Wednesday afternoon, IFPC President Chuck Hurley debated Pastor Matt Mardis-Lecroy on the Mac’s World radio program heard on Praise 940AM. Pastor Mardis-Lecroy is employed by the Plymouth Congregational Church in Des Moines, and serves as the Chairman of the Iowa Interfaith Alliance.The Interfaith Alliance is a group that holds itself out as a religious organization. According to their web site, they believe:
1) The posting of the Ten Commandments in a public school would “endanger the integrity of public education and the sanctity of religion.”
2) Your tax dollars should not be available to help you send your kids to the school of your choice.
3) That the job of the government is to provide special protections for people based on their sexual behavior.
They promote both homosexual “marriage,” and the expansion of Federal Hate Crimes Laws which would effectively censor the church.
At the top of the discussion, Mac asked Pastor Mardis-Lecroy why it should “be acceptable in Iowa through the eyes of a Christian that a gay union should be legal.” Pastor Mardis-Lecroy began his answer by claiming there are two different types of marriage that he referred to as “sacred marriage” and “civic marriage.” He went on to argue that the parameters of “sacred marriage” are whatever each individual church performing those marriages wish them to be, and that “civic marriage” is little more than a contractual agreement whose parameters are established by law. Pastor Mardis-Lecroy punctuated his comments on “civic marriage” by asserting, “for equal protection reasons, that needs to be open to all people regardless of orientation.”
While many would find such comments astonishing coming from a pastor, they are consistent with the established positions of the organization he chairs. According to the Interfaith Alliance web page, they advocate that “Civil laws must equally protect all people to be free from discrimination.” The same document goes on to assert, “All people deserve to determine whom they love and with whom they wish to make a commitment of marriage.” So, if that is their conviction, it is inconsistent then to limit marriage to just two people.
That begs the question – If we change the law to allow same sex couples to marry, what accommodations must be made for bisexual individuals? If we change the law to accommodate one group on the basis of supposed discrimination, but do not include the other, are we then “writing discrimination into the law” all over again? If we do not allow bisexuals an avenue to “determine whom they love and with whom they wish to make a commitment of marriage,” doesn’t that undermine the central argument for changing current law to create an avenue for homosexual “marriage?”
These are the questions posed by Chuck as he asked Pastor Mardis-Lecroy to clarify his position. CLICK HERE to listen to the exchange.
Pastor Mardis-Lecroy’s comments were as revealing as they were duplicitous in that they proved even the most ardent supporters of homosexual “marriage” are unwilling to openly advocate for other similarly irrational forms of “marriage.” It is in no way a “red herring” to address the broad implications of legally redefining marriage to accommodate deviant behavior. Once marriage has been redefined to accommodate one group, there is no foundation upon which to reject the request of others.
At the top of the discussion, Mac asked Pastor Mardis-Lecroy why it should “be acceptable in Iowa through the eyes of a Christian that a gay union should be legal.” Pastor Mardis-Lecroy began his answer by claiming there are two different types of marriage that he referred to as “sacred marriage” and “civic marriage.” He went on to argue that the parameters of “sacred marriage” are whatever each individual church performing those marriages wish them to be, and that “civic marriage” is little more than a contractual agreement whose parameters are established by law. Pastor Mardis-Lecroy punctuated his comments on “civic marriage” by asserting, “for equal protection reasons, that needs to be open to all people regardless of orientation.”
While many would find such comments astonishing coming from a pastor, they are consistent with the established positions of the organization he chairs. According to the Interfaith Alliance web page, they advocate that “Civil laws must equally protect all people to be free from discrimination.” The same document goes on to assert, “All people deserve to determine whom they love and with whom they wish to make a commitment of marriage.” So, if that is their conviction, it is inconsistent then to limit marriage to just two people.
That begs the question – If we change the law to allow same sex couples to marry, what accommodations must be made for bisexual individuals? If we change the law to accommodate one group on the basis of supposed discrimination, but do not include the other, are we then “writing discrimination into the law” all over again? If we do not allow bisexuals an avenue to “determine whom they love and with whom they wish to make a commitment of marriage,” doesn’t that undermine the central argument for changing current law to create an avenue for homosexual “marriage?”
These are the questions posed by Chuck as he asked Pastor Mardis-Lecroy to clarify his position. CLICK HERE to listen to the exchange.
Pastor Mardis-Lecroy’s comments were as revealing as they were duplicitous in that they proved even the most ardent supporters of homosexual “marriage” are unwilling to openly advocate for other similarly irrational forms of “marriage.” It is in no way a “red herring” to address the broad implications of legally redefining marriage to accommodate deviant behavior. Once marriage has been redefined to accommodate one group, there is no foundation upon which to reject the request of others.
4 comments:
I couldn't get the soundbite to work on my computer. Maybe it's my problem. Just thought I'd let you know.
At any rate, there are people on the left who think the "slippery slope" argument (i.e. that legalizing same sex marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy, under age marriage, group marriage, etc) is "way out there". But from a logical standpoint, it's fair game and a good argument.
Thanks to IFPC for standing up and speaking the truth in love.
Nevermind ... I figured out the audio clip ... my bad.
THAT was an AMAZING exchange! Mr. Hurley effectively exposed the illogical nature of a homosexual agenda that wants same-sex marriage, but won't advocate bi-sexual polygamous marriage.
WOW.
The next logical question is exactly what do we advocate for regarding the transgendered? Who - or what - do they marry?
Maybe you will all understand this better if some of the positions expounded above are rephrased:
Tax Dollars to Religious Schools: Tax dollars should be levied and spent according to policies set by elected officials (Remember the idea of "No taxation without representation"?). Do you want religious schools bound to the same regulations and restrictions (no prayer, no Ten Commandments)as public schools?
Marriage for Gays: When only heterosexuals are allowed to marry, THAT is "special protection for people based on sexual behavior."
The Establishment Clause is in the Constitution to protect the Church from the State. Without a Constitutional separation of Church and State, we could become just like modern Germany, where there is an official church, clergy are government employees, and hardly anyone goes to church.
My ancestors (Quakers) came to this country in 1687 because they could be jailed for attending the Church of their choice. That's why I support the separation. Yes, it means there are a lot of different religions that are tolerated and given rights in this country. Thank God, and count your blessings.
Jon
Post a Comment