I was asked by the folks SermonAudio.com (a website I highly recommend) to record a podcast expressing my thoughts about the Chick-fil-A/Gay Marriage issue. Here is the link to the podcast: The Chick-fil-A Controversy || Matt Moore — As usual, my thoughts tend to differ than those of the majority of Christians…. I’m sure none of you are surprised. 
Thanks for listening!
well done, Matt!
Matt
Politics and Christianity truly don’t mix at all. One good scripture for this is John 6:15 when after feeding the people, Jesus knew that that they were going to seize him and make him their king by force, so he left to be alone.
Jesus only did that because he wasn’t for the earthly system but for his own father’s heavenly system. Jesus was God’s own son and never took any sides in anything political.
Just something that I thought that I would point out. I hope to hear from you via e-mail soon.
So Jesus would not support the Likud Party?
Jesus would not have supported any party in politics. His avoidance of the people who wanted to make him king by force is THE best example of that. It also shows that God never takes sides in politics as politics are man made, NOT God made.
Something to think about.
I listened to the podcast and I just want to say this.
The Boston mayor’s intent to ban Chik Fil A was too far reaching, but the public has a right to know that millions of dollars from Chil Fil A’s corporate profits goes to influence civil policies that do great harm to gay people.
It does not harm anyone that gay people get married.
I harms no one that gay people do not enter into therapies or counseling that has questionable methods and claims for changing sexuality.
There is no moral equivalent here, that gay people be tolerant of public policies that hurt them and their social and civil stability.
How is not putting up with that, unfair FOR a Christian? Or anyone else for that matter?
However, no Christian anywhere can claim that a gay person having the same access and equal rights and protections harms Christians in any way.
Cathy evidently was willing to take patronage from gay people, and even employ gay people. That’s an example of expecting to profit and benefit from gay people and their work, but not wanting to share in the same rights and freedoms with them. In other words, his public treatment of gay people looked non discriminatory, but his private donations and political support did the opposite.
There is not only an ugly historical precedent to that too with regard to discrimination shared by other minorities, but it’s a clear contradiction to the term treating a person the way he’d want to be treated.
The mayor of Boston has since apologized and seen his error, Cathy however, has not.
The purpose of same-sex “marriage” is to make some gay people feel better about themselves. That is it. There is nothing else to it.
No, Shoes. The purpose for gay couples is to protect their relationships. It is both symbolic to them as well as practical: the numerous rights and obligations obtained in civil marriage would be difficult and time-consuming to obtain individually (if they could be obtained at all).
You’re quite arrogant to make assumptions about the motives of people you’ve never met.
I could quote their actual arguments. They want the “special status” of marriage, not just the “bundle of rights”. See
Complaint in Jackson v. Abercrombie, CV11-009734-ACK-KSC, at 13,
quoting Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 315 at
289, 957 A.2d 407 at 416 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2008). They want “their relationships [to] be recognized by the rest of society as being as valued as heterosexual relationships” See Civil Rights Brief in Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, SJC-01963 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.) at 13. They want “status in the community”. id. at 12,. They want “social recognition”. GLAD brief, Opinions, at 24.
They want the same status of marriage that everyone else has. They want equality.
They want their relationships to be treated as the same as everyone else, and not be discriminated against.
The purpose of marriage, for straights and gays, is not to feel better about themselves. The purpose of marriage is to form a bond between two people and to protect that. And the law should be treating that equally between two people.
Let’s get real Alex, they want the monetary perks. They could care less about the union. See how few actually survive more than months (or a few years) at best.
Same-sex relationships are not equal to normal relationships.
Gene, you are perhaps right that many straight and gay couples who marry want monetary perks. There are many couples who could care less about the union – Kim Kardashian, for instance. And because of that, they didn’t survive more than a few months.
But aside from those, there are many who aren’t marrying because of the monetary perks (or the monetary penalty, as many face). And if you marry for the right reasons, you will survive, just as many same sex couples who probably would have gotten married long ago have had their relationship survive until the day they could marry.
No two relationships are entirely equal, but under the law they are treated equally. Heidi Klum’s marriage to Seal is not the same as my parents marriage, but it is equal under the law, as it should be. Niel Patrick Harris’ marriage will not be the same as my parents marriage, but should be equal under the law.
Just like no two people are the same, but are equal under the law.
Does the public also have a right to know when millions of dollars of profits from Home Depot, PepsiCo, HP, Apple, Google (to name only a few) go to influence civil policies that present homosexuality and lesbianism to impressionable young people and children at “pride” festivals to “try out” same-sex attraction and to force “re-education” promoting homosexuality on public school students starting in kindergarten? Anyone can Google the fact of those activities and initiatives for themselves, and I invite everyone to do so.
