NC Small Baptist Church: No One Can Marry Unless Gays Can Marry


This position underscores a view of marriage: marriage is so irrelevant, that we can deny it to unions of husband and wife, because equality trumps all:

The full congregation of Raleigh's Pullen Memorial Baptist Church voted Sunday to prohibit the church pastor from legally marrying anyone until she can legally marry same-sex couples under North Carolina law.

... Among them was the pastor, Nancy Petty, who began a church discussion on same-sex marriages this summer when she told congregants signing legal marriage certificates to wed heterosexual couples while not doing the same for homosexual couples had become a burden on her conscience. -- Raleigh News Observer


  1. Louis E.
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Frankly,I think NOM should adopt a policy of "don't marry in state X as long as it allows same-sex marriage" and encourage couples living in pro-SSM states to move their weddings to states that remember marriage exists to unite males to females.This helps reverse the SSM supporters' claims that same-sex weddings are good for local doesn't take a large proportion of opposite-sex couples moving their weddings elsewhere to cancel that out.

    I see that lesbian minister's church was kicked out of the Southern Baptists nearly 20 years ago.

  2. Randy E King
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness”:

    George Washington

  3. Katie
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Or rather, marriage is so important that we should include as many people as we can.

    And just because I *know* the incest/bestiality/pedophilia/polygamy argument will be brought up, here are my thoughts on that:

    1) Children and animals cannot consent, therefore they are incapable of being married. I define a "child" as anyone under the age of majority (18 in most states, but I know in some it is as low as 16).

    2) I have no personal problem with polygamy providing everyone is consenting/can consent; however, it would probably present a lot of legal issues regarding taxes and guardianship of children.

    3) I also have no personal problem with consensual (see a pattern here?) incest between two adults. I would probably not encourage two related adults to have children due to the risk of birth defects, but I see no problem with them adopting a child.

  4. Louis E.
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    Katie,I agree with everything you say subject to the understanding that the partners being of opposite sexes is the most important qualification.The "importance" of marriage derives entirely from its being a means of guaranteeing preference to opposite-sex relationships,and without that,it's worthless and should be abolished.

  5. leo
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Katie-those discriminating factors you mention of behavioral incest, bestistiality, pedohpillia, polygamy, our bigoted viewpoints would'nt you say....? Or maybe not, maybe you are capable of seeing why these behavioral sexual orientations are a bad idea and why you would not promote them?
    Unfortunately,you are incapable of seeing why homosexuality, and ssm are bad ideas also, but "we the majority" do see why these choice should be discriminated to avoid. Arguing that children, or animals can not consent to marriage would following a similar argument, children should not be indoctronated that homosexuality and same sex relationships are normal when in fact it is'nt. a behavior of choice which likely causees harm to your body, mind, and those around you, is not normal...

    If in fact it was mornal there would be no need to force acceptance and prosecute and silence condemnation of "debouchery" conduct.
    In case you were wondering, "betouched" " immoral act" falls under the "gay" word definition in the dictionary... not so ironic... likewise, it also would not be considered immoral

  6. Publius
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    I fully support the conscience rights of Pastor Petty and her congregation, even while a disagree with their stance. Protection of conscience rights should be given a high priority, including the rights of those who are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage whose conscience rights are increasingly threatened.

  7. Marty
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Remember 10 years ago or so when people claimed that support for SSM would lead to support for polygamy, incest, etc? "Don't be ridiculous!" they cried. "That's absurd!"

    And 10 years later, a great many of those same people "have no problem" with polygamy or incest.

    Commenter Katie is just one example. Even when it comes to adult-child relations, she seems perfectly happy with each state setting its own age of consent.

    Nope, no slippery slope here.

  8. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    No doubt Pastor Petty will be praised by marriage corruption advocates for using her position for political activism. These same advocates, of course, call for the removal of tax exempt for churches that advocate for traditional marriage.

  9. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    Wonder how long this church congregation will maintain its membership?

