My husband and I are in the process of moving from three full levels into a one-level apartment. Boy! Talk about down sizing!
But since it is my turn to write for the Clergy View, and I appreciate the opportunity, I am sitting at my computer amid boxes that need to be emptied and my mind filled to overflowing with the myriad of tasks that need to be completed.
I have to stop, relax and look at what is important to me today. I will start with a story:
I was in the grocery store a few days ago and asked a clerk where the apples were located. She told me I would find them in the produce section and then she proceeded to escort me to big bins of bright red, golden and green apples.
I told her I wanted the apples that had thick orange colored skins that you could peel with your fingers, they were filled with sections of little juice filled “sacks.”
She looked bewildered and told me that sounded like an orange.
I told her that all apples did not have to look the same, that she sounded like she was discriminating against the “orange” that wanted the same “rights” as the apple. We must be tolerant of all kinds of fruits.
No, she told me, an apple has certain characteristics and an orange has other characteristics. “Whoever heard of Waldorf salad or apple pie made with oranges?” After bantering back and forth she looked me in the eye and said, “Well, you can call it what you want, but an orange is still an orange!” And this hypothetical clerk in this strange little parable turned and walked away.
Seems in our world we are still trying to call oranges apples.
I am thinking of the opportunity we have as voting citizens in Minnesota to continue to hold marriage in high esteem based on the definition God gave marriage in Genesis 2:24 when He said, “…a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.”
From the beginning marriage has been what marriage is. If we want to legalize other forms of relationships, that is another issue, but to redefine marriage seems like redefining the common orange.
By voting “yes” for the Marriage Amendment in the November election we are using this opportunity to hold fast our values that have made America great.
Be sure to read the question and make sure you are, in fact, voting in favor of the amendment.
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord…..” Psalm 33:12a
Comments (26)
Add commentI'm a Christian who disagrees with your understanding of the
overall notion of who God loves (re: "high esteem of marriage", and how discrimination occurs. Beyond that, however, why do we introduce our (Christian) religious values into the public sphere, in which there are many folks (fellow Christians, and others who may have no belief in God, but who deserve their rights of citizenship) as the only ones that are valid?! If some of your fellow citizens have a different point of view regarding their rights as Americans, why do you feel qualified to impose your particular set of religious views on another Minnesotan? Just curious. As a Christian, I don't believe every American needs to hold my same religious beliefs. The fact that some Minnesotans choose to join in a life-long commitment with someone of the same sex does not challenge or threaten my 30 yr. heterosexual marriage at all. (In fact, I'm hoping that we're protected, as Americans, from one religion imposing their specific set of religious beliefs on the overall polity. Isn't that "freedom of religion"?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but you don't speak for all Christians.
Wait
Let me get this straight, you use a fruit analogy in a story about gay marriage.....
Lord help us..............
P.S.: Understanding that God is unchangeable and all . . .
What does your particular brand of Christianity believe about the Mormon faiths' beliefs and differences re: Marriage. (Please do your google search to understand how this is quite different from your more "conventional" Christian belief. Do you have any problem with the Mormon's views on this (and so many other articles of "conservative Christian faith" that differ from those of the Mormon faith"? Or, are your views a bit more politically driven? These are interesting and important questions.
Let's all do some background reading (or not, just hit
delete it you don't want to continue the previously begun "religious" conversation. Ain't it fun, though? But let's be honest about it. We all have our varied views regarding religion (or distrust/dislike/disinterest therein), and Pastor Barb represents just one pastor's/gal's perspective. Thanks for opening the discussion, Pastor Barb!
By the way, Pastor Barb, did your particular denomination of the Christian church ever give you -- and your "ilk -- that is -- women -- any grief about becoming ordained? If so, how did you overcome the Church's previously/currently(?)discriminatory practices regarding sexually-based discrimination??!http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/mormons_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latterday_saints/index.html
Good one, sip.
Parable or not, I bet the clerk was wondering what the point was, too.
Bubba, maybe you should try reading the article...
...Pastor Barb clearly is not supporting discrimination against homosexual rights. Let me refer you to this statement from her column:
"From the beginning marriage has been what marriage is. If we want to legalize other forms of relationships, that is another issue, but to redefine marriage seems like redefining the common orange."
