Today, Vermont became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage joining Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Iowa. The decision came down to a 100-49 vote in the House, which was the minimum vote required to overturn a veto issued by Vermont governor Jim Douglas.
One of the more interesting comments that I have read concerning the decision in Vermont came from Democratic Representative Jeff Young. Young, who previously voted in opposition to gay marriage, decided to change his vote and support the veto override. Here is what Young said concerning his decision to change his vote:
“You realize that, you know, it’s a poker game in some ways,” Young said. “Chips on the table. I’m a freshman. I have no chips. If I … had 20 years of chips, I probably could play any card I want. I don’t have that option.”
He added, “It’s the way the political game is played.”
Rep. Young says he remains philosophically opposed to gay marriage, but decided that voting along with the Democratic party line would help his career in the future.
My information concerning Rep. Jeff Young is taken from an Associated Press article found here.
Regardless of where one stands on the gay marriage issue, Jeff Young’s words should cause concern. Is the issue of gay marriage simply a game? Are we electing representatives who act in ways simply to advance their careers? It seems to me that on an issue that is so important to so many people, we expect our leaders to act based upon their convictions of what is right. Young admits that he thinks gay marriage is wrong, but he voted to support it because it was best for his career as a politician. Is this alarming to anyone else?
Theologically Speaking 
That IS alarming. Wow…
” Is this alarming to anyone else?”
It’s actually refreshing to see it go the other way. Far too often were liberal politicians forced to vote along with the neo-cons and christian cons because it was politically expedient.
While I would prefer they do what their opinions actually are, it’s nice to see the door swings both ways.
Tim, the perversion of homosexuality is a judgement on our nation and our world…along with legalized abortion. Homosexuality was totally prevalent in Sodom…so much so that when the two angels came to save Lot and his family out of Sodom’s destruction….the gay men of Sodom tried to rape the angels. It remains an ‘abomination’ before God because it is also a sin against the body which is intended to be the Temple of God. The practice is out of the pits of hell…but Satan gets little credit for it. And Christians continue to war against ‘flesh and blood’ rather than allowing the Captain of our Salvation to war against the ‘spiritual wickedness in high places. As Davis said, ‘The battle is the Lord’s.’ There are many homosexuals who remain open for God’s drawing them to repentance. But there, too, are many who God has already turned over to ‘reprobate mind so they believe a lie.’ All we can do is continue to have the desire in our hearts for ‘thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.’
Good post. Thanks.
I have a post on Homosexuality in the January Archives at my internetelias.wordpress.com site.
I find it deeply disturbing that someone would gamble with people’s lives for the sake of their career. From Young’s statement, it seems like his actions were selfish and dishonest.
One alternative view on the issue, though: What if Young voted against his own principles because he was seeking to represent the people in his district, even though their values conflicted with his? Obviously, it doesn’t seem like that is what happened here. That, in my mind, would have been somewhat more admirable.
“would gamble with people’s lives”
Who is dying because homosexuals can get married?
I wrote Mr Young the following:
I was completely disheartened to see the passage of same-sex marriage rights in your state. With much respect for your position as a representative, I was also disheartened to read an article quoting you regarding your vote. First I must say I am not a resident of Vermont but of California which I am proud of our state for standing up for God provided family values and entities.
This issue of gay marriage is wrought with such vile lie because the supporters of the issues steal from the core values of what the true expectation of a family is and they twist it to convince others that “they are like no one else” or “they can love a child just like a man and woman.” What people fail to realize is that there is no judgement on whether homosexuals can be “loving” parents or spouses. But there is condemnation in the life style, so the issue really is not political, but spiritual. But the beauty of the gay rights movement is systematically removing the spiritual from the issue because they know better.
I am not out to control what others do with their lives as so much as I am out to protect that which God has given to us. The giftings of marriage by design are not the priviledge of just anybody especially for those who choose a lifestyle that is in defiance of God’s word. Judgemental? Not my judgement to bestow. This is just another step in the rotting of family values in our country.
Now I have to say, I did not follow one word of the history of Vermont’s legislative journey to the recent decision. I have to admit that this communication comes only on the heels of reading an article on the internet, because Jeff, when you say that you are philosophically opposed to gay marriage but voted otherwise and did not campaign your peers to follow and only voted to be “an effective legislator in the future” then perhaps you are not well suited for the role of leadership. If you are not willing to stand up to the issues before you with your own convictions and beliefs and vote accordingly then you become nothing more than a tool for the agenda of the wayward and the lost.
