Tag: Gay Marriage

You Say You Want an Evolution…

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

demrepA very strange phenomenon has been occurring, involving Capitol Hill Politicians…on both sides of the aisle.

The people who owe their livelihoods to us are doing an about-face in their views on the core principles which got them elected to office in the first place. It doesn’t matter what political promises were made on the campaign trail to the folks back home.

However, they’re not just simply changing their minds. They’re evolving. Republicans are evolving into Democrats and Democrats are evolving into socialists.

A social/cultural evolution, if you will.

I would say, let the professional politicians make fools of themselves, and throw themselves and whatever principles they have left into the Potomac River. The only problem is…they’re taking us with them.

For example…

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is “evolving” on the issue of gay marriage, but she has stopped short of joining the other senator from Alaska, Mark Begich, D-Alaska, in endorsing it.

Following an address at the Chugiak-Eagle River Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, she said, “The term ‘evolving view’ has been perhaps overused, but I think it is an appropriate term for me to use,” Murkowski said, according to the Chugiak-Eagle River Star. “I think it’s important to acknowledge that there is a change afoot in this country in terms of how marriage is viewed.”

Murkowski said she is reviewing her stance on the issue.

“It may be that Alaska will come to revisit its position on gay marriage, and as a policy maker I am certainly reviewing that very closely,” Murkowski said, indicating that she had spoken to her two sons about the issue.

“I’ve got two young sons who, when I ask them and their friends how they feel about gay marriage, kinda give me one of those looks like, ‘Gosh mom, why are you even asking that question?’”

In an interview with Alaska Public radio she expanded even more, indicating a softening of the issue.

“I think you are seeing a change in attitude, change in tolerance, I guess, and an acceptance that what marriage should truly be about is a lasting, loving, committed relationship with respect to the individual,” Murkowski said.

If she does flip, she would joined Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, as the only other Republican senator to back same-sex marriage. Begich, the Democratic junior senator from Alaska, flipped and endorsed same-sex marriage earlier this week.

Murkowski spokesperson Matthew Felling confirmed to ABC News that Murkowski’s views are the same as what she told the Alaska media and that she does not currently support gay marriage, but that she is reviewing the issue.

In 1998, Alaska passed an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Evidently, those brilliant minds that are up there breathing the heady air of the Beltway, simply have no choice but to evolve…away from the beliefs of their constituency.

The Guardian (UK) thinks that the Republicans should go squish…when they walk. Of course, Sharia Law is taking over the United Kingdom.

The one area where moderates are increasingly willing to speak up in a consistent way is on social issues. I used to live in the region that Dent represents. It’s certainly conservative area, but, increasingly, I would hear voters say something to the effect of, “I’m fiscally conservative, but and socially liberal or libertarian.” In other words, their economic beliefs lean Republican, their social values Democratic.

The fiscal issues and desire for a “smaller government” would often win out when it came time to vote, but it was notable that there was a growing acceptance – or at least tolerance – on issues like gay marriage. As Dent says:

“I hear from a lot of younger people who identify that way. There’s certainly room in the party for people like that – or there should be.”

It might explain why Dent has been one of the more vocal House Republicans supporting the Violence Against Women Act.

Moderate congressmen and governors can have a real impact on policy right now. They hold more power than they realize, and they might actually be able to change their party for the better. It starts with speaking up.

So what is all of this “evolving”into squishy mounds of Jello getting Republicans? The eternal gratitude of the Democrats, that’s what. Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast has some advice for the GOP:

Moderate Republicans, and even mainstream conservative Republicans who want to see Washington function again, should get together to form and fund a network of organizations that will pursue four goals:

First, just make moderate Republicanism visible again. Launch a public-awareness campaign. Get a television show. Or at least get a stable of people to go on the other shows. Let Americans know that the viewpoint even exists.

Second, start an organization to recruit young people, activists of all ages, and potential candidates. Start college campus clubs and newspapers or magazines. Host big conferences in Washington and elsewhere. Give people a sense of an extant community.

Third, start running some primaries against some hard-right people in districts where victory is possible. Admittedly, there are many states and districts where there’s no chance in blazes that a moderate could beat a conservative. Many state parties have been captured lock, stock, and barrel by the Tea Party, even in liberal states (Maine). But there are some places where moderates could win. And the Tea Party may be fading.

Fourth, set up a big think tank in Washington to advance more moderate policy ideas and, just as importantly, to urge moderation in tactics as well—that is, more civility, such that every single vote isn’t a matter of warfare.

 

By moving toward Moderation and “Fiscal Conservatism only” (and, not much of that) Republicans are becoming lemmings, following the Democratic Party straight over the cliff.

I say that it’s time that the Republican Party turns back to what won them elections: Conservatism.

Back in 1979, the Iranian Hostage Crisis was all over the news. President Carter could do nothing to stop it. Americans were beaten down with insecurity and malaise. Sound familiar?

