July 30, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

May 6, 2012


Al Mohler:  Bigotry on the Ballot? No, Dishonesty in the Editorial

From Christianpost.com

The paper has every right to editorialize as it chooses, and an editorial against Amendment One is no surprise to any informed reader of that paper. But look closely at the language used. The effort to limit marriage to the union of a man and a woman is described as “obvious discrimination.”

That is meant to insinuate that the effort is therefore wrong, and even immoral. But that is just not intellectually honest. Discrimination - even “obvious discrimination” - is not necessarily wrong at all. Indeed, any sane society discriminates at virtually every turn, as do individuals. The law is itself an instrument of comprehensive discrimination. We classify some crimes as misdemeanors and others as felonies. We allow some persons to teach in our schools, but not others. We recognize certain persons as citizens, but not others. 

 


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

12 comments

An excellent summary by Dr. Mohler.  The charges of “bigotry” and flying here in North Carolina, along with blatant dishonesty from amendment opponents.  They claim all sorts of negative consequences will flow from the amendment, but cannot point to any in states which already have constitutional prohibitions of same-sex marriage.  The second sentence of the amendment (which does not appear on the ballot but will become law) specifically protects the rights of private parties to make contracts and to have those contracts enforced at law, which means charges that companies will not be able to offer partner benefits if they choose to are false.

As Dr. Mohler points out, the wider risk of changing the definition of marriage is the legitimization of polygamy and polyamory.

Early voting turnout has been very heavy, remarkably so for a primary election, and amendment opponents are worried.

[1] Posted by Katherine on 5-7-2012 at 07:29 AM · [top]

I have to sadly admit that I believe the fight to preserve the definition of marriage has finally been lost.  We lost because so many of us Christians were not willing to admit when the fight really began.  It did not begin with the growing voice in favor of “gay rights” and the demand for so called marriage equality.  It began when marriage was no longer seen as having a primary purpose of the having and rearing of children.  When the procreative & unitive (sp) purposes of marriage are separated in the name of personal freedom it can come as no surprise that marriage is soon regarded as having as its only purpose the personal individual happiness of the couple. If personal happiness and sexual satisfaction are the end points of marriage and the reason for its existence we can not be shocked when it is no longer considered a contribution to the common good.

Marriage that is defined by these criteria is a strictly personal affair, wanting government sanction only to secure monetary and other tangible benefits.  No longer is there a question of the State benefiting from giving special status to the union of a man and woman pledged to stay together for all their lives with the added expectation of having and rearing children.  That was a very public affair and society supported this because it was a given that such a union was beneficial to the common good.

But too many people now thanks to the lies spread first by feminists and now by GLBTQWTH have no concept that marriage should by its very purpose be discriminatory.  This was true even when it is restricted to monogamous heterosexuals.  It is discriminatory because what is at stake is the future of civilization,  The health and welfare of children, the financial stability of families and the protection of women. 

I believe this battle has been lost in society at large.  What remains is the battle for the soul of Christianity that we fight to keep the churches from lockstepping with the culture on this issue.

[2] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 5-7-2012 at 08:43 AM · [top]

We have been watching this play out on the local news. I can’t say that I will be surprised whatever the outcome of the vote.

[3] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 5-7-2012 at 02:40 PM · [top]

Polls show the amendment solidly ahead, Undergroundpewster.  However, there’s not a heavily contested Republican race for either governor or presidential nominee, while there is a Democratic primary for governor which is close.  Nobody really knows who’s turned out already and who will tomorrow.

[4] Posted by Katherine on 5-7-2012 at 03:45 PM · [top]

A final poll before today’s primary shows the marriage amendment solidly ahead, 55% for and 39% opposed.  63% of African Americans polled favor the amendment, and there may be a significant turnout there because of the Democratic primary for an open governor’s race.

[5] Posted by Katherine on 5-8-2012 at 03:28 PM · [top]

This map tells the tale this morning:

http://www.wral.com/news/political/page/10991843/

[6] Posted by SandraK on 5-9-2012 at 06:53 AM · [top]

SandraK, can you break it down for those who don’t know the state well?  The “no” votes are localized around what?  Larger cities?  Universities?  What?

[7] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 5-9-2012 at 07:11 AM · [top]

That is indeed a very interesting map. The large (i.e. liberal) cities were outvoted by the smaller, more rural (i.e. more conservative) counties. Interesting indeed!

[8] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 5-9-2012 at 07:13 AM · [top]

The counties that voted against the amendment are home to the large cities which tend to be more liberal.  Buncombe county is Asheville, Wake, Orange Chatham counties are Raleigh Durham area.Mecklenburg is Charlotte. etc.

[9] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 5-9-2012 at 07:15 AM · [top]

SC blu cat lady is correct…Watauga Co. is home of Appalachian State Uni.  The vote was close there and not as wide as I expected in Buncombe (Asheville). I think you can see votes against are centered in largest cities and universitiy areas. Notice the vote in New Hanover County in the east (Wilmington).

[10] Posted by SandraK on 5-9-2012 at 08:05 AM · [top]

Thanks, SandraK. I was wondering what was Watauga County. I find it interesting that all the other counties out voted what is often seen as the majority of the population in big cities. Of course not necessarily every voter in those counties who voted against it, voted the same way.  Very interesting indeed. Power to the people!

[11] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 5-9-2012 at 10:45 AM · [top]

Interesting that Forsyth county voted for it i.e. Winston-Salem.

[12] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 5-9-2012 at 10:49 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.