So not discriminating against Chick-Fil-A employees (or customers) for being partnered gays or lesbians is discriminating against them? What a newspeak, upside-down world you live in! It seems that gay money is just as green as straight money! ;>) Not even separate lunch counters at the back of the restaurant! For the record, Cathy said essentially the same thing about marriage that Jesus said – that marriage is one man married to one woman (Matthew 19:4-6). These are Cathy’s actual words (from http://whattheysaid.com/what-chick-fil-a-boss-dan-cathy-actually-said/):
I gather you may be opppsed to this being a country where we can share our values (you seem to enjoy doing that at great length here) and operate on biblical principles. Too bad the founders of this country and the authors of the Constitution didn’t agree with you. And Cathy saved you the trouble of following the sinister “money trail” financing Chick-Fil_A’s WinShape Foundation by admitting it up front!
Yes, it would harm us. Paul said the mariiage of man and woman is the symbol of Christ and his bride, the church (his people). You would change this. It is a direct knife in God’s heart. You have to ask yourself, who wants to change this, God or man/Satan. Yes, if man tries to change God’s edict, it always brings severe judgment on those who allow this. So, yes, it is an affront to God. We cannot look through a P. C. lens. We must view through scriptures. God called for man and woman to marry. Again, who wants to change this God or man? If it’s man, that would place us above God. If you can find any scripture, any that God says good things about homosexuality, I would like to read it. He said they won’t inherit God’s kingdom. It is an abomination. You can’t change the Bible. You can’t discount. God would have much to say about this. Yes, you can be gay, but fornication and sexual perversion would then symbolize Christ and His church. That can’t happen without offending God. Gays have a right to live and work. They don’t have a right to tear down God’s Biblical scriptures. So why force us to believe it’s okay, when we know it’s not.
@Matt
After this podcast looks like someone has secured himself a certificate from Chick-fil-A for a life-time supply of “Deluxe Chicken Sandwichs & Nuggets”.
Brilliant strategy mi amigo!!! FREE FOOD…holla!!!
I have no problem with Mr Cathy voicing his religious ideals. What I take issue with is his belief that those should be enforced via civil legislation.
So he says he’s “pro-Biblical marriage”. Would you all be so supportive of him if, quoting Luke 16:18 and Matthew 5:32, he said that Newt Gingrich’s current marriage (his third … to his second mistress) was not valid in the eyes of God and thus felt Newt’s civil marriage should be forcibly annulled, whatever Newt and Callista happened to feel about the matter?
I’m guessing not … that would just be heartless, now, wouldn’t it?
Go ahead and ask him.
Newt’s is a personal sin. Gay Marriage strikes at the heart of God, the symbol of Christ and His church is marriage between man and a woman. It would be nice if you all understood the Bible, before taking God’s positon as tolerant toward this. He’s not. Nowhere in the Bible is He tolerant toward homosexuality, fornication, perversion, sex outside marriage, lying, cheating, seditious acts, which is writing about what God would say, when it’s false. This is sedition against the King, if you are His.
I don’t want your opinion. You find me one scripture where God blesses homosexuals and I’ll change my mind. However, I can spend the next hour showing you the opposite.
Homosexuals have a right to live and work. They don’t have the right to impose their desires on us, when God is clearly against it. Your leaders lie to you.
J Shouts
james give up the newt argument his marriage is valid in eyes of the Church, therefore in the eye’s of God…regardless of your [personal] feelings in the matter…beating a dead horse. Stick with issue at hand
Davide, that the Catholic Church decided to rewrite the laws of Scripture for a prominent and wealthy heterosexual politician doesn’t mean that all other denominations have chosen to do so (although most have).
So fine … ignore Newt’s marriage.
The fact remains: there are a multitude of heterosexual couples out there who are remarried in the eyes of the Law who are *not* in a biblically acceptable marriage, at least if you take the Bible with the same sort of literal approach that you folks do with homosexuality.
Quit tap dancing around the question because you’re afraid to acknowledge your own hypocrisy: if the CEO of Chick-fil-A had contributed funds to organizations who sought to strip these heterosexual couples of their civil marriage licenses, would you approve of that or not?
“In the early church, many voices addressed the subjects of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, but their message, on the whole, was quite unified. Christian marriage, they said, is an indissoluble bond. Divorce, with the implicit right of remarriage, was not an option for Christian couples (though Origen admits some toleration existed), but permanent separation was. Remarriage after separation was considered punishable adultery or bigamy—sometimes more so for women than men. Even remarriage after the death of one’s spouse was viewed by the church fathers and councils with suspicion, as “disguised adultery,” in the words of Athenagoras.”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/augustweb-only/46.0c.html
Great podcast Matt. Gives people something to think about, including myself.