They were waiting for someone to tell them what they needed to hear.  That man was Ronald Reagan.  He told Americans that it was okay to believe in themselves again.  He proudly declared that the United States was a “shining city on a hill” whose best days were still ahead. The usual pseudo-intellectuals labelled him as too extreme and simplistic. The American people decided not to listen to them.   Reagan defeated Carter in a landslide, winning 44 million votes, or 50.7 percent, and 489 electoral votes to Carter’s 35.5 million votes, or 41 percent, and only 44 electoral votes. It put a sudden halt to the out-of-control locomotive that Franklin Roosevelt rode toward ever-bigger government and tore asunder FDR’s political coalition that had smothered the politics of America for most of the previous half-century.

Reagan never forgot who he was and where he came from. That is what endeared him to the majority of Americans.  On Election Day, when  a journalist asked Reagan what Americans saw in him, he asked:

Would you laugh if I told you that I think, maybe, they see themselves and that I’m one of them? ”I’ve never been able to detach myself or think that I, somehow, am apart from them.

Compare that statement to those of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  I dare you.

He was the oldest person ever elected president for a first term, but in the end Americans didn’t seem to mind because he was in such good health and looked much younger than his 68 years.  From the start, this humble man made his intentions very clear.  He would roll back communism where possible, strengthen national defense, cut taxes, and stop or slow the growth of government. Many disagreed with the details of his policies, but they accepted the direction he was setting and liked his positive, decisive leadership.

It was not coincidental that President Reagan’s rise in politics happened at the same time as the ascension of the religious right, the term given to millions of Christian Conservative voters who held the balance of power in many states.   Under Reagan,these people, like myself, became much more active in politics.

That is what is needed now. Strong Conservative Leadership. Reagan-esqe, three-legged stool Conservative Leadership.

Now, that would be evolution.

Americans deserve nothing less.

Until He Comes,

KJ

KJ’s State of the Union. Easter Week 2013 Edition.

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

obamamyworkWould somebody tell me “What in the Wide, Wide, World of Sports is a’goin’ on here”?

This is Easter/Passover Week, the most holy week in the Judeo-Christian Calendar.

For Jews, Passover is observed as a remembrance of  when God  delivered them  from Pharoah and spared the captive Jewish people from the Angel of Death, by having them paint Lamb’s Blood on the frame of their doors.

For us Christians,Easter serves as a observance of the Love of our Savior, a special time to remember that the Lamb of God was nailed to a cross on the hill known as Golgotha, where he took our sins upon him and covered us with His Precious Blood.

While my faith in Christ offers me a peace beyond all understanding, my soul is stirred with anger, exasperation, and disgust with the current situation in this sacred land, given to us by God Almighty.

The Leader of our country, Barack Hussein Obama, spent the last week in the Holy Land, where he attempted to convince God’s Chosen People to give away half of their nation, which God has given them, to The Palestinians, a nomadic group of gypsies, who have never had a country of their own, and who, as judged by their leaders in Hamas, would rather kill the Israelis than live beside them.

As I have chronicled, Obama met with Hamas Leaders, even before he left on his trip. He then met with college kids over there, using the same strategy he’s always used, attempting to sway the malleable young minds of Israeli “yutes”, as he swayed ours.

Finally, last Friday, it was announced that Obama has “freed up” $500 million and will be giving it to the Palestinian Authority.

The Muslim Call to Prayer must be “one of the prettiest sounds on the face of the Earth” because it has enthralled Obama into betraying our friends and his own nation by supporting and giving beau coups of money to those who want to kill each and every one of us.

While Obama is aiding and abetting our enemies, back home, our country is still feeling the manufactured pinch of a presidentially-instigated Sequestration. The White House is still closed to the American People, for tours. Our Armed Forces are still suffering from limited benefits, and the fate of the annual White House Easter Egg Hunt has been in question.

But, hey. Don’t worry. Our money is being used for important stuff. As I write this, the Obama Girls, Sasha and Malia, are having a kick-butt vacation in Atlantis, a swanky resort down in the Bahamas.

Lucky girls. Most American kids are having a Spring Break Stay-cation this year, thanks to their Dad’s poor stewardship of America’s Economy.

Meanwhile, back in DC, the Supreme Court is set to hear two cases concerning the oxymoron known as “gay marriage”. According to what I’ve been reading, Chief Justice John Roberts ‘ (You remember him…they guy who betrayed Americans over Obamacare) gay cousin, will be attending the hearings with her whatever.

There is also a bunch of buzz circulating as to whether Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself, since it is obvious that she bats from the other side of the plate.

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen, y’all.

Gay marriage activists and their Liberal friends, on both sides of the aisle, have been telling everyone who will listen, that a ruling in favor of “gay marriage” will have no effect on us heterosexuals, whatsoever.

What they don’t tell you, is that it is just the first step down a slippery slope. Next, Preachers will not be able to preach against homosexuality from the pulpit. It’s already happening in Canada.

Also, adoption agencies will be forced to allow gay couples to adopt.  If you are an adoption agency funded by a church, you will either have to go against your belief system or shut down, just as Obama is attacking Catholic institutions over the government subsidized Birth Control/Abortion clauses in Obamacare.

Finally, as I sit here, I realize how grateful I am that God loved me so much that he gave his only-begotten son, to suffer and die for my sake.

I am also grateful to have been born in the Southern Region of the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

The freedom we enjoy as Americans is a gift from our Creator. However, as I’ve mentioned before, with that freedom comes responsibility.

