Religious Leaders Concerned About Obama's Support of Gays

By Baptist Press , News With a Christian Perspective - October 13, 2009

Icoemail3
Comments(26) | (0)
WASHINGTON -- Using some of his strongest language to date in siding with the homosexual community, President Obama told a gathering of the Human Rights Campaign Saturday that his commitment to their cause was "unwavering" and that his administration, before he leaves office, would end the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

"I'm here with a simple message: I'm here with you in that fight" for homosexual causes, Obama, the keynote speaker, told those gathered at an event held by the nation's largest homosexual activist organization. "For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and we will not -- put aside issues of basic equality."

Unlike a speech delivered to homosexual leaders in June, Obama in his Oct. 10 address put no qualifiers on his pledge to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He did, though, repeat language in that June speech criticizing what he called "outworn arguments and old attitudes" about homosexuality -- language that was viewed by evangelicals then and now as condemning orthodox interpretations of Scripture.

Additionally, Obama repeated his stance for overturning the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act -- which, if reversed, could force every state to recognize "gay marriages" from other states. He also stated his opposition to those who would "enshrine discrimination into our constitution" -- a reference to a federal marriage amendment and presumably also state marriage amendments.

He made news by saying he would sign -- if it makes it to his desk -- a defense authorization bill that includes an amendment broadening the hate crimes law to include homosexual persons. There was some question as to whether he would sign it because it contains funding for a fighter plane engine he opposes. Conservatives say the hate crimes protections put religious liberties at risk.

"My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians -- whether in the office or on the battlefield," Obama said. "You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. You will see a nation that's valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union -- a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them."

Obama spoke to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) on the eve of a National Equality March in Washington that focused on homosexual issues. He thanked HRC for "the work you do every day in pursuit of equality" for those "who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender."

"Despite the real gains that we've made, there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open," he said. "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes, who fail to see your families like their families, who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking. And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you're making a difference."

Bob Stith, the Southern Baptist national strategist for gender issues and representative of the denomination's Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals (SBCTheWayOut.com), once again expressed frustration at how Obama characterized Christian conservatives. He also said Obama marginalized ex-gays.

"President Obama continues to portray all who disagree with him as those who 'hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes,'" Stith told Baptist Press. "The inference is that if an attitude is old it must be wrong. The constitution is an old document. The Bible is older still. ... It is adherence to those timeless teachings of Scripture that has made it possible for thousands of men and women to find freedom from a struggle for which they did not ask and one from which they desperately sought freedom. If our president truly wants to end discrimination, he will be equally passionate about the discrimination these heroic people face. He will care about their stories and fight for the right for their stories to be heard. Until he does, his passion and eloquence will ring hollow."

Obama said he and his wife Michelle sent "a message" when they "invited LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll." Obama's speech came one day after John Berry, a homosexual who is director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management said the time is ripe to pass legislation favored by the homosexual community.

"This is the best opportunity we will ever have as a community, and shame on us if we don't succeed," Barry said, according to CNSNews.com.

Exit polls showed Obama carried 70 percent of the national homosexual vote. Regarding the military's homosexual policy, Obama said simply, "I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's my commitment to you."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and a former U.S. Marine, told Baptist Press the military's policy makes practical sense.

“Sometimes you’ll have 100, 500, or 1,000 soldiers, sailors or Marines together in a barracks or in a ship bay, all using the same showers and bathroom facilities," Perkins previously said. "When you introduce sexuality into that kind of environment, it begins to break down discipline and unit cohesion."

Stith said "the church must wake up to the struggle in which we find ourselves."

"Pastors should read the president's speech carefully and recognize the dangers it poses to the church," Stith said. "We should acknowledge that the way we have been approaching this issue has not brought the desired results. During his presidency of the [Southern Baptist Convention], Frank Page said 'in our convention and in our work we have been fighting the wrong enemy. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood. A revival is needed to reawaken God's people. I do believe we are at a crossroads moment, an irrecoverable moment and we cannot miss another opportunity.'

