jump to navigation

Christmas: Promise and Purpose December 19, 2013

Posted by Daniel Downs in Christmas, family, marriage.
add a comment

By Daniel Downs

Christmas is a multifaceted story about real events wrapped in two narratives. The two narratives are found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Like a new train and its track, these two narratives are part of one colorfully packaged gift given to humanity by God. Together they show the meaning of Christmas.

Some scholars and teachers rightly say the reason for the season is God’s love, peace, and forgiveness of sin.

The first gospel begins with teen pregnancy. Yes, it’s true the Hebrew word translated virgin actually means young woman or teen girl. It’s equally true that in ancient Jewish culture teenage girls were expected to marry and then bear children. Out-of-wedlock pregnancies were as unlawful as immoral. The social stigmatism would have been as illiberal as Scarlet Letter puritanism. Just as a barren wife, a young unwed mother would have experienced the discriminating scorn of a religious society. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the transliterated Hebrew word almah as virgin (Mt. 1:23; Isa. 7:14).

Rabbinical literature originating in Babylonia portrays young Mary as mistress of a Roman soldier. Whether because of sinful consent, seduction or rape, Mary’s pregnancy was conceived by rabbis opposed to the gospel message as adulterated sin. The Palestinian view, as scholars call it, is considerably different. It lacked any negative diatribes against Mary or her son. Just as the Palestinian Talmud reflects its local context, the two gospel narratives were rooted in local events and daily life in Judea and Samaria.

We also will find the meaning of Christmas grounded in the same geographical, cultural, ideological, and historical situation of then current events.

While reading our two narrative gifts, two bright themes twinkle like lights reflecting off shinny wrappings. Those themes are promise and purpose. As if sitting prominently under a Christmas tree, the two themes are wrapped with bright colorful interpretations of unfolding events. Those events appear to be fulfillment of promises made by God through even more ancient prophets. As such, they reveal as well as affirm the purpose of God.

For example, the gospel of Matthew begins the story of Jesus’ birth with marriage. “Mary has been betrothed to Joseph…her husband (1:18, 19). In ancient Jewish culture, engagement was regarded as the beginning of a marriage. While Joseph was thinking about divorcing her, an angel told him to keep his wife because her pregnancy was God’s doing (1:19-20). Why would God do such a thing? The angel continued telling Joseph that Mary’s son would save his people. At that time, most Israelis were expecting a Messiah that would deliver them from the oppressive rule of the Roman Empire and puppet kings like Herod. That was not God’s purpose. Jesus was adopted and formed in the womb of Joseph’s virgin wife to save his people from their sins (1:20-21). This was seen by ancient writers like Matthew as fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy about the Messiah (1:20-21; Isa. 7:14). As evident in writings like Psalms of Solomon, 1 Enoch, and Dead Sea Scrolls, the Messiah of David would represent the holy presence of God and lead all Jews into sinless living. In fact some believed the law would pass away when the true Messiah began to reign. For the law not to be needed meant all had to live holy lives at all times. Being capable of doing so meant the Messiah had to be as holy and sinless as those he would make holy or sinless. That is what the name “Immanuel” or “God with us” meant to those same ancient people.

If we trace the biblical history of God’s redemption, God chooses marriage and family as part of the means to its end.

The purpose of marriage is narrated in Genesis (2:18-25). After their moral crime, Adam and Eve were given a promised future in which God’s purpose would continue. Adam and Eve would create a society of families who would make God’s creation productive and who would overcome temptation and immorality (Gen. 3). It was for married society that God offered the first animal sacrifice in order to cover the naked guilt and shame of the first traditionally married couple. The clothing also served to minimize temptation (Gen. 3:21-23). Nevertheless, sibling rivalry and sexual perversion motivated by jealousy and lust followed (Gen. 4:1-24). One result was the rise of the first walled urban city, according to archaeology. Beginning with Adam’s grandson, the descendants of Adam began seeking God’s redemption (Gen. 4:25-26). Why? Because human decadence also continued until it dominated society. This was followed with the family of Noah being saved from the flood as well as the continuation the covenant of redemption that began with Adam (Gen. 6-8 & 9-10). The fulfillment of God’s redemptive purpose was given greater specificity with the family of Abraham. Through this family, God promised to bless the entire world (Gen. 12-17). At the same time, the sterile couple, Abraham and Sarah, was promised a son, Isaac, through whom the promise would be fulfilled in history (Gen. 15, 18). Yet, the promise was The same could be said about the family of David and the promised Messiah (2 Sa. 7:12-16; Rom. 1:1-4). Not only through a specific descendant of David would Israel’s redemption be realized but all people across the globe would have access to it as well. With the virgin birth of Jesus, the promised redemption began to be fulfilled.

