Home > News > God & Country > D.C.'s Anti-Gay-Marriage Crusader Ponders This Week's Loss

D.C.'s Anti-Gay-Marriage Crusader Ponders This Week's Loss

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Can you explain law of slavery? Jesus said to be a good slave in Mathew? Why,is it wrong if it was okay by Jesus word of scripture? How come I can't have many wives like old testament? Im lost can you help me understand scripture? Old Testament or God Laws were updated by Jesus New Law? Why, is wrong to be gay? Old Law? Jesus said, Love all man unconditional? Why, is it wrong for gay's to marry. Old Law of God? New law of Jesus unconditionaly? Is this not double jepardy? We don't do it today's law, except with Gay people?Is this not double jepardy? A Double standard? I dont get it. I guess this is why so many say it contradicts! We say Love equal than say you can't get Married? Justify with old law when Jesus said, Love all man and old testament says love all man? If, so can I use it in Law today? Sounds good to me.I can have slaves? Updated law dont mean anything? We can still use old laws and new laws? What is Human Right. Is this not to be equal.What is unconditional then.I looked in dictionary and says without conditions. Is this not double jepordy? To say I love you unconditionally,except if your Gay.What about Gay Christians that dont want to sin by Adultry. We say we love them equal with limitations.Then use old scripture or Laws and say No? How is this fair? I'm lost? If we just got rid of Old Testament it wouldn't be confusing? Like our old Laws.We no longer use Old laws with new. Old Law of God,One Book.Law of Jesus another Book of laws. Do you see where I'm going. If a man stole a cow we used to hang them. Why not today? You do it in the Bible, it must be okay for us today? We can just make laws to fit us? So if I have many wives I can Justify with Old Laws like Old Testament. Why keep old law if new ones take its place? Thus old test. law and new test. law. Jesus said, Unconditionaly.And also said Meant to be between Man and Woman. Can I justify having two wives by old law? What does word Meant mean. I looked in dictionary it say Soposed to be. So I can have many still? Meant in law mean today. Did it change of something? Meant, man and woman. Does it say not man and man? Where is the limitations on it. Surely not in old law?Updated law of today dont allow that.Why would God make it differant, Is he not fair?Does he love one more than the other? Jesus said under no condition and we say yes we are then no you cant. What is that? Two most important Commandments,Mathew said Jesus Updated the Law and we use old law of God. No wonder people say, It contradict. Do you see where Im going. How is a lesser law hight than More important law. I know the truth! I just wanted you to see it. You would do better without old law of Moses, Just used Jesus New Testament Law. To use both wouldn't stand up in court. Unless Prejudiced? Do you catch my meaning.We do it to Gays and then use old law to justify over new law. You Guy don't even see it.Blind and now do you see!!I have been trying to tell people won't but won't listen? I just hear justification of old law of Moses.So Moses law more importand than New updated law?Im trying to tell the world something and get blown off. I know I had been going around it wrong.I just don't know what God's meaning is behind it.Something Im positive of. God gave me the gift of scripture yet I did not know how to tell anyone without thinking I'm crazy. I hope this one get's taken seriously. I know without a dought what I'm soposed to do but don't know how to tell ya.This is my best bet to use parable as Jesus to get point across without putting up a wall. I was blind and now I see. I was a Christian for long time to. I'd thought someone was crazy if opposite situation. Can't blame them plus it is for some reason. God only know though.I will see soon. I'm trying to tell them he's comming. Like a thier in the night. Lot shorter than you think. More like now.This is the Alpha of omega. I know you think, huh? He wants you to be ready. Think 2012 calendars stop. You think ah,maybe. I say no for sure. If you knew what I do you'd go nuts as anyone else in my shoe. He hints then I wait then bang out of know where I just jump and as high as I can. He is real. You know he's real. Forget the old Testament. Like old law of society.Read word for word in bible truth of scripture only new law not moses's. Read Mathew at least. Then read Rev. the same way. No more contradiction and you will see his comming. Pleas try it he does love you.Believe in him you shall not parrish but have eternal life.If you don't catch on to this message you safe. Wouldn't like a little less burden. "Justice is mine says", The Lord. I can maybe help you if you missed the meaning.It is for reason all is for reason. God's Ordained Rev. Parker 3