Senator Rand Paul has made news the last couple of days, with the assertion that we should not be putting in jail, those young Americans who have been arrested on their first Drug Offense. Well, here’s the kicker: That doesn’t usually happen. On the first offense, violators are usually given a fine, community service, probation, or all three. Drug violators are usually sentenced to jail time when they are repeat offenders.

That being said, there are folks in America who want and love our freedom, but, seem to be allergic to the responsibilities that go with it. You know, the whole personal responsibility thingy. You have folks who believe that they are, in fact, an island, in the middle of society. Their actions hurt no one but themselves. And, whatever the situation is, if it’s illicit drugs or promiscuous sex, it harms no one, but themselves. Never mind their family, friends, and neighbors. They just don’t matter. No one is as important as they believe themselves to be.

Now, you could say that I’m a crazy old coot who doesn’t trust anybody under 40, as somebody said about me recently. In fact, I do trust several Americans under 40, including, but not limited to, 3 young men I raised as my own,  my darling daughter, friends at work, folks I attend church with, and my new neighbors, a wonderful young couple with a 9 month old baby (which I hope we’ll get to baby-sit).

It’s just that I have the benefit of those extra years, and the mistakes and life experiences that go with them. No man is an island. No man stands alone. Everything you do, directly or indirectly, eventually has an effect on someone else.

Accept the responsibility that comes with your freedom as an American, to yourself and others within your sphere of influence.

For, as Benjamin Franklin once said, what we have is a Republic. If, we can keep it.

Until He Comes,

KJ

“I Am Not A Dictator; I’m The President” …Really?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics3 Comments

obamaburningconstitutionYeah. And, Nixon was not a crook.

That was  a proclamation uttered by the 45th leader of our nation, spoken during a press conference held yesterday, as his plans to tax Americans more were thwarted by Capital Hill Republicans, who finally found their collective spine.

Fox News reports

President Obama signed an order authorizing the government to begin cutting $85 billion from federal accounts, officially enacting across-the-board spending reductions.

Obama acted Friday, the deadline for the president and Congress to avoid the steep, one-year cuts.

The president placed blame squarely on Republican lawmakers at a Friday press conference for failing to stop automatic spending cuts that were to begin kicking in later in the day, calling the cuts “dumb, arbitrary.”

Republicans, for their part, said the fault was his, for insisting that increased taxes be part of the resolution

The president said the impact of the cuts won’t immediately be felt, but middle class families will begin to “have their lives disrupted in significant ways.” He said that as long as the cuts stay in effect, Americans will know that the economy could have been better had they been averted.

“The pain, though, will be real,” Obama said.

He said he still believed the cuts could be replaced but he wanted a deal that includes more tax revenue.

“Let’s be clear: None of this is necessary,” Obama told reporters at the White House. “It’s happening because of a choice that Republicans in Congress have made. We shouldn’t be making a series of dumb, arbitrary cuts to things.”

Obama met for less than an hour Friday morning with House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

Boehner’s office said he and McConnell told Obama they’re willing to close tax loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders have agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government beyond the end of March while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner’s office said.

“The president got his tax hikes on January 1st,” Boehner said bluntly after the meeting with Obama. “The discussion about revenue in my view is over. It’s about taking on the spending problem here in Washington.”

On Thursday, two proposals aimed at blunting the blame over the cuts — one Democratic and the other Republican — were rejected in the Senate.

Sequestration is just the latest in a long line of actions (or inactions) by President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) that could be called incompetent and best…and dictatorial , at worst.

Since low information voters re-elected the Manchurian President, he has blatantly attacked average American citizens, in a manner reminiscent of a “benevolent” dictator.

Let”s examine some of his benevolence:

1. Attacking a Free Press – Obama has always been very petulant and condescending toward those who disagree with his brilliance. He spent his first term as president in a constant war with Fox News and Conservative Talk Radio,. Now, he has upped the ante by attacked famed Liberal Journalistic Icon Bob Woodward, of Watergate Fame, who dared to point out the ‘madness” of the Petulant President. Since Woodward’s truth-telling, he has been the target of a smear campaign by Obama’s ministers of propaganda, who have called him everything by a child of God. The Emperor has no clothes!

2. Attacking American Citizens – Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have ruled that it is perfectly legal for unmanned drones to assassinate American citizens anywhere around the globe, if it is deemed that they are an “Enemy of the State”. Unthinkable? Wait…there’s more.  These same unmanned drones will be flying in the skies above our homes! SkyNet has become aware.

3. Attacking Christianity – Under the guise of the implementation of Obamacare, Catholic Hospitals are being told that they have to provide free contraception, including the abortiafacient known as the Morning After Pill, an egregious slap in the face to these institutions and a blatant attack on their denomination’s beliefs. Castro turned on the Church also, after he became dictator.

3. Attacking Christianity, Part 2 – Obama is pushing the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the redefinition of a centuries-old word, which is defined as a sacred bond, established by God, between a man and a woman.”Gay marriage, a contradiction in terms, would begin a descent down a slippery slope, regardless of the current national meme, offered by “the smartest people in the room”. Caligula’s Horse approves.

