Archived Story

Churches: Time to fight back

Published 9:41am Tuesday, April 2, 2013

You can’t win the fight if you don’t put on the gloves. A punch-drunk, old heavyweight boxer knows that’s a truism, but not the churches of America.

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state by a 52 to 47 margin in 2008 but has since been declared unconstitutional by federal courts.

Fox TV, Rush Limbaugh and other talk-show pundits have weighed in, arguing the conservative — and moral — position that sanctifying gay marriage with the grace of the U.S. Constitution is not only wrong but a serious threat to the culture of this country.

But those media outlets often speak to those who are already in the choir. That leaves a lot of other Americans who aren’t hearing anyone preaching the conservative argument on gay marriage.

I don’t expect the GOP to provide any leadership. Republicans are too busy cat-fighting with each other and making sure their presidential choice will be whooped by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

And where in the heck are the churches on the issue of legalizing gay marriage?

Where are the Protestants, Jews and Catholics? Have they lost their tongues? Their hearts and wills? Their institutional you-know-whats?

Where’s the moral outrage? Why aren’t thousands of our pastors, priests and rabbis shouting from their pulpits? Why aren’t they leading their congregations through the streets in mass protest?

Why aren’t their bishops appearing on the tube with David Gregory and Piers Morgan to defend the institution of marriage as a union of one man and one woman?

Like the bank executives who are too chicken to stand up to the federal bullies in Washington, and like the energy company bosses in California who won’t stand up to the Green Socialists in Sacramento, the churches cower in fear.

Are they afraid to lose their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status by engaging in political activity? Are they afraid to be derided as religious nuts and cultural Cro-Magnons by the liberal media?

Or are our churches and their comfortable leaders simply no longer willing to fight for what is right?

This fight over Proposition 8 isn’t just about saying it should be legal in the eyes of government for two people of the same sex to get married in California.

It’s ultimately about changing the culture of the entire country; it inevitably will lead to teaching our public school kids that gay marriage is a perfectly fine alternative and no different than traditional marriage.

There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality. Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.

Churches should be in the vanguard of the fight to defend the culture against legalized gay marriage, not hiding in their pews.

Sure, the mainstream liberal media will be against them and will ignore them as much as they can. But if the churches show up en masse — and make sure millions of their members’ voices are heard — the media will be forced to cover them, and even the Supreme Court will feel the political wind.

Meanwhile, as the High Court decides our fate, it’s time for the churches to get engaged and start fighting for America, instead of wimping out. If it takes them giving up their 501(c)(3) status to start fighting for righteousness, then I’m all for it.

 

Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, and the author of “The New Reagan Revolution.” Visit his websites at www.reagan.com and www.michaelereagan.com. Send comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com. Follow @reaganworld on Twitter.

 

  • mickakers

    TonyD; I concur with your comment “But, again, best we let others decide whose arguments are substantive or not.”

    (Report comment)

  • TonyD

    mickakers,

    What “fact and reality” buzzes by me? Such a lame retort. You can’t or won’t explain yourself to any rational level that steps beyond repeating yourself in wanting to restrict who can access a civil right based on what that civil right is labeled.

    It’s your point of argument and you haven’t provided a single piece of information to legitimately defend it.

    You haven’t specified anything that can be construed as fact or reality.

    What evidence or argument have you made for your position other than believing how you think about marriage is how it’s always been (despite expert counters of your claim)?

    This entire string of posts exposes the fact you can’t acknowledge any layer of context of this issue that goes beyond your need to maintain a label (according to your definition). That fact singularly exposes your selfishness, not mine.

    Don’t bother replying unless you can engage the issues in a mature manner and explain yourself (with supporting information) and offer an argument that carries more significance than your wanting to horde a label.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    TonyD; What “buzzes” by you is fact and reality. You not only deceive yourself but attempt to deceive others. Wallowing in your own selfishness and ignorance you wish others to join you.

    (Report comment)

  • TonyD

    “True marriage,” mickakers? Do you get to decide that based on your impressions and bad asusmptions of history?I could refer you the Am. Anthro. Assoc’s position statement, but you obviously need to ignore that glaring fact to uphold your belief system.

