A day after electing their first African-American president in a historic move that strives to erase its legacy of racism, Southern Baptists passed a resolution opposing the idea that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.
Thousands of delegates at the denomination's annual meeting in New Orleans on Wednesday were nearly unanimous in their support for the resolution that affirms their belief that marriage is "the exclusive union of one man and one woman" and that "all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful."
The nation's largest Protestant denomination is attempting to broaden its appeal beyond its traditional white Southern base. At the same time, leaders said they feel it is important to take a public stand on their opposition to same-sex marriage.
The resolution acknowledges that gays and lesbians sometimes experience "unique struggles" but declares that they lack the "distinguishing features of classes entitled to special protections."
"It is regrettable that homosexual rights activists and those who are promoting the recognition of `same-sex marriage' have misappropriated the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement," the resolution states.
Another resolution passed on Wednesday is intended to protect religious liberty. It includes a call for the U.S. Justice Department to cease efforts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and for the Obama administration to ensure that military personnel and chaplains can freely express their religious convictions about homosexuality.
30 Comments
Why should it matter what those Southern Baptists think?
Great news
This is news...?
Love the content, but the title is a misfit. Gay Rights can include freedom to all other rights Americans enjoy, which include voting, freedom from violence, discrimination, etc. SSM is not a right, Gay or otherwise. Let's not get into Gay hating, but standing up for the traditional definition of marriage.
@Spencer
They are just a group of people in our nation. As the LGBT are just a group of people. “Why should it matter what they say?” Answer it for yourself.
In other news, the Grand Wizard has called for segregation.
Was there any doubt.Dont usually agree with most of what they are for but Ill agrre with this until the day I die
Jenifer #4:
Brava.
"Church Founded on Preservation of Slavery Begins New Official Chapter of Discrimination"
This is not the first time the Southern Baptist Conference has been on the wrong side of history. In fact the Southern Baptists broke away in 1845 because they believed slavery was divinely ordained:
“Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man. Its institution, regulation, and perpetuity, constitute a part of many of the books of the Bible …. The public mind needs enlightening from the sacred teachings of inspiration on this subject. It is necessary for ministers of the gospel to teach slavery from the pulpit, as it was taught by the holy men of old, who spake as moved by the holy Spirit. Both Christianity and Slavery are from heaven; both are blessings to humanity; both are to be perpetuated to the end of time Their Maker has decreed their bondage, and has given them, as a race, capacities and aspirations suited alone to this condition of life.”
@John
Sounds like a biblically supported argument for "traditional slavery" to me
You know it is possible to be unanimously wrong.
I agree we need to return to the traditional definition of marriage. One where women are the rightful property of their husbands. Where bridal prices are set and alliances formed by the trading of women. Men should have to marry their sister-in-laws when their brothers die. Women can get beaten with the "rule of thumb" and are forbidden to hold property or vote. Really, marriage is and continues to be an evolving entity that changes with successive generations. What is our traditional marriage is our children's anachronistic memory.
I AGREE WITH MARRIAGE AS ONE WOMAN AND ONE MAN. MARRIAGE . THERE WERE NO GAY BATHROOMS OR MOVIE THEATERS OR GAY SEATS IN THE BACK OF THE BUS. THEY ARE TRYING TO RIDE ON THE BACKS OF BLACKS WHEN ALL THE TIME THEY RECEIVED FIRST CLASS SERVICE BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR. Homosexuality is a choice. Skin color is not and by the way I love my black skin.
IF THE WHITE BAPTISTS COULD BE WRONG WHY CANT THE GAYS BE WRONG ABOUT "MARRIAGE OF SAME SEX PEOPLE" IT WORKS BOTH WAYS OR DOES IT !!!!
GOOD!
@ john
In case you haven't noticed, this isn't 1845 any longer. For years Democrats have been having it both ways. They've had a long history of racism (Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr and Jr, Bull Connor), yet they claim to be the party of civil rights. They've privately treated women abysmally (The Kennedys, Bill Clinton, John Edwards), but claim to be the party of women's rights. And they've gone on the campaign trail saying they do not support gay marriage while they've claimed to be the gay-friendly party. Joe Biden voted for DOMA.
If it wasn't for their double standard, Liberals would have no standards at all.
Good news for sure. And these people vote which is even better news.
While I agree with their position on marriage, I winced at the the irony in the wording of their resolution:
"It is regrettable that homosexual rights activists and those who are promoting the recognition of `same-sex marriage' have misappropriated the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement," the resolution states.