As we have seen, God chose a young married couple to bring His adopted son into the world. The fact that an angel visibly announced God’s adoptive purpose for Jesus’ life before his conception gave them a solemn mission of parenting. Their purpose was to raise God’s son to fulfill his life purpose—the salvation of Israel as well as rule of the kingdom (Lk. 1: 32-33). All of this was affirmed first by the priestly shepherds who were told by a host of angels that the salvation this new born King would bring was for all people (Lk. 2:10-14). Further affirmation came at Jesus’ dedication by the temple priest Simeon (Lk. 2:21-32). Simeon again affirmed that Jesus was salvation for both Jews and gentiles according to Isaiah 49:5-6. Finally, the ambassadors of Parthia, the Magi, came escorted by a military regiment to pay homage to the newly born Messiah (Mt. 2:1-6). Consequently, Mary and Joseph were parents with a holy mission to deliver God’s gift of salvation holy and sinless for both Israel and the world. They had godly relatives and friends as well as a culture defined by God’s word (however tainted by sin and the influence of Rome’s presence) to assist them.

This was God’s Christmas gift to all people for all times. Jesus’ parents wrapped him in a Hanukkah candle wick because God wanted all people to see that His son is true light of the world (Lk. 2:12-14). While his destiny was to suffer the shame and judgment for all sins of all people on the cross and in hell, God saw the fulfillment of his redemptive purpose advance toward final fulfillment (Isa. 53). Having fully satisfied divine justice, God raised His son from hell, from death’s tomb, and from the rejection of ignorant men. And, by lifting His son up to His side in heaven, the light of His peace, grace, and holy life forever shines for all to behold and embrace. God’s just forgiveness, His presence and empowerment, and His acceptance are continually held out by our gentle risen Shepherd and Lord Jesus. The gift only has to be received and lived. When all parents and their children do, society will finally realize the common good of God’s will. Then peace will then reign on earth.

Advertisements

Networks Ignore Push for Repeal of DOMA October 7, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Democrats, family, gay politics, marriage, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, news, politics.
add a comment

Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York introduced a new threat to traditional marriage on September 15 – a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

News of Nadler’s plan to introduce the Respect for Marriage Act broke late last week, but ABC, CBS and NBC all failed to report this latest push for forced acceptance of same-sex marriage. Although the health care reform debate has gobbled up media attention for weeks, the networks’ silence on the fundamental issue of how the federal government defines marriage is odd.

Nadler’s bill would overturn the 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

A September 15 press release issued by Nadler’s office claimed the bill has 91 original co-sponsors. Nadler stated in the release, “With a President who is committed to repealing DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law.”

Not all Democrats agreed with Nadler. The Washington Blade reported on September 11 that Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts is not supporting Nadler’s effort to overturn DOMA. “It’s not anything that’s achievable in the near term,” Frank said. The New York Times reported September 15 that Speaker Nancy Pelosi “also indicated this year that repealing the law would not be a top priority.”

ABC, CBS and NBC failed to take interest in the story, even with the added twist of intra-party (and even intra-administration) division over the bill. None of the networks have discussed this issue since President Obama’s inauguration, despite his repeated calls during the 2008 campaign to repeal DOMA and despite a 54-page brief filed in support of DOMA by his Justice Department in June.

The brief, filed in the California case Smelt v. United States that challenged DOMA, outraged gay rights activists because, as reported by the Washington Post, it “appeared to equate same-sex marriage with incest and pedophilia” and the lawyers referred to marriage between a man and a woman as “the traditional and universally recognized form.”

