Saturday, September 25, 2021

Larry Buford: Congratulations LGBT but what’s your DBA!?

rings & cross

*Congratulations to the LGBT community on the Supreme Court’s 5-4 vote decision that the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage. I have accepted the fact that regardless of what the people say, judges – especially those non-elected – will pretty much do what they want.

The problem I have is that there has been no discussion about differentiating the marriage of a man and a woman versus those of the same sex. I recently wrote about it in an article titled “Marriage: Sorry that User Name is Taken” and I’m serious about it! I am very concerned that my grandchildren and generations to come will not be able to distinguish between what type of gender union will sustain life as we now know it on planet earth. I’m concerned when I see fictional TV shows like “Wayward Pines.” Will future generations be led down a misguided path to such waywardness?

In the beginning (yes, I’m going there) “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth…” [Gen 1:27, 28, KJV]. Let’s not be confused – God created opposite sex/gender for procreation. The Bible also defines marriage as between a man and a woman. So why are we now allowing it to be redefined?

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority decision, “No longer may this liberty be denied. No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.” That’s man’s decision – to shake a fist at God Almighty who created the universe. I’m glad Kennedy went on to say that marriage is a “keystone of our social order.” Same-sex unions are not marriage in God’s eyes, so I feel it should be renamed to something more identifiable with the Marriage Equality Act (MEA) – the same equal rights but under a different moniker – something unique. How about a hypocorism like “Meaqualed” (pronounced ‘mee-qualed’) as in “We’d like to be meaqualed.” I do not suggest this as a mockery but rather to encourage LGBT’s to have their own term of endearment for something they fought so hard to attain. By the same token the Bible says God will not be mocked. Think about it!

As it stands, the federal government (state) stands in violation of the church for infringing upon a very sacred union that represents the relationship it has with Jesus Christ – the bridegroom of the church. It’s so ironic that as America clamors to have the Confederate flag removed due to its offensiveness and insensitivity, the government raises the Rainbow flag at the White House under an assumed name (marriage) that’s already been taken, which is just as offensive and insensitive to those – the majority – who believe God’s word. What say ye America?

Larry Bufordhttp://www.editorialbylarry.com
Larry Buford is a Los Angeles-based freelance writer, and author of Book/CD titled "Things Are Gettin' Outta Hand" (Steuben Pub.) www.amazon.com. He writes Human Interest articles and entertainment reviews for various newspapers across the country. He is also an editor, and provides services for press releases, interviews, business letters, resumes, etc. A native Detroiter, he is a former Motown songwriter.

YOU MAY LIKE

6 COMMENTS

  1. To Mr. Buford and everyone who insists on involving Christianity in marriage, can Muslim heteros be married? Can Jewish heteros be considered married? Budhist heteros? Hindu heteros?

    I don’t understand why some Christians want to have an exclusive claim over an institution that non-Christians have entered in for centuries. I don’t know why some Christians think non-Christians should care or be impacted by Christians’ thoughts on said institution.

  2. Yes you right why would the devil have anything to do with Christians , what do darkness have in common with light ,Nothing.

  3. The Supreme Court decision does not infringe on church’s Constitutionally protected right to limit marriage to male-female couples. But marriage is not exclusively religious, it is also a civil institution — many people choose not to get married in religious settings. This is what the court addressed.

  4. It has less to do with religion and more to do with defining gender and origins. God defined it way before there was any religious institution. Whether two people want to marry at a church or at city hall the definition does not change. I’m merely suggesting for posterity’s sake that we do not add any confusion – LGBT’s should have their own unique name. How can the court over rule God?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -

SEARCH

THE CULTURECALENDAR: WHAT'S NEW & BLACK ON TV


TRENDING