great effort or big deal on dear Dan's part, who took his precious time (#14 via Nukebuster) of "...going to the trouble to provide the bible scriptures to justify his beliefs"

Because Dan just LOVES quoting & justifying his beliefs and scriptures. He wants us to understand that it's not him that believes this way, it's the "$#@! bible". That's why it's a losing battle.

The only way I can see Dan and other's like him reconsidering their biblical persuasion is If "Dan" lost his business because of a "gay boycott": Or his daughter fell in love with a woman: Or a gay man saved him from a burning building. Other then that (and that's still an if) - Nada, forget it!

and that's why there's no having a "real" discussion about Prop #8, cause the people who are for it, are not going against their bible or their imagined relationship with God's word".

Hey Dvorah:

Thanks for your response.

I guess I'm more hopeful than you are. I don't believe that it's "crazy and impossible" to have a conversation with most people -- even though I may deeply disagree with them.

What I do know is that when we yell at each other, we harden one another into the defensiveness and certainty of our beliefs. Perhaps Dan, and others who believe as he believes won't be willing to answer questions like the ones I asked -- but I won't know until I ask them and hear (or don't hear) a response from them. And I may never get a response, I may never hear back, but just having a question like that can potentially begin to help people question their own assumptions a little bit -- it may not be something he's willing/able to think about at the moment, but it could open up something down the road. I'll probably never know. But by asking, rather than attacking, I've at least left the possibility.

There's a great line in Bill Isaacs' book on dialogue about how we don't listen well to each other -- instead, we tend to spend our time when others are speaking "reloading."

So -- I'm trying to listen to Dan, to hear him. What I'm hearing is fear (of change, of people, actions, beliefs that are different than he is, etc.) and the need for certainty that comes with that fear. I'm hearing that he has chosen to find support and solace in a particular vision of Christian teachings, which is his right.

However, what I'm trying to crack open is how that should translate to other people. He wrote that he wasn't trying to hurt anyone by his support of Prop 8 -- but instead was trying to make sure that this nation was blessed.

I don't think I can argue this directly with him -- he has, in my listening, been taught to equate that blessedness with the acceptance of Christian teachings by everyone. (I personally find this one of the most difficult aspects of monotheism to wrestle with -- the assumption that there is one truth and that all of those who find a different way towards their truths are wrong and are either damned or should be saved.) But there it is...

What I was trying to do, perhaps ineffectively, was to try to step a little ways into his cherished belief constructs ask how love could be something that wasn't blessed and blessable. And, in that asking, quietly ask how you can possibly think you're not hurting someone when you deny them the right to celebrate that love. And, ultimately, is hurting someone really what Christ's teachings were about.

Again, all of this may have absolutely no impact on Dan and those who believe as he believes, but in my mind, it's got more of a shot of having an impact than calling them stupid.

All the best,
Leigh

i love you, Leigh. while i hear Dvorah's frustration (and certainly have experiences of my own to mirror them!) you've said what i strive for perfectly. thank you.

Dearest Leigh - Frankly, It's been 45 years of nice after nice after civilly nice conversations. If you want to keep trying that's your prerogative.

But I'm done. Yes anything is possible, especially after "Armageddon" but until then, I will continue to have Christmas dinner with my "bible thumping" family and congratulate them for donating to "saving the children".

And even tho "Dan" didn't want to offend anybody - he did a lot worse, he voted against their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and thinks (in that Bible smug fashion) that you are going to hell and he will have everlasting life! Now is that a way to make friends and sit down and have a conversation with a gay man or any man that doesn't "follow God's Law"? I don't think so.

BTW - There is nothing wrong with calling someone stupid - cause Dan doesn't think he's stupid (and of course he's not by webster's definition) but he is very stupid when it come to respecting human rights & respecting others. Because no matter what I say or how I say it, he thinks he's superior, cause he "follows the law" and knows something "heathens like me" don't know.

And the joke of course is - That Dan, Chad and other's who believe that way - don't care what we say or think ever, because every insult is another righteous martyr mark they get to bear in the name of Christ.