Importance of DOMA

DOMA did not simply define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It banned the federal recognition of same-sex marriages. It also protects states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages that took place in other states.

“DOMA is the only federal law that protects marriage as the union of husband and wife, and guarantees voters in Georgia or Wisconsin that a handful of judges in Massachusetts will not be able to impose gay marriage on their state,” noted Maggie Gallagher, president and founder of the National Organization for Marriage.

Bryan Fischer, director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association, focused his criticism of Nadler’s efforts on the issue of states’ rights.

“People in state after state have made it clear that they do not want either Congress or activist judges tampering with the time-honored institution of marriage,” he stated in a September 15 press release. “People who care about the institution of marriage and care about their own state’s Tenth Amendment right to decide this issue for themselves should be outraged at this frontal assault on the cornerstone of American society and on the democratic process itself.”

Not Ignored in Print

While the networks have ignored DOMA, the editorial boards of The Washington Post and The New York Times urged the administration to overturn the law as soon as possible.

The Justice Department brief filed in June that supported DOMA inspired the Times’ Frank Rich to write on June 28, “Obama’s inaction on gay civil rights is striking. So is his utterly uncharacteristic inarticulateness. The Justice Department brief defending DOMA has spoken louder for this president than any of his own words on the subject.”

James Kirchick, assistant editor of the New Republic and a contributing writer to the Advocate, questioned Obama’s commitment to same-sex marriage. “When it comes to same-sex marriage, the movement can’t count on support from the current president,” Kirchick wrote. “Obama’s stance on gay marriage is virtually indistinguishable from that of John McCain,” he later charged.

The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart gave Obama more cover in his June 21 editorial. “The first substantive comment on gay and lesbian equality since he took office was the Justice Department’s noxious brief in Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer v United States of America, and it fueled suspicion that the president was backpedaling on his promises.” Capehart later urged gays and lesbians to look to Congress to achieve their “big victories, such as the repeal of DOMA and the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy.”

On August 18, the Post reported that “the Obama administration distanced itself” from the Justice Department’s June brief regarding DOMA.

A follow-up brief filed August 17 in the Smelt v. United States case did not contain the language that had inflamed gay rights activists. But as reported by the Post, “Senior trial counsel W. Scott Simpson embraced findings by researchers and prominent medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association, in saying ‘that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.”

DOMA, the administration’s defense of it and the subsequent backing away from the defense, were not discussed on ABC, CBS, or NBC..

The networks habitually refused to cover DOMA-related news, as indicated by this year’s lack of coverage and also their refusal to report Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s firm 2008 statement of support for the repeal of DOMA.

This of course, is not to say that the networks refuse to cover news related to gay rights. Networks promoted same-sex marriage through the constant airing of Prop 8 protest footage in the days following the 2008 election.

Networks’ Disservice

ABC, CBS and NBC committed a grave disservice to the American public by refusing to cover the issue of DOMA. The repeal of such a law has serious implications for society and culture.

Networks repeatedly proved their liberal bias. But at least in that, viewers knew something occurred and had the opportunity to seek out supplemental information. In the case of DOMA, viewers most likely haven’t realized the very definition of traditional marriage is at stake.

By Colleen Raezler, Culture & Media Institute

Source: Culture Links e-Newsletter, September 15, 2009

Lessons for Israel in American Constitutional Law Freedom of Expression: Part I February 28, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Constitution, family, Freedom of Speech, marriage, pornography, Supreme Court.
1 comment so far

If there is one thing that characterizes America apart from pop and pizza, it’s pornography. Pornography in the United States is a multi-billion dollar business. It’s an engine that corrupts youth.

Pornography graphically reduces the human to the subhuman. It transforms love into lust. It undermines marriage and the family. It lowers not only the moral but also the intellectual level of a society. Pornography therefore undermines a nation’s security. A ruling of former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak indicates he does not know this.

But then he does not know that phonograph fosters self-indulgence, hence undermines public spiritedness or dedication to the common good and therefore erodes Israel’s ability to withstand her enemies Similarly, pornography corrodes the sense of shame, hence of honor. A nation without honor cannot long endure.

