<!-- Facebook Badge START -->REUNION Hawaii<br/>
<br/>Promote Your Page Too<!-- Facebook Badge END -->
7.08.2010
Connect with my church on Facebook
7.07.2010
If ever, NOW!
As a pastor and church leader I make it a point to see that my church never endorses candidates or takes partisan sides in elections. We certainly encourage our people to vote and participate in the political process, but we never tell anyone WHO to vote for. I wanted to make that clear, so that what I say next is clearly understood to be my personal view as a citizen, completely apart from my role as a pastor. If ever Hawaii needed to wake up and be sure we elect the right person as our next Governor, that time is NOW. There are three major front-runners in the race… Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann, former U.S. Representative Neil Abercrombie, and Lt. Governor James "Duke" Aiona.
I like Mufi, generally. He is smart, often church-friendly, and — other than being a Democrat — is someone I could find marginally acceptable. He is tap-dancing around the issue of same-sex marriage a bit. Mufi is LDS (Mormon) and the LDS church has been very active in the fight against legalizing and legitimizing same-sex marriage, but Mufi has yet to come out with a strong traditional marriage only position for fear of alienating his Democrat voter base. Neil? Mr. Abercrombie is your basic classic, ACLU 60s radical leftwing liberal. He lists his religious preference as Non-denominational Protestant, but every position he takes on matters of morality is the opposite of my own, so I am not quite sure what brand of protestantism he means. I think I'd prefer almost anyone over Neil for Governor, but he is a frontrunner. The Democratic Party has anointed him as their choice and he is getting the endorsements of the usual suspects. Thanks, but no thanks.
I like Mufi, generally. He is smart, often church-friendly, and — other than being a Democrat — is someone I could find marginally acceptable. He is tap-dancing around the issue of same-sex marriage a bit. Mufi is LDS (Mormon) and the LDS church has been very active in the fight against legalizing and legitimizing same-sex marriage, but Mufi has yet to come out with a strong traditional marriage only position for fear of alienating his Democrat voter base. Neil? Mr. Abercrombie is your basic classic, ACLU 60s radical leftwing liberal. He lists his religious preference as Non-denominational Protestant, but every position he takes on matters of morality is the opposite of my own, so I am not quite sure what brand of protestantism he means. I think I'd prefer almost anyone over Neil for Governor, but he is a frontrunner. The Democratic Party has anointed him as their choice and he is getting the endorsements of the usual suspects. Thanks, but no thanks.
Which brings us to Duke. Lt. Governor Aiona is a born-again Catholic believer. Of the three major candidates he is the only one who is decisively on the side of righteousness in the matter of same-sex marriage. I have personal confidence that he will push for a public referendum on the issue over further legislative action, and -- if the legislature does take the matter up again -- he would certainly veto it.
For that reason, among others, I will be voting for Duke Aiona for Governor of Hawaii and hope all my friends will do the same.
"But... I was BORN this way!"
The debate over nature vs nurture in the matter of same-sex marriage keeps coming up. The argument goes like this: you can't hold it against me that I am attracted to people of the same gender… I believe i was BORN this way, so it is just how I am wired!" The science on this matter is inconclusive, at best, and confusing, at worst. Battling experts make claims refuted by the studies of others.
For the sake of discussion let me work from the assumption (flawed, in my view) that some people are born with a propensity to be attracted to members of their same gender. An aside is necessary at this point: since some people seem to drift in and out of gayness (Anne Heche, former partner of Ellen DeGeneres seems to be a classic example) and some people in prison become "gay for the stay" it is obvious that no such blanket pronouncement that "all gays are born that way" can be made. A second disclaimer: I frequently hear "who would willingly CHOOSE to be gay when it means being rejected by family and disdained by society?" -- you can understand why the straight world sees that argument is specious during Gay Pride Week. There is no "Gay Shame Week" or "Please help me, I hate being this way week." Gay Pride Week is a time when the most outrageous, flamboyant, in-your-face aspects of the gay lifestyle are celebrated and paraded, so, yeah, it looks a lot like a choice to most people despite the coy denials. (But, I digress…) So, the argument goes, since gays are born that way, society should not only tolerate, but celebrate that difference, and remove all legal constraints and silence any voice that disagrees. Let's follow that logic to its natural conclusion. I am a 60-year-old man. I was probably born with a natural propensity to be attracted to beautiful 18-year-old girls. But I have been married for 39 years to a lovely woman who is no longer 18, but in her late 50s. I am able to keep my propensity for young hard-bodies firmly under control and focus my affections on my wife. If we buy the "I was born this way" argument, what are we to do with those who swear they were born with a natural attraction to children? After all, they can't help it… they were BORN that way.