Fortunately my Christian FAMILY believes in LOVE TOO - and they are willing to show their love and charity at Christmas dinner, which by the way I love and I do not discuss my "devil worship of Buddha".

"IT's crazy and impossible to have a normal friendly discussion with these people." (comment #29)

Dvorah, let me gently point out that Dan and I have done nothing but attempt to have a friendly, productive discussion, humbly expressing our viewpoint. I deeply appreciate those who passionately disagree with us but do not resort to personal attacks and slurs such as "these people". I sincerely apologize for the fact that there certainly are those who hold the same position as Dan and myself but they have expressed that position using personal attacks and slurs. That is wrong. It would be my hope that we could do better.

I'm sorry. Comment #33 was left by Chad.

But Darling #33 - what does it matter if we "do" have normal friendly discussions" it lead absolutely no where.

You continue to believe you are doing what "Jesus" told you to do" and I still believe that you're deluded. And you still believe I'm going to hell and you're going to heaven and that gays are an abomination. We can discuss that nicely or not - the result is the same.

And I want Dan and Chad and my other Christian family (who I don't necessarily have Christmas dinner with) to know that honestly, my rancor is not from my heart - it's from my intellect (I don't hold this stuff in my heart), if you needed me, I'd be there for you.

...And I would not deny you your right to "think you're going to heaven and I'm not." Because in my heart I honor each life that has struggled in their own way to be happy and find some solace in this often chaotic, unpredictable, heartbreaking world.

My head however would really like you to end this nonsense and really give "LOVE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS A CHANCE" by dropping your religious prejudice.

Dvorah, I'm sorry that you're so hurt and angry. And obviously you are perfectly within your rights to be done with trying to reason with people.

But I guess that I feel that the only thing less logical than trying to have a civilized conversation with someone I disagree with is to just hurl insults at one another! I'm not sure if there is any point to that -- just makes everyone even more upset, I think.

Anyway, Chad, Dan, if you're still around, I'd love to hear a response from you to my questions.

And I have some more.

I have two friends, one of whom had a son who was hit by a truck when he was twelve. This was 20 years ago. My friend has been taking care of his son, who is quadriplegic and unable to speak, at home, these entire 20 years. Ten years ago, the man he loves and who loves him moved in with them, and together they have taken care of this son.

They have endless patience, grace, and kindness.

They are, in my experience, two of the people who most closely live the precepts of Christian kindness and selflessness that I've ever met. They have bathed and washed and fed and nurtured and loved this person in his severe woundedness tirelessly and with infinite grace.

And they are gay.

Is their union, their love for each other and for their son less sacred for that?

How could two people who have spent decades doing this somehow lessen the blessedness of this country? How are any of us cheapened or sullied by this?

I look to them in wonder and admiration, having no idea if I could have spent 10 or 20 years doing what they've done. They do it as a matter of course, and are charming, alive, warm, and generous in our community.

Why would you want to deny them the same rights that you and your spouse and family have?

I really would love to know.

Thanks and best,
Leigh

Oh -- and thank you, Evan! :-)

Do you know Bill Isaacs' book? It's called, if my somewhat disconnected memory serves, "Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together."

If you aren't familiar with it, I highly recommend it!

Best,
Leigh

Hi Leigh,

I met Bill Isaacs sometime around 1990 in connection with David Bohm's work with dialogue. I haven't seen Isaacs' book but I trust he gives plenty of credit to Bohm, who developed the whole philosophy of dialogue that Isaacs adopted. Are you familiar, for example, with Bohm's book Unfolding Meaning? That's one of several places where the principles of Bohm dialogue are set forth.

Do you use Bohm dialogue in your work? I wonder how you came to be familiar with Isaacs' book, if you don't mind my asking.

Hi David!

I have read some Bohm on dialogue, and should read more.

And Isaacs does reference Bohm in his work -- I actually found Bohm through Isaacs, not realizing until after the fact that David Bohm had an Ojai/Krishnamurti connection.

And I discovered Isaacs through my dad, a university administrator in Pennsylvania! He'd met him at a conference as well.