"We must avail ourselves," Stith said, "of every opportunity and resource to train our people to be proactive and redemptive in reaching out to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions. We must care more about helping men and women find freedom than winning a political victory. Until we are clear on that, I'm afraid our passion and eloquence will ring hollow as well."
This content is inappropriate
Loading

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:


Regarding Article
OPINION:Religious Leaders Concerned About Obama's Support of Gays

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • SolarSanitizer
    Watch.

    Obama will make this part of his re- election campaign platform, holding hostage the GLBT community's vote .

    When will minority groups start feeling it when they are bing f**ked by liberal Democrat politicians?

    Open your eyes. You're all family. Open your eyes.

    - SolarSanitizerUS October 13, 2009 1:36PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • caelum
      Democrat or Republican.

      If their primary concern is an extension of their civil liberties, they are always going to vote with Democract's. Do you go with someone who regularly condemns your lifestyle as immoral and who tries to pass constitutional amendments and federal laws to prohibit what you view as your right as a human being? Of course not, you'd much rather go with someone who drags their feet and has rhetoric you like. You at least have a chance then.

      - caelumUS October 13, 2009 2:08PM

      Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • SolarSanitizer
        Is serving openly gay in the Army.

        A fundamental human right?

        Think carefully before answering.

        I suggest you may be engaging in a bit of over the top rhetoric yourself, caelum. No American has the right to serve in the military . None. Period.

        - SolarSanitizerUS October 13, 2009 2:17PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • MrBook
          serve

          They may not have the right to serve, but they have as much a right to be openly homosexual as other soldiers have to be openly heterosexual.

          - MrBookUS October 14, 2009 6:18AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • SolarSanitizer
            Of course.

            I'm not arguing that.

            - SolarSanitizerUS October 14, 2009 12:40PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • MrBook
              mentioned

              “I'm not arguing that.”

              Caeldum did not mention serving in the army in his original post, so I am left wondering how your reply relates to his statement.

              - MrBookUS October 14, 2009 7:23PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • bhall
          The Right to serve?????

          Everyone sure as hell had a "right" to serve when the draft in force. So what changed? With these two stupid wars that will never be WON, I cant imagine why anyone would want to. We are sending our people to their deaths for a cause that will never be fulfilled.

          - bhallUS October 14, 2009 11:24AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • caelum
    Does this guys job title

    scare anyone else?

    "Bob Stith, the Southern Baptist national strategist for gender issues and representative of the denomination's Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals"

    Anyway, I've never understood how the The Defense of Marriage Act wasn't unconstitutional given the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The reasoning is based on semantic tricks and is clearly, purposely designed to get around the constitution solely by phrasing it in certain specific ways - and even then I question it's constitutionality.

    Don't Ask, Don't Tell is silly. I don't understand how anyone can reasonably justify it.

    - caelumUS October 13, 2009 2:09PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • SolarSanitizer
      Scary?

      It scares me no more than did: Janet reno, Atty. General. But, that's for another topic.

      Anyway, enacting and repealing DOMA are just tools the government , and political campaign strategists use to divide Americans into small, bite-sized groups for their convenience.

      Don't ask, Don't tell is less about 'infringing rights' than it is about unit cohesion. At least that is one of the arguments presented. How much of this is homophobia we'll never, repeat, never know. I can agree or disagree with this and still understand how it can be reasonably justified. Surely you can understand it also.

      - SolarSanitizerUS October 13, 2009 2:36PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • MrBook
        cohesion

        I'm not sure that it helps unit cohesion to force homosexuals to serve in secret. We know that there are homosexuals in the military , so wouldn't the 'secret' homosexuals be more disruptive to unit cohesion then open homosexuals?

        - MrBookUS October 14, 2009 6:24AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • SolarSanitizer
          Nobody forces them to serve.

          It is a volunteer army, and everyone it told in very plain terms, "If you are gay, keep quiet about it. If you don't keep quiet about you will be discharged."

          I never noticed any "secret" homosexuals when I was in the Army. Never saw a cohesion problem either.

          'Don't ask, don't tell' is a mean program that works very well. Kinda like many other things in the Army.

          So, to answer your hypothetical question: 'No. Not that I saw with my own two eyes.'