The flood of pornography or “porn” in the United States began in the late 1950s as a direct consequence of its Supreme Court’s libertarian interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states, in part, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” (Unfortunately, Israel’s Supreme Court has adopted American jurisprudence on this issue, and with the same predictable consequences: pornography is thriving in the Holy Land. Let’s pause and open our eyes.

The First Amendment prohibits only the Congress, not the States, from abridging freedom of speech and press. In fact, the first eight amendments of the Constitution, which comprise the Bill of Rights, were meant to limit the powers of the national government, not those of the state governments.

This was the ruling of Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Barron v. Baltimore, decided in 1833. The ruling was affirmed even after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Thus, in Hurtado v. California decided in 1884, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to the States the restrictions the first eight amendments applied to the national government.

This ruling was reaffirmed as late as Twining v. New Jersey in 1908. Not until Gitlow v. New York in 1925 did the Court hold that, “For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press … are among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by he due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.”

The original Constitution must be understood before the amendments to the Constitution can be properly interpreted. Thus, the constitutional principle of federalism, affirmed by the first ten amendments, stands on the distinction that the Constitution imposes different restrictions on the powers of the national and state governments. For example, whereas only the States are constitutionally prohibited from impairing the obligation of contracts, only Congress is constitutionally prohibited from abridging freedom of speech and press (leaving open the possibility of such action, under emergency conditions, by the Executive).

Besides, the First Amendment ought not be interpreted in abstraction from the Constitution as a whole. An amendment may alter, but it does not nullify, the Constitution. Accordingly, the words “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” may not be construed in such a way as to nullify Congress’s authority “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers [enumerated in Article I, Section 8].” Virtually any one of these powers may necessitate certain limitations on freedom of speech and press.

Consider, for example, the power of Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Or consider the power of Congress to “provide for the common Defense.” Contrary to prevailing opinion, there can never be a simple opposition between the common defense and freedom of expression. For to defend the nation is to preserve its way of life, a most important aspect of which is freedom of expression.

Conversely, if certain kinds of expression endanger national defense, then they also endanger freedom of expression. Thus, by virtue of its power “To provide for … disciplining the Militia,” Congress may establish a code of military law making punishable any speech or publication causing insubordination in the armed services (and in peacetime no less than in times of national emergency).

This illustrates the organic principle of political life, one formulation of which may be stated as follows: Absolutizing the value of any part of a whole is destructive of the whole, hence of the part as well. If, therefore, the First Amendment is to function as a part of an organic whole whose parts reinforce and not obstruct each other, the injunction “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” must be construed in such a way as to protect this freedom without undermining other constitutional values on which that freedom ultimately depends.

Two general alternatives are possible. Either certain kinds of expression must not be included under the category of freedom of speech and press, or, certain kinds of restraints on freedom of speech and press must not be included under the category of an abridgment thereof. I shall discuss these two alternatives in the next article.

(to be continued)

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President of The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

Senators’ Seeking Ratification of UN Treaty Governing Rights of Children Violates Individual Rights of Parents February 20, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in children, Congress, Constitution, family, law, marriage, parental rights, politics, power.
1 comment so far

In paragraph 3 of the previous post “America Standing Alone,” the author states that ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child will become Constitutional law.

‘If the United States Senate were to ratify the UNCRC, then under Article VI of our Constitution, that treaty would become ‘the supreme law of the land,’ essentially self-executing. In a nation of laws such as ours, we would be obligated to implement every part of it in very short order….”

U.N. conventions are synonymous with international treaties. Treaties are legally binding on all parties. To ratify a U.N. convention, a super-majority of the Senate has to agree. If two-thirds do, it become part of the Supreme Law of Land as stated above.

Because the UNCRC over-rides all state law concerning parental authority concerning their children, this law will further undermine state sovereignty as well as individual rights of parents.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution make it clear that the federal government is strictly limited only to those powers specified in the Constitution. Matters concerning the marriage, family, children, and parenting are beyond the scope of federal law. Capitol Hill politicians, like Senator Boxer and Hillary Clinton, who seek to make UNCRC American law are clearly in violation of their oath of office. Changing the powers of federal government requires amending the Constitution.