So I guess I'm working backwards...(there are those who would say that's typical..) :-)

I use an amalgamation of ideas on dialogue and conflict resolution when I'm doing consulting work -- Isaacs and Bohm ideas definitely among them!

Thanks for asking, and thanks for the prompt to dig more deeply into Bohm's work.

Best,
Leigh

Dear Leigh - you have obviously mistaken my posts...I am not "so hurt or so angry". I understand your desire to communicate and make nice and have an orderly peaceful discussion with Dan & Chad and others.

It's really very lovely and indicative of your personality, you're a peace-maker (in your own particular way). That's wonderful and it's one way of dealing with dissension. And you obviously adhere to the "Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together" principles and that's also great and your way, but it's a theory, a way.

But to me, Loving people and calling it as I see it is my perspective. It's like raising a child...You ask him to pick up his clothes a million times, you have discussions about why it's important to keep it all clean. You try really hard not to hurt your baby's feelings - and finally you realize the problem: You forgot you were talking to a 3-year-old and he really is incapable of cleaning his room the way you had in mind. What to do?

You wait till he's 5 and then you have the discussions, because at that age, they understand why the room needs to be clean and then they can really think about it and possible do it.

Christian doctrine somewhere along the line got stuck at age 3. Unfortunately we're going to have to wait until they grow a couple of years, and become part of the 21st century before we can have discussions with them again - cause the framework (experience, openness) just isn't there.

Meanwhile you can love them and again enjoy Christmas dinner with your "world family" but your theories of making nice (from my perspective) are like talking to a 3 year old.

All you can do is clean up the room yourself and keep reminding them that it needs doing until they finally get it. One mother continues to repeat it a thousand times, the other mother may yell and clean it up herself until the child is ready to listen. Both mothers want the best for their children and help them to grow up to be the best they can.

I am reading all these comments with great interest!

And the joke of course is - That Dan, Chad and other's who believe that way - don't care what we say or think ever (comment #32)

Clearly not true or we would not have participated in this dialogue.

Leigh, I appreciate the story of your friend and his companion. I agree that their compassion toward his son is an example of the kind of selfless service Jesus would be about. I deeply respect that.

Where we will probably disagree is whether this validates gay marriage. I realize that for many (not just Dvorah) having the Bible as the authority in my life is equivalent to living like a 3 year old, but I have found that its truth not only explains the plight of the creation in which we live but it also offers hope for the future through Jesus Christ. What I often find is that people (even Christians, and if I'm honest, I do it too) tend to select certain teachings of Jesus to represent their understanding of Him while neglecting others. We love Jesus teaching about love and compassion, but ignore His teaching on sin, holiness, and judgment. In Mark 10:7-9 (NIV) Jesus says, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, [8] and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. [9] Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." This is an affirmation of God's design for marriage at Creation in Gen. 2:24. Now I know that for people who have no use for the Bible, this is meaningless, but I share it to explain the basis for my perspective.

Chad, thanks for responding honestly.

I genuinely appreciate it.

I'm wondering how you navigate some of the obviously obsolete teachings of the times in the Bible -- like the dietary restrictions that are, to my understanding, described in the same Hebrew word as sexual transgressions in Deuteronomy and Leviticus; or slavery (which is justified throughout the Bible and was used extensively by slave-owners in the US South to justify slavery); or death by stoning for non-virgins posing as virgins heading into marriage (Deut.), or for idolatry or rebelling against one's parents (also Deut.), or adultery (Lev.). Or the practice of levirate marriage, wherein a widow was to have intercourse with each of her husband's brothers until she bore a male heir (this also from Mark, which you quoted above). Or the Israeli traditions of endogamy -- marriage within the twelve tribes of Israel, which was used as justification for banning interracial marriages in most of our life times. Or Jesus' condemnation of divorce (more stridently in Mark than other places), or the Old Testament's condemnation of forced celibacy as heresy, which is obviously not the tenet the Catholic church has chosen to follow?

I'm assuming that you don't agree with these teachings?