I don’t know what your faith is. I don’t know whether you believe in God or his Son. I don’t know if you believe in salvation or the risen Lord. I don’t know if you pray every morning to an Almighty creator who breathed life into our world and established our dominion, but holds us accountable to our actions. I don’t know, Jeff, if you are a Christian.
I’m sure you are going to have your hands full with emails, interviews, both in praise and in despise. I pray our father gives you strength for your walk and the wisdom to discern that which is holy. I pray father God that Jeff finds peace in his moments of trial and within is whispered the ever graces of your forgiveness equally provided to us through the sacrifice of your Son Jesus Christ. I pray that he acutely senses the love God has for our generations and for all generations past and yet to come. But I pray in earnest, Jeff, that you acutely sense the love God has for you and I pray that your giftings as a leader come in alignment with your God given purpose and from this day forth stand strong in your convictions no matter the perspective or agenda the world would like to entice you with.
I have two beautiful daughters who are just 6 and 8 and growing up in a world that is crumbling under the weight of confused values, who has accepted the paths of sin as being “socially acceptable”. They are growing up in a world in which internet pornography is just as accessible to them as say the encyclopedia online… where there lie no controls or boundries. We are treading into territory where are own lives have no controls or boundries. Boundries are healthy. God gives boundries to keep us safe. Physically? Yes. But more importantly, spiritually safe because it is the salvation of our souls that is most at stake.
My friend. Peace be with you.
morsec0de:
“It’s actually refreshing to see it go the other way. Far too often were liberal politicians forced to vote along with the neo-cons and christian cons because it was politically expedient.”
This may be true, but I am not sure I buy that it happens more in favor of conservatives as you suggest. Either way, I would expect our representatives to do what they believe is the right thing to do, especially in regards to an issue that is so important to so many.
Davo:
“What if Young voted against his own principles because he was seeking to represent the people in his district, even though their values conflicted with his?”
If that were the case, I would respect his reasons and find them admirable also. However, this does not seem to be the reasoning based upon his comments. He was simply looking out for his own future as a politician.
Jeff:
Thank you for sharing your letter to Mr. Young. I agree with your statements in paragraph four in regards to Rep. Young’s qualifications for leadership. If he cannot stand for the things he believes in, even in the face of opposition, is he truly one who should be in such an important leadership role?
Unfortunately, I doubt that Jeff Young is alone in his political game-playing. I am just disappointed to hear that it happens on such important issues.
Morse:
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that people were dying because homosexuals do or don’t have the right to marriage. When I said “lives,” I was meaning to imply livelihood, quality of life or well-being. It unsettling that someone’s motivation would be reduced to political maneuvering when another person’s civil rights are at stake.
When will we call for the separation of the Family and State? Christians lost the battle when they fired the first shot. When marriage switched from a divine covenant before God to a legal status before the State we forfeited its sanctity to our pluralistic society.
I am afraid we have gone too far down this road. We should have never suggested the idea of ‘legal’ heterosexual marriage, because we necessarily yielded the sanctioning of marriage to a primarily secular institution.
Thus when politicians are asked who can legally be married, they will always answer how ever the masses demand. When the masses demand that wedding gays be a civil obligation of the minister, we will sorely regret having called for a “legal definition of marriage”, because we will be forced to live with it.
Seth:
“When the masses demand that wedding gays be a civil obligation of the minister, we will sorely regret having called for a “legal definition of marriage”, because we will be forced to live with it.”
This is a great concern of mine, which I have posted about previously.
Tim, Jeff, Seth, and others who commented:
Don’t forget! The war is already won! Jesus is LORD! Good and Evil are the only two choices. And we receive the rewards of those choices. Persons CHOOSE to be deceived.
