“Of all the many subjects in the Bible, Jay Dennis chose to get politically involved in homosexuality. It says much more about him than it does about the people whose love and commitment he considers meaningless. Divorce will continue to ravage his congregation and everyone else’s, and he’ll manage to take no political action on that. I’m going to point this out, once a month, for as long as I write. Call it the Jay Dennis Marriage Protection Divorce Amendment Time Tracker. It’s now been about 12 hours since Dennis helped protect marriage from gays. How long will it take him to protect it from heterosexual divorce?”
I wrote the above the day after the election.
So, as promised, I would like to point out that Rev. Jay Dennis, R-First Baptist Church at the Mall, key organizer of amendment 2, has now gone one month without recommending or taking any political action to protect the institution of marriage from heterosexual divorce. Not surprising, of course. If you are immoral, but there are lots and lots and lots of you, don’t expect a challenge from your religious leaders. They only pick on small minorities. It’s good to be the pastor of a church that inhabits a mall, after all.
As always, Pastor Dennis is welcome to respond, explain, or otherwise point out I’m a doofus. Hasn’t been willing to bite – I’ve sent him links – on that yet. In the meantime, I want to reprint something I wrote in an off-blog email exchange with an amendment 2 supporter:
“And I would just ask you, in society, not religion or church, you seem to be fine with legal sanction of gay sex. You are not trying to outlaw it. You could certainly do another amendment to outlaw it. Thus, it seems, you are in the position of making it legal for gays to have promiscuous, meaningless sex, while doing everything you can to keep the state from encouraging social responsibility and monogamy. You can’t really be neutral on the question sex within love and commitment versus sex for the sake of sex, can you? I’m certainly not neutral on that question. The fact is, the conservative position is to demand the same responsibility and personal restraint for gay and lesbian people that we demand of heterosexual people through marriage, or at least state-sanctioned unions.
Gay people are not going away. They are have been a large portion of the population for thousands of years. Homosexuality occurs in nature. That would suggest to me, well,…you probably know what that suggests to me. What message should the state, not the church, send them? And honestly, do you care if they engage in ongoing monogamous unions or one-night stands? Do you really make no distinction? I’d like to know.”