@ james, have you gone mad? The Church “rewrote the laws of Scripure’ so Newt could remarry? Huh? Well if thats all it takes how about you grab a pen and paper write the Pope and ask him to ‘rewrite Scripture’ again so you can marry a dude. You might also want to ask the Pope to change Natural Law so the rewrite Scripture law will be valid and make sure to include a few million in the envelope. Let us know how that worked out for you… Silly
I suspect the Pope’s answer would be, “Nein!”
@ Shoes, ROFL prolly
@ James I briefly overlooked the link you provided. I noticed straight up several doctrinal and theologal errors in this website. First of all it was not Saint Augustine who elevated marriage to a sacrament it was Christ Himself. Granted he spoke much about marriage such as chastity in marriage and marriage can not be dissolved by divorce. The declaration of the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:22 sqq.), who emphatically declares that the relation between husband and wife should be as the relation between Christ and His Church. In the words of St. Augustine he does place marriage, which he names a sacrament, on the same level with Baptism and Holy Orders. Thus, as Baptism and Holy Orders are sacraments in the strict sense and are recognized as such by the Holy Doctor, he also considers the marriage of Christians a sacrament in the full and strict sense of the word. But Augustine did not elevate marriage it was God-Jesus Christ. As for how Protestant churches and sects view marriage I have no opinion on the matter and it is completely irrelevant to me.
Davide writes: “As for how Protestant churches and sects view marriage I have no opinion on the matter and it is completely irrelevant to me.”
I see. So you are saying you would not like to see heterosexual civil marriage defined by Catholic definitions because … well, I’m not sure why. Please explain.
Let’s say a Protestant couple had been previously divorced and had not had their marriage annulled by the Catholic Church. Should they legally be permitted to marry or not? Your church would reject it, no? Their union is, without an annulment, little more than an unrepentant adulterous relationship in the eyes of the RCC, right? (Not sure? See below)
Why should they be legally permitted to marry? Aren’t they shaking their fist at God as well?
If not, then what your Church preaches isn’t the “truth”, it’s just its opinion.
CUF (Catholic United for the Faith) regarding remarried couples who have not received an annulment:
“Only if reconciliation [with the first spouse] is impossible, pastors should refer the divorced and remarried to explore the possibility of a declaration of nullity or dissolution, as the situation allows. Pastors could encourage the remarried to end common life and live as a single person. “
James–you are talking about two different things civil vs Christian sacramental marriage.
If baptized Protestant man and woman were married in a civil marriage and would like the marriage brought into the Church they will have to abide by Catholic rules and beliefs on what constitutes a marriage.
Churches do not marry man and woman, man and woman marry each other.
The Church does not recognize marriages unless certain conditions are met. The sacrament of marriage does not inure to a civil marriage unless the marriage is brought into the Church according to Her rules.
The Church does recognize legal marriage including the marriage between two baptized Protestants (male and famale) as witnessed by their own pastor. The Church does recognize these marriages as valid sacramental marriages because the husband and wife are the administers of the sacrament. A Catholic priest/deacon nor a Protestant pastor administers the sacrament. They are merely witnesses of the sacrament.
Keep in mind non-Catholics are not bound by Canon Law so it would recognize Protestant sacramental marriages if it was witnessed by Protestant clergy.
The Church always assumes a valid marriage has taken place even if by two non-baptized male and female. Sure it might be legal but it is not a sacrament and the Church does not recognize it as such.
Obviously, if confirmed Catholic man and woman got married to each other outside the Church such as by a mayor, sheriff or even a Protestant pastor the marriage would be invalid because every confirmed Catholic is bound by Canon Law. Under such conditions the Church would view this couple as not married and committing fornication if they are indeed having sex. Catholic man and woman marrying outside the Church is a grave sin unless a special dispensation is granted by their bishop. But the circumstance are so rare because there are Catholic churches almost everywhere on the planet such a dispensation would likely not be granted.
The Church does not grant divorces. Divorces are strictly civil matters. However if a spouse is physically abused or something this serious the Church recognizes a divorce has taken place and the innocent Catholic party can enjoy the sacraments including Holy Communion; however the innocent Catholic party still can not remarry unless the perpetrating spouse has died. In the eyes of the Church divorces does not absolve nor annul marriages.
Regarding “marriage” between two persons of the same sex. The Church under no circumstances will ever recognize these “unions” as legal nor sacramental. Unless of course we can figure out a way to change the laws of nature and throw sacred Scripture in the crapper.