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
2pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Ro 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Ro 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Ro 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Ro 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things
Ro 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Ro 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Ro 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet
Ro 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Ro 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Ro 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Ro 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Ro 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them
The SATANIC perversion of homosexuality is prevalent in these last days…as it was in Sodom. And it ‘AINT’T GOIN AWAY.’ The best thing we can do is give credit where credit is due…to Satan…not to a representative or even to a homosexual. Homosexuality is much BIGGER than that. They only thing we Christians can do, if we actually are Christians, is live the empowerment and love directly from God through us. But, historically, we ‘Christians’ are basically not much different than the lost. Our ‘perversions’ are just more socially accepted e.g. glutton (obesity-lust of the flesh), adultery (divorcing to marry another – lust of the flesh), fame and fortune (job positions/house/car/and so forth- lust of the flesh). Are we any better than they? Are we?? The best thing we can do for the lost world is FOLLOW CHRIST.
‘Mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Ro 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Ro 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Php 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
Php 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus
Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
P E A C E !!!
I can’t wait until I can marry myself. Finally, gov’t benefits for being single!
Or marry my donkey. I don’t see why he can’t get a piece of my medical insurance.
Marriage has multiple definitions, according to who is defining it. States are trying to define marriage in a new world. But what is its definition? Man and woman? Man and man? Woman and woman? One guy and two girls? Anyone who loves anyone? Brothers and sisters? Animals?
I don’t think it’s very ridiculous to say that there is no definite answer to the definition except for what you “believe.”
Marriage, to most people in the US, is a life-long commitment of a man and a woman to stay with each other and to grant one another conjugal rights. There may be a little more or a little less to the definition, but that’s most people’s.
Ben:
I think the government should just get out of the marriage business and remove whatever benefits are attached or just give some kind of benefit to every individual in place of marriage benefits. Otherwise, we are on a slippery slope to defining every conceivable relationship as “marriage.”
Tim, can you clarify?
What I hear you saying is that you’d be in favor of marriage having no legal implications. The state may give benefits in the case of civil unions. However, marriage shouldn’t be a legally recognized position.
Is that correct?
Davo:
I am trying to think through this issue and here are some of my thoughts:
1. I believe that marriage has its origins as a religious institution
2. As a religious institution, the definition of marriage should not be decided by government, but the religious system behind it
3. I think the only advantage to our current governmentally-recognized marriages are the tax incentives available to married couples
4. The government gives marriage-based tax incentives as a way of promoting stronger families
5. What if we eliminate the government from the marrige discussion by removing any kind of formal recognition?
6. People would still get married, but it would be based upon either tradition or a strong religious conviction that it is the right thing to do (i.e. enter into a covenant before God) – this marriage would be recognized by the person’s religious system.
7. All tax incentives as we know them today could either be completely removed or the government could just increase whatever benefits are available to individuals in their place – this would make sure there is no “unfair” advantage to being married, which seems to be the motivating factor in the gay marriage discussion
I realize that this is a pretty drastic change and that many will oppose me. What do you think? I am still thinking through the implications of such thinking. I may be way off track and I reserve the right to change my mind because I realize I have not fully thought this through. But if you cannot use a blog to think through ideas, what is it really good for?
Ah, now we’re getting to some food for thought!
I think I would agree with you up until #7.
In his book Just Generosity, Ron Sider makes a convincing argument that strong families are highly important in avoiding poverty. If, as you say in #4, tax incentives promote stronger families, then I don’t think it’s a good idea to completely do away with such tax incentives.
What if the government gave tax incentives for civil unions, and includes marriage as a type of civil union. This would continue to strengthen families through encouraging marriage, but also allow other types civil unions to occur.
Strong families usually foster an environment for children to become healthy, productive members of society. To my understanding, studies show that it makes little difference whether the guardians are heterosexual or homosexual. As long as they are in a loving, caring, nurturing, two-parent home, they tend to thrive.
So if I were to revise #7, I would say: Keep tax incentives for marriage. Also offer tax incentives for civil unions, and allow two consenting adults (regardless of gender) to enter into civil unions. This way, the church gets to keep its definition of marriage, and the government can still encourage healthy, productive families.
If, as I suggested, the option to increase the incentive for individuals was taken instead of the option to just eliminate them, then I think you get to the same place as you suggest. Families will receive a greater amount in their tax breaks because they have more individuals to claim. It just insures that we do not have single people thinking they are being treated unfairly in the future because families get an incentive they do not.