The obvious problem is that politicians seem to believe that anything the Constitution does not prohibit gives them a right to do whatever they think is good for any or all. However, American legal history shows that the purpose of our written Constitution is to limit the federal or state governments to only those powers agreed to by a majority of voters.

That is why the state sovereignty resolution movement is necessary. It is necessary that a majority of states reassert their rights by passing resolutions demanding that the federal government stop their abuse of power. The current Congressional leaders are leaders of such abuse.

Trends Affecting the Family: A Review of 2008 January 12, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, Barak Obama, children, euthanasia, family, gay politics, marriage, news, politics, right to life, Sarah Palin, sex education, taxes.
add a comment

In the January 2009 issue of World Congress of Families News, the World Congress of Families has released a list of the “Best And Worst Developments Affecting The Family In 2008”

Worldwide the most encouraging pro-family trends are:

1. Sarah Palin, Pro-life Woman Is Vice Presidential Nominee
2. Vatican Panel Issues Instructions on Bioethics
3. Lithuania Bill Would Protect Minors From Homosexual Agitation
4. Honduran Family-Perspective Law
5. Proposition 8 Passes In California
6. Greater Awareness of Demographic Winter
7. UN Study Links Abstinence and Delayed Rates of AIDS/HIV in Africa
8. British Psychiatrists’ Group Says Abortion Can Cause Mental Problems
9. Family Advocate Becomes Senior Advisor to Canadian Prime Minister
10. Anti-Human Trafficking Law Passed

And the most troubling trends for the family are:

1. The Election of Barack Obama
2. Mexican Supreme Court Backs Mexico City Abortion Law
3. Luxembourg and Washington State Legalize Assisted Suicide
4. German Persecution of Home-Schooling Families
5. OAS Passes ‘Sexual-Orientation” Resolution
6. Brazilian President Calls Opposition to Homosexuality A “Perverse Disease”
7. UNFPA Nigeria meeting Pushes Abortion In The Guise of Women’s Health
8. In France, Most Births Out-of-Wedlock
9. Australian Prof. Proposes Baby Tax
10. Queen’s Representative In Canada Celebrates Androgyny

Go to www.worldcongress.org for an explanation of “The Best And Worst Developments Affecting The Family In 2008.”

Gays Unable to Accept Pope’s Defense of Environment and Nature’s ‘Law,’ Says Top Theologian December 26, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Catholic Church, family, God, homosexuality, marriage, natural law, nature, news.
add a comment

Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks this week about defending the environment and understanding the “ecology of man” sparked sharp criticism from homosexual activists.

While the pope never mentioned “homosexuality,” it was his explanation of the nature of man and the order of the natural world that caused gays to react so harshly, Fr. George William Rutler, a leading Catholic theologian, told CNSNews.com.

In his Dec. 22 speech at the Vatican, Pope Benedict talked about World Youth Day, the environment and Jesus Christ. On the environment, the pope said: The earth is “the gift of our Creator, with certain intrinsic rules that offer us an orientation we must respect as administrators of creation. … [The church] must defend not only the earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to all. It must also defend the human person against its own destruction. What’s needed is something like a ‘human ecology,’ understood in the right sense. It’s not simply an outdated metaphysics if the church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected.”

The pope went on to say that if people disregard this “order of creation,” it is self-destructive. “That which is often expressed and understood by the term ‘gender’ in the end amounts to the self-emancipation of the human person from creation and from the Creator,” and as a result “the human person lives against the truth, against the Creator Spirit,” said the pope.

The pope was saying that man is made in the image of God and is therefore “unique” among all species and has authority over nature, Fr. Rutler told CNSNews.com, adding that realities such as gender – man and woman – are not arbitrary developments in biology, or accidents, but are clearly defined in the natural world for a reason.

If a person rejects nature’s assigning of gender, or tries to change it, then that is disruptive to nature and destructive, said Rutler. The natural environment must be responsibly protected, as the pope mentioned in reference to rain forests, but so must the natural order in men and women, said Rutler.

Homosexuals, in their behavior, “are denying the truth of nature and denying the natural law,” he said.