chuck of CA 7:26AM January 28, 2010

As I look at some other states and see what they have done, there is little time for sleep. The future of our communities is going to look different. And I am comfortable with that. However, I do not think its government's role to specifically tell people what is morally right or wrong. There has been no precedent for this. We don't really understand what we are doing. There is no manual but there is the Bible.
Homosexuality and bestiality have been around since the earliest man. It obtained favor in some ancient societies and in others it was condemned. We should make no mistake, from a historical and biblical viewpoint these societies fell into decay or were destroyed.
The way I see it there are entities with intention to decimate a society and are reinforced from within to destroy you, imprison you or control you. Fifty years after the civil rights movement we are presented with another movement but the key to this movement is that it came from within. Carefully planned, orchestrated within and behind the walls of our government.

Al McKay of DC 6:47PM January 18, 2010

Most amazing in this whole story is that this supposed ‘man of god,’ Bishop Harry Jackson, is now using the same crass book, the holy bible, that was used to justify his ancestor's sale into slavery and to justify the proclamation that blacks were technically less than human beings, to do the very same thing to LGTB citizens that was done to his ancestors.
If I side-step my anger toward him, what I actually feel is pity. Especially for his family. For they will be the ones who pay for Bishop Harry Jackson's sins.
Have we really learned so little from our past crimes against humanity?
And doesn't Harry Bishop have a close enough relationship with God to know that God will certainly consider the heterosexual sins of abuse, degradation, dehumanization and discrimination against GOD'S LGTB children FAR more seriously than God will consider the genitalia of another's beloved???
It is time to stop this nonsense.

Bill of CA 4:23PM December 23, 2009

Room Faith,rely youth yourself sentence do cut far study settlement danger scientific argument authority patient line gas keep beside throw corporate least earn sector top answer year complete grant decide various further when property essential vast remember tomorrow development bottom decision during well eat prove form curriculum usually must disease count fire overall try trial youth continue free rate live buy add nurse man no-one year walk rate obvious importance positive play publication academic personal separate fuel belong review bedroom give because impose tomorrow

Smileafterwards of 4:56AM December 11, 2009

Like I said before, the issue at hand is not whether the Bible preaches one thing or another. That is completely and utterly moot when it comes to the law of man. It boils down to this. As long as Rev. Jackson abides by the first Ammendment to the US Constitution, specifically the part of "the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble", I frankly don't care what he has to say. I'm sure he's neck deep in sin if we delve into all the "rules" here and there throughout the Bible (i.e. "Anyone who does any work on that day [Sunday] is to be put to death." Exodus 35:2; "No man with any physical defects may make the offering: no one who is blind, lame, disfigured or deformed; no one with a crippled hand or foot; no one who is a hunchback or a dwarf; no one with an eye or skin disease; and no eunuch", Leviticus 21:18-20 where it comes to communion; I'm almost sure he's living in this sin: "Do not wear clothes of two kinds of material", Leviticus 19:19; If he's ever had sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle knowingly or not he's violated "Do not have intercourse with a woman during her monthly period, because she is ritually unclean" Leviticus 18:19; Heaven forbid if he ever showed his parents disrespect; it's doubtful he's upheld this: "Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death" Leviticus 20:9; and the list goes on).
The laws of man clearly do not parallel the laws of God on any of these. In fact, the laws of man actually contradict these. Anyone ever heard of Child Protective Services being called out for children that are beaten by their parents who many times claim they were simply punishing their children for things the child did? The Bible doesn't state the level at which one must discipline a child, but DOES encourage it so whaling on your kid is OK by the Bible; it's NOT OK by the laws of man.
This is no different. The LEGAL union of two people is a law of man. The RELIGIOUS union of two people is the law of God. Related to the comment about "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination" being from Romans; I hate to be the student of the Bible, but it's actually from Leviticus 18:22. Might want to get your information correct prior to posting. The line refers to sexual intercourse, NOT to marriage. If you want a literal interpretation of the Bible for God's law, you CAN get married to the same sex. You just can't have sex with someone from the same sex as that would be considered an abomination. Again, that's if you want to view it from a religious angle that's what the Bible states. Nothing more, nothing less.
Summary, third time's the charm, religious leaders can preach whatever they want in the house of God, but when it comes to politicians they have no say nor right to press religious beliefs upon the law for their countrymen as the politicians have no right to press legal beliefs upon the religion. Let's keep the Church and State separate as was intended.

