WASHINGTON, June 16 /Christian Newswire/ -- Concerned Women for America (CWA) is calling for a Day of Prayer and Fasting to ask God's intervention to protect marriage. Tuesday, June 17, is the first full day that California will begin allowing same-sex "marriages," opening the floodgates of legal chaos to further undermine marriage nationwide. Unlike Massachusetts, which allows only state residents to obtain same-sex "marriage" licenses, California's sweeping decision can be transported nationwide by homosexual couples demanding that other states recognize their California "marriage." Already, New York Governor David Paterson (D) has ordered all New York state agencies to recognize same-sex "marriages" performed in other states or countries in which it is considered legal.
On June 2, the California Marriage Amendment Act was certified and will be on the November ballot in California. Over 1.1 million California residents signed a petition for a referendum to define marriage as between one man and one woman, a clear example of what "the people" want.
Phyllis Nemeth, State Director for CWA of California, said, "Prayer is the key to this battle. We need to see hearts changed by God at the same time that we're trying to change minds. That's why I'm inviting my fellow Californians especially to join CWA in prayer and fasting for our state and our nation."
CWA President Wendy Wright said, "CWA was founded on 'prayer and action.' The decision by the California court on same-sex 'marriage' is an affront to God and His plan for marriage and family. It will cause long-term problems and risks for families, churches, and agencies that work with children, and many others — leading to more lawsuits and damaged lives. While many will be working to protect the true definition and meaning of marriage, our first action must be to pray for God to intervene. Please join us in prayer and fasting on June 17."
America stands at a monumental crossroad. Please join us in this time of prayer and fasting.
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
Featured Article
Monday, June 16, 2008
Pro-Family Group Calls Day of Prayer for Marriage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I've always wondered what "undermining" marriage" would entail.
And specifically, what "problems and risks for families… and agencies that work with children".
While we're at it, what's the "meaning of marriage"?
I'll admit that I don't understand these things, and I might be more sympathetic to the issue if someone could explain them to me.
I accept a religious concept of marriage and something holy and ordained by God. But our society has also defined a civil marriage that really has no religious, or spiritual association. To that end, how does a civil marriage, between any two persons, affect the concept of marriage in general?
Also, does an abusive spouse "undermine marriage"? I would imagine that any marital relationship, regardless of gender, that is not healthy creates "problems for families… and agencies that work with children", that's not an issue defined by gender.
I do not mean to be inflammatory or incendiary, but I just don't understand it.
Good questions, blackboy. I'm rushed for time right now, but I'll get back to you on those later today.
We can deny gay couples civil rights and legal protection, but we can never stop anyone from falling in love; gay relationships will continue to exist no matter what restrictions are imposed upon them by "loving" Christians. Will we continue to treat them like second-class citizens over a silly thing like semantics? Let Christians have the word "marriage" if they want it, and let gay couples call their relationships something else. If that's what it takes for equal rights to be achieved, then so be it.
If we're expected to play nice, we must learn to share.
Anonymous, you're correct that we can't stop anyone from falling in love, and yes, homosexual relationships have been around probably almost as long as the human race itself.
We are not, however, treating them like "second-class citizens." Homosexuals already have the same rights and legal protections as heterosexuals. Homosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals are. Homosexuals are protected by the same murder, theft et al laws as heterosexuals. Homosexuals can eat at the same lunch counters as heterosexuals.
What we should not do, however, is treat an unnatural, unhealthy and immoral sexual relationship with the same dignity as marriage--an institution which is both sacred because it was instituted by God, and and of inestimable value to society for its ability to create and properly develop the next generation of society.
Homosexual unions can never and will never be "marriage," no matter what label we put on them. We shouldn't devalue the genuine article by allowing a counterfeit.
This is in reply to "blackboy's" inquiry earlier today:
I've written numerous items on marriage, it's meaning, and how the concept of homosexual "marriage" undermines the real thing. You can find these writings under the "marriage" topic link on the left side menu of this blog. Here are a couple of particularly detailed pieces I've written recently on the subject: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/05/norway-illustrates-devastation-of.html
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/05/society-and-state-have-compelling.html
I don't want to rewrite all that here, but I'll try to briefly summarize in response to your inquiry.
Marriage is an institution originally established by God when he created the human race; he made it clear in both Old and New Testaments that his design for human sexuality was to be expressed between a man and a woman in marriage--nothing else.
The human race has also recognized throughout history that it takes a man and a woman to constitute a marriage. There are many types of relationships, and even several types of sexual relationships. But a man and a woman and a formal commitment are the only elements that will add up to marriage.
Marriage is also a civil institution because of the state's interest in preserving marriage; this is a fact whether the culture is heavily religious or heavily secularized. Marriage is the best (and the only legitimate one, if you're religious) environment in which to start a family and raise children. It provides stability and security, both financial and emotional, for the children as they develop and grow; these are things all people need, but especially children who are just starting to get a handle on the world around them. The state has an interest in healthy, stable families because a country needs to replace it's population to keep the economy and national defense going. A stable, healthy home environment is also necessary to prepare the child to be a productive member of society. Children from broken or otherwise chaotic homes have difficulty academically, which means they lack the knowledge and intellectual preparedness to contribute to society; in fact, if they lag too far behind, they will likely become a drag on society. Children from these environments also are far more likely to end up in trouble with the law and committing crimes; this means more taxpayer resources for law enforcement and the courts, in addition to the danger to the public (assault, rape, murder, etc) and the loss of private property (theft, vandalism).