    If you are positing your “true marriage” comment based on your faith, I refer you to article 11 of the 1797 treaty with Tripoli. As UNANIMOUSLY approved by the U.S. senate, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,…”

    along with that, I love the “dream world” that married gay couples are living in throughout NY, IA, WA, VT, NH, ME, CT, MA, MD, and DC.

    (Report comment)

  • TonyD

    mickakers wrote: “sex with no other purpose than self-gratification.”

    I suppose that comment technically holds true for married hetero couples that don’t have children, can’t have children, or have no intention of having children?

    Is marriage less of a right for those straight childless couples according to your ideology, mickakers? If so, it certainly doesn’t square with SCOTUS’ position.

    Even if you are a lazy reader and don’t wish to delve into the discourse with any intellectual honesty, at least accept that you are wrong about the issue of procreation and marriage as it is viewed under our constitution.

    (Report comment)

  • TonyD

    Mickakers..

    NO cogent reply from you on the healthcare or social science organizations pro-equality stance.

    NO cogent reply from you on the SCOTUS rulings on marriage being a “fundamental” right irrespective of procreation (one of your original points.

    NO cogent reply on the conflicting reality of having TWO wholly separate yet legally equal “funadamental” “basic” civil rights and how that is supposed to be handle under the constitutiion.

    As I said..your entire focus has been on names, not content.

    (Report comment)

  • TonyD

    Mickakers/mikakers,

    The attention to detail you seem to have in this discourse is solely focused on names…everything else just buzzes right by you.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    TonyD; As a PS: My previous comment would have been more appropriately expressed if I would have stated, Your lack of attention to detail.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    TonyD; Your attention to detail is indicative of your thought. Your “Mikakers” should read mickakers.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    guest12345; Love of God and Love of neighbor is the basic and hallmark teaching of Jesus Christ (Christianity). For this reason Christianity dose not condone or support sexual gymnastics between two members of the same sex with no other purpose than self-gratification. It is absolutely impossible for two members of the same sex to consummate a valid marriage or union. True Love does not require sexual intercourse. If the Gay Community were really sincere in they’re efforts for equal rights they would recognize the legalization of a Civil Union, which would grant them the same Civil rights that a married couple have. True Marriage for members of the same sex? Utterly Impossible. Regardless of the rulings of Federal and State If a Same-Sex couple believe they are married, they are living in a dream world.

    (Report comment)

  • guest12345

    I’ve always found it ironic how many Christians don’t support the love of two people, regardless of their gender. I always liked the Biblical passage below, and I think this passage is a better representation of the Church of Christ than the confusion about the Word that Mr Reagan so often cites for his mis-guided beliefs.

    Mr Reagan should be protecting gay people, not condemning them or comparing them to murderers. He should be ashamed of himself.

    1 Corinthians 13:4-13

    Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

    It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

    Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

    It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

    Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

    For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

    For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

    And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    TonyD; “Rats…sinking ships.”? I think you are becoming a bit confused. I never mentioned anything about rats or sinking ships in my comments.

    (Report comment)

    • TonyD

      No? Then what is your post: mikehaney April 3, 2013 at 8:34 pm?

      Poor thing, best you stick with literary commentary. You aren’t equiped to pursue true social discourse that goes beyond your poor analogies of…yes…sinking ships and rats.

      (Report comment)

      • TonyD

        My bad…I’m getting all these non-arguments confused

        Mikakers/mikehaney…same difference – not a valid or cogent argument between the two of you…it all lacks any real detailed retort and is basically the same shallow rhetoric.

        But, again, best we let others decide whose arguments are substantive or not.

        (Report comment)

      • TonyD

        One last thing, just to demonstration you how null and void your perception is on civil unions..

        Civil unions – all the benefits and meaning of marriage, but not called marriage…

        …which by design must translate to yet another “basic” and “fundamental” right “necessary for the pursuit of happiness.” as SCOTUS has affirmed marriage to be. Then we have a truly separate yet equal situation. Of course, to be truly equal, only gay couples would be able to access a civil union, with straight couples being limited to marriage.

        So, in America, we have two separately named fundamental rights that are identical in all but name. And that makes sense according to the constitution…exactly how?

        (Report comment)

  • TonyD

    Mickakers,

    Hilarious analogies. Rats…sinking ships.