A concerned American of PA 12:06AM December 08, 2009

Rev. Harry Jackson is to be commended for his bold & courageous stand in defense of traditional marriage.
The world can use a few more principled leaders such as Rev. Harry Jackson.
The extreme pro-homosexual radicals use tactics that are hateful & disrespectful. Houses of faith are targeted for desecration. Their strategies will backfire against their movement as more Americans react against their self-focused pleasures.

Big Apple of NY 1:03AM December 06, 2009

As though the religious right isn't already responsible for anti-gay violence.

James Probis of OK 10:39PM December 05, 2009

I vote for the return of slavery. Allow me to justify by God's word and doings.
Jesus is not recorded as having expressed any opinion on slavery. Slave owners were carrying out God's plan by buying the using slaves.
God's word: Noah cursed his grandson Canaan, the son of Ham, who settled in Africa. The dark skin of Africans became associated with this "curse of Ham." Thus slavery of Africans became religiously justifiable.
In the Bible devils were always depicted as black. Later pseudo-scientific theories would be built around African skull shapes, dental structure, and body postures, in an attempt to find an unassailable argument--rooted in whatever the most persuasive contemporary idiom happened to be: law, theology, genealogy, or natural science -- why one part of the human race should live in perpetual indebtedness to another."
Therefore, today I vote for my right to purchase and own Rev. Harry Jackson as my slave.
Certainly, Rev. Jackson would also be a stark supporter in my quest based upon the word of God and biblical scripture. Yes?

thepulpit of VA 3:35PM December 05, 2009

Rev. Harry Jackson declares a "bloodletting" for those who fight for equality for ALL people. Bring it on. You've cast the first stone, Mister Jackson, you are no angle yourself. Not everybody is content to stand by while you contaminate the minds and hearts of your congregation with hate and lies.
You will be exposed for the hypocrite and liar you are. And we'll enjoy doing it. You really think people are going to side with you when they find out the truth about you ?

AnonDC of DC 2:25AM December 05, 2009

The Reverend Jackson has the right to think what he wishes and to teach his flock what he thinks is right. When he crusades in the larger world against gay marriage, however, he's trampling on the rights of others. In this land of diversity, that's a no-no.
For all the sanctimonious prattle associated with anti-gay marriage, has the talk of preserving marriage as only between a man and a women been nothing more than a smokesreen for bigotry? Is saying religious liberties will be threatened if marriage is opened to same-gender couples just more of that smokescreen?
In his landmark work The Nature of Prejudice (1954), Gordon Allport said "Nothing is easier than to twist one's conception of the teachings of religion to fit one's prejudice."
None of us could quarrel with well reasoned argument and proof against gay marriage. Where have they been, though? How will traditional marriage be destroyed by the marriage of gays in non-religious ceremonies, and how will religious liberties be threatened?
I fail to see why it should be possible in civilized society for some people to deprive others of the fullest potential for happiness based on nothing more than their own belief. There is an ignorance in religious certainty that poses far greater threat to civil society than the marriage of gays possibly could.
Rev. Jackson would REALLY be doing God's work if he'd preach "Thou shalt not kill" in Washington, D.C.,murder central in this country, or work on our elected officials there to stop questionable wars, something we're far into in the United States.

Ron W. Smith of UT 4:36PM December 04, 2009