Homosexual unions cannot create new life and cannot start their own families; the best they can do is adopt. Homosexual unions, even "committed" ones, have a low rate of monogamy and longevity. Even in countries where this sort of thing has been allowed for several years, very few unions last longer than a few years, and fewer still of those are monogamous--often with many sexual partners coming in and out of the relationship. This kind of sexual and relational chaos would be a terrible place to raise a child. Homosexual relationships also have much higher rates of domestic violence than heterosexual ones--another reason not to subject children to this. Homosexuals also have a much higher rate of STDs, AIDS, depression, substance abuse and suicide. Kids don't need to be around that, either. The case can be made that heterosexual unions aren't perfect either, and they aren't, but for all their flaws, they're still doing a lot better than relationships in the homosexual community. The abusive spouse example you mentioned does indeed undermine marriage, because it violates what should be a loving, trusting relationship. (But let me reiterate that it also takes more than simply a loving, trusting relationship to make a marriage; it still takes a man and a woman and a formal commitment, for all the reasons I've already mentioned).
As for the "agencies that work with children" that you asked about, these would include a number of groups, but especially agencies like child protective services, foster care and adoption agencies. There was a case not too long ago (in England, maybe?) where child protective services was grossly derelict in its duty, ignoring several reports of child abuse by a couple of homosexual males; they didn't do anything because they didn't want to seem "discriminatory" against the homosexuals. Also in England, a couple who have provided a foster home to many children had to quit helping children because the government required them to remain silent about their religious conviction about homosexuality. And within the last year, a Catholic adoption agency in Boston had to end it's adoption services because the state of Mass. required them to adopt to homosexual couples--in clear violation of their religion, and good common sense.
But the reasons for not recognizing homosexual unions as "marriage" go even beyond children and families.
When we allow something illegitimate to pass as what is legitimate, the genuine article is devalued. This is why counterfeiting our money is illegal. We lose confidence in and respect for the genuine article, and things cost more, and society at large is undermined by an atmosphere of mistrust. We wouldn't allow people to pass an oak leaf in place of a $20 bill--soon everyone would be passing oak leaves, and the real $20 wouldn't be worth much. And that's exactly what we're starting to see in some Scandanavian countries where they've been doing this for a few years. Marriage rates are plummeting (and with them, the commitments needed to raise healthy families and maintain stable societies) because people are realizing that if marriage can mean anything, it really means nothing.
I appreciate you raising these issues in a thoughtful manner, blackboy. They're important and with everything that's going on in California and across the country, people need to really think about them. They have ominous implications for our children, our freedoms, and our very civilization.
I'm gay. Why would I want to marry a woman?
Maybe because it's (1) moral, (2) healthy, (3) and the only way to enter into a real marriage.
If you don't want to do that, that's your prerogative. But we shouldn't demean, undermine and counterfeit the real thing in order to lend a false sense of legitimacy to something that will never have legitimacy.
It's moral for a gay man to marry a woman? That's news to me.
If marriage is as sacred and stable as you make it out to be, then where did all these screwed-up gay people come from? I guess from the "bad" marriages?
If marriage is as sacred and stable as you make it out to be, then where did all these screwed-up gay people come from? I guess from the "bad" marriages?
Can you explain how it would be immoral?
Well, let's imagine...
Assuming that the gay man is in the closet, then his wife has no idea that her husband is not attracted to her, and is thus being deceived. You and I have our differences, but I think we can agree that cheating someone out of the truth that they deserve is immoral.
Assuming that the gay man is open about his sexuality, then his wife KNOWS that he is not attracted to her, and could spend her entire marriage wondering if her husband is off having trysts with men. What's more, she entered into the contract of marriage with full knowledge that she cannot satisfy her husband sexually or romantically. On her part, this is an abuse of God's gift of marriage. So again, immoral.
Did I REALLY have to explain that?
You didn't make any of those stipulations the first time around.
If the homosexual man is deceiving his wife, then he's wrong for deceiving her.
If a man is married to a woman he's not attracted to then he (a) did something wrong by marrying her if he had no intention of honoring his marriage, or (b) should work on correcting the situation. If he has no intention of working on his problem, then he's also wrong. If the woman entered into this relationship knowing the man had no intention of honoring their marriage, then she's wrong, too.
But the fact that a man married a woman is not abusive of the institution of marriage in the least. He might be recovering from the sin of homosexuality, as some ex-homosexuals are.
Either way, there is nothing inherently wrong with a man marrying a woman (unless he's intentionally entering into it under false pretenses), but there is inherently something wrong, both by morality and by nature, with calling the union of two men or two women a "marriage." Only a man and a woman can be married, no matter what a pandering politician calls it.
Sorry, I didn't think I had to explain that if a man is homosexual, he is by definition not attracted to women.
Post a Comment