[GCFL-discuss] Dobson

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

Excellent point Siarlys. We each have our own gifts. Not that I agree
with any subject line on pro-homosexual marriage.

Lance
John 8:32 "You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free."

On Tue, 18 May 2004 13:43:41 -0500 gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:05:50 GMT gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> >
> >Could you please show some examples of where Dobson was "so 
> >inexplicably crude and obtuse in other pronouncements." please. I 
> need 
> >some evidence before I can discuss that.
> >
> >Lance
> 
> Good question Lance. I should say first, it was a mistake to respond 
> to a
> question, do I "support" or "oppose" Dr. Dobson. That is like 
> asking
> whether I support or oppose Bill Gates, whether I support or oppose 
> Peter
> Jennings, whether I support or oppose my next door neighbor. Most 
> people
> have some admirable qualities, and some less admirable ones. I can 
> find
> something I agree on with almost anyone, and something I disagree 
> on.
> Would I consult Dr. Dobson on a matter about child raising? Quite 
> likely.
> Would I vote for him for public office? Unlikely -- but then, he 
> isn't
> running.
> 
> Actually, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to Dr. Dobson, but I 
> run
> into something he's written, or something he's being quoted on, now 
> and
> then. I have friends who refer respectfully to him. Like I said, I 
> like
> what he writes about raising children. So what do I object to?
> 
> I checked his website to see what he's said lately. A lot of it is 
> the
> kind of good stuff I run into every few Sundays.
> 
> There was a silly article about how George Bush is looking good. It
> didn't say anything, but it reminded me there are some telegenic
> Christians who can't refrain from implying that if you love Jesus 
> you
> love Republicans (maybe even the homosexual Republicans -- after 
> all,
> homosexuals with prosperous businesses vote just like Baptists with
> prosperous businesses). I probably said this before, but George W. 
> Bush
> always reminded me of Damien in Omen III. I refrained from voting in 
> 2000
> because the choice reminded me of an old Japanese monster movie:
> 
> Anti-Christ (played by George) vs. the Blob (played by Al).
> 
> Dobson is simply outside his area of expertise there. Anyone who 
> likes
> Bush will appreciate Dobson's support -- we all like to see our 
> candidate
> endorsed by celebrities -- but it doesn't mean any more than 
> Barbara
> Streisand endorsing the other side. (Streisand's opinion does not
> influence my vote).
> 
> Then he had all kinds of articles about passing a marriage amendment 
> to
> the federal constitution. That is dangerous, for the same reason 
> that
> judges overstepping their bounds is dangeorus.
> 
> I believe that the supreme courts of Vermont and Massachusetts made 
> a
> plain and obvious analytical error when they found that "equal 
> protection
> of the laws" requires marriage for homosexuals. I can explain that 
> error
> at great length if anyone cares, but for now I won't. I'll just say 
> that
> no man who wanted to marry a woman, and no woman who wanted to marry 
> a
> man, has ever been denied a marriage license on the ground that they 
> are
> homosexual.
> 
> I believe it is wrong to amend the fundamental law of the land every 
> time
> someone thinks someone might be doing something they don't approve 
> of.
> Define marriage in the constitution? Why don't we also define the 
> color
> of the sky? The constitution is for the broadest general civic
> principles.
> 
> Dobson squirms to deny that marriage is a state responsibility, and 
> to
> establish grounds for federal jurisdiction, but it ain't so. It IS 
> a
> state matter. We have too much federal intrusion into too many 
> details of
> life now. We should not be inconsistent on principles just to 
> achieve a
> desired result on one issue. Let the people of Massachusetts do what 
> they
> choose about their supreme court. If the majority of the people of 
> a
> state choose to recognize homosexual unions, it is not the function 
> of
> the federal government to over-ride them. (I don't know of one 
> state
> likely to do that -- but let the issue be argued on that ground).
> 
> The lawyers who argued for existing marriage laws before the courts 
> of
> Massachusetts didn't do their homework. They didn't think outside 
> the
> box. Neither has Dr. Dobson. But that isn't what he is good at 
> anyway. I
> would be "opposed" if he ran for public office. I would "support" 
> his
> nomination for principle of a high school for troubled use. We each 
> have
> our own gifts.
> 
> Siarlys