          - SolarSanitizerUS October 14, 2009 12:45PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • MrBook
            openly serve

            “It is a volunteer army, and everyone it told in very plain terms, "If you are gay, keep quiet about it. If you don't keep quiet about you will be discharged."”

            Why must they be quite about it when heterosexuals are permitted to serve openly?

            “I never noticed any "secret" homosexuals when I was in the Army. Never saw a cohesion problem either.”

            Yet they were there (hence the secret part), with the ever present carrier ending threat of public exposure looming over their head.

            “'Don't ask, don't tell' is a mean program that works very well. Kinda like many other things in the Army.”

            So it does not make homosexuals a potential security threat? It does not make them vulnerable to harassment? It is not detrimental to their moral that they have to hide a significant part of their

            “So, to answer your hypothetical question: 'No. Not that I saw with my own two eyes.'”

            Did you know any homosexuals while you were serving? Did you speak with them regarding how the policy affected them?

            - MrBookUS October 14, 2009 7:34PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • SolarSanitizer
              I'll try to address your questions.

              "Why must they be quite about it when heterosexuals are permitted to serve openly?"

              Because Bill Clinton pushed through a law that requires such. Ask him.

              "Yet they were there (hence the secret part), with the ever present carrier ending threat of public exposure looming over their head."

              I have no proof of that. Nobody said that they were gay. How am I supposed to know?

              “'Don't ask, don't tell' is a mean program that works very well. Kinda like many other things in the Army.”

              So it does not make homosexuals a potential security threat?"
              no idea if it would or not. I know that women were not allowed to enter mens' bays without announcing their presence. This limits 'issues'. Perhaps there is some logic in not having troops staying in the same quarters and fraternizing. Just like women and men don't have the same quarters. For the same reason. Ever think of that?

              "It does not make them vulnerable to harassment?"
              How would gays hiding their sexuality make them vulnerable to harassment? I don't see your logic here.

              "It is not detrimental to their moral that they have to hide a significant part of their [very being?]"
              I would certainly think it would affect them greatly. But remember: Volunteer Army and they know the rules before singing up. Choice. If they don't want to hide their sexuality, they do not have to join. That is what volunteer means.

              "Did you know any homosexuals while you were serving?"
              I probably did, sure. I didn't ever meet anyone who admitted it, though.

              "Did you speak with them regarding how the policy affected them?"
              No. I never met anyone in the Army who admitted to being gay. I never even suspected anyone. As far as I am concerned, looking back, if I knew any gays, they were all excellent soldiers, regardless of their sexuality.

              I have no idea if any gays were troubled by their choice to remain quiet about their sexuality in order enlist. However, I was only there 11 months due to me washing out with a pair of broken feet. I am not really confident that in such a short amount of time, no matter how close we got, anyone would have formed a bond so tight to admit such things to another, knowing that that could easily be their ticket to out processing.

              - SolarSanitizerUS October 15, 2009 1:06AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • MrBook
                security

                "Because Bill Clinton pushed through a law that requires such. Ask him."

                I'm asking for the basis for the rule, what is the rational behind allowing heterosexuals to be open about their sexuality while forcing homosexuals to keep it secret.

                "I have no proof of that. Nobody said that they were gay. How am I supposed to know?"

                That was a statement of fact. Homosexuals have and do serve in the military .

                "no idea if it would or not."

                That was like asking 'Does the Sun rise in the East?' Forcing homosexuals to keep their orientation secret IS a threat to security because it gives an OpFor agent something to blackmail a serving homosexual.

                "I know that women were not allowed to enter mens' bays without announcing their presence. This limits 'issues'. Perhaps there is some logic in not having troops staying in the same quarters and fraternizing. Just like women and men don't have the same quarters. For the same reason. Ever think of that?"

                But again the homosexuals are already in the barracks.

                "I would certainly think it would affect them greatly. But remember: Volunteer Army and they know the rules before singing up. Choice. If they don't want to hide their sexuality, they do not have to join. That is what volunteer means."

                It is detrimental, and that is why the rule should be changed... or are you arguing that the rules should be static?

                - MrBookUS October 15, 2009 7:08AM

                Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...