    I notice you don’t bother addressing any of the cogent points raised regarding SCOTUS’ findings, and fail just as much in countering ALL the mainstream healthcare and scholarly organizations which support gay equality – their positions being based on actual historical, social and scholarly investigation.

    What do you have to challenge that plethora of evidence and findings? Sinking ships and rats. Great impressions and talking “points” you have – about as relevant as a literary critic feeling entitled to argue at a science symposium.

    Let’s let the readers decide which of us can do no more than scratch the surface of this discussion.

    (Report comment)

  • guest12345

    This is all coming from Michael Reagan, a bastard child born out of wedlock, and adopted by parents who later divorced.

    WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    TonyD; I find your ramblings quite interesting and demonstrative of a “bumper sticker” mentality, lacking in depth and understanding, concerned only with self gratification and interest without due regard for society in general, in other words, rather infantile. As a matter of information, Civil Union denotes Civil Rights. Marriage and all it connotes, you as a Homosexual individual could never fulfill the obligations. You are blowing in the wind. The simple fact of the matter is, you do not meet the qualifications for a valid marriage. A Civil Union, a cautious yes. God’s Speed Tony.

    (Report comment)

  • mikehaney

    It is a strange and tragic sight. The ship being abandoned still represents and incorporates elements of order in our society and economy. But what is the floating wreckage these rats are jumping on to? It is a nearby ship that is indeed sinking. But the panicked critters don’t seem to acknowledge this. Their instincts, even the most natural and elementary sense of self-preservation, have gone awry.

    When we adopt a new social model where norms, principles and responsibilities are abandoned, we enter a sinking ship. It is a self-destructive process. Social norms are those enduring standards that correspond to our human nature and without them society becomes impossible. Without fiscal responsibility, it is only a matter of time before our errors engulf us. As history has so often proven, a morally decadent society contains within it a rotten core that will eventually crack open amid a storm.

    It cannot be denied that much decadence is to be found also on our present ship. Such decadence makes our lives precarious and dangerous. However, what is downright chilling is that those who are now jumping ship are facilitating a radical change in our society, one that will make it much more socialist and morally decadent (a redundant distinction) than it is already.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    TonyD; A rather lengthy post, lacking substance and historical perception, in other words, a Snow Job. Do you have a particular reason for insisting on Same-Sex Marriage? Do you find something lacking in Same-Sex Civil Unions, which would grant all of the Civil rights you are looking for? The union of marriage, between a man and woman goes back before the time of Christ. The prime reason for marriage is the procreation of children which is impossible between two members of the same sex. A legal Civil Union will give the members of the Homosexual community all of the Civil rights they are looking for. Although the Catechism of the Catholic Church pledges “respect, compassion and sensitivity” for homosexuals, and rejects “every sign of unjust discrimination,” it also calls them to chastity and describes homosexual acts as “grave depravity.” TonyD, along with rights comes responsibility.

    (Report comment)

    • TonyD

      mickakers,

      “lacking substance and historical perception”??

      Obviously, mickakers, you aren’t paying attention to the details. There is nothing intellectually honest in your retort. Again, look at the Am. Anthropological Assoc. statement of fact, based on legitimate scholarly study and not limited in credibility to being just a bumper sticker slogan as the one to which you are clinging.

      NO, in fact, nothing in the numerous SCOTUS rulings can be used in affirming marriage as being exclusively or primarily about raising children, although the instituation does help provide a stable environment for raising children which is precisely are arguing point FOR gay to be able to access the basic civil right of marriage (a prime reason for the Am. Academy of Pediatrics supporting gays accessing marriage). In fact, at least two of the rulings which I pointed out illustrate that marriage is a fundamental right when child cannot be considered part of mix in any way shape or form.

      Only marriage, not civil unions, nor domestic partnerships is considered a “fundamental” and “basic civil right” IRRESPECTIVE of procreation. SCOTUS rulings prove this. That is the basis on which you must argue…or you can continue your wishful thinking that isn’t based in reality. Your choice.

      Of course, if you believe that straight couples which don’t have or are incapable of having children possess LESS of a right to marriage, then you have an entirely different set of ethics and a belief system that doesn’t gel with the affirmed right that is marriage in this country.

