Sam Logan, past president and chancellor of WTS, on
homosexual marriage (Facebooks excerpts). Why are Christians who ought to know
better so morally confused about morally unambiguous issues?
Sam Logan via Jim Cassidy
- Boz Tchividjian likes this.
Talbot Logan To reduce the legal issue to "access to basic rights" I think it not an accurate nor fair summation. There are currently in excess of 1000 Federal benefits that are denied to same sex couples including Social Security survivor benefits, the right to inherit from a spouse, mandated family medical leave, partner immigration protection, tax on health benefits etc. Federal benefits are even more important for military personnel and government employees whose same-sex spouses are not accorded the same benefits. That is why this is an important issue.- Talbot Logan There is not a call to ask any religious institution to change their views or their definitions of their tenets. But unfortunately, the government has already redefined marriage by offering specific protections under the law and it is that "meaning" that needs to change. And as a gay may, I deny the author's denial that "changing the meaning of the word will improve the acceptance of gays in society". Many social injustices have been corrected by taking words and phrases that have been exclusionary and even hateful and redefining and/or eliminating. I deny that the author, since he is not a gay man, can even understand that what I don't want is access to basic social “rights.” I want to be treated with the same dignity and respect and protection as every American. That I believe is a God-given and inalienable right and supports the greatest commandment of "love thy neighbor as thyself". Far from "basic".
Sam Logan Very good clarifications, my son. THANK YOU! I agree with you that what our government has done is "unfortunate." I agree that this needs to change and I support that change in every way that I can. I agree that, no matter what they think about gay marriage, evangelical Christians (starting with your father) need to be much more agressive and creative in "loving ALL of our neighbors" as ourselves. We/I have done a terrible job at that, not just with respect to gays but also with respect to the poor, to those of different races, AND to those of different religions (including Muslims, who probably are more discriminated against in our society than any other single group). And, as you will have note in my comments about this piece, I think its strongest point is what it says about how the greatest damage to the institution of marriage has been done by heterosexuals. So THANK YOU for your corrections and clarifications!
*****************************************
As a friend of mine pointed out:
Interestingly enough, James Taranto at the Wall Street
Journal already rebutted this claim back on January 16th, by citing a
correspondent:
<<<You quoted Lisa Arnold and Christina Campbell as complaining that "more than 1,000 laws provide overt legal or financial benefits to married couples."This is a false statement that has propagated through many news reports and opinion pieces. I can't be certain where Arnold and Campbell got it, but I'll bet it is based on a misreading of this report and its antecedents, widely and inaccurately referenced in Defense of Marriage Act arguments.This document merely lists 1,138 "federal laws in which marital status is a factor." It includes entries for which marriage confers neither benefit or penalty, many in which marriage is penalized, and very few in which married couples get benefits. Here's a sample of entries in the document:• Mail-order bride business (Category 6, Title 8, Part IX, § 1375)• Eligibility under first-time home-buyer programs (two singles get $16,000 but a married couple gets $8000)• Gold Star Wives of America• Membership of Martin Luther King, Jr., Federal Holiday CommissionThe fact is that taxes make marriage extremely expensive for almost all successful opposite-sex couples, more so if they have children, even more so under the new Obama tax rates. Income tax liability is generally lower (not higher, as Arnold and Campbell assert) for unmarried earners, and lower still for single parents than married parents.The only notable exception to the marriage penalty is for same-sex married couples in community property states, who (thanks to DOMA) divide their income 50/50 and file single or single head-of-household returns--which always saves them a bundle compared to any other tax status.>>>
Taranto comments: "Some of those gays may be in for an
unpleasant surprise if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA."
*******************************************************
I’m grateful that Westminster Seminary is under new
management.
(Sung to the tune of Kermit the Frog's "It Ain't Easy Being Green")
ReplyDeleteIt's not that easy being a middle-class WASP
Having to spend each day guilty over being less cool than my son
When I think it could be nicer being poor, gay, or Muslim
Or something much more colorful like that.
It's not easy being a middle-class WASP
It seems you blend in with so many other ordinary things
And people tend to pass you over 'cause you're
Not standing out wearing flashy sparkling speedos in the water
Or aren't as cool and hip and sick as Rob Portman and his son.
But WASP is the color of a yellow spring
And WASPs can be fun and friendly-like
And WASPs can be Obama too, or important
Like a same-sex marriage act, or visionary like a jihadi.
When WASP is all there is to be
It could make you wonder why, but why wonder why
Wonder, I am WASP and it'll do fine, it's beautiful
And I think it's what I want to be!