After reading that, what instantly went through my mind was:
"It is regrettable that the Baptist church has misappropriated baptism into being a requirement for membership in the Baptist church rather than its true purposes as taught in the NT."
http://www.housetohouse.com/BibleQuestions.aspx?Letter=all&Question=4385
Sorry, I know that's a whole 'nother ball o' wax, but just sayin'!
Dan:
Nice.
The more sophisticated among the pseudo-marriage advocates can take a cue from Dan.
To entice us into theological debates in the face of the completely satanic pseudo-marriage movement is an excellent strategy, and Dan has advanced it today.
You ought to be promoted or whatever it is that the pseudo-marriage advocates do for the smart fellows, Dan.
Of course your ruse is completely futile for those of us who understand what is actually at stake here.
They voted on doctrine?? Do they have a democratic god?? Truth is truth. Maybe if they recognized that, it would make it easier, but a majority decision never makes right or wrong.
Dan,
It is not a requirement to be baptized before you are a member of a SBC.
On the other hand, to be a saved, born-again Christian who is going to heaven, you must believe that Jesus died for your sins. Baptism is a symbol done after this to confirm that one has been "born again".
FYI: "Ash" in comment #22 is not the Ash who supports NOM and comments regularly.
#22= Pseudo-Ash
I am impressed that our trolls are exploring the possibility of dividing us over theological distinctions.
It would be a very good thing to watch them fail miserably.
Rick, I wish I could find the thread right now, but there was a Pseudo-Rick commenter on one. He called himself "Rick NeDalo" and the hyperlink of his name takes the clicker back to the NOM blog.
They are desperate to impersonate us, lol.
By the way, 'Southern Baptists' (that is, the Southern Baptist Convention) are not and never were PROTESTANTS. What did they protest against as a denomination? The Associated Press has it wrong.
These are organized strong voters who actually go out and vote. And now they are united strongly to defend civil marriage as excluding ALL same-sex partnerships (blood-related partnerships, two roommates in college, queers, and other pairs who would form a household out of necessity, sexual passion, love, or just to stand out or be different.)
A statement from the President of the Dallas Theological Seminary, it main seminary, seemed to imply that Baptists were adapting to the redefinition of civil marriage to include people of homosexual persuasion (see NOMblog). That was just the dumb idea of a single leader.
England abolished slavery before the US did so. It was Christians who abolished it, and the US even fought a deadly war before the advent of penicillin.
What really put an end to slavery was the invention of the steam engine, and later that gasoline motor.
Let's see. Do people really believe slavery in all forms has really been abolished? As long as you have illegal workers working at $2 per hour harvesting your Romaine lettuces so you can eat a Tijuana creation called a Caesar Salad, there still slavery in the USA. And many USA citizens still look the other way, or don't want to think about it, or see it.
The Bible did not recommend or patronize slavery. But at a time when life was shorter, and there were no motors to do heavy work, slavery was a system, like later oxen and horses were used to draw carriages and plows until the advent of the motorized cars and tractors.
Imprisonment is a form of slavery - you do what you are told, or else. You eat what is given to you (nowadays sometimes better than being homeless).
Most important, the Bible instructed slaves of the time to obey their masters. To instruct them differently would have been suicide. In those days, sometimes just being Christian meant suicide.
What's better in an extreme situation, like a war: to be dead or to be a slave? Take your pick, but don't accuse the Bible of recommending or promoting slavery. The ideas in the Bible about compassion for your neighbor, combined with 'all men (humanity) are created equal' (of equal value before God) had to ultimately result in the abolition of slavery. But this was not possible until motors could do the hard labor. In a structured society, someone has to do the hard labor for others to live in relative comfort. Some slaves of old had good masters. Some didn't. Today, some employees have good employers. Some don't. It all relative to the standards of living.
Cephas says : They voted on doctrine??
Yes, they voted on doctrine, so whoever doesn't agree can go form their own denomination or religion. All organizations vote on their declarations or creeds.
Or do you think it has to be like waiting around until Moses comes down the mountain with the 10 commandments on each tablet? Try writing on stone and you'll see why he had to be concise(!) [Legislators now have word processors.]
Ash's writing style is difficult to match, and one reason is it always has pertinent 'content'. That is a useful comment (as opposed to a gripe) which helps us sharpen our arguments. When we apply them, already rehearsed, they have a tremendous impact.