Marriage Protection Sunday: Rev. Rod's Handy Sermon Starters

[mojogeorgo]

A major focus today's State of Belief program on Air America was the whole "marriage protection" issue. Clicking the link for Marriage Protection Sunday (who knew? I thought today was special because it was Pentecost!) took me to a page of resources from Rod Parsley's "Center for Moral Clarity". It included sermon outlines offering suggestions for preachers. Including a portion of one here, just to give you an idea of the helpful coaching one of Ken Blackwell's biggest supporters is giving to religious leaders, regarding how to convince their congregations of the importance of a Marriage Protection Amendment.

I’ve heard the story about a boy who was almost 3. Typical of his age, the boy was eager to explore. More than a few times over a period of several weeks, he discovered the kitchen knives, both in the drawer that is just above his eye level and in the wooden block on the kitchen counter (which should have been out of his reach but somehow wasn’t).

His parents solved this potentially deadly issue by putting the knives, kitchen scissors and other sharp implements in a plastic tray. They placed the tray on the highest shelf in the kitchen – where even Dad, who was more than six feet tall, had to stretch to bring it down. It wasn’t terribly convenient for the cooks, but the disaster that would have ensued if the little boy had continued access to the kitchen knives called for drastic action. Preventing a tragedy became more important than the parents’ convenience. The parents were more than willing to sacrifice some convenience for the son they love, even though he exasperated them occasionally.

America today is in a similar situation when it comes to those who would tinker with the definition of marriage. Some would do tremendous and permanent damage to our society if marriage was ever allowed to become anything other than what it has always been. The definition of marriage needs to be made inaccessible protected in a place where no one can get to it. In this case, that requires a drastic measure – an amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating the obvious: that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Getting the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment passed will not be convenient, but it is essential for the safety of the institution of marriage.

Funny, I've never felt that my own marriage was threatened in any way by the existence of same-sex relationships--or whether such relationships are afforded legal status. But then again, as I wrote earlier, my husband and I would not have ever been allowed to marry in the first place, were it not for the meddling of "activist judges" back in 1967.

[enlightenment]

1. I must be slow today -- what is the connection between

putting away kitchen knives and the gender of marriage partners?

The two situations are not similar, as far as I can tell -- unless the complaint is that there potentially wouldn't be a sufficiently tall parent available to fetch the knives from the top shelf . . .

Color me confused, though in all honestly I just do not understand why these people get their knickers in a twist in the first place.

[eviltwin2525]

2. none, unless....

you happen to be a wackofundynutjob!

Please remind these people at every opportunity: if EVERY gay and lesbian person in America paired up with another and got married TODAY, it would amount to less than 5% of all marriages in the country. Is their sacred holy institution of marriage so fragile that it is threatened with annihilation from such a tiny minority? If so, maybe it is too feeble to survive.

My problem with gay marriage is not with gay marriage, it's with straight marriage. No matter how watered down and secularized with "civil ceremonies" it may become, marriage is and always will be a religious institution. The state has no business sanctioning religious rituals, let alone awarding social and economic benefits on the basis of a religious or mock-religious ritual. EVERYBODY -- straight, gay, whatever -- should have their Domestic Partnership (or corporation) recognized by the state, with all the tax breaks, survivor's benefits, spousal privileges and RESPONSIBILITIES, etc, that come with it; if they want to call it "marriage," they should visit clergy and keep their religion the hell out of my governement (lest I insist on forcing MINE on them).

That said, as long as they insist on giving said benefits and responsibilities to straight Domestic Partnerships under the color of "marriage," it is absolutely indefensible to not give them to all
Domestic Partnerships, regardless of gender.

[jaxx]

3. Churches weren't always a part of marriages.

<snip> Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony. http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm

It's too bad the uniting of two people in love has to be spelled out to form the letters of D I S C R I M I N A T I O N.

[Berry Cool]

4. I love this quote:

"The definition of marriage needs to be made inaccessible protected in a place where no one can get to it."

I fully agree. It needs to be made inaccessible to people like Rod Parsley, who would restrict it to people like themselves. Because, frankly, he reminds me of a little kid who can't be trusted messing around with something like a knife.