  10. leo
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Using the same argument-
    Children should not be indoctronated that homosexuality and same sex relationships are normal not with out the child or the parent's consent...Katie your urgument-a child cannot consent to marriage would follow the same logic here... that an adult should be the rule for partnership commitments, as will as sexual orientation persuasion of any kind.

  11. Rob
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    Daughter, the congregation unanimously voted to hold no more marriage ceremonies until all citizens had equal legal marriage rights. I think they're not going anywhere.

  12. Dómhnáill
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    I guess this congregation are wanting to experience fire and brimstone given that they have clearly challenged God's teaching.

  13. Posted November 26, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Or rather, marriage is so important that we should include as many people as we can.

    The inclusion of same-sex couples requires a change in the definition, and every study about the benefits of marriage assumed a monogamous opposite-sex union.

  14. mikev6
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    I'd like to thank NOM for bringing this case to my attention - I'd have missed it otherwise.

    However, I'm a bit surprised they're posting a story that demonstrates the growing support for gay marriage across the country, especially within the Christian community. This same type of passion for equality fueled the abolitionist movement, and I'm glad to see this side of Christianity rather than the venom one usually hears.

  15. Steven
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    In addition to what Rob said DoE, the congregation has known for quite some time that the pastor herself is a lesbian and the church was removed from the Southern Baptist Conference a long time ago because of it. There doesn't seem to be any reason to warrant concern.

  16. Rob
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Marriage is defined as the legal connection between two people. How does that qualify as a redefinition, and even if it were, why is that a problem?

  17. Louis E.
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    Rob,marriage exists to connect males to females,and if it doesn't do that,it should be abolished.

  18. Rob
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    Louis, what does marriage do that men and women wouldn't do if marriage didn't exist? They would still come together as couples, for sex and companionship. Marriage is just the legal recognition of a committed couple. It didn't create the couple.

  19. John Noe
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    It is obvious that this church is a small independent church and in now way is a Christian or Baptist church. It is simply one of those far left churches that does not hold to the teachings of Christianty.

  20. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    Marriage is defined only as a legal connection between people? How do we distinguish between a business union and a marriage union? Which two people can enter one & on what basis? And why stop at 2? How is paternity law related?

    Please Rob, show us some real scholarship. You want to redefine marriage for all of us, yet you won't even take the trouble to do the research necessary to answer your own questions.

  21. Johnny
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    Then she needs to stop being a Pastor because the job of the Pastor is to teach the word of God and the word of God clearly says that men laying with men is an abomination to Him.

  22. Rob
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Daughter, marriage is different from a business connection because of the level and kind of commitment. One is committing to a person; the other is committing to a business. Do you understand the difference?

    There's nothing about sexual orientation necessary for marriage. Straight people can marry and so can gay people, at least in some places.

  23. Little man
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    Katie: You are the one bringing up those ideas. Of course, animals can consent, they just can't speak English, nor sign on the dotted line. But they surely can consent. The reason people like pets is because the pets 'consent' to be good pets. This post is about a particular Baptist church. There are like 30 different denominations of Baptists in the USA.

  24. Little man
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

    Pullen Memorial Baptist Church per Wikipedia: "In the last two decades, social issues have included Pullen Memorial's stance on sexual issues. In 1992 the Southern Baptist Convention expelled the church for its blessing a same-sex union."

    and Wikipedia claims: "Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists,... an organization of Baptist churches that welcome members regardless of sexual orientation." But, then... all Baptist churches actually welcome members regardless of sexual orientation. They are welcomed, but not married by the church. There-in lies the difference. But it is not a 'small' church. One reference says it has 700 members and another says it has 850 members, and it is 125 years since its founding. 850 members, of which how many attend at least once a month? Who said they couldn't marry same-sex couples? Of course they can (without a civil marriage license).

