web analytics

Don’t Miss an Update! -Subscribe:

Follow AforFaith on Twitter

Categories

vineyard-roll.gif

Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Malware Free Guarantee

SiteLock

Join Our Facebook Network

Visitor Map

Locations of visitors to this page

-A Black Pastor’s Group Asks Obama to Reconsider on Same-Sex Marriage

by Dr. D ~ May 18th, 2012

20120517CAAP

A group of Black pastors has responded to President Obama’s recent support of same-sex marriage. In a formal letter they are asking him to reconsider his stand.

From Citizen Link News:

A national group of black clergymen is asking President Obama to reconsider his support for same-sex marriage.

In a formal letter issued on Tuesday, the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) wrote, “We cannot and will not remain silent while marriage, the most fundamental institution in our — and any — nation, is undermined by our own President while using Christian language and relating it to civil rights.”

CAAP also is taking issue with the “unacceptable” way gay activists continually link their issues with the Civil Rights movement.

“For activists, politicians — and now the highest office in the nation to link sexual behavior God calls sin to the righteous cause Martin Luther King gave his life for is abominable in and of itself,” Rev. William Owens, Sr., CAAP’s  founder and president, wrote in a statement. “There is no civil right to do what God calls wrong.”

The group also noted that the President was losing some support for his re-election among African Americans over this issue.

Response: The Coalition makes 3 important points in their letter to the President:

1. Marriage is the most fundamental institution in our nation or any other nation for that matter

2. President Obama added insult to injury by using Christian language and scriptures to support his change and new stand.

3. The President, politicians, and gay rights activists have continually linked their cause to establish same-sex marriage with the the Civil Rights movement which they not only find as unacceptable but rebellion against God.

The statement by Rev. Owen is particularly bold on this issue:

“There is no civil right to do what God calls wrong.”

This coalition of pastors leave no doubt where they stand on this issue in the strongest possible language.             *Top

>>>Don't Miss an Update!**CLICK NOW**Get ANSWERS For The Faith by email<<<

2 Responses to -A Black Pastor’s Group Asks Obama to Reconsider on Same-Sex Marriage

  1. Brian

    And here is what Obama thinks:

    “In one Statement of Administration of Policy, the White House Office of Management & Budget objects to anti-gay provisions in the House version of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill. The legislation authorizes $642 billion in annual funds for defense programs and troop pay.

    The House Armed Services Committee adopted the anti-gay provisions into the defense bill last week. They are Section 536, which provides “conscience protections” for chaplains and troops whose religious beliefs are opposed to homosexuality, and Section 537, which prohibits same-sex marriage ceremonies from taking place on base. The White House goes so far as to say Section 537 is “potentially unconstitutional.”

    “The Administration strongly objects to sections 536 and 537 because those provisions adopt unnecessary and ill-advised policies that would inhibit the ability of same-sex couples to marry or enter a recognized relationship under State law,” the statement says. “Section 536 would prohibit all personnel-related actions based on certain religious and moral beliefs, which, in its overbroad terms, is potentially harmful to good order and discipline. Section 537 would obligate DOD to deny Service members, retirees, and their family members access to facilities for religious ceremonies on the basis of sexual orientation, a troublesome and potentially unconstitutional limitation on religious liberty.”

    The White House issued a veto threat over the bill if it “impede[s] the ability of the Administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources for defense purposes.”

  2. Ken

    The first part of section 536 potentially sends the military into turmoil, because it allows servicemembers to harass each other physically and verbally as long as they have a religious excuse. This is a major change from current military discipline. Infighting among the troops would disable the military if the current generation were intolerant. The ills of repealing DADT did not come true; this is evidently an attempt to make it come true. It will fail to do that even if passed.

    The “protection” for military chaplains is alarmist, because it is, has been, and always well be impossible to compel a clergyman to perform a religious rite. Clergy are not now forced against their will to marry heterosexuals. Baptist pastors can marry people whom Catholic pastors do not marry; there’s no problem with that. Same-sex weddings are no different. Chaplains of fertility cults and other sex-based religions, like the Catholic Church, can turn them down. That’s the way our nation works. This is just alarmist talk to play to the peanut gallery.

    Section 537 restricts the freedom of religion of servicemembers and their religious groups from equal access to government facilities, and from performing religious ceremonies (violates the free exercise clause), and it also imposes the will of some churches on others (violation of establishment clause. Right now, military facilities are neutral grounds. A baptist chaplain can marry a couple that would not qualify for Catholic marriage. This is provision is nakedly unconstitutional, but it plays to the peanut gallery.

    The Catholic Church is not being persecuted if other churches don’t want Catholic canon law imposed on them in civil law. There is not and never has been a freedom to impose a church’s rules on non-members. It is not being persecuted because it is not the state church and cannot set public policy. it is the Catholic Church that is out of line.

    These sections are harmful, pointless, and unconstitutional. They are designed not for the military, but to convince the electorate that the Republicans are protecting us from an imaginary domestic enemy.

Leave a Reply