She's right, if the voters want to say that two homosexuals can enter into a legally binding contract where they pledge to have sex with no one but the other that is is different from saying they are "married." Two homosexuals can NEVER fulfill all the necessary requirements to have a true marital relationship. The fact you people think this is about the state certifying "love" shows you don't even understand the purpose of heterosexual marriage. Can a homosexual couple merge their DNA through a natural process and create a new human being? No. Therefore, traditional marriage and whatever a state-certified contract between two homosexuals might be called are not the same.
Noting this obvious difference between these two situations is a matter of discerning differences (something any child of the age of reason can do before they are confused by sophistic arguments) not a matter of religious revelation. To me, this is just another affirmative action program where qualifications for a position don't matter as much as skin color or sexual orientation, and just as affirmative action has resulted in injustice, so will gay marriage if it is ever forced upon us through the judiciary.
So, if married couples
can't "merge their DNA", it is not a real marriage?
What a laugh in the 21st Century!
Akin and Meuhl need to take a class in reproduction.
Should couples who can't conceive through "mergers", be denied the right to marry?
Such specious and empty arguments.
Vote NO!
Merging DNA?
So the way muehlbau defines marriage is based on the ability to perform a biological function? Too bad for all those *fake* (in muehlbau's world) marriages of people who cannot conceive. Like the people who struggle with infertility, or those who are over 50 when they find love. And couples who choose to remain childless? Really?
But wait... I guess in muehlbau's world love doesn't matter. Sad world view muehlbau.
I prefer a world where love exists and is honored and celebrated for all. A right of ceremony and legal protections denied to no pair of consenting adults in a supposedly free country.
Vote NO.
*stares blankly, blinks slowly*
So a straight couple that is child-free by choice don't have a real marriage? Lawdamercee, it's the end of the world.
I find this article very amusing, mainly because it was written by a female pastor. Someone who 20 years ago would have NEVER been allowed to preach. Someone who (thanks to equal rights) is now treated as an equal, someone who has probably been vocal about women being allowed the same rights as men.
How often Barb, do you quote Leviticus 18 and 20 concerning gays, but disregard 1 Timothy 2:12 when it comes to yourself? You got a huge plank in your eye, sweetie.
Household6
Agree, and she surely couldn't have preached in biblical times. Or even worked out of the home...or selected her own husband...or prevented any pregnancies. Life was hard then for women. Do we want to go back there?
The exception does not make the rule, Household...
...if 100% of straight couples chose to be childless, the idea of marriage would be a farce.
I don't understand why people
I don't understand why people quote the bible and babble on about this while completely missing the point.
The Government should have no say in who marries who, Gay, Straight or whatever. That is a church decision if you get married in a church, a personal decision otherwise. The governement and laws should never enter the equation!
People just keep inviting the Government deeper into their lives every damned day, drives me nuts ....
So using an analogy of a fruit somehow translates
into marriage between adults? Maybe the clerk should have shown you the plumcots; that would have fried your brain. A plumcot is a natural cross hybrid between plums and apricots. And you noticed I said natural, as in made by God. And why does everyone bring religion, especially Christianity, into this discussion, as though the US is exclusively one religion? What about Baha'i Faith, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Agnosticism and humanism, Atheism, Deism, Native American religions, Neopaganism, Druid, Wicca, New Thought Movement, and Unitarian Universalism? Are we to constantly group everyone into one thought, one religion, one race, one gender? Well, excuse the pun, but by the Grace of God, I would hope not.
Isn't variety and choice what makes us human?
If they really were the party
If they really were the party of family values you think they would concentrate on making divorce illegal. Makes more sense to me.
The Mormom ideology just makes we wonder. Mr. Smith must have had one heck of a hat. But to each their own I guess.
Thank you Pastor
Speaking of religions if you must, what would the Muslems
say and do with homosexual marriage? Not a pretty picture.
Changing the subject - there has been a disturbing trend of
honor killings and I don't think law enforcement has dared to call them that.
Indeed D of S..