  25. Louis E.
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    Rob,to be worthy of recognition as a marriage a commitment MUST,ABOVE ALL ELSE,be to an OPPOSITE sex partner.That's the decision it's there to reward.The law has to weigh the value of the commitment before protecting it,and a same-sex sexual relationship is something that needs to be severed,not (ever!) praised or perpetuated.

  26. Rob
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

    Louis, your opposite-sex commitment requirement is arbitrary. The law DOES value commitment, that's the point. Why is a straight couple's commitment more valuable than a gay couple's commitment, particularly when there are children being raised by both?

  27. Louis E.
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    Rob,again,the analogy is being sworn in as a police officer (=committing to an opposite-sex marriage) versus taking the oath as a "made man" in the Mob (=committing to a same-sex sexual relationship).The couple being of opposite sexes is what creates the state interest in promoting it...all same-sex couples should be encouraged to break up,and forbidden to have custody of children,because their being same-sex renders them totally unfit (whether the parties to it consider themselves "straight","gay","bi","pansexual",or whatever is of no consequence).

  28. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    Rob, it's so refreshing to see you finally admit that gay people may exercise their right to get married. How many weeks has it taken for you to make that admission? Congratulations! 🙂

    Now, we should acknowledge that not all same-sex couples raising children are same-sex attracted, nor are they all gay. For example, some same-sex couples raising children are siblings raising a niece or nephew. Rob, are you suggesting we let 2 sisters raising a family member get married to each other?

    Furthermore, in a Same-sex couple, the child is denied either the mother or the father. Rob, if you should father a child, are you suggesting that you are not required to take responsibility for your child? Are you suggesting that you are dispensable as a father? In other words, can a woman replace you in your role as a father?

  29. Bryce K.
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 4:11 am | Permalink

    The disrespect and misunderstanding dripping out of these comments is deplorable. People like you NOM supporters are responsible for the deaths of so many gay kids. They hear the bile coming out of your lips and are hurt by it. Some of them believe it. And so they kill themselves because they can't stand the pain anymore.

  30. Rob
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    Daughter, it is refreshing, that states are starting to give equal legal rights to gays and lesbians, especially with marriage!

  31. SC Guy
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    And of course the media reports make it sound like this is the largest church in North Carolina.

  32. Louis E.
    Posted November 27, 2011 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Bryce,the misunderstanding is entirely on the part of those who imagine homosexual orientation to somehow create a valid reason for anyone,ever,to engage in homosexual activity.Those afflicted by the orientation are capable of rising above it...but not if they keep hearing your side's propaganda for surrendering to it.
    Rob,they already have the right,except in the states where marriage has been destroyed for everyone by losing its most essential characteristic of uniting males to females.

  33. Bryce K.
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 12:59 am | Permalink

    Louis, HOW DOES HOMOSEXUALITY HARM ANYONE? Please answer that question. You keep saying it's wrong. How?

  34. sharon brackett
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 5:33 am | Permalink

    Different churches have different beliefs. We believe marriage has to be between a man and a woman. Other churches believe marriage can be between anyone who invites God into their relationship. If we truly believe in the Constitution, we have to accept all churches must be free to practice their beliefs.

  35. Deb
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Can someone show me where in God's Word it says it is ok for homosexuals to do anything? Much less marriage?
    A church or a people cannot overrule God's Law.

  36. H
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    This "church" is a Baptist Church in name only. Period.

  37. Posted November 28, 2011 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Well, this church has many problems. For starters, it has a woman as lead pastor. I Timothy chapter 3 states the requirements as being "faithful to his wife"
    This is not to say women should not take part in church activities, but at the head, the leader of the church is supposed to be a male. Unless there are no men in the congregation able to meet the requirements, I can't see how this church is obeying God at it's leadeship level. After that, silly nonsense like this is just a given.

  38. TC Matthews
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Sharon, I agree 100%. People should be granted freedom of religion, to believe how they choose. Public policy, however, is another thing.