5. Attacking the Constitution – Obama and his lackeys has seized upon the mass murder of children, committed by a psychopath, in Newtown, Connecticut, to launch an all-out offensive against Americans’ Second Amendment Rights to keep and bare arms. Under the rallying cry of “It’s for the children”, ignorant Leftists across the country have joined arm-in-arm, marching lockstep, to take away those eviiil guns from law-abiding citizens, while ignoring those who are actually killing our children.  They don’t don’t call them outlaws, for nothin’. 

The greatest American President in our lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan had this to say concerning our country’s present plight:

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

My bride and I are keeping our 5 year old grandson, Robert, this weekend. I wonder what kind of country will be left for him, if average Americans do not push back against the Machiavellian schemes of this Manchurian President.

We must take a stand against the Tyranny of the Minority.

We must take a stand for Liberty and Traditional American Values.

It’s for the children.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Tim Tebow, Barack Obama, and Me

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, PoliticsLeave a comment

American ChristianityTim Tebow, back-up Quarterback for the New Yorlk Jets, has caught a lot of flack in his professional football career for his stance as an Evangelical Christian. However, this last week, Tebow uncharacteristically backed out of a commitment to speak at First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

Senior Minister, Robert Jeffress, is no stranger to public controversy. His sound bites are often incendiary, but his convictions, including the exclusivity of the gospel and the belief that homosexual behaviors are sinful,are well within the mainstream beliefs of American Evangelical Christians.

Perhaps, it was because the public outcry, from those who seem to be always concerned, was deafening.

Gregg Doyel of CBS Sports warned, “Tim Tebow is about to make the biggest mistake of his life” by speaking at “a hateful Baptist preacher’s church.” Doyel described Jeffress as “an evangelical cretin” guilty of serial hate speech. Of course, Doyel engaged in hateful and slanderous speech of his own by associating Jeffress with the truly hateful Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Jeffress “isn’t as bad as Westboro,” Doyel admitted, “But he comes close. Too close.”

Other sportswriters piled on. Benjamin Hochman of The Denver Post offered his own warning to Tebow: “After a season on the sidelines, the ball’s in your hands, Timmy. Better not fumble this one.”

The controversy threatened to dominate Tebow’s life, so the 25-year-old athlete withdrew, attempting to escape his predicament. Stating that he has wished to “share a message of hope and Christ’s unconditional love” with the historic congregation, Tebow said that “due to new information that was brought to my attention” he has decided to cancel the event. He then pledged to use “the platform God has blessed me with to bring Faith, Hope, and Love to all those needing a brighter day.”

If Tebow meant to mollify his critics, it is not likely to work for long. Tebow has identified himself as a vocal evangelical believer. His church roots go deep, and it is safe to say that he has never had a pastor who, though speaking in a different tone, would have disagreed with Jeffress on the exclusivity of Christ and the sinfulness of homosexuality. He has given no indication that he has moved from those convictions, and his closest friends assure that he has not.

Writing at The Huffington Post, Paul Brandeis Raushenbush made it clear the controversy wasn’t just a matter of Jeffress’s tone, conceding, “while Dr. Jeffress has a tendency not to sugarcoat his feelings,” he is nonetheless voicing what evangelical Christians “have been saying for a long time.” The central scandal here is the belief that Jesus is the only Savior and that homosexual behavior is sin. In terms of the larger public debate, it is the issue of homosexuality that has predominated the larger public debate… at least for now.

The Tebow controversy comes just weeks after evangelical pastor Louie Giglio withdrew from delivering a prayer at President Barack Obama’s second inaugural ceremony. Giglio had been “outed” as having preached a message almost 20 years ago that affirmed the sinfulness of homosexuality and stressed that the “only way out of a homosexual lifestyle… is through the healing power of Jesus.”

NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, is a good friend and huge supporter of President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm). Perhaps, Tebow was acting on orders from the Office of the Commissioner…and protecting his job.

In a related story, foxnews.com reports,

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to strike down the federal law defining marriage as a union between only a man and a woman.

The request regarding the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was made Friday in a brief by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that argues the law is unconstitutional because it violates “the fundamental guarantee of equal protection.”

The high court is set to hear two cases next month on the issue: the constitutional challenge on Proposition 8, the 2008 California that allowed same-sex marriages in the state that two years later was overturned, and United States v. Windsor, which challenges DOMA.

Edith Windsor, a California resident, was married to her female partner in Canada in 2007 but was required to pay roughly $360,000 in federal estate taxes because the marriage is not recognized under DOMA.

The law “denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples,” Verrilli’s brief in part states.

House Republicans also purportedly filed a brief Friday, arguing for the right to defend DOMA.

Obama’s move comes as no surprise, considering he said during his first term that he personally is in favor of gay marriage. And he ended the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, opening the way for gays to serve openly.

More recently, during Obama’s second inaugural address, he hinted at further action.

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal,” he said.

The court is taking up the California case March 26 and has several options. Among them are upholding the state ban on gay marriage and saying residents of a state have the right to make that call.

The nine justices also could endorse an appeals court ruling that would make same-sex marriage legal in California, but it would apply only to that state.

Twenty-nine other states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, while nine states and Washington, D.C., recognize same-sex marriage.