My point is, while I understand the power of many Christian tenets, there are many teachings from the Bible that are reflective of the time and culture from which it sprang, which may have little or no relevance today.

Our gender identity is, in modern understanding, a complex biological system. None of us, if you look at the studies that have been done on chromosomes and gender, are "all male" or "all female,' but instead land somewhere on a continuum.

Isn't it possible that this new understanding, combined with an awareness that marriage as an institution has been a constantly evolving construct since its inception, (for example, women are no longer chattel), that this particular teaching on marriage isn't as cast in stone as it might seem? (And speaking of casting and stones, there is that famous lesson from Jesus...) :-)

Here is an article from a United Methodist Minister about homosexuality and the bible that I find very compelling:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink

And, ultimately, even if you do agree with all of these teachings, do your beliefs automatically trump those who do not agree with you? If the definition of marriage in the Bible works for you in your life, that is absolutely your right. I will defend you for that right, even if it isn't my definition.

But how can it be your right to define this for someone else? If you are secure and content in the meaning of marriage for you within your religious teachings, why does that mean that everyone else should automatically follow that definition?

That brings me back to my original bewilderment. Constitutional protection of same-sex marriage is simply that. It's not about requiring anyone to engage in it, nor it is about requiring churches to perform those marriages if it is against their covenants.

So if you don't have to participate in a same-sex marriage, and your church doesn't have to, how is this different from any of the other civil and religious freedoms of people who practice other belief systems than yours that are the basis of the political constructs in this country?

Thanks and best,
Leigh

Do you hear what Chad says, albeit friendly and heartfelt? Did you hear him?

He said and I quote, "...This is an affirmation of God's design for marriage at Creation in Gen. 2:24. Now I know that for people who have no use for the Bible, this is meaningless, but I share it to explain the basis for my perspective."

This is Chad's perspective, period. There is no persuasion with intellectual arguments or articles on How this "Methodist preacher" said this...or whatever". His belief is not based on his intellect, it's based on his "spiritual emotional perspective and experience". I don't understand why you don't get it.

I will personally buy Chad a ticket to Rome if he by some miracle of your "astute compassionate effort & intellectual prowess" convince Chad or Dan or any "born again" to see it your way and say, "oh yes, I see it clearly now. I'm 'secure in my definition of marriage'. I will NOW allow you to define yours and have same sex marriage as defined in the constitution." (and by the way, I don't mind going against what the bible says in: Gen.2:24, cause you have made it perfectly clear for me why I'm wrong)"

Again it's like asking another 3 year old, "Honey, put on your shoes, go ahead, tie your shoes, you're a big boy now. You should be able to do it because I've explained it to you twelve different ways, and I even showed you a video and read you an article by a 3 year old just like you, but she was a girl. Now come on, tell me how come you can't do it? It says you can do it in this Early Childhood Education "Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together." parenting book I just read?

And the 3 year old says: "Ok, I see mommy--and he runs out throwing his shoes on the floor waving, "bye bye!"

I've read these comments with humbleness and curiosity--thank you, Suza, for revealing your family background--I grew up in the deep South, and I've had my share of similar stories in my circles of family and friends through the years. You are correct, though, that a particularly harrowing, death-in-the-face, humanely unexplainable experience many times results in blind faith acceptance of good v. evil. What other explanation will suffice?

Heather -- yes! Harvey Milk hopefully will become a national hero on the level of JKF, MLK and RFK. He has been so in my book, since I started writing that book as a young, wippersnapper of a gay activist "back in the day!" However, I choose to wait until the comes to a non-Landmark theater (or Netflix) since I'm honoring the "gay-cott!" (And I DO miss matronzing Lassen's!)

Dvorah Darlin' -- I admire and honor your outrage, but, chill! And remember to laugh! I, too, am outraged that such obviously intelligent people choose to use an antiquated, poorly translated, politicized text to missionize and cast the stones of supposed love. Thank you for paying attention -- but, we DID make a ruckas: I personally countered every "Yes" sign I saw in Ojai with a "No" sign (and replaced them many times over!), many supporters rallied until dark at the Y three times, many phone calls were made, lots sent $$$ in, and Ojai herself went majority "No" (Think I'll stay!)

