Human Rights Campaign Posts Religion-Themed 'Changing the Conversation' Video

Gay Marriage

RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR ARGUMENTS

by Sadler Hill

74-year-old Member of the Bars of D.C., South Carolina, and Supreme Court of the United States. This is respectfully submitted

in amicus curiae nature, not ex parte.

RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT:

Jesus is not quoted as saying anything explicit about homosexuality. But Jesus uttered aplenty condemnation of divorce (apparently including "annulment" of a consummated marriage) and remarriage as "adultery." (Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:8-9). Indeed Jesus condemned both "fornication" and "adultery" (Mark 7:21 and Matthew 15:19 [King James Version, Revised Standard Version, and Oxford Study Bible] somewhat different sins, else one of these words is superfluous). Yet only "adultery" is prohibited in the Ten Commandments [Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18] (KJV, RSV, OSB, GoodNewsBible, &The Living Bible). .

Apparently "adultery" must be defined as sexual relations between a married person outside marriage or between a divorced person and someone else he or she re-marries while a former spouse lives (See 1 above). And "fornication" must mean sexual relations between two life-long single, or married but widowed-by-death, people. Yet none of the Ten Commandments prohibits "fornication" or even the "catch-all" of an "abomination."

While many would throw gays a second-class-citizen sop of blessing gay unions, this still implies they "live in sin" (at least "fornication") and, thus, are not allowed full participation in God's love that complete vows of marriage provide. If divorce and remarriage when a former spouse lives is, to God, "adultery," then a fortiori that is worse to God than a homosexual union between two consenting, life-long, single adults which, though arguably sinful, would be "only" "fornication."

Probably most people believe Jesus would condone most heterosexual divorce and remarriages (especially in cases of abuse). For, if there is domestic violence or emotional abuse, divorce might be best for both partners, and remarriage could make a more loving relationship for the new couple and for children of the prior marriage. And, if Jesus will condone the adulterous divorce and remarriage (at least in some instances), so, too, a fortiori He will condone gay marriage, which would desirably end the less sinful fornication of many homosexual relationships. Gay marriage should foster a more lasting, committed relationship that could diminish promiscuity that may lead to HIV/Aids.

Also, see "Brokeback Mutton," by William Saletan, SLATE, "Washington Post" 2/4/2007, about a study that shows homosexual activity is natural in lower animals; ergo, it cannot be unnatural in human animals created in God's image. And it should not undermine the natural order of society any more than virtually free divorce and remarriage of heterosexuals does.

SECULAR ARGUMENT:

It seems obvious that the Federal Defen

Fay Marriage Part VIII

The faith of most people in Jesus Christ is that He likely would condone most heterosexual divorce and remarriage (especially in cases of abuse) if He returned today. For, if there is domestic violence or emotional abuse, divorce might be best for both partners, and remarriage could make a more loving relationship for the new couple and for children of the prior marriage. And, if Jesus Christ would condone the arguably adulterous divorce and remarriage (at least in some instances), so, too, a fortiori He would condone gay marriage, which would merely desirably end the arguably less sinful fornication of some homosexual relationships.

Therefore, it is saddening that in America, a majority of voters would apparently deprive homosexuals of the right to marry whom they choose. This is against Christ's teachings of "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."{9} Let him who is without sin cast the first vote for any United States Constitutional Amendment that prohibits gay marriage. While many would throw gays a second-class-citizen sop of blessing gay unions, this still implies that they "live in sin (at least fornication)" and, thus, are not allowed full participation in God's love that complete vows of marriage provide

Recently a newspaper forumist wrote that >>>Quakers in his area tend to believe in "continuing revelation," meaning truths "revealed"

today are as valid as those revealed 2000 years ago. That belief allowed Friends to interpret Biblical teachings from almost the start in the

mid-1600's, most notably at the time asserting equality of men and women. All that raises questions of authority, and Friends have a sort of mystically bureaucratic process for determining that. And they only adopt a change to their previous way of doing something by unanimous consent. So i's sort of a radical freedom combined with a very conservative process. The forumist thought Jesus would approve. And he concluded that the process led the large majority of Friends Meetings in his area to approve same-sex marriages starting about 10 or so years ago.<<<

_______________

(1) John 21:24 especially; 21:20-23; 13:23; and 19:26; (2) Titus 1:6 and see 1 Timothy 3:2; (3) Matthew 19:4-5, 7, 9; (4) John 8:3-11; (5) Matthew: 5:17-20; (6) Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:8-9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). (7) Mark 7:21 and Matthew 15:19 (KJV, RSV, and Oxford Study Bible); (8) Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18 (KJV, RSV, OSB, & GoodNewsBible); (9) Matthew 7:1-2; and James 2:13

Gay Marriage

Though Jesus Christ urged that we strive to be perfect, He recognized that there would be temptations in life. It seems best to strive to overcome homosexual urges with the help of God and ex-gay organizations like Regeneration or Chambers'. Yet for those who CANNOT, or will not, try to overcome them, wouldn't you agree that it is better to have faithful gay marriage than possibly promiscuous homosexual fornication leading to HIV/AIDS?

In conduct I'm entirely heterosexual. It is probable, however, that in orientation everyone is on a spectrum of about 0.5 per cent homosexual to 99.5 per cent heterosexual with the per centage differing in individuals all along the spectrum. There is nothing in the Bible, or valid in history, or in faith that supports a finding that Christ ever engaged in physical sexual conduct. But, if He were fully man as well as fully Divine, He may have had some sexual orientation. There are Biblical references to St. John as "the Disciple Jesus loved." [1] This may be simply because St. John and St. James were the youngest Apostles and, by a stretch of the imagination, one might say Christ looked upon St. John with some paternal instinct. But one would think that more likely Christ loved all the Apostles equally (or perhaps favored St. Peter as Christ spoke of him as the "Rock" upon which to build His church). Yet it is noteworthy that apparently all the Apostles, except the never married St. John, died a violent death. And Nero reputedly ordered St. John into boiling oil and later gave him poisoned wine to drink; but both attempts failed (Divine intervention?) See Parkash Samuel's treatise on the lives of the 12 Disciples on sale at the National Presbyterian Church bookstore..

Professional psychologists do not acknowledge as healthy relationships "pan-sexuality (polygamy{2}--virtual adultery?)," pedophilia, incestuousness, or bestialities (sex should be between human and human, baboon and baboon, dog and dog, etc). Since homosexuality is natural between lower animals, it is not unnatural in human animals created in God's image. See "Brokeback Mutton," by William Saletan, SLATE, 2/2/2007 Washington Post 2/4/2007. The unique relationship that insurance companies, psychologists, and others accept is homosexuality.

Further, It is sophistry to argue that gay marriage would cause moral decline in our society when heterosexual divorce and remarriage, gay unions (blessed or not), and heterosexual couples living together in fornication are all three already rife in our society.. Allowing gay marriage would hardly cause a ripple compared to any one of these three that presently exist.

In consenting homosexual relations between two childless, never-married singles there is no "victim," while in abortion there may be a "victim," the fetus, which feels pain 5 months into gestation. And, while Jesus indicated God made people "male and female," that a man should leave father and mother an