Public opinion has shifted in support of gay marriage in recent years. In May 2008, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans felt same-sex marriages should not be recognized by the law as valid. By November 2012, some 53 percent felt they should be legally recognized.

As I was laying in bed this morning, I thought about what I believe, as a Christian American Conservative. In my 54 years, I have gone to school with, worked with, and had family members that were/are homosexual.

As a Christian man, I have prayed for them, befriended them, prayed for them,  and in the case of my family members, loved them, with all of my heart.

That being said, as a Christian American Conservative, I believe that God has decreed that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman.

If America begins this ill-fated descent down this slippery slope of societal ruin, we may eventually find out the reason why our nation is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Well, a man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home

And, they shall travel on to where the two should be as one.

As it was in the beginning is now until the end

Woman draws a life from man and gives it back again.

And there is Love. There is Love.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

 

The War Against Christianity: Battleground: The National Cathedral

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics6 Comments

gay marriageAs all Americans are aware, one of the hot button issues for the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration, has been the “issue” of Gay Rights. At the forefront of their push is the normalization of gay marriage.

And now, their push has led  to the involvement of our nation’s National Cathedral.

Here is the history of the sixth largest cathedral in the world, courtesy of the National Parks Service:

On January 4, 1792, descriptions from President Washington’s disclosed plan for the “City of Washington, in the district of Columbia” were published in The Gazette of the United States, Philadelphia. Lot “D” was set aside and designated for “A church intended for national purposes, …, assigned to the special use of no particular sect or denomination, but equally open to all.” The National Portrait Gallery now occupies that site. A century later in 1891, a meeting was held to revive plans to build the church intended for national purposes. It was to be a Christian cathedral.

In 1893 the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation of the District of Columbia was granted a charter from Congress to establish the cathedral and the site on Mount Saint Albans was chosen. Bishop Satterlee chose Frederick Bodley, England’s leading Anglican church architect, as the head architect. Henry Vaughan was selected to be the supervising architect. The building of the cathedral finally started in 1907 with a ceremonial address by President Theodore Roosevelt. When construction of the cathedral resumed after a brief hiatus for World War I, both Bodley and Vaughan had passed away; American architect Philip Hubert Frohman took over the design of the cathedral and is known as the principal architect. The Cathedral has been the location of many significant events, including the funeral services of Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower. Its pulpit was the last one from which Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke prior to his assassination. The Cathedral is the burial place of many notable people, including Woodrow Wilson, Helen Keller, Admiral George Dewey, Bishop Satterlee and the architects Henry Vaughan and Philip Frohman.

ABC News reported that

The wedding bells will chime in the 106-year-old Washington National Cathedral as Rev. Gary Hall affirmed that, effective immediately, same-sex weddings may be celebrated at the Cathedral of the Episcopal Church located in the northwest quadrant of Washington D.C.

The National Cathedral has welcomed hundreds of thousands of visitors and held both celebrations and funerals for U.S. presidents past.

In August 2012, the church approved the ceremonial use of a rite adapted from an existing blessing ceremony to acknowledge same-sex marriage. The Episcopal Church will be among the first to recognize marriage for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples.

“For more than 30 years, the Episcopal Church has prayed and studied to discern the evidence of God’s blessing in the lives of same-sex couples,” Rev. Gary Hall of the National Cathedral said. “We enthusiastically affirm each person as a beloved child of God—and doing so means including the full participation of gays and lesbians in the life of this spiritual home for the nation.”

The District of Columbia and Maryland (as well as eight other states) have adopted the legality of civil marriage for same-sex couples. The Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, whose Episcopal Diocese of Washington includes D.C. as well as four counties in Maryland, decided this December to follow suit expanding the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples in her diocese as well.

But the decision to institute the same-sex rite at the Washington National Cathedral was ultimately made by Hall who serves as the Cathedral’s dean.

“In my 35 years of ordained ministry, some of the most personally inspiring work I have witnessed has been among gay and lesbian communities where I have served.”

Hall continued, “I consider it a great honor to lead this Cathedral as it takes another historic step toward greater equality—and I am pleased that this step follows the results made clear in this past November’s election, when three states voted to allow same-sex marriage.”

The same-sex weddings that will be conducted at the Cathedral will fulfill the same role as Christian marriages. Eligibility to marry in the National Cathedral follows the protocol of the Christian faith.

At least one of the members in the couple must have been baptized and the couple must be active, contributing members of the congregation unless otherwise specified by the dean.

Another one of our nation’s symbolic structures, the Chapel at West Point Academy,  is already hosting gay marriages.

Additionally, on December 7th, 2012, USA Today reported

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up the explosive issue of same-sex marriage, thrusting itself into a policy debate that has divided federal and state governments and courts, as well as voters in nearly 40 states.

The high court’s long-awaited decisions to hear challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage move the issue to the top of the national agenda following a year in which advocates scored major legal and political victories.

The court likely will hear the cases in March and rule by late June on a series of questions, potentially including one of the most basic: Can states ban gay marriage, or does the Constitution protect that right for all couples? It also will decide whether gay and lesbian married couples can be denied federal benefits received by opposite-sex spouses.

