Citizens in Maine voted against legalization of gay marriage.

Poll voters in Maine officially overturned on Tuesday the gay marriage legalization act proposed and signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci.

With a 53-47 percent margin, Maine became the first state in history to reverse gay marriage legislation via the ballot system.

Interestingly, Maine is also the first northeastern state to consider legalizing gay marriage in the first place.

The defeat of the act has been termed “a harsh blow” to “the gay marriage drive” by the Associated Press, as well as a substantial obstacle to homosexual activists nationwide, many of whom were convinced they would win in Maine as they did in California.

According to a recent survey by Gallup, Maine is by far one of the most liberal and least religious states in the nation.

The vast majority of supporters had remained optimistic leading up the moment of the vote.

For months, gay marriage activists had poured time, energy and funds into a $4 million campaign backed and supported by leading politicians and several local and national newspapers.

The Stand for Marriage Maine Campaign sought to overcome the proposed legislation by “warning voters [and conservative parents] that if Question 1 lost, ‘gay marriage’ would be taught as normative in public schools,” according to the Baptist Press.

Stand for Marriage Maine ran six television commercials concerning the legislation, five of which included the theme of public school’s teaching of homosexuality.

No win for gay agenda in one of nation's most liberal and least religious states.

Bob Emrich, a spokesperson from Stand for Marriage Maine, told the Baptist Press, “This was going to have an impact on children – the way that children think, what children are taught.The people of Maine responded to that.”

This victory (or defeat, depending on how you see it) comes at a critical time in our nation, particularly after President Barack Obama’s early vow to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA as it is often abbreviated.

Signed into law on Sept. 21, 1996 by former U.S. President Bill Clinton, the act states that “the federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.”

President Obama, however, has made it clear both in national speeches and in the White House website’s Civil Rights section that he is pro same-sex marriage.

He has also indicated that he believes homosexual couples should be granted all the legal rights currently enjoyed by monogamous couples, including the right to adopt.

Currently, five U.S. states have legalized gay marriage.

Boston-based G.L.A.D. (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) has stated it intends to see all six New England states legalize gay marriage by 2012.

Unfortunately, this most recent turn of events may prove a significant thorn in their side.

The majority of political analysts believe New Jersey and New York will be the next frontiers for the fight to legalize same-sex marriage.

May Christians across the nation rejoice in the defeat of the act, not out of contempt toward homosexuals, but in an effort to give God the glory and seek to love the gay community all the more.

In an age when marriage is steadily being redefined by the government, we as Christians must hold fast to our belief that marriage is indeed intended by God to be between one man and one woman.

Such a belief in a God of infinite love should continually spur us to reach out to those in need of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

A nationwide legalization of gay marriage will not only affect the gay community, but the very fabric of our society as a whole, our families, children, churches and our futures.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Democrats suffered two surprising defeats in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races yesterday.

In spite of much campaigning by President Obama himself, New Jersey’s incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine was still defeated by the GOP candidate, Chris Christie. New Jersey is considered a blue state so this was a big upset.

Cristie, a former attorney general with a reputation for busting corruption, is the first Republican in twelve years to win a state office in New Jersey. Corzine, a one-term governor, ceded the election when Cristie was winning 49 to 45 percent.

In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell defeated Democrat Creigh Deeds by a 20 point lead. President Obama had also campaigned for Deeds. (Side note: this makes President Obama 0 for 3 in his ability to influence vote outcomes recently, if we include his heavy campaigning for the Olympics to be held in Chicago which was also defeated.)

Although one would hope that Christian Americans were waking up to trusting their faith rather than their economy, these two Democratic defeats were probably more a sign of citizens’ dissatisfaction with failing economy and the threat of more taxes.

In New York, Democrat Bill Owens defeated the Conservative Party’s hope, Doug Hoffman by just three percent; this could be because the people who have “always voted Republican” went with the party’s decision to support Democrat Owens when the very liberal Republican Scozzafava dropped out. 

It is a mystery why the Republican Party threw their support behind Owens. The option to support the Conservative Party’s Hoffman  was a lost golden opportunity. Democrats would never throw their weight behind a conservative. Republicans lose ground every time they make this type of compromise.

According to UPI, Republican National Chairman Michael Steele didn’t see this as a prediction of 2010 Congressional upsets yet; saying the party has a lot of work to do.

In Maine, the gay marriage amendment did not pass – not by the voters, that is. According to what has happened in other states, gay marriage advocates will probably take this to the Maine Supreme Court and try to get the vote overturned as a violation of the Constitution. 

After all this analysis, did the voters really decide who won? It isn’t Democrats and Republicans that matter—there are Christians in both camps. What matters is whom God feels are the appropriate officers for the appropriate times, according to what He sees his people indulging themselves in.  

