Who Knows Michelle Shocked?

[Jay]

With friends like these, who needs enemies? Am I the only one who sees shades of the spirit that was cast out of the young lady who was following Paul?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I have seen quotes that said:

"I live in fear that the world will be distroyed if gays are allowed to marry"

and

"you can go on Twitter and say M S says God hats F**s"

That is a bit different.


Then I read that for YEARS and YEARS she has refused to tell anyone what her own sexual orientation was.... that she has a huge lesbian following, then she shows up in San Fransisco and just gets down right insulting.

She didnt help the cause of Christ. in fact if anything, it was damaging.

It is one thing for people to properly talk about sin, in the setting of a church. It is entirely another to be insulting to people that are lost and in need of salvation.

I've always rather thought it was mocking and insulting to laugh while saying, in a church setting, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." That isn't helpful for deliverance, IMO.

Just a another pet peeve of mine. lol

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I've always rather thought it was mocking and insulting to laugh while saying, in a church setting, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." That isn't helpful for deliverance, IMO.

Just a another pet peeve of mine. lol

Statements like this are akin to Epley's famous "Lost as two boys kissing" mantra.

[SiblingRevelry]

My problem with Michelle Shocked is this: She lied about the law.

Even if gay marriage is legal tomorrow in all 50 states, NO minister (as in NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA) will have to perform a gay marriage if he/she doesn't want to.

Period.

It is a LIE to say otherwise.

After all, it's perfectly legal for a minister to decline to marry an interracial heterosexual couple. Of course, that's likely to get the minister some bad publicity, but it's not illegal to tell the couple no. I think that's happened within the last year, even.

The Catholic church regularly tells heterosexual couples it won't marry them because they're living together, one party is divorced and hasn't had the marriage annulled, or there's some other impediment to the marriage. I remember a couple of decades back, a Catholic priest took a lot of heat for refusing to marry a paraplegic man to a woman, because he wasn't going to be able to produce children. It was an obnoxious decision, but it certainly wasn't illegal.

You can be against gay marriage, but PLEASE, do not lie about the implications of same in the law. Preachers are not going to be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.

N.B. This does not mean, if you hold a government office that involves issuing marriage licenses, that you're going to be able to get out of issuing licenses for otherwise legally-qualified people. You're working for the government, you are a representative of the government, and if you're intransigent about it, you'll likely lose your job. I wonder how many people quit or gutted it up after 1967 when the Supreme Court said that interracial couples could get married in every state in the Union?

(I'm also reminded in the slavery-owning South, African-American slave couples could not get legally married because they were property. It was only with emancipation that their marriages became legal. I have to wonder how many county registers gritted their teeth as former property came through and got licenses to marry?)

As for Michelle Shocked, I saw her once in Kerrville, Texas, back in the early 90s and hadn't thought or heard about her for years. As far as I'm concerned, lying about the implications of the law is a bad witness for Jesus. Bad, Michelle, bad.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Statements like this are akin to Epley's famous "Lost as two boys kissing" mantra.

I guess his quip here doesn't seem as alarming as it would in a church setting or does it?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by SiblingRevelry

As for Michelle Shocked, I saw her once in Kerrville, Texas, back in the early 90s and hadn't thought or heard about her for years. As far as I'm concerned, lying about the implications of the law is a bad witness for Jesus. Bad, Michelle, bad.

I love going to Kerrville!

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by SiblingRevelry

My problem with Michelle Shocked is this: She lied about the law.

Even if gay marriage is legal tomorrow in all 50 states, NO minister (as in NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA) will have to perform a gay marriage if he/she doesn't want to.

Period.

It is a LIE to say otherwise.

After all, it's perfectly legal for a minister to decline to marry an interracial heterosexual couple. Of course, that's likely to get the minister some bad publicity, but it's not illegal to tell the couple no. I think that's happened within the last year, even.

The Catholic church regularly tells heterosexual couples it won't marry them because they're living together, one party is divorced and hasn't had the marriage annulled, or there's some other impediment to the marriage. I remember a couple of decades back, a Catholic priest took a lot of heat for refusing to marry a paraplegic man to a woman, because he wasn't going to be able to produce children. It was an obnoxious decision, but it certainly wasn't illegal.

You can be against gay marriage, but PLEASE, do not lie about the implications of same in the law. Preachers are not going to be forced to marry anyone they don't want to.

N.B. This does not mean, if you hold a government office that involves issuing marriage licenses, that you're going to be able to get out of issuing licenses for otherwise legally-qualified people. You're working for the government, you are a representative of the government, and if you're intransigent about it, you'll likely lose your job. I wonder how many people quit or gutted it up after 1967 when the Supreme Court said that interracial couples could get married in every state in the Union?

(I'm also reminded in the slavery-owning South, African-American slave couples could not get legally married because they were property. It was only with emancipation that their marriages became legal. I have to wonder how many county registers gritted their teeth as former property came through and got licenses to marry?)

As for Michelle Shocked, I saw her once in Kerrville, Texas, back in the early 90s and hadn't thought or heard about her for years. As far as I'm concerned, lying about the implications of the law is a bad witness for Jesus. Bad, Michelle, bad.

Just for the record, she didn't say it WAS the law, she said that if it ever became the law, then Jesus would return.......

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I guess his quip here doesn't seem as alarming as it would in a church setting or does it?

I would agree, as long as it's kept here...........

[SiblingRevelry]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Just for the record, she didn't say it WAS the law, she said that if it ever became the law, then Jesus would return.......

Won't happen, because we do have that pesky** First Amendment which protects ministers' rights to practice their religious rites (i.e., performing a marriage) without interference from the government.

**not really. We could be in France, where there is an official state policy of secularism and everything else is subsumed to it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I would agree, as long as it's kept here...........

I thought you were going to disagree. lol I think we probably say a lot of things here we wouldn't in a church setting.