Leigh -- you always add so much insight and you get right to the point in your ineluctably engaging way (and thanks for the Soul Force article--what a fabulous organization!) Write on, Sister!

Dan, Chad -- I truly honor your beliefs and your ability to speak about them intelligently. However, this is a secular nation (and state), and when your religious beliefs effect discrimination toward others, it has no place in American democracy. No one's religion or spirituality or lack thereof should be above equality in the law--ANY law!

Chad, your idea that the Bible is an account of real people is equivocable to any other religious text's account of real people, and is not compelling evidence to me. However, if it is for you, I honor that.

Dan--State marriage is NOT "biblical marriage!" Fine is yours if, but mine is not, and my wife is a woman, same as me. Now, please, go a be a good husband and citizen. Thank you.

It is our responsibility as citizens of this democracy to exercise our vote in a manner that is above religion; otherwise, this grand experiment of representative democracy could develop into a theocracy--and that is not what our Constitution(s) is about.

BTW: Even though I personally believe in God/Goddess/Divine Creator, I take great offense to the motto "In God We Trust" because of the constitutional right not to believe in Him/Her/It. With your constitutional rights come the duty, the responsibility to honor everyone's constitutional rights. Equal protection, majority AND minority!

Thank you all, again, for continuing this vital conversation. Send prayers of equality to the Ca.Supreme Court in March.

Besides, gay marriage has proven to be a boon to the economy!

Leigh – since you asked for a response, here goes.

My initial post was an attempt to clarify my understanding of “What the Bible Teaches about Marriage” (the topic of this blog) as I felt the excerpt from the Newsweek article was inaccurate. If one is going to disagree with Biblical marriage, at least disagree with an accurate description of what it teaches and not some misinterpretation that highlights secondary issues.

The course of discussion on this blog has obviously become about gay marriage. This was not something I wanted to engage in, but in respect to your thoughtful, intelligent questions directed to myself (and Chad) I will respond.

I would like to make clear that I follow Jesus not because I am perfect, but because I am aware that my life has fallen short of His glory (Romans 3:23). I follow him because I desperately need a Savior. He is the Lord of my life, not because I am perfect, but because I want him to make me more like himself. The longer I follow him, the more I love him.

One of the great things about our country, in my opinion, is the rule of law. Our Union is “of the people, for the people and by the people.” Together we make laws that we agree to live by. A common objection to Prop. 8 is that it is the imposition of beliefs held by one segment of California upon another segment. Is that not exactly what our Constitution is? What is it other that a set of ideas, founded in commonly held beliefs, that we all agree to live by? It was born out of the personal convictions of the founding fathers. This dialogue has continued in our time in regard to marriage, instigated by Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco when he started officiating gay marriages. Prop. 8 was a simple state-wide discussion over how we all want to define one word – “marriage.” We talked, campaigned, and voted. No doubt the conversation will continue, as evidenced herein, but for today the people of California have spoken and the majority agree the traditional definition of marriage is what they want to live by.

Leigh, your response to Chad clearly shows that you have spent a good deal of time interacting with the Bible. I respect this.

Perhaps one thing that may be helpful is to clarify that I believe the Bible is God’s written revelation to man, giving us all we need to live in a right relationship with Him and our neighbor. Because I believe this, it is not up for negotiation to me. My desire as a Christian is to correctly understand and obey it, not to judge it against other religions or life philosophies. I am not saying that I have never questioned it or wrestled with doubt, but that God has always proved Himself faithful to me, so I trust him. The more I live my life by what the Bible says, the more convinced I become of its truthfulness. So, in this sense, it is true that discussing homosexuality and marriage is a non-starter. The Bible calls homosexuality sinful behavior and it defines marriage as between man and woman.