As a Christian, I do not like the idea of same-sex partnerships, but I do understand that I cannot force another person to subscribe to my views. Your thoughts about the government recognizing different types of civil unions seems reasonable as long as there is an allowance for the church to keep the traditional definition of marriage (or at least define it as it sees fit).
Wow, I am not certain where to begin. But let me throw a few things at everyone.
– A marriage in the USA is only secular. If you are married in a church, it is not legal unless you have the proper documentation form the state. Maybe we could go back to the way it was done in the times of Jesus when a woman was the property of the man and her family paid his family, or the marriage was arranged. all in favor, raise your hand.
– I am married to a woman. In no way does a gay couple being married hurt my family. I does not diminish my love for my wife, the values on our home, our religious beliefs, interpretation of the bible, etc.
-Tim, in your seven points, tax is not the issue. Imagine if your wife found you in a coma in the hospital, but was not allowed to help make medical decisions on your treatment, or is you died after marrying but before you had a will drafted. The gay community wants less to have tax benefits, but to help each other in their lives together.
-Jeff Trudeau, being gay is not a choice. Did you decide what excites you? Did you decide what physical make-up of a woman turns you on? Did you decide what type of music you enjoy? No, one day you looked a group pf women a decided which was the most attractive to you. You hear a song on the radio and you say, “I love that song” or “That music is aweful.” Did you ever say, I think today pigs brain will be my favorite taste? No, it is silly.
-Let me pose this to you all. Please work with me on this for it to have its true effect. Tomorrow you learn from missing documents that God says you are supposed to be gay. Now, since you follow the word of God, could you, today, do this? Despite having to follow your faith, could you do this? Or does it repulse you and in no way could you perform a sexual act, or fall in love, with someone of the same sex, think about this physical act……..now, could you do this for God?
The point here is this is the dilemma many gay people fight with and this is how they feel. Look, it is so important to Christ that he never mentioned anything about being Gay. Not once, not one single time. I would ask you to recall what he said were the to most important rules.
Aaron:
“A marriage in the USA is only secular. If you are married in a church, it is not legal unless you have the proper documentation form the state.”
This statement tells us nothing of marriage’s origins and how it should be defined. It did not originate in the U.S. and the U.S. government has no right to impose its views on religious institutions. The government
chose to recognize marriage and bestow benefits on those who are married. Also, there is no moral issue with arranged marriages, even if we do not like the idea. The reason the Old Testament requires that a man give a certificate of divorce to a woman he was not willing to care for properly as his wife was to keep women from being treated like property (as other cultures did). Women were then free to find another who would care for them appropriately.
“Tim, in your seven points, tax is not the issue. Imagine if your wife found you in a coma in the hospital, but was not allowed to help make medical decisions on your treatment, or is you died after marrying but before you had a will drafted. The gay community wants less to have tax benefits, but to help each other in their lives together.”
So, maybe the best thing to do is change how we determine who has certain rights rather than change the definition of marriage. People live together all the time without issue. Why make an issue of marriage if those same people can obtain all the “benefits” of a married couple? That was my point, even if I am mistaken on what all of the benefits are.
“Tomorrow you learn from missing documents that God says you are supposed to be gay. Now, since you follow the word of God, could you, today, do this? Despite having to follow your faith, could you do this? Or does it repulse you and in no way could you perform a sexual act, or fall in love, with someone of the same sex, think about this physical act……..now, could you do this for God?”
No offense, but this arguement does not mean much to most Christians. Why? Because if we believe there is a God (and we do) who is concerned enough to give us his word (and we believe he is), then it only makes sense that this same God is concerned enough that he would preserve his word for us (which he has in the Bible). Plus, we do not believe that God is a God of contradiction. It is very clear how God feels about homosexuality in Scripture. He is not going to reverse how he intended things to be. The entire story of Scripture is that God created the world and called it “good.” Unfortunately, humanity rebelled against God through sin and upset God’s good creation, which led to a distortion of how things should be. God, through Jesus Christ, is restoring his creation to its original goodness, which is pictured in Revelation 21. Homosexuality is part of the brokenness of this present world resulting from our sin.
“Look, it is so important to Christ that he never mentioned anything about being Gay. Not once, not one single time. I would ask you to recall what he said were the to most important rules.”