As all this is happening, the majority of “national” polls tell us that around 53% of Americans approve of Adam and Steve getting hitched.

However, you know what puzzles me? 

If that’s true, shouldn’t the majority of Americans have voted for it in previous state elections?

Instead, 41 states do not recognize gay marriages. Gays can only legally reside as husband and…err…husband, or wife and…ummm…wife in only 9 states.

Even California, a bastion of Liberal ideology, voted it down, only to have a Liberal judge overturn the voters’ decision.

First West Point, now the National Cathedral. I see a pattern of Political Propaganda and Government-backed and forced, secular Liberal ideology growing here.

Reminds me of Obamacare…and, we all know how that turned out.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: Don We Now Our Gay Apparel?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

American ChristianityIn a Friday Evening Announcement, word got out that the Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments concerning California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Per ABC News:

The Supreme Court’s announcement that it would hear two cases challenging laws prohibiting same-sex marriage has reinvigorated one of the most hotly contentious social debates in American history, a debate that has been fueled by a dramatic change in attitudes.

With some states taking significant steps towards legalizing gay marriage, the hearings come at a critical moment.

This week in Washington State, hundreds of same-sex couples lined up to collect marriage licenses after Gov. Christine Gregoire announced the passing of a voter-approved law legalizing gay marriage.

“For the past 20 years we’ve been saying just one more step. Just one more fight. Just one more law. But now we can stop saying ‘Just one more.’ This is it. We are here. We did it,” Gregoire told a group of Referendum 74 supporters during the law’s certification.

Washington is just the most recent of several states to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, signifying a significant departure from previous thinking on the controversial subject.

A study by the Pew Research Center on changing attitudes on gay marriage showed that in 2001 57 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, while 35 percent of Americans supported it.

The same poll shows that today opinions have greatly shifted to reflect slightly more support for same-sex marriage than opposition — with 48 percent of Americans in favor and 43 percent opposed.

In fact, just two years ago, 48 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage while only 42 percent supported it — indicating that opinions have changed dramatically in the last couple of years alone.

The question a lot of Christian American Conservatives, like myself ,are asking, is: What if we end up like Canada?

From catholicexchange.com in 2008:

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.

The complaint stems from Canada’s debate leading up to state legislation recognizing so-called same-sex marriage. In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as “wicked” and stated that: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

The activist subsequently filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission — a quasi-judicial body that investigates alleged discrimination within the Canadian province. The government tribunal published its decision [http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf] on May 30.

While agreeing that Boisson’s letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Moreover, the tribunal’s decision “prohibited [Boisson] from making disparaging remarks in the future” about the activist who filed the complaint and witnesses who supported the complaint. Many of Canada’s religious leaders and civil libertarians have expressed concern that the government’s human rights tribunals are interpreting any criticism of homosexual activism as ‘disparaging’.

The tribunal also ordered Boisson to provide the complainant with a written apology for his letter to the editor. This last requirement threatens civil liberties in Canada, said Ezra Levant, a Jewish-Canadian author and lawyer. Levant, himself the target of an Alberta Human Rights Commission investigation, is facing the possibility the state may order him to apologize as well.

If activist judges, as in the case of California, can negate the will of the American People concerning allowing “Adam and Steve” to “marry”, why can’t they call preaching against homosexuality a hate crime?

The following is Article 17 of the Baptist Faith and Message, found at sbc.net.

God alone is the Lord of the conscience and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of god, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things no contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

While God’s word does tell us to honor and obey our leaders, we are also warned of the consequences of  being given over to “a reprobate mind”.

Do the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell?

The general consensus by political pundits is that the Court will rule that each individual state must decide for itself whether to allow homosexuals the use of the word “marriage” to describe their “union”.

So far 9 states have voted in favor of gay marriage. The other 41, or 48, if you believe the president, have not.

Liberal propaganda will be flying hot and heavy, both before and after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The majority of the 78% of Americans who still proclaim Christianity won’t be listening to the Liberals’ bloviating, though.

We listen to a  Higher Authority.

This Ain’t Yo’ Folks’ Democratic Party

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics6 Comments

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m 53 years old.  My Mother and Daddy were 40 years older than me. I think that they were going to name me “Oops”. But, I digress…

My folks were Southern Democrats…Conservative Southern Democrats. They passed away in ’95 and ’97, respectively.

Back in the day, the Democrat Party was a far different political party than they are today.

On July 11, 1960, the Democratic Party Platform began with the following:

In 1796, in America’s first contested national election, our Party, under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, campaigned on the principles of “The Rights of Man.”

Ever since, these four words have underscored our identity with the plain people of America and the world.

In periods of national crisis, we Democrats have returned to these words for renewed strength. We return to them today.

In 1960, “The Rights of Man” are still the issue. It is our continuing responsibility to provide an effective instrument of political action for every American who seeks to strengthen these rights-everywhere here in America, and everywhere in our 20th Century world.

The common danger of mankind is war and the threat of war. Today, three billion human beings live in fear that some rash act or blunder may plunge us all into a nuclear holocaust which will leave only ruined cities, blasted homes, and a poisoned earth and sky.

Our objective, however, is not the right to coexist in armed camps on the same planet with totalitarian ideologies; it is the creation of an enduring peace in which the universal values of human dignity, truth, and justice under law are finally secured for all men everywhere on earth.