      The lack of substance is on your end, mickakers. If that were not the case, you’d be offering competing professional findings. Instead, you have to stick to a bumper sticker slogan that even the Am. Anthro Assoc. official statement proves is intellectually inadequate. When it comes to historical culture, who would know better..you or they? Easy answer, that.

      So, mickakers, at this juncture, you will either open your mind to the possibility that you are completely wrong regarding marriage, especially in the context of it being a basic civil right in this country, or you adhere to a bumper sticker mentality that has zero scholarly/professional support from the mainstream healthcare and social sciences organizations – they are all on the side of equality, so they can’t be siding with you.

      Good luck.

      (Report comment)

    • TonyD

      mickakers on the Catholic Church:

      “it also calls them to chastity and describes homosexual acts as “grave depravity”

      1. There are more passages in the bible promoting slavery (actually owning people) than there are passages condemning homosexuality.

      2. It was until the very last decade of the 19th century…years after the end of America’s civil war…that the Catholic Church finally and officially condemned slavery. They actually needed to issue an additional clarificatiion a few decades afterward as well.

      3. Back to the edicts and doctrinal teachings taking precedent over American concepts of Freedom and Liberty.

      Now there’s historical perspective for you.

      Prejudice forever attempts to be rational and appear justified, mickakers. It’s time for you to be a lot more intellectually honest and be more respectful of the LGBT community as Americans deserving of full equality and access to civil rights.

      (Report comment)

  • MelanieNathan

    This is written by someone desperate not to lose and he is on the losing team! Poor guy – In the article he pleads where are the Christians? Where are the Jews – well hey Mr Reagan Jnr. We are here and we support marriage equality. Grow up – I have a feeling your late dad may have evolved by now too!

    (Report comment)

  • TonyD

    Marriage IS a right. No other basic right is either gender or sexual orientation dependent, because a right is a right is a right, and it must be proven justifiable and reasonable to withhold that right to any minority or group or persons.

    Given the amount of legal precedence regarding marriage being a “basic civil right” of “free men in their pursuit of happiness,” it falls on the state to prove any compelling or rational interest for denying those rights.

    With the ongoing and increasing understanding of sexual orientation, it is becoming more and more difficult for “states” to prove via due process their case in restricting the right of marriage to gays.

    Besides SCOTUS rulings in Loving v., Turner v. Safely (a ruling for marriage of a life-sentenced inmate with NO conjugal visits), and Skinner v., we can add Griswold v. Connecticut to the mix – a ruling about contraception, not procreation…

    “Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

    So, what of this point regarding new or changing definitions? How about “all MEN” being created equal? Now, THAT was a real shift in traditional meaning as the definition of “men” was eventually stretched to include women as well. Expanding a definition for greater inclusiveness simply demonstrates America’s continuing evolution into its ideals, not a movement away from them.

    Attaching gay marriage to other social issues/concerns is simply a specious argument that attempts to add some sort of credibility via a completely non-cogent, illogical and impractical analogy. Maintaining that gay marriage is bad because polygamy or incest or whatever is also bad becomes akin to declaring that rape is bad only because murder is bad. Isn’t rape bad because rape is bad? How about murder? If the individual arguments against gay marriage must rely so heavily on misaligned associations, how strong are those arguments to begin with? How well do they truly withstand scrutiny? If gay marriage is such a bad idea, then those reasons against gay marriage should be able to stand on their own merits.

    The most logical and rational route to this debate is already reflected in ALL of the mainstream healthcare associations’ position statements which actually support gay equality. That list is saturated with the highest credibility available and includes the Am. Medical Assoc., the Am. Academy of Pediatrics, the Am. Psychological and Psychiatric Associations and several others. Research data and conclusions following several decades of scholarly study reveal BOTH heterosexuality and homosexuality to be natural aspects of human sexuality and expression. Sexual orientation is also not considered by these same experts to offer any type of legitimate choice for the overwhelmingly vast majority of people (both straight and gay). Having a choice translates to being bisexual.

    Continuing with expert feedback, as far as a traditional view of cultural history, we should let the American Anthropological Association weigh in: “The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.”

    Who would know better than the experts that study our history, psychology and social structures? Of course, it makes sense that the Catholic Church (and other religious institutions) will push for its followers to see things from a certain perspective and ideology. By default and design, the Church places priority of its religious edicts and doctrinal teachings over American concepts of freedom and equality.