“For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” Romans 13:1 NASB

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Friday, as I was wrapping up my work week, I got an innocuous looking e-blast from Ben & Jerry’s.

I love Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, so I’m on their opt-in mailing list, Chunkmail.

It was entitled simply, “Introducing… Hubby Hubby.”

For some reason, the title did not make me pause.

I guess I was too busy thinking of pints of Ben & Jerry’s dancing in my head.

Intrigued, I scrolled down to read the message in the newsletter.

I read the brief paragraph that the message contained, and then I looked to my right.

I finally understood what “Hubby Hubby” meant: An ice cream confection celebrating the legalization of gay marriage in Vermont.

According to a press release, Ben & Jerry’s is renaming its well-known ice cream flavor Chubby Hubby to Hubby Hubby to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality.

“Ben & Jerry’s has a long history of commitment to social justice, including gay rights. Its partnership with Freedom to Marry, a national leader in the movement for marriage equality, aims to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality and to encourage other states to follow the blazing trails of Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Maine. Freedom to Marry promotes the national conversation about why marriage equality matters and brings together partner organizations into a larger whole – a shared civil rights campaign.”

The company will also serve Hubby Hubby sundaes in its Vermont ice cream shops throughout September.

To be honest, I was taken aback by it all. I really couldn’t believe that Ben & Jerry’s decided to take up the cause in this way.

I’m not sure why “Chubby Hubby” was chosen to be re-christened Hubby Hubby, but I’ll never be able to think of it in the same way.

Chubby Hubby contains fudge-covered, peanut butter-filled pretzel nuggets in a sea of fudge and peanut butter swirled vanilla ice cream.

For peanut butter and chocolate fans, this is a win-win flavor.

However, when paired with gay marriage, Chubby Hubby can seem unapetizing to some due to the sexual imagery the contents of the pints can elicit.

One blogger at Friction and Harmony wrote, “Silly activist advertising folks — you may as well call it what it is. In this new context, even the flavor description elicits a visual that’s so fittingly disturbing I won’t be able to pass the B&J section without throwing up a little…So I have to ask, what about the lesbians? Don’t they get a flavor too? Maybe call it something like “Strawberry Red Wings“?”

I know Ben & Jerry’s was just trying to be clever about things, but in all honesty, whether hetero or homosexual, I don’t think people necessarily want to think about sex when eating ice cream.

While I don’t agree with the way the blogger at Friction and Harmony made his point, I do understand what he’s getting at.

If he is correct, then the imagery and description associated with the ice cream is actually offensive to homosexuals–many of whom who are trying to move people away from the idea that their sexuality is somehow aberrant.

Then there’s the issue of actually commemorating a socially-charged cause like this.

How could a company even try to distill the struggle of a group of people into an ice cream flavor? A potentially offensive one at that?

As an African –American, my first thought was, “What’s next? Chocolate ice cream with black jelly beans to celebrate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or to protest slavery in Darfur?”

Furthermore, and I hate to say it but, this may go down in history as a blunder for Ben & Jerry’s, because the company really just told a large segment of its customers, that it doesn’t share their values.

Through countless referendums and, more importantly, their votes, people from all walks of life in the United States have shown that they are not for gay marriage. Some may be for civil unions, but they aren’t ready for a radical redefinition of marriage.

To many in the United States, marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. It’s as simple as that.

The problem with Ben & Jerry’s supporting this issue on the grounds of social injustice is that most people in the United States don’t believe that homosexual marriage is an issue of social justice.

While it seems as if homosexuals are being denied a fundamental right by not being allowed to marry someone of the same sex, most people don’t believe they are.

Depending on the side of the law that you are on, all laws are discriminatory in that they prevent someone from doing something.

One commenter on Issue Clash, a PBS discussion on gay marriage raised an interesting point with regards to this.

He said, “Personally, I don’t see how you can “change” the definition of marriage for homosexuals without changing it for any alternative group that wants to be married. In Islam, a man can “marry” four wives… and when three men want to “marry” nine women, what grounds will the state have to regulate them once the precedent has been set? Homosexuals call this a civil rights issue because marriage laws are (in their view) discriminatory.”

I understand companies having causes, but many people enjoy Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.

This campaign is offensive to homosexuals and heterosexuals. By choosing this highly controversial cause, stand by it Ben & Jerry’s may, the company is alienating part of its customer base to placate another segment. It’s just not right… even if it is only for a month.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Regaining a Perspective on one of Christianity’s Most Debated Topics

These days the word “change” has been thrown around a lot. If you spent any time listening to our new President Barack Obama during his campaign speeches across the country, you likely heard phrases such as these: “change we can believe in” or “change will not come if we wait…” But the issue of change is not just being hotly debated in political realms. In countless Christian circles and church communities worldwide, the issues of homosexuality and change continue to be controversial and often dividing. Is a person born gay? Can a person choose to change their orientation and adopt a different sexual lifestyle? Can a person be a Christian and gay at the same time?