If America is to work effectively for such a peace, we must first restore our national strength-military, political, economic, and moral.

That’s a far cry from “You didn’t build that”, huh?

In fact, it sounds like the Modern Republican Party.

Well, hold on to something. You ain’t seen nothin’, yet…as The New York Times reports:

Democrats appear ready to embrace same-sex marriage as part of their party platform, a policy shift that reflects an expanded acceptance of gay rights in mainstream politics.

The move would place the party in line with the beliefs of President Obama, who in May became the first sitting president to declare that gay men and lesbians should be able to marry.

Democratic Party officials had squabbled over the issue in the past. But at a platform-drafting meeting over the weekend in Minneapolis, they approved the first step to amend their platform, placing the amendment on track for adoption. In two weeks, the entire platform committee will vote at a meeting scheduled in Detroit. Then, if approved as expected, it would go before convention delegates in Charlotte, N.C., for final passage in early September.

According to Democrats who were briefed on the vote in Minneapolis, there was no objection when the issue came up. Though the language that was voted on could still be revised, party officials do not anticipate any major obstacles going forward.

The platform language approved over the weekend also reiterated the party’s disapproval of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages. The 2008 platform had a similar section.

The Democratic Party’s move comes more than two months after President Obama personally backed the rights of same-sex couples to wed. The president’s reversal — he had said previously that while he could not support same-sex marriage, his views on the issue were “evolving” — was a significant move, though it carried no legal weight.

The Democrats would become the first major party to embrace same-sex marriage. But as historic as the platform would be, the president’s position makes it decidedly less controversial.

News of the platform amendment was first reported by The Washington Blade.

Gay rights supporters praised the Democratic Party’s vote. “Like Americans from all walks of life, the Democratic Party has recognized that committed and loving gay and lesbian couples deserve the right to have their relationships respected as equal under the law,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “I believe that one day very soon the platforms of both major parties will include similar language on this issue.”

The Democratic Party platform that was drafted four years ago, when Mr. Obama was first running for president, called for “full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits and protections.”

But the platform stopped short of endorsing same-sex marriages, in part because Mr. Obama had said he remained opposed.

Well, all bets are off now, because as we have all found out, all of Obama’s promises come with expiration dates.

Oh…and that whirring sound you hear? It’s the sound of Democrats like Scoop Jackson, Tip O’Neill, Hubert Humphrey, John F. Kennedy…and my parents…spinning in their graves.

Obama: Smarter Than Us “Common” Folks

On By kingsjesterIn Politics9 Comments

President Barack Hussein Obama yesterday reaffirmed his personal belief that he is wiser than the average American voter.

GMA.yahoo.com has the story:

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this decision, based on conversations with his staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and his wife and daughters.

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday.

Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News With Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline.”

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states’ deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

Of course, this announcement came the day after North Carolina Voters overwhelmingly voted for a resolution declaring marriage to be “one man and one woman”, becoming the 31st state to pass such a law.

If you watched the MSM yesterday, you would have thought that this was the greatest announcement since Moses brought the tablets down from Mount Sinai.

One would have thought that Obama would have learned a lesson from both the North Carolina vote and the defeat of long-time Indiana Senator Richard Lugar.

Washingtontimes.com reports that

Dark clouds had been gathering over Mr. Lugar for months after tea party groups made the elder statesman, a moderate Republican, their chief congressional target this year.

The GOP primary quickly turned into a nationally scrutinized showdown as the Club for Growth and other Mourdock supporters poured some $3 million into ads lambasting Mr. Lugar for voting for the automakers bailout and tax hikes over his six terms, while groups supporting Mr. Lugar spent half that.

Mr. Mourdock pounded his core message that the 80-year-old senator had turned into a Washington insider, slamming him for living away from Indiana for years, highlighting Mr. Lugar’s congenial relationship with Mr. Obama and criticizing the senator for voting to confirm Mr. Obama’s liberal Supreme Court nominees.

Suddenly, Mr. Lugar found himself struggling to defend things he once touted as accomplishments; among them, working with Democrats on foreign policy and earning the title of one of the two longest-serving Republicans in the Senate. Mr. Lugar and Mr. Hatch were both first elected in 1976.

In a blistering letter, written after his defeat, Sen. Lugar came off as a bitter, pompous, old RINO:

Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions the incumbent has taken. I knew that I had cast recent votes that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would be targeted by outside groups.

These included my votes for the TARP program, for government support of the auto industry, for the START Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. I also advanced several propositions that were considered heretical by some, including the thought that Congressional earmarks saved no money and turned spending power over to unelected bureaucrats and that the country should explore options for immigration reform.

It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a Republican primary. But I believe that they were the right votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets, as I have throughout the campaign.

…Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today – from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

Except that, Reagan, in the end, would always stand behind Conservative principles.  Lugar spent his career reaching across the aisle and patting himself on the back at the same time.

Obama should have paid attention to what was happening around him yesterday.

The American people spoke very clearly.

The death of the Tea Party Movement has been greatly exaggerated.

Don’t Ask. Obama Won’t Tell. Update: He Did!