  39. Pat
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    No! Not religious freedom! Anything but that!

    Oh, but wait. She's only not *legally* wedding them? So she's actually still performing religious wedding ceremonies, just not signing legal documents. For that they'll need a legal official.

    That sounds... entirely innocuous, actually.

  40. Bryce K.
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Exactly, TC Matthews. Which is why religion deserves no place in the courtroom or congress.

  41. TC Matthews
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    Bryce, just because you don't agree with what the public has decided is best for public interest, doesn't mean you have the right to preclude those people from voicing their views. You have the right to voice your views, and they have a right to voice theirs. All voices are welcome in the arena of ideas. Public policy is based on what is best for the state, not necessarily what you believe is best. Go ahead, make your case for why kids don't need a mom and dad.

  42. Louis E.
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Bryce,I keep telling you...homosexual relationships harm those involved in them by enabling each other's bad instincts,and those exposed to them by setting a bad example or presenting a disgusting spectacle.Just BEING homosexual MAKES the relationship wrong and harmful.The species has two sexes and that AUTOMATICALLY means that ONLY opposite-sex sexual relationships should exist and all departures from that norm must be deplored!

  43. Pat
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Being gay is bad because it means you'll be in a gay relationship. Being in a gay relationship is bad because it means you love another gay person. Being in love with another gay person is bad because it means that you're gay. Being gay is bad because I think you're gross! It's gross because, like, duh.

    Louis, you keep saying that you've answered the question, but you've never approached an answer that I've seen. And from what I've seen you call an answer, I assume that you wouldn't know what one was even if one existed--and it doesn't.

  44. Vince G
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Hurrah for a courageous congregation.... and regarding Southern Baptists... whom I know quite well.. all they are interested in is making cookie cutter Christians and they continue to fight, as always, over who gets to decide the shape and size of the cookie cutter.

  45. Harold G.
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Ok, folks, here is the bottom line. God created Eve for Adam and told them to go forth and multiply. They did and there are billions of the descendents on Earth today. A man and a woman unite and that is babies are brought into this world. In SSM there can be no natural births. And therefore, there would be no new generations. If God had ordained SSM there would be absolutely no controversy. But God didn't and that's the bottom line.

    What this country needs more than anything else is this world is for Americans to get back to accepting God and His Son, Jesus Christ for Salvation. Then God will again would bless this country.

  46. Louis E.
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Pat,that you fail to see that a species having two sexes makes same-sex sexual relationships "gross" does not diminish that fact one bit.You are determined to make allowance for such relationships but their nature means they can not deserve it.

  47. Louis E.
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Vince G,DOWN WITH THE LIE THAT OPPOSING SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH BIGOTRY OR HATRED!May all persons of all sexual orientations learn to oppose all forms of same-sex sexual activity!

  48. Gene E
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    If you read a history of this group of people who call themselves after an early leader John T. Pullen, you will find that they have lead a different path than that which traditional Baptists have followed. Founded in 1884, these people became active in teaching a "social message" and obviously left their first love ... obedience to the "true" gospel message. Not all who call themselves Israel are the people of God, nor are all who call themselves "Baptist" people who adhere to the true message of the Bible.
    To the church in Raleigh, turn from the teaching of the Nicolaitans and return or your lampstand will be removed!

  49. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 29, 2011 at 10:16 pm | Permalink


    What exactly does "gay marriage" mean? What legal evidence exists where individuals have to prove their sexual orientation in order to qualify for a marriage license? And, if a gay man marries a gay woman, do they have a gay marriage?

    If proponents of SSM who engage below-the-belt tactics would discontinue the personal attacks and animus in the form of hatred and bigotry against those with opponents of SSM, we could enjoy some actual dialogue about different points of view.

  50. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 29, 2011 at 10:18 pm | Permalink


    Can you please be more explicit? Are you referring to same-sex sexual behavior, or same-sex attraction?

    Certainly same-sex sexual behavior can hurt others--just ask the CDC why they won't accept blood donations from men who have sex with men?

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.