You have cited some very interesting portions of scripture, mostly from the Old Testament. It is helpful to understand that God revealed three things to Israel. He gave them moral laws (the Ten Commandments), civil laws (their government) and ceremonial laws (their worship). The New Testament teaches that these things were fulfilled/completed in Christ (Matthew 5:17, Romans 10:4). Jesus essentially repeated (and deepened) the Ten Commandments and other moral teachings of the Old Covenant (see Matthew 5:17-48 for example). These laws are summed up in “Love God” and “Love Your Neighbor.” The civil laws no longer apply to the church, but many of the principles heavily influenced our founding fathers. The ceremonial laws no longer apply to Christians, as Jesus was the final sacrifice on the cross. A good response to your specific citings would take more space than this blog is appropriate for, but they are very good and fair questions. In short, I would say that we can always go back to the Garden of Eden to find out the ideal marriage relationship, and that was clearly one man and one woman. Moses’ teachings about marriage, I believe, had at least two goals in mind. One, Israel was to be holy to the Lord. This specifically meant that they were not to marry the Canaanites. This is so that they would not be influenced by the Canaanite religions. Two, in light of that, they were given as a way to take care of the women in that time.

This begs the question of homosexuality. It was prohibited in Leviticus 18:22. While it could be argued that that command is now obsolete, you would still have to deal with Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 in the New Testament. The Biblical teaching on sexuality is clearly modeled on Adam and Eve before the fall, and before the Mosaic laws.

You asked, “Is gay marriage offensive?” To me the question must be directed to God. Is it offensive to God? I would say that given the prohibitions against homosexuality and that heterosexual marriage is supposed to reflect Christ’s love relationship with church (Ephesians 5) that it would be offensive to God.

Several of your other questions seem to pertain to the general question of what God blesses. You gave an example of your gay friend with a quadriplegic son. The love shown to the son is without a doubt authentic, commendable and incredible. But, as Chad pointed out, this is a separate issue from the men’s sexual relationship, something the God of the Bible (the topic of this blog) does not approve of. Concurrent with that, I would sadly confess that my own life is a mixture of moments that please God and others that are plainly sinful. My good moments of loving others do not negate my sins – only the death of Christ for me does that (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Finally, you asked, “Why would you want to deny them the same rights that you and your spouse and family have?” It comes back to the way I see my role as a Christian citizen of this country I love. When I vote I do what I figure every other person does – I vote my conscience, beliefs, and values. I vote for what I believe will be best for our country. And those votes are no doubt shaped by the Bible, just as the ideas of others are influenced by the teachers they have been listening to. I did not vote for Prop. 8 to deny anyone marriage as I did to honor what I believe the Bible teaches about it, since I believe the Bible to be true.

I believe that living in a pluralistic society does not call for the abandonment of personal convictions leading to an “anything goes” libertarianism bordering on anarchy, but rather it calls for vigorous, respectful debate, voting, and then respecting the outcome. This does not mean that an idea cannot be revisited and the debate continued. Hopefully, in the end, the best idea will win.

Dear Judy, I'm not outraged, I'm exhilarated and quite happy writing all my (I guess what I thought was quite creative) very practical observations on (biblical Jesus Freaks).

So far nothing Dan or Chad have shared in their intelligent sharing way - has in any way shown any inclination on their part to actually consider "looking at life other then through the Bible (God at his Best).

After a long explanation/rationalization of why he is the way he is, Dan finally ends with the same old stuff:
"...what would God think?" and "...I did not vote for Prop. 8 to deny anyone marriage as I did to honor what I believe the Bible teaches about it, since I believe the Bible to be true."

And there we go again - Yes he's civil, yes he's kind, yes he's a good guy and Yes "you are still going to hell and he isn't!" Wow, what a difference a long conversation makes. At least Dan is willing to obey the law if prop 8 had lost and not picket the gay abortion clinics.

Now for MORE FUN - personally I don't care if Prop wins or loses. I put in my vote, I encourage others to put in their vote - and whatever happens, happens. To me life is always a big surprise and I mean that literally and that's what makes it FUN - I never know what's going to pop up next good or bad.

