www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Obama: Sermon on Mount Justifies Same-Sex Unions

By Terence P. Jeffrey
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief
March 03, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him "less Christian."

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." ((Hear audio from WTAP-TV)) St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.

Obama's mention of the Sermon on the Mount in justifying legal recognition of same-sex unions may have been a reference to the Golden Rule: "Do to others what you would have them do to you." Or it may have been a reference to another famous line: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

The Sermon, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, includes the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, an endorsement of scriptural moral commandments ("anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"), and condemnations of murder, divorce and adultery. It also includes a warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

The passage from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which Obama dismissed as "obscure," discusses people who knew God but turned against him.

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised," wrote St. Paul. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith.

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay." (Hear audio from WTAP-TV)

Obama opened his town-hall-type meeting at the college with a short speech and then provided lengthy answers to a handful of questions. One questioner, Leon Forte, a Protestant clergyman, asked Obama about evangelical Christians who were concerned about his position on issues that conservatives consider "litmus tests."

"Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians because I believe that they believe in the social agenda that you have, but they have a problem in what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus tests as to who is worthy and who is not," said Forte. "So, I will ask you to speak to those two questions."(See transcript)

Obama volunteered that he believed Forte was talking about abortion and homosexual marriage, and then he gave answers on both issues that were not as explicit as positions he has staked out on these issues in other venues. Last Thursday, for example, as reported by Cybercast News Service, Obama published on his Web site an "open letter concerning LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) equality in America."

In that letter, Obama said he favored same-sex unions that were equal to marriage--including adoption rights--and that he was open to states codifying same-sex marriages.

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws," Obama said in the letter. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

In Ohio on Sunday, before mentioning the Sermon on the Mount, Obama insisted he was against "gay marriage" and did not mention his support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children and have the same "family" status as heterosexual couples.

"I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them," said Obama on Sunday. "So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view."

Obama also has been more aggressive in framing his pro-abortion position previously than he was on Sunday. When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a "person" a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.

In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a "person" would give it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother's womb was also a "person" and thus could not be aborted.

When the Illinois Senate bill was amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to protect Roe v. Wade--and that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to pass--Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois Senate committee he chaired.

Yet, in Ohio on Sunday, Obama depicted abortion as a tragedy to be avoided, while being kept legal.

"On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue," he said. "I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible .... But I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

Before discussing his views on same-sex unions and abortion, Obama told the crowd he was a "devout Christian."

"In terms of my faith, there has been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth, so here are the simple facts," he said. "I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years, pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me. Used to go quite often.

"These days, we haven't been at the home church--I haven't been home on Sunday--for several months now. So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values."

What happens if you don't like any of the candidates? I do not want any of them to be president.Should I be content to vote for the lesser of the evils?

I am starting to wonder if I can morally vote for anybody on either side of the fence.

Converted Viking

I will be voting for the least evil candiate.


When he says Christian, does he mean Christ-like?

Terry

[quote=Terry Bohannon]I will be voting for the least evil candiate.

That is the problem. One is as evil as the next in my book. Frankly I can't see myself voting for anyone.

Converted Viking

Maura, I think that might be the case as long as they are pro life, I could never support someone who would cause the destruction of innocent life. Becuase I konw I would be held accountable by God.
Stephanos I

"That is the problem. One is as evil as the next in my book."

There are degrees of evil. I measure it first by how the decisions one person as opposed to another may make would affect the most innocent among us.

Terry

I find he whole proccess of elections evil.It seems to attract those who seek to gain power over others, and will not rest until they have procured it. They will also seek means to duscrdit others and boast of how wonderful they are.

The proud boasting and sdisaparagy of other candidates, the promises, the duplicity, all seems to go hand-in-hand in elections, as doe the Politrisation of SOciety.

Then, this happens, and we are faced with candidates who are not truly worthy of leading a Nation.


Is it any wonder that I am a Monarhcist?

On the topic at hand, Obama is simply tryign to take advantage of Americas deeply rooted Christian values to win favour to his side and suppor for his cause.

St. Peter spoke of those who tist Scripture, and that they do this to heir own Destruction.

He spoke of the Letter sof Pual, but said they do this with the other Scriptures.

If you go to the Epistles f Paul, ou see him advising Yougn Timothy in similar matters.

2 Timothy 4

1. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2. Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.


Jesus himself said to beware, for false teachers will come, and een the Devil quotes scripture.

Obama is nothing new in this regard. He tries to use the teaching of Jeus while changign the itnent of his word to create the illusion of support and thus gain the Authority of Jeuss for his own words.

This Srt of thing happens often, and will always fall.

May God deliver us.

McCain is not pro-Life though. He merely gives lip service to get support and has a wishy-washy record.

From The Pro-Life Infonet newsletter

From The American Conservative:

For more info:
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/index1.html

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL02/doug.html

Obama is consistent. He is simply reflecting the views of his denomination. McCain is often at odds with his. I would rather trust someone who sticks with his principles.

BUT no one mentioned McCain. Nor did anyone really discuss anythign about him.

Why bring him up?

Its not as if Critisising Obamas words is a practice only for those Voting McCain.

That said, standing by ones principles woudl be good, if one does it. But, if you are to elect a president in These United States, shouldn't it also be a consideration as to what those Principles are?

A man can be reckoned Honourable if he stands by his Communistic principles, but does htis mean he should be elected? Or if a man iss a devout adherant of the principle of abolishing the freedom of speech for the good of the nation, would this make him a good candidate?

We shouldn't confuse Honourability with electability, and simply standing by ones principles is not sufficient reason to elect someone as ones leader. Those Principles must also matter

Obamas stated principles endorse Abortion and Same-Sex unions att he taxpayers expence. He also stands on principles that, liek Hilary Clinton, embrace socalisms daek and winding road to state enslavement of the people. He wants larger Govenrment with mroe givebrmnet aid and central planning.

Standing by those principles honestly would make him to some degree Honourable if he stands by them on the basis of sincere beleif, but sincerity in beleif is not equel to making him a good candidate for the office he contends for, where he will have influence and ability to shape national policy in favour of those things he seeks.


I'd be careful of Barrak Obama, based on his stated principles.

I also distrust him, and wonder how much of him is principled, and how much is instead agenda, and how much still is mere rhetoric.

Sorry, the McCain bit was in response to Father Stephanos who said he'd only vote pro-Life. I was merely trying to point out that there is no real pro-Life candidate.

The only true pro-life presidential candidate is Ron Paul. He was endorsed by Jane Roe of "Roe vs. Wade". You can read the press release http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/159/pro-life-activist-norma-mccorvey-%e2%80%98jane-roe%e2%80%99-of-roe-v-wade-endorses-ron-paul-for-president/ here. His record on pro-life issues is unwaivering.

Ray

Yes but his party hates him, and thus he won little to no support. He has performed as expected in the race as a result. He will not become President.

Hate is a strong word and would imply a strong campaign to crush him. I would say his party ignored him.

Terry