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

Last night, the voters of the Tar Heel State joined the citizens of 30 other American states in making their voices heard plainly and clearly on an issue that President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is avoiding like the plague.

North Carolina voters have approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th U.S. state to adopt such a ban.

With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.

In the days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama’s cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment

Meanwhile, supporters ran their own ad campaigns and church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.

So, what does the “Leader of the Free World” say about the controversial subject?

Don’t ask.  He won’t tell.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan broke ranks with the White House on Monday, stating his unequivocal support for same-sex marriage one day after Vice President Joe Biden suggested that he supported gay marriage as well.

Obama aides worked to manage any political fallout. They said the back-to-back remarks by two top administration officials represented personal viewpoints and were not part of a coordinated effort to lay groundwork for a shift in the president’s position. Obama aides also tried to use the latest flare-up in the gay-marriage debate to shine a light on GOP rival Mitt Romney’s history of equivocating on some gay-rights issues, an attempt to turn a potential political problem into an opportunity.

Obama, who supports most gay rights, has stopped short of backing gay marriage. Without clarification, he’s said for the past year and a half that his personal views on the matter are “evolving.”

The White House held firm on Monday to that position, which polls show puts the president increasingly at odds with his party and the majority of Americans on gay marriage. But with Biden and Duncan’s comments reinvigorating the debate, Obama is likely to face renewed pressure to clarify his views ahead of the November election.

Throughout his first term, he has sought to walk a fine line on same-sex marriage. He’s trying to satisfy rank-and-file Democrats by supporting a range of gay rights issues without alienating crucial independent voters who could be turned off by the emotional social issue.

The president’s aides acknowledge that his position can be confusing. In states where gay marriage already is legal, the president says married gay couples should have the same rights as married straight couples. But he does not publicly support the right of gay couples to enter into a marriage in the first place.

Duncan, a longtime friend of the president as well as a member of his Cabinet, made clear Monday that his position on gay marriage was not in lockstep with the White House. Asked in a television interview whether he believed gay couples should legally be allowed to marry, Duncan said simply, “Yes, I do.”

His comments followed Biden’s assertion Sunday that he was “absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties.”

Obama aides said Duncan was speaking about his personal views on the issue and was not under orders from the White House or the campaign to take his position.

As for Biden, White House and campaign officials said the vice president’s remarks were no different from what he and Obama have said in the past.

“They were entirely consistent with the president’s position, which is that couples who are married, whether they are gay or heterosexual couples are entitled to the very same rights and very same liberties,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the Obama campaign. “When people are married, we ought to recognize those marriages.”

So, what is the president’s position?  Jay Carney, WH Press Secretary, was asked that during yesterday’s daily press briefing, per politico.com.

Pay attention to this dance recital.  Fred Astaire would be proud.

Q: On the gay marriage issue, Jay, has the intensity of interest in this and the statements from some of the President’s supporters led him to consider clarifying his position? And considering that his views are evolving, does he want to maybe consider his views more thoroughly?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t have a readout of any conversations involving the President on that issue. I can tell you that I’m sure it is the case that he will be asked again at some point when he gives interviews or press conferences about this issue, and I’ll leave it to him to describe his personal views.

I think it’s important to note, as I attempted to do yesterday, that what is abundantly clear is this President’s firm commitment to the protection of and securing of the same rights and obligations for LGBT citizens as other Americans enjoy. He has been a strong proponent of LGBT rights, and I think that’s demonstrated by his record, which is unparalleled, as President in support of those rights.

Q: Jay, you said yesterday on this issue in reference to Vice President Biden’s remarks and the President’s, that the President’s personal views obviously were evolving, and you stressed the personal views. I guess is there maybe a disconnect between his policies and his personal views in terms of maybe his policies are ahead of his personal views on this?

MR. CARNEY: No, I don’t think so. I think the President’s absolute commitment to the rights of LGBT citizens demonstrated by the path he took to ensure the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the opposition that he and his administration have expressed towards DOMA and the fact that he believes it ought to be repealed. It is also the case that the President and the Attorney General believe that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, which is why the federal government no longer defends Section 3. And from hate crimes legislation to hospital visitation rights, the list of accomplishments is quite long and I think demonstrates his feelings about, broadly, this issue.

Q: Do you think he’ll talk about it with Cuomo considering he’s received a lot of plaudits from the LGBT community?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think — I don’t know what their conversations will contain. I know that they’ll focus on the issue that the President has come to discuss in upstate New York. I think the President has taken a position on some of these state issues, and I think he did on New York and he has in North Carolina. And I think the position he takes has — the positions he has taken are consistent with his belief that it is wrong to take actions that would deny rights to LGBT citizens or rescind rights already provided to LGBT Americans. And that’s a position that you can fully expect him to maintain.

Since when has marriage been a right?  

I’ve never seen the word “marriage” listed in the Constitution under “inalienable rights”, nor in the Bill of Rights itself.

With 62% of America’s population (31 states) voting against Gay Marriage, I believe other Americans haven’t either.

KJ Update:  Today, in an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, Obama said:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

The interview will air on Thursday’s Good Morning America.

After all, the American public’s opinion doesn’t mean squat to “The Lightbringer”.