Brian Peterson, 45, has been gay from the womb. Ask him and that’s what he will tell you. “Yes, that’s right. I believe I was born gay,” he says. “And do I think my sexual orientation can change? No, not really. And I may be wrong. But again, I don’t think it’s a critical issue except for arguing with gay people and thus building barriers to the Gospel.”

You see, Brian isn’t your typical gay male, in that he does not fit the statistical stereotypes placed on him by so many organizations. Although he officially declared his sexuality at the age of 31, he is a born-again believer, the son of a longtime assistant church pastor, and was raised in a strong, Christian household and spiritual community environment from day one. This is where many popular theories surrounding the origins of homosexual tendencies fall short in Brian’s case.

"It just seems we spend way too much time trying to figure out the gay issue and not enough time loving the gay people."-Brian, 45

Countless researchers, both on the conservative Christian and secular sides alike, tend to postulate a “father-deficit theory”, citing that the lack of involvement on the father’s part may increase the potential for these behavioral and lifestyle developments. During a speech at the London-based Anglican Mainstream Conference, American psychologist Dr. Joseph Nicolosi stated, “…the fact remains that if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition. If you do not traumatize a child, he will be heterosexual. If you do not traumatize a child in a particular way, he will be heterosexual. The nature of that trauma is an early attachment break during the bonding phase with the father.”

Brian disagrees wholeheartedly. “I think there are a lot of people who are desperate to make homosexuality a choice, so they grasp at anything they can find. I am very blessed to have two wonderful, godly parents who were actively involved in my life…I never had a deficit in the presence of my father.” He went on to note, “I have many gay and straight friends who grew up with both parents active in their lives…And I have many gay and straight friends from broken homes. You know, I can get a psychologist to tell me anything I need him to tell me.”

Try typing the phrase changing homosexuality into your favorite Internet search engine and see how many interesting results you receive. You may be shocked at the number of “professional” and even “psychological” organizations in existence, each attempting to “cure” homosexuality through radical therapy methods. From PeopleCanChange.com to articles featured in Scientific American magazine, it seems everyone is looking for that “miracle cure.” And perhaps worse, these curing strategies are typically promoted as scientifically sound and medically professional.

A British survey published in March 2009 discovered that one in 25 therapists would agree to assist a homosexual person convert to heterosexuality. Although recent medical evidence suggests that such “curing treatments” have been proven harmful, unsuccessful, and even potentially damaging to an individual’s psyche, countless psychologists continue to promote and employ them.

However, it is not only scientific and psychological organizations that have missed the mark on dissecting and addressing the homosexuality conundrum. What about the ministry efforts of the church? It certainly doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that, globally, the church has not had the best effects in terms of reaching the unsaved or un-churched gay demographic.

Brian doesn’t believe the church is failing, however.

“I would say grossly ineffective is a better term to use,” he cautioned. “The problem as I see it is that the church has been more interested in having a gay ministry than reaching gay people. You see, Jesus never intended for churches to have gay ministries or support organizations to reach gay people. So they don’t have to. Let’s just call it what it is…The problem is: “How did we get to the point that we are so concerned about everything under the sun but the life changing power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?” Without question, the church is more interested in dealing with men having sex with men than men having a relationship with Jesus Christ. Everything I ever saw and continue to see is a pre-occupation with the sin rather than the Gospel that sets us free from sin.”

For Christians ministering to homosexuals, grace is the kicker. The Gospel of grace sets us free from sin. In Romans 6, Paul writes, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?…Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” (Romans 6:1-2, 12-14, New American Standard-updated, emphases added).

Churches, Christian communities, leaders, pastors, and congregates desperately need to re-embrace the grace found in the life-transforming power of the cross of Jesus Christ and His work in people’s lives. It is time to lay aside the hellfire and brimstone sermons and attitudes and instead pick up the methodology of truth and love. Radical, undeniable lifestyle change is more than possible for “whoever will call on the name of the Lord” (Romans 10:13), and that includes all of mankind, gays and straights alike.

And, as Brian expressed: “It just seems we spend way too much time trying to figure out the gay issue and not enough time loving the gay people.”

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

(Christian Post) On Apr. 29 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the so-called “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” which places “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” “real or perceived,” alongside of “race,” “national origin,” “gender,” and “disability” as benign conditions for which society should provide special protections in federal law. Those who oppose homosexual practice are, by analogy, implicitly identified in law as discriminatory bigots, akin to racists and misogynists.

–Maurice Williams, the Underground staff writer

Be Sociable, Share!

•