I continue to read and consider all these comments. I think Judy hit the nail on the head (Comment #45) when she wrote:

"Dan, Chad -- I truly honor your beliefs and your ability to speak about them intelligently. However, this is a secular nation (and state), and when your religious beliefs effect discrimination toward others, it has no place in American democracy. No one's religion or spirituality or lack thereof should be above equality in the law--ANY law!"

"It is our responsibility as citizens of this democracy to exercise our vote in a manner that is above religion; otherwise, this grand experiment of representative democracy could develop into a theocracy--and that is not what our Constitution(s) is about."

The point about America being a democracy and not a theocracy is one that even my father understands. He emigrated to America after World WAr II, rather than taking his family back to Indonesia, for this very reason. He understands what it would be like to live under the law of the Koran vs Democracy.

Hi all:

Dan, thank you, also, for your response.

I appreciate this opportunity to hear in more detail about what you obviously believe deeply and thoughtfully.

I personally think that challenging one another to articulate our beliefs is very important, especially when we don't agree. You have given me insight into why intelligent people do disagree on this issue, which was part of what I was seeking. And I thank you for that.

You said two things that particularly struck me.

First, you wrote:

"When I vote I do what I figure every other person does – I vote my conscience, beliefs, and values. I vote for what I believe will be best for our country. And those votes are no doubt shaped by the Bible, just as the ideas of others are influenced by the teachers they have been listening to. "

I think this is one of the most beautiful, and simultaneously one of the most challenging, aspects of a democracy, because I believe you are right about this. And it helps me to remember to not demonize those who don't agree with me, however passionately I think they might be wrong!

Part of my despair about many of the momentums in this country over the last 20 or so years has been that move towards dismissing, belittling, out-shouting, and ultimately demonizing people who hold different beliefs than we do. And I don't think I have any more right to ask you to abandon the teachings that you find meaningful than you have a right to ask me to abandon mine. (The challenges come when they run up against each other, as they do here!)

And then you wrote:

"I believe that living in a pluralistic society does not call for the abandonment of personal convictions leading to an “anything goes” libertarianism bordering on anarchy, but rather it calls for vigorous, respectful debate, voting, and then respecting the outcome. This does not mean that an idea cannot be revisited and the debate continued. Hopefully, in the end, the best idea will win."

In general, I agree with you wholeheartedly with this, as well, and I think you've articulated it beautifully.

I have a couple of concerns about how this process has played out so far, however, in this instance.

As I look at the history of civil rights in this country, often the majority has not been responsive to opening awareness of the value of civil rights for others, and so have some concerns about voting superseding decisions of the courts. I think I would be less concerned about this if we were better educated, as a nation, about the function and intent of the Constitution as the set of civil laws and teachings that birthed this country and keep it functioning.

And I have great distress about how much demonizing was done by the major backers of Prop 8 -- looking at the polling numbers prior to the money that was poured into a campaign that did a whole lot of fear baiting about what would happen if gay marriage continued to be viewed as a constitutionally protected right in this state, they suggest that prior to this blitz of often inaccurate information, voters in California actually were suggesting that they were comfortable, as a majority, with it.

To me, this was neither representative of the best in Christianity or in democracy, and instead was a manipulative (and effective) tactic to play on people's fears of homosexuality as something different from what they understood and therefore frightening. And I agree with the poster earlier who pointed out that this momentum (and external to the state money) took gay rights advocates by surprise, and the response wasn't particularly well managed. So I'm not personally convinced this vote reflected the will of the people all that accurately, which is one of the challenges of democracy as well -- a well-financed, well-structured campaign that works people's fears can sway people in any number of directions if they aren't paying close attention.

Part of my frustration about this is what feels cynical to me about manipulating the democratic process by a particular group with an agenda (regardless of the issue), and perhaps an even deeper frustration is with a citizenry that doesn't care enough about the ideals of this country to take the time to learn about an issue so they are vulnerable to manipulation. I respect people I disagree with, like you, who have obviously taken the time to think about an issue like this carefully, and are willing to engage in a respectful, vigorous debate about it, because like you, I think this is a core element of how democracy works. I have a lot more trouble with people who are happy with sound bites and cast judgment without understanding or knowledge.