    This brings the argument home, the more courts understand and recognize the innate characteristic of sexual orientation, the less likely they are to permit gays being restricted from marriage.

    BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS are A-U-T-O-M-A-T-I-C and can only be restricted if a state has (and can substantiate when challenged) an “important interest” in restricting or regulating those rights.

    That’s how freedom and civil liberty works in America (or is supposed to).

    A basic right is a basic right is a basic right.

    (Report comment)

  • krystalkleer1

    time to fight back!…YES…fight back to oppression…
    fight back to slavery…fight back to stoning your wife…IS THAT FAR BACK ENOUGH MISTER Get-A-Ticket-To-The-Catch-Up train and by a clue to reality?

    you are NOTHING short of the devil…like your father before you!

    the nicest thing i can say about people like you and “YOUR” kind is…you all have an expiration date!

    (Report comment)

  • mikehaney

    CDC: 110,197,000 Venereal Infections in U.S.; Nation Creating New STIs Faster Than New Jobs or College grads.
    ————————————————
    Straight,young active males may have 8 partners in a lifetime.
    Gay,active males will have over 100 partners in a lifetime. Sometimes one night stands with strangers.
    Straight immoral lifestyle is bad enough, gay immoral lifestyle is off the charts.
    Last man/woman standing in this country please close the door on way out.

    (Report comment)

    • krystalkleer1

      because non homosexual people have NEVER had a one nite stand…or got drunk one night only to find out 9 months later that they must’ve gotten pounded like a nail on a gin soaked pool table…or married someone for their piggy bank…2…3…4…8 times…or really…DO I NEED TO GO ONE?

      (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    To the “Magnificent Seven”, that is meant as a compliment for expressing your opinions. I am probably a bit older than you. The Magnificent Seven was a 1960 movie, look it up, I think you might enjoy it. I found insight and food for thought in your comments. Thank you. The errors and weaknesses in our moral creditability which you so aptly pointed out is worthy of thought. Please keep in mind, two wrongs do not make a right. Same Sex Marriage vs Civil Union, go with Civil Union.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    Aaron Ashcraft; I found insight in your use of the term “Holy Matrimony” and your examples of the abuse of this Holy Union and Sacrament. The legalization of Civil Unions would solve your Civil problems.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    docrt925; Your comment “when the issue at hand is about the rights of legal, tax-paying, consenting adult American citizens and their access to & protection under the laws set down in the Constitution and enacted by the government of the United States.” A legal Civil Union would accomplish this. It does not require a marriage per-say. I feel the Homosexual Community is out of line in attempting to redefine marriage which has always been understood as between a man and a woman, whether you were religious or not. The ancient Romans were pagans, yet they recognized marriage, as between a man and woman. They also had their fair share of Homosexuality. Some of my best friends were and are Homosexual. Two of them have died of Aids. It is not a pretty death.

    (Report comment)

    • krystalkleer1

      and so have drug abusers…and non homosexuals…and babies…and elderly people…and your point?

      (Report comment)

  • docrt925

    mickakers: That’s all very well and good for you and Dr. Peters or others who have made a similar lifestyle choice…and I hope you all enjoy a long and happy life following the doctrines of your religion. But here again, your argument uses canon law and Catholic/Christian teaching as if it applies, when the issue at hand is about the rights of legal, tax-paying, consenting adult American citizens and their access to & protection under the laws set down in the Constitution and enacted by the government of the United States.

    P.S. mikehaney: I can’t speak for the others (since none of them actually are me), but I don’t think I fit the definition of “little person” … anyway, your post is oh so snarky and funny (or not), but you might want to refrain from grasping at foolish assumptions to make a tired point when you have no facts…knowledge…etc.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    My compliments on the organized effort put forth by seven of the people commenting here. That being said, let us depart from child’s play and get down to serious business. The following thoughts and comments are taken from a Canon Lawyer’s Blog; In The Light Of The Law by: Dr. Edward Peters. “No matter which way the US Supreme Court rules in the “gay marriage” cases before it the international debate over the definition of marriage will continue because that debate is, at root, about matters beyond a civil court’s competence, things like the nature of human beings and the fundamental good of society. Marriage exists only between one man and one woman. There is no evidence of ecclesiastical authority ever supporting any other definition of marriage. Now, however, a decade further into this debate, the distinction between same-sex, or gay, or homosexual marriage and same-sex, or gay, or homosexual unions is more commonly recognized, with the latter category (unions), insofar as it limits itself to civil consequences for certain living arrangements and does not attempt to redefine marriage itself, being a possibility to be assessed in accord with prudence, while the former category (marriage) is, as a matter of principle, to be universally and indeed vigorously rejected.”