In reaction to the pope’s speech, Rev. Sharon Ferguson, director of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, as reported in The Scotsman said: “It is more the case that we need to be saved from his comments. It is comments like this that justify homophobic bullying that goes on in schools and that justify gay bashing.”

Rev. Giles Fraser, president of the pro-homosexual movement Inclusive Church, told Agence France-Presse: “The pope is spreading fear that gay people somehow threaten the planet, and that’s just absurd.”

“As always, this sort of religious homophobia will be an alibi for all those who would do gay people harm. Can’t he think of something better to say at Christmas?” said Fraser.

Franco Grillini, with the Italian group Gaynet, told The Guardian, “What keeps the pope awake at night is the idea that human beings might be able to seek out their own sexual identity to have a happy life.”

Also reported in The Guardian, Arcigay’s Aurelio Mancuso said, “The speech has no scientific basis. A divine programme for men and women is out of line with nature, where the roles are not so clear.”

Fr. Rutler, who holds a pontifical doctorate in sacred theology, and a master of studies from Oxford University, said that homosexual activists and secular liberals do not understand the relationship between the human race and nature because they are essentially Gnostics, they see the natural world – the material world – as contrary to anything divine and “the result of energies other than God.”

To say that “the Word was made flesh,” as in the New Testament, is “a total contradiction” to the Gnostic, said Rutler, because the Gnostic thinks “the divine can have nothing to do with the flesh.”

As a consequence, for example, homosexuals “do not see marriage as an essentially divine institution – they see it as a legal construction that can be changed at will,” said Rutler. “They see a Supreme Court changing the law on marriage and say it is valid. But from the point of natural law, it would be like saying the Supreme Court could repeal the law of gravity.”

This is why homosexuals see the pope’s remarks as threatening, said Rutler. “The homosexual is a classic Gnostic,” he said, “because the homosexual does not understand how gender is intrinsic to God’s will for the human race. Male-ness and female-ness are not arbitrary categories.”

In 2004, Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) wrote that “the obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes has enormous consequences on a variety of levels,” which include calling “into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.”

In 1992, then-Pope John Paul II described homosexual marriage as “perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.”

Matt Barber, an attorney and board member of PFOX, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, told CNSNews.com that “if we are going to focus so much attention on preserving our environment and ecology, then what is the most precious aspect of our environment? From a Christian perspective, it is man, who was created in God’s image.”

“When man is in a destructive mode, as the pope suggested, then it is incumbent upon those who care about mankind – their fellowman – to encourage those engaging in a destructive lifestyle to leave it,” said Barber.

Source: Catholic News Service, December 24, 2008.

Catholic Vote on Marriage and Family November 5, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Chrisitanity, family, gay politics, marriage, news, politics.
add a comment

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented today on the role Catholics played in securing marriage and family rights in the election:

“Were it not for Catholics, the institutions of marriage and the family would have taken a hit in places like Arizona, Florida and California. Indeed, in Florida and California, their vote proved to be decisive.

“Arizonians rejected gay marriage by a vote of 56% to 49%, though the margin among Catholics was less—51% to 49%. In Florida, the Catholic vote proved to be controlling: overall, the ban on gay marriage won by 62% to 38%, but among Catholics it was 66% to 34%. Californians narrowly defeated gay marriage by a margin of 52% to 48%, but Catholics rejected it by an impressive 60% to 40% differential. A vote in California to support parental notification lost by 52% to 48%, but it won among Catholics by a hefty 58% to 42%.

“On both issues, Catholics and Protestants who are regular church-goers clearly supported a ban on homosexual marriage and affirmed their support for parental consent. Unmarrieds and those who don’t go to church overwhelmingly voted for the right of two men to marry; they also voted to deny mothers and fathers of their right to be notified in advance if their child is considering an abortion.

“Those who support traditional values, then, tend to be religious and married while those who sport a preference for moral relativism tend to be secular and single. The implications are clear: tax laws, and other public policy initiatives, which are both family-friendly and church-friendly, are critically important.

“Because those who reject traditional values and religion voted heavily for Barack Obama, it’s a sure bet the culture war will only get hotter. We expect to be quite busy.”