I think for all of us, living responsibly in a democracy requires a constant assessment of the balance between our personal beliefs and the intentions and beauty of our idealistic goal of maintaining a place where people of many beliefs can thrive. (I think this was at the core of the convictions of the country's founders to keep religion separate from law, as Judy articulates above.) But I don't think it's an easy balance for any of us!

I don't think we've changed each other's minds here, and I didn't anticipate that a truncated conversation like this would, but I feel, at least, like I have a better understanding of why you believe what you do. Thanks for being willing to engage with me.

To my mind, that is the first step to finding common ground, finding opportunities to deepen and impact each other's thinking, and finding ways to co-exist with one another peacefully and respectfully in a country that we obviously both care about. You've made me think; I hope I've made you think, too!

All the best,
Leigh

Thank you, Leigh, for taking the time to post your insightful and thoughtful comments. There is much to ponder here...

Leigh, thank you for sharing your very astute thoughts. I agree that the media, and television in particular, has greatly affected the political process, and mostly for the worse. We have a nation thinking in slogans and sound bites and not in ideas and the consequences of those ideas. We tend to live for the moment, not thinking about how our choices and actions will affect future generations.

And yet, I like the statement, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Sincerely, Dan

Suza - If you're going to edit me - just take the whole post down, not the part you don't like...as a matter of fact you can REMOVE ALL OF THEM so you can all have "interesting, respectful, open, peaceful, understanding, moving, "I'm a intellectual, fair good listener discourses" without me. This way you can continue to congratulate each other on your balanced fairness and engaging conversations without any dissension or variety.

I'm with El-A now, I"m OUT-unless of course, I'm writing a pleasing article about a good restaurant where you can all sit and converse about the pros and cons of democracy.

Dan & Chad and many can have a change of heart, but it's not going to be through these "inane, hopeful" discussions". It will be through a change of Consciousness, their actual perception will have to change on "who they are and what they're truth is". And that may or may not happen becuase anything is possible in consciousness.

But nevertheless, let's hope that "Jesus" in his infinite mercy sees fit to shine the light on Dan and Chad and the rest of us-making us servants of HIS WORK instead of the falsehoods of the bible.

Dvorah, I was going to write a response back to your last post, but see that you've decided to leave in a huff.

Your prerogative.

In the off chance that you do stick around to see the reaction to your leaving...

I happen to believe that changes in consciousness are more likely to come when people stay open and actually try to hear each other. You can sneer at me all you like about that.

While you obviously think respectful discourse is a waste of time, I wonder what you really were trying to accomplish in your posts here? Do you really think that people change their minds when they're being insulted? Do you think people leave an interchange like this and think, "Gee, that lady who called me stupid was RIGHT! I have seen the light!"??

And I wonder how you expect anyone to respect you when you show no respect for anyone else. Because you've not shown any to anyone who dissented from your opinion or approach -- how is that celebrating variety?

And can you not see that by blasting someone else for believing in the "falsehoods of the Bible," you've done exactly what you're condemning them for? It's your belief it's a crock, and that's fine. But do you have a line to the divine that the rest of us don't have the make your beliefs better than anyone else's? That seems to me to be what you've been fomenting about here -- the assumption that they're right and everyone else is wrong. So the answer is that you're right and everyone else is wrong? Same problem, in my eyes.

Taking quick snide shots on a forum is easy. And seductive.

I just don't think it has much point.

Best,
Leigh

Hey Dvorah! What's gotten into you? Stop acting like such a baby! Just because you're not allowed to swear at people you don't like and insult them doesn't mean you have to take all your marbles and go home and not play any more.

Shut Up and Be Happy, already!!

#53 - call me seductive, I like that!

#54 - I'm taking the 2 marbles I've got left for a brain and having as much fun as I can...you guys can all do the same...

bye bye darlings - it's been fun! ps. I love you...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tgNEozIbv3s/SKxqWLl78dI/AAAAAAAAAA4/JnjyIoiheFo/S220-h/Dv+blue+hand+up.jpg