Jesus did, in fact, speak about homosexuality when he said he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets (the Old Testament), but to fulfill them. He said not a detail of the law would pass away (Matthew 5:18; Luke 16:17). He affirmed the Old Testament was from God. You also seem to assume that respecting someone with a different sexual orientation is the same as accepting their homosexual relationships. I do not think this is true. I can love a person I think is in the wrong. In fact, sometimes I love them best by telling them they are wrong. Isn’t that why parents correct their children? Because they love them and want what is best for them?
Why do you believe that homosexuals have no “choice” in how they live?
Tim: Your response saved me some writing, but I will add this….
Aaron you wrote…
“being gay is not a choice. Did you decide what excites you?”
No I didn’t. Excitement for certain “pleasures” of life certainly could be natural, but I don’t agree that liking music and desiring men are in the same ballpark. There are not spiritual implications to preferring a song over another or preferring one woman over another which is known as attraction (unless lustful thoughts control the attraction) and then there are implications. However, there are definite spirtual implications for me preferring the attraction of another man and worse if acted upon.
Also, I am cautious to follow those “excitements” of my flesh that are against my father and creators desire for me in living a holy life. We are not called to answer to our flesh, but to die to our flesh.
Homosexuality is answering to the flesh as it clearly defies the natural course of procreation. Were we designed to engage in purly sexual acts (hetero or homo) simply for the satisfaction of it? No – pleasureable sex was designed for a man and woman who are HUSBAND and WIFE. This is why we are called to be married if the tempation of our flesh is too overwhelming. This is also why I believe the gay community is in such a fight over marriage… because marriage would then legitimize the deviance and would then be a way of subduing the guilt (conscious or otherwise) that is felt when separated from a creator.
I’ve oftened wondered why in many studies that homosexuality can be linked to instances of physical abuse, esteem issues, poor parental bonding, missing parents (either dad or mom) in many who are gay? Does heterosexuality ever get linked to being raped by a male relative at an early age? Is a person who is “born” gay have a tramatic experience in childhood that implants a seed in them to stray from that path of homosexuality and ultimately become heterosexual?
I know there are exceptions to that out there, but my answer to them… keep digging…. keep praying…. you’ll find the root of the curse.
If homosexuality was part of God’s plan wouldn’t He have been a little more clear in that and there certainly wouldn’t be a single passage relating to homosexuality. Many today have re-written the scriptures to better accomodate dysfunctional lifestyles including womens lib because the bible is too masculine and God is too masculine.
Study the word. God created a man and then provided that man a woman. He didn’t create man and a woman for Adam to choose from. And if you don’t take the story of creation as truth then we’re having a pointless discussion.
Jesus does indeed call us to love one another. I have absolutely no hatred for anyone. Jesus did indeed love everyone, but he certianly didn’t tolerate their lifestyle choices… go and sin no more. A message to us ALL. Myself included.
Peace to you Aaron and Tim.
Still you all miss the point of the force people are up against. To appreciate it, you have follow my scenario. It is easy to tell someone else to change there ways when we do not have to fight our nature. People do not choose to be gay, no one has a choice in whom they are attracted to. To ask the to turn it off because is near impossible
Let me offer it this way, this is the power they fight. Tim, say an angel came to you and said, “The Lord wants you to go to Sarah’s bed, put your hands around her neck and strangle her. Because God was calling you to do this, just as in the bible, could you? Would you kill your own child, or would you be willing to go to hell? It is that type level of conflict you are asking people to ignore.
Aaron:
Again, you confuse desire with action. Even if a person is born with a certain desire (which there is no scientific evidence that this is true), it does not give them the right to act on that desire. What about pedophiles? Or people prone to anger? Or heterosexuals who cannot find a willing partner? Desire does not give a person the right to act on their desire.
So if homosexuals shouldn’t act on their desires, should they all just take lifelong vows of celibacy? After all, I don’t think anyone would want to be married to someone who wasn’t attracted to them.
Davo:
I would say that if a person has desires that are contrary to God’s will, they should refrain from acting upon those desires, whether it is in the area of sex, anger, drug & alcohol abuse, or anything else. So, yes, celibacy is a legitimate option for a homosexual if that is what it takes for them to honor God with their body – and I am convinced that homosexual acts are contrary to God’s will.