    (Report comment)

  • mikehaney

    10,000 marched for traditional marriage. 500 marched for the “other” side and tried to harass the 10,000.
    Comments below are from only one little person; and I doubt one of the 500, or maybe.
    Also, didn’t know you could sign in with so many different names and comment to yourself.
    Good job Michael Reagan, your dad is proud of you I’m sure.

    (Report comment)

  • docrt925

    Let’s leave indignant Micheal Reagan’s tired, ill-conceived and ignorant comparisons to bestiality and murder aside for now – and focus instead on holier-than-thou Michael Reagan. He talks of a fight for righteousness, when I imagine self-righteousness is the more accurate term, no? He seems to miss the fact that we are talking about civil law. Mr. Reagan all-too-obviously peppers his editorial with religiously-tinged words & phrases and asks such questions as “Why aren’t thousands of our pastors, priests and rabbis shouting from their pulpits? Why aren’t they leading their congregations through the streets in mass protest? Why aren’t their bishops appearing on the tube with David Gregory and Piers Morgan to defend the institution of marriage as a union of one man and one woman?” Well, they are…but the real questions to be asked are: Why is that shouting or protesting relevant? Why does Mr. Reagan think that his or anyone’s religious doctrine or ideology applies? Our laws and our individual rights are not guided by or based on adherence to Judeo-Christian dogma. In this manner, Mr. Reagan repeats a tired but easily-correctable mistake in the arguments raised by those who oppose same-sex marriage: This is a debate about access to government-sanctioned civil marriage. It exists and has existed (for heterosexuals) as a right granted by the “state.” Denying equal access to that institution based on who a person inherently “is” goes against the ideas found in our Constitution. Churches can “fight back” all they want, but wake up and realize that it is not about the church. It is about the rights of United States citizens.

    (Report comment)

  • Aaron Ashcraft

    Ronald Reagan was my personal hero! That said, Michael Reagan’s article is completely disappointing to me. I believe if his father was alive today, he would be a supporter of gay marriage.

    Michael Reagan seems to confuse Holy Matrimony, a religious rite, with civil marriage. I fully support Holy Matrimony as being between a man and a woman. HOWEVER, civil marriage is NOT Holy Matrimony! Did you know that Elizabeth Taylor was married 8 times? Did you know that in three states, you can get married in less than 2 minutes at drive through marriage chapels? These drive through marriages are 100% recognized by the US government and in every state! These are civil marriages; they are not Holy Matrimony! Similarly, if a gay or lesbian couple loves one another and wishes to get married, what business is that of anyone? How does it degrade marriage any more than a 2 minute ceremony in your car?

    Why is gay marriage important? I presently live in Barcelona Spain with my Spanish partner of 12 years. We are 100% committed to each other & have a 100% monogamous relationship. I abandoned my children/grandchildren and moved from California, ONLY because US laws do NOT allow gays to sponsor their foreign partners/spouses for a green card. This right is available only to heterosexuals, which doesn’t seem quite fair.

    I personally believe that if Ronald Reagan were still alive, he would easily see that the current situation with gay rights is completely unfair; he would understand that government recognition of heterosexual drive through marriages while denying gay marriage is completely unfair.

    None of us are trying to stain Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman. We only want to be able to purchase a marriage license at the courthouse to provide for government recognition of our relationship; we want to be able to sponsor our spouses for immigration. Ronald Reagan would understand

    (Report comment)

  • TPAKyle

    Arguments against marriage equality are predominantly based on religious views. Given that our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion also protects those seeking freedom from religion, Bible, Torah or Koran-based arguments against marriage equality have no validity in this discussion. People of faith can and should exercise their Constitutional right to follow their chosen religious doctrine, but they cannot seek to impose that doctrine on others through rule of law. This is how we protect religious freedom for everyone.