I don't want my government using a politician's interpretation of the Bible to make laws. It's a remedial concept, and it's a shame some Christians don't understand the magnitude of necessity that separation of church and state. EVERYONE'S religious freedom rests in the balance. It's not a matter if keeping religion out of the government, but keeping the government out of our religions. As soon as we allow politicians to decipher a law based on Biblical values, we allow the government to dictate how we worship. If conservative churches made laws, Barb wouldn't be preaching-- she'd be in the nursery wiping butts.
If Common Sense Was Used In Government
Citizen: I don't want to pay for other people's abortions.
Government: Too bad, pay up or we'll penalize you.
Citizen: I don't want to pay for other people's birth control.
Government: Too bad pay up or we'll penalize you.
Citizen: I don't want my children taught creationism or liberalism.
Government: Too bad, they'll be taught whatever the teacher likes.
Hey, I have this crazy
Hey, I have this crazy idea.
How bout we simply call God down here to sort this whole thing out shall we?
waiting,
Waiting,
(tapping fingers on the desk)
WAITING!!
Yeah, I don't think God will be coming here anytime soon.
But he made me a profit and spoke to me these words, it's true I tell ya, it came directly from him.
He said "cut off your index finger cause it pleases him and it would be a covenant between you and him"
I don't know exactly what that means, but it must be in some form or another like the cutting off of the foreskin?
So, I am going to test his new awesome idea by NOT cutting off my index finger, you know, just to see what he does cause he's a jealous God ya know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDfoJ29CR4E
Confusing
This is a complex argument that you made totally incomprehensible with your terrible analogy. What you are describing is people being unable to identify male or female in humans. What this has to do with relationships is unexplainable. It sounds more like the argument a female has trying to become a minister when the Bible says that women shall not teach. It's ironic that you try to control people with passages from the Bible while you ignore others passages for you own selfish gain and earthy power.
This was a bad idea, Written poorly, Confusing analogy.
One cannot be the other
An apple cannot be a orange just as a orange cannot be a apple.
If two alike want to be together so be it but they may not be joined under the roof of the house built by those who follow the rules that built the house.
My has the Liberal revolution evolved over the years. In the early years "Marriage " was just a "piece of paper' and that one wasn't needed to bond the relationship to one and another. Now that "piece of paper" has a value to the bonding and who object are questioned or criticized.
Christian?
I, too, am Christian and I am not a homosexual. I find nothing Christian about this amendment. God created a group of people to be homosexual--in His name we are trying to deny those people the same benefits as we have. How is that Christian and how does that fit in with the United State's belief in equal opportunity for all? If this amendment passes, it will not change the number of homosexuals that God creates; it will just further our refusal to acknowledge that we are attempting to discriminate against His children, our brothers and sisters. It will set the stage for further legal action to refuse to provide benefits for gay people and their loved ones. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" IS a commandment of God. This amendment does not do that; it will do nothing to strengthen heterosexual marriages, but will directly and indirectly hurt our gay friends and neigbors and their families. Possibly the most destructive part of this amendment is that our children will be taught that God created a group of people to be in His likeness, but that we determined that that wasn't good enough.
Christian?
I, too, am Christian and I am not a homosexual. I find nothing Christian about this amendment. God created a group of people to be homosexual--in His name we are trying to deny those people the same benefits as we have. How is that Christian and how does that fit in with the United State's belief in equal opportunity for all? If this amendment passes, it will not change the number of homosexuals that God creates; it will just further our refusal to acknowledge that we are attempting to discriminate against His children, our brothers and sisters. It will set the stage for further legal action to refuse to provide benefits for gay people and their loved ones. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" IS a commandment of God. This amendment does not do that; it will do nothing to strengthen heterosexual marriages, but will directly and indirectly hurt our gay friends and neigbors and their families. Possibly the most destructive part of this amendment is that our children will be taught that God created a group of people to be in His likeness, but that we determined that that wasn't good enough.
there are a few posts by people who actually have the right idea
the gay marrage debate is nothing more than smoke and mirrors picking on one group to distract from the bigger picture, i dont care what your beliefs are whether you like gay marrage or not doesent matter and shouldent be part of any govenment controll marrage should be beween two people who love each other government should have no say in the matter
Smoke and mirrors Divide and
Smoke and mirrors
Divide and Conquer
Chao ab Ordo
Problem-reaction-Soulution
All of these are little mouse traps set by the powers that be. And the people fall for them every single time.