For the sake of discussion let me work from the assumption (flawed, in my view) that some people are born with a propensity to be attracted to members of their same gender. An aside is necessary at this point: since some people seem to drift in and out of gayness (Anne Heche, former partner of Ellen DeGeneres seems to be a classic example) and some people in prison become "gay for the stay" it is obvious that no such blanket pronouncement that "all gays are born that way" can be made. A second disclaimer: I frequently hear "who would willingly CHOOSE to be gay when it means being rejected by family and disdained by society?" -- you can understand why the straight world sees that argument is specious during Gay Pride Week. There is no "Gay Shame Week" or "Please help me, I hate being this way week." Gay Pride Week is a time when the most outrageous, flamboyant, in-your-face aspects of the gay lifestyle are celebrated and paraded, so, yeah, it looks a lot like a choice to most people despite the coy denials. (But, I digress…) So, the argument goes, since gays are born that way, society should not only tolerate, but celebrate that difference, and remove all legal constraints and silence any voice that disagrees. Let's follow that logic to its natural conclusion. I am a 60-year-old man. I was probably born with a natural propensity to be attracted to beautiful 18-year-old girls. But I have been married for 39 years to a lovely woman who is no longer 18, but in her late 50s. I am able to keep my propensity for young hard-bodies firmly under control and focus my affections on my wife. If we buy the "I was born this way" argument, what are we to do with those who swear they were born with a natural attraction to children? After all, they can't help it… they were BORN that way.
7.06.2010
Lingle's veto - my thoughts
There's a way of life that looks harmless enough;
look again—it leads straight to hell.
Sure, those people appear to be having a good time,
but all that laughter will end in heartbreak.
look again—it leads straight to hell.
Sure, those people appear to be having a good time,
but all that laughter will end in heartbreak.
Proberbs 14:12-13 (The Message)
I am old enough, at 60, to have a bit of perspective on issues that the passionate young often lack. I hear people saying that the issue of same-gender marriage, or the exact equivalent by another name, is a civil rights issue. I can understand that argument to an extent — I honestly can… but it is really not that simple.
Everyone who has deeply held core beliefs bases them on something. (Read the first few chapters of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis) For me, and historically in America, our shared fundamental values have flowed from the Judeo-Christian understanding of moral values. Even though we try to be tolerant of those who base theirs on something else, the strength of America has been built upon our mutually shared understanding that it is important for society to express a public morality that transcends religion: regardless of faith, we have a public morality that seeks to discourage public intoxication, while allowing the private consumption of alcohol. We recognize that married people sometimes cheat on their spouses, but we heap upon those who commit adultery appropriate shame. We know, as a society, that we can never completely eliminate the use of recreational narcotics, yet we, as a society, continue to maintain laws against such use, and express our displeasure toward those who indulge. In other words, we, as a society have always legislated matters of morality as perceived by the majority.
Homosexuality is one of those public morality issues. I don't really care what any two consenting adults want to do with each other, or to one another in private. I have some pretty definite opinions about the morality of such behavior, but I recognize that private behavior is impossible to control. In the early days of the so-called "gay rights" movement, the cry was for an end to active persecution of homosexuals. The Stonewall riots in NYC took place the year I graduated from high school. They were a reaction to police raids on a gay gathering spot.
Gays of the 60s said "Just leave us alone and we'll be happy. That's all we want, is just to be left alone!" That was a position most people found reasonable: leave them alone. But, once left alone (at least somewhat) and given tacit permission of the greater society to gather in private, the progression began…
From "leave us alone", to
Accept us for who we are, to
Celebrate us!, to
Remove every legal difference between us the rest of society.
It was at the "celebrate us" stage that the push back began. The overwhelming majority of Americans find homosexuality repugnant, as evidenced in referendum after referendum. They may be willing to look the other way and give tacit approval to private conduct they find deviant, but they are unwilling to applaud that behavior or celebrate it.
So now we have reached the stage of gay demands to be afforded all the rights and privileges of their straight neighbors, and they can't understand why everyone is not on board. It is because we, as a society still reserve the right to legislate a common civic morality. Yes, it is at its root faith-based, but it far transcends people of faith. Agnostics, atheists and people of faith share the understanding that there are things about which society takes a civic morality stance and says "this far, and no further."
The proponents of moving toward same-sex relationship acceptance never want the matter to be decided by the people; they aways try to end-run the civic morality views of the community by attempting to utilize activist judges or liberal-Democrat-dominated legislatures to overrule the clearly expressed will of the people.
The canard most often used is, "Well, if the issue of SLAVERY had been put to a popular vote in the 1860s we would still have slaves today!" The obvious — laughable — flaw in that emotional argument is that if we had voted on slavery in the 1860s the slaves would have had no vote and no voice, but this is not slavery, and it is not 1860: it is 2010, and if we hold yet another referendum on whether to override our sense of common civic morality and elevate gay relationships to the equal position of straight relationships, the gay people will have the same right to vote as I have.
The outcome will be the same as every public referendum on the subject. People don't care so much about private, consensual activity, but they prefer a common civic morality that attaches disapproval to gay relationships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)