Saturday, September 24, 2011

Ebony Debate: Gay Marriage

Recently, the latest issue of the popular Black magazine, Ebony, published
two sides on the debate of "gay marriage" in the Black community. Due to
the magazine's liberal leanings, the pro-gay side seemed to get more
favorable coverage that supporters of God's design for marriage.

You can read both Ebony commentaries in the link below.

Also, we should follow Mr. Broadus's lead by writing Ebony to explaining why
maintaining traditional marriage results in a more prosperous and healthy

Dear Ebony Magazine,

I was disappointed by your magazine's poor coverage in the October 2011
issue under "Ebony Debate" of the subject of Gay Marriage.  The two articles
presented weren't really so much a debate as they were opinion pieces,
neither of which addressed the fallacies of the other.

As a Black man and a person of faith, I am a strong supporter of traditional
marriage as ordained by God.  Nowhere in the Bible is marriage described
between two men or two women, but Jesus clearly describes marriage by
quoting Moses in saying that a man shall "leave his father and mother and
cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."  I believe that the
Black community has played an important role for standing for the sanctity
of marriage, especially as seen in states like Maryland and California where
efforts by homosexuals to re-define marriage were defeated.  I was offended
by the fact that Rev. Dennis Wiley's article, "The Sin is Hypocrisy," said
that "we believe that not a sin, but hypocrisy is."

Suddenly, a minister of the gospel feels free to re-write the Bible?

He goes on to say that "the few Biblical passages once thought to express
clear condemnation of homosexuality have been taken out of context and
grossly misinterpreted."  He then implies that those scriptures only
condemned homosexuality that was violent, dangerous, or resulted in ritual
impurity but did not address "a monogamous relationship between two loving
same-sex individuals."  So, I wonder what part of Leviticus 18:22 he does
not comprehend?  What part of "Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters
nor adulterers, nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves, nor the greedy,
nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of
God," fails to cover the exact situation he is talking about?  (1
Corinthians 6:9-10) By cherry-picking verses, he has taken the Bible and
rendered it useless.  God calls us to be holy before him, and while I will
gladly admit that we are all guilty of sin (whether of deed or thought,) the
Rev. Wiley would declare, despite the Bible's clear meaning, that
homosexuals are not.

I also take issue that the pro-homosexual view is presented first and with a
pro-gay picture, and is therefore more likely to be read than the second. 
Rev. Wiley's article needs to be thoroughly and forcefully rebutted, but
while Rev. Brooks' article is a touching and important piece, calling out
the hypocrisy of the homosexuals' hijacking of the Civil Rights movement, it
does not address the glaring Biblical principles that Rev. Wiley's article
did great damage to.  The subject of gay marriage brings to light the fact
that many who call themselves Christians and sit in the pews on Sunday
morning neither understand the tenets of their faith, nor do they even
believe in the Bible from which it is passed to them.  It is not such a
tragedy when an everyday believer fails to embrace the fullness and the
gravity of God's divine word, but it is a very great tragedy when an
ordained minister--presumably called by God to be a shepherd for his
flock--loses his way, and doesn't regard the Bible seriously, and leads
others away from God's Word.


Robert Broadus
Chairman, Protect Marriage Maryland

No comments:

Post a Comment