    (Report comment)

  • Father of Two

    As a person of faith, a church-goer and as an American, who when he puts his hand over his heart and recites the Pledge of Allegiance, actually means “and liberty and justice for all.”

    Mr. Reagan must have forgotten what country his father once served as President. And what this country stands for. I don’t care what Mr. Reagan believes, what his church preaches, what his religious faith’s tenents are, this is a country that is founded on liberty of the individual and equality for all men. If he doesn’t like those concepts, I suggest he take whatever religion he is and move out of this country. Why does this man think that religion of some makes rules for all? Did his father teach him nothing about America?

    And it’s interesting that Mr. Reagan hilariously wants churches to give up their tax exempt status to find against America…which allows them to have those tax exempt statuses. All the while Mr. Reagan makes money promoting his un-American (and some may argue anti-Jesus Christ) bigotry and exclusion.

    Maybe these are the very reasons most people have never heard of this Reagan. He’s a shadow of what his father stood for when his father stood against the Communists to bring freedom to those on the other side of the Berlin Wall.

    This country stands for freedom, and that includes the freedom to marry. Again, Mr. Reagan, if you don’t like it, there are planes leaving the country each day, all day. I suggest you board one.

    (Report comment)

  • Grundig

    “Fox TV, Rush Limbaugh and other talk-show pundits have weighed in, arguing the conservative — and moral — position that sanctifying gay marriage with the grace of the U.S. Constitution is not only wrong but a serious threat to the culture of this country.”

    This is the same Rush Limbaugh that has been married four times, right? Its extremely hard to take this article seriously when Limbaugh’s name is in the same sentence as “conservative” and “moral”. Interesting how fidelity is never brought up.

    What is fascinating about the past week is that those who identify themselves as Conservative preach against gay marriage while completely ignoring the facts of the case before the Supreme Court. Edith Windsor was with her partner for 43 years, longer than all four of Rush’s marriage combined!

    “Where’s the moral outrage? Why aren’t thousands of our pastors, priests and rabbis shouting from their pulpits? Why aren’t they leading their congregations through the streets in mass protest?”

    The same way they didn’t lead a protest when your father signed no-fault divorce into law when he was Governor. With all due respect.

    (Report comment)

  • Gzeus

    Churches HAVE been screaming from the pulpit and at rallies. Or did the Reagan I never heard of until today not see the March for Marriage in DC attended by several churches. But perhaps many have realized that most people dont care about denying fellow law-abiding tax-paying American citizens full equal rights as much as you think. Perhaps churches should concentrate on feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, or you know preventing child abuse instead of aiding and abetting guilty priests.

    Perhaps most have realized that marriage is a civil institution that can be blessed by a church but certainly not required. That’s why you Mr. Reagan went to a court to get a divorce. And not to church.

    By the way, the church does not recognize your 2nd marriage as valid. And the premier anti-same sex marriage group in the country NOM thinks that you being adopted by Reagan is a substandard way to be raised.

    (Report comment)

    • medlab1701

      Exactly right Gzeus. Mr. Reagan, maybe also many in those churches have been told or realized their family members, friends, and/or coworkers are coming out to them, and they realize how unfair it is to deny equal rights to those they know and love personally. As it was said once, if every LGBT in the closet right now came out today to everyone, this entire argument would be over. I think that is very close to being true. When we come out, we stop being the evil ‘them’ and show that we are part of their ‘us’ already. I’m so glad to be living in these times, finally seeing the tide turn toward equality for LGBT people.

      (Report comment)

Editor's Picks

Fundraiser set for Coal Grove teen

COAL GROVE — A community-wide effort to win Devyn Pritchard a wheelchair accessible van from a National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association contest fell short earlier ... Read more

Special needs camp teaches bike-riding

HUNTINGTON, W.Va. — The father didn’t want anyone to see, so he tried to casually brush them away. But the tears that welled in his ... Read more

Antique equipment shows off history

Ohio lies in a unique position within the United States, with part of the state situated in the Mid-West and the southeastern portion of the ... Read more

Unexpected heroes

Passersby help people trapped in burning house   Heroes don’t always wear capes, uniforms or badges. They aren’t always scanning the skies, or roaming alleyways ... Read more