Who Obama Lost with Same Sex Marriage Endorsement

1. Independents President Obama's marriage announcement elated his base, but more moderate voters may be leaving him at the altar. According to Gallup's latest polling, the President's endorsement of same-sex "marriage" is a costly one--especially among Independent voters. Forty percent of adults say his position will affect their votes--and not the way Democrats had hoped. Of the 40%, 26% of adults said  they would be less likely to vote for Obama. What hurts more, from a campaign standpoint, is the number of Independents the President stands to lose from his "evolution." Twenty-three percent were instantly turned off by his new position and said they would be less likely to vote for him in November. As far as Gallup analyst Jeffrey Jones is concerned, the agenda is a "net minus" for Obama. Liberal ally Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) agrees. There was "no political calculus in this," she said on Fox News Sunday, "because it's not smart." 2. Black Christians And according to a growing number of black pastors, it's not biblical either. From Rev. Emmett Burns's church in Baltimore to Dr. Ken Hutcherson's in Washington State , the message from the pulpit was simple: we respect the President, but we cannot support what he has done. In an article about the storm brewing between the President and the African-American church, the New York Times highlighted a call that the White House made to pastors after his endorsement. "About two hours after declaring his support for same-sex 'marriage' last week, President Obama gathered eight or so African-American ministers on a conference call to explain himself... The ministers, though, were not all as enthusiastic. A vocal few made it clear that the President's stand on gay marriage might make it difficult for them to support his reelection." Even Republicans are starting to remember what a potent issue marriage can be in the electorate. Leaders like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) showed some strong reaction over the weekend to the President's agenda. "It did kind of bother me... that he used the justification for [redefining marriage] in a biblical reference... And I'm like: What version of the Bible is he reading?... We understand sin, and if we believe it's sin, we still understand that people sin. And we understand that we are not out there preaching some sort of hateful dogma against people. But that doesn't mean that we have to go ahead and give up our traditions. We've got 6,000 years of tradition. There's a lot of stability, even beyond religion, there's stability in the family unit. Just from an anthropological point of view, the family is a really important thing. We shouldn't just give up on it." 3. Marriage Supporters As the President's grasp on voters slips, so does his team's grip on campaign ethics. The Wall Street Journal is uncovering some shocking details about the intimidation tactics the President is using against Romney supporters. Last month, the Obama campaign launched a hit list called "Keeping the GOP Honest," aimed at destroying the businesses of Republican donors. One by one, the website listed Gov. Romney's largest contributors and publicly smeared them, and in some instances posted the citizens' personal information. "The attacks are working," said businessman Frank Vanderslook, whose business lost hundreds of clients after the Obama campaign accused him of being "a bitter foe of the gay rights movement." While these dirty tactics may help the campaign in the short-term, the damage  to the republic is irreversible. Our system of government works because people are able to participate in the voting process and the public square. When you cut citizens off with threats and marginalization, as the Left attempts to do, it undermines the effectiveness of the peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. It also undermines the President's credibility. "The dirt-digging exercise," which was so sleazy it included rummaging around donors' divorce files, "reflects the character of President Obama's reelection campaign," the Journal criticized, "as well as what's really behind his drive for more 'transparency' in political donations."

Should Christians Oppose Same-Sex Marriage? Old Testament Relevance

from Michael Horton's blog

OK, so we know what Christian marriage is. We preach that, teach it, and expect believers to embrace Scripture’s instructions regarding sexual conduct, although we are still sinners who must continually repent, trust in Christ, and receive his pardon. Got it. But what about the public argument?

As I said in the last one, we aren’t authorized to speak in God’s name where he hasn’t spoken, but we are commanded to do so wherever he has. This is where it gets dicier, though. I’d like to frame my response, first off, in terms of two extremes that we have to avoid:

1. Treating references to homosexuality in the Old Testament as either irrelevant or directly applicable to the current question.
You see this in public debates of the issue, where extremists on both sides talk over (and past) each other. One thing they often share in common is interest in quoting passages from the Old Testament on the question. Then the person on the left reminds us that the sanction mentioned is stoning. “Do you want to stone gays?”, one shouts. “No, but I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality.” “Well, right next to that verse it says that you should stone disobedient children—Oh, and not eat pork, and not touch a woman who is having her period.” Bottom line: the skills of biblical interpretation are about equally as bad on both sides of the table.

The statements in Leviticus are part of the Mosaic covenant. They pertain uniquely to the covenant that God made with Israel as a nation. The laws that governed every aspect of private and public life, cult and culture, were a unique episode in redemptive history. Their divine purpose cannot be rationalized in terms of sanitation, public health, or personal well-being. The whole focus was on God and his desire to separate Israel from the nations, preparing the way for the Messiah to come from her womb. Therefore, there is no more biblical warrant for stoning homosexuals today than there is for avoiding Scottish cuisine.

If there’s every reason to distinguish these two covenants, we have to be very careful nonetheless that we don’t make the opposite interpretive blunder of contrasting the Old and New Testaments on the question of homosexual practice itself. I’ve heard of late several times committed Christians acknowledging that the Old Testament forbids it, but the New Testament is silent. It’s “mean Moses” versus “nice Jesus”: a familiar but completely baseless contrast. Affirming that the the civil laws are now obsolete doesn’t mean that the rationale explicitly given for some of these laws should be disregarded, especially when God singles some acts out not simply as dependent on God’s will for that time and place, but as “abominations.” Homosexuality is included in that list, as it is also in the New Testament (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10—right up there with “murders, enslavers, liars, and perjurers”). The church does not have the power of the sword in the new covenant. Nevertheless, God’s statement on the matter is pretty clear: he hates homosexuality. It violates the natural order—reflecting the extent to which fallen humanity will go to suppress the truth—even that which can be known by reason—in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18-32).

Jesus brings forgiveness of sins, not a new—supposedly easer, happier, more fulfilling law. In fact, he upbraids the lax view of divorce tolerated in his day. Jesus does not ground marriage between a man and a woman in the Mosaic covenant—or in the new covenant, but returns to the order of created nature: “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate’” (Mat 19:4-6).

It should be added that Paul’s point in Romans 1-3 is to sweep the whole world—Jew and Gentile—into a heap, condemned under the law, in order to announce that Christ is the Savior of all, Jew and Gentile, and justifies the ungodly who trust in him. We are all called to repent—lifelong repentance, in fact. In this, as in everything, we fall short; our imperfect repentance would be enough to condemn us if we weren’t clothed in Christ’s righteousness. However, to repent is to acknowledge that God is right and we are wrong—on the specifics of precisely where we want to assert our sovereignty.

A Former Homosexual Speaks Out Part 2

Obama’s Homosexual America: Christianity is Next

"For decades, liberals - aided and abetted by the popular culture - have been bringing homosexuality into the mainstream. It is slowly being promoted in public schools and constantly being glamorized in television shows and movies.

The more the homosexual agenda is spread, the more militant its advocates become. They no longer want toleration. They seek full social acceptance.

Once marriage falls, only one institution will be left standing in their way: traditional Christianity.

The ultimate aim of the radical left has been to destroy religion - especially Western Christendom.

Once a religion dies, so does the culture and civilization it spawned.

America is at a crossroads, enmeshed in a cultural war with homosexual advocates like Mr. Obama who are determined to strike at the very nexus of our civilization."

Read FULL ARTICLE