I believe what I have told you is accurate. But if you have further questions I would advice you to seek out a priest and consult with him.
I can not speak for the Chick-Fil-a dude nor for Protestant Christians you would need to ask them these questions.
I think you are trying to corner me in a Catch 22 but Papi is much to smart for that.
Thanks 
Sorry matt for being a blog hog..
Davide, thank you for clarifying.
To summarize:
- There are millions of remarried heterosexuals (via civil marriage licenses) who are, according to the Catholic Church, living in perpetual and unrepentant adultery. Neither you (nor the One True Church®) take issue with this. “Live and let live”, “Que sera”, “C’est la vie” and all that.
- Gay couples’ relationships, on the other hand, should not enjoy civil marriage licenses because the church says they are living in a “sinful relationship”. Not merely content with refraining from blessing these unions in their churches, the Catholic Church goes beyond that and insists that gay couples should not receive any government recognition whatsoever, whether these couples are Catholic or not or even whether their denomination acknowledges their unions or not.
Yup. All makes sense. You guys are unprincipled, dishonest hypocrites I know that doesn’t bother you in the least, but I think it’s important for everyone else to see the logic operating under all of this, however.
@ would you please stop being so pissy? If you want to ‘marry’ a dude we Catholics ain’t going to stop you… What do you care what us Catholics think anyways? From where I am standing we must annoy you, though the LGBT posse hysterical demands for ABSOLUTE conformity to it’s agend in all aspects of public life are cooky and immature. As bad as organized homosexuality’s bullying tactics can be the analogue to civil-rights is a defective one. The ‘gay rights movement’ is not striking a blow for equality but exploring new ground in the abuse of political power. Their threats and posturing have been far more shameful than what I have said here or the Church has undertaken and their motives considerably less illustrious.
“If you want to ‘marry’ a dude we Catholics ain’t going to stop you …. ”
Um, yeah you are.
“As an auxiliary bishop in San Diego four years ago, -Rev. Salvatore] Cordileone, 56, was instrumental in devising an initiative to strip same-sex couples of the right to wed in California and then raising Catholic dollars to qualify it for the ballot.” (CBS News)
james, come on now it was the voters in cali. You could get married today if u wanted and in many places you can even ‘marry’ a dude. I heard Canada is nice in the summer. They would be more than happy to ‘wed’ you and your dude wife.
*Dude bride
You are right. The argument is not with us, but God. The ramifications for our children would be horrible, as they would be told both are equal before God, they aren’t. Also, homosexuals, many know what they do is wrong. They crave acceptance. They force people to accept them and they think this will make them feel better, but it won’t. They can’t run from their own conscience. As one told my daughter, this is why they are major drug users.
Yes, they want acceptance, but their battle is not with us, it’s their conscience and God.
J Shouts
“Dude wife”?
Davide, are you capable of writing anything that isn’t dripping with contempt? What have I done to you, exactly, to merit such hostility (other than ask questions you don’t like)?
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Swear up and down this has nothing to do with personal hatred, yet you place all these demands on gay couples that you do not place on heterosexuals, and you are quick with the demeaning comment.
@James from Columbus
I wouldn’t worry about encountering anymore sarcastic gay comments from Davide. And if Davide’s gay hostility rears its ugly little head on Matt’s blog again Davide knows what will follow
[Davide, you know exactly what I am talking about. We've already communicated privately about it. For now, I am restraining myself from saying anything further because I do not wish to embarrass you publicly and because I still like you even though you make it hard to want to be your blog friend.]
We are thankful that Matt allows us to express our opinions about his views on his blog. Some of us agree with him, some of us are undecided (like myself) and some of us strongly disagree with him but we should all conduct ourselves with some measure of civility toward one another when commenting. Sarcasm is fun. I am the FIRST to admit that I use sarcasm on Matt’s blog but Davide’s gay sarcasm sometimes takes a toll on the heart.
(Sorry Matt for taking up your blog yet I felt compelled to speak regarding our obnoxious brother Davide)
Key message: “If you’re struggling as a Christian, “ur doing it wrong.”
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/6230/evangelical_writer_%E2%80%9Cstruggles%E2%80%9D_after_chick-fil-a_outing/
to the Author of the podcast, Thanks for your opinion. We need to love ALL people and teach them Christ.
Mike,
Are you threatening me again?
Blackballing me?
What exactly do you have?
1. A confused and troubled teen who ”came out” to his father and mother?
2. A dude who was sexually involved with other dudes and women half a dozen years of his adult life?
3. A man who made comments on a ‘gay’ blogger website 3-4 years ago?
4. A man who has always opposed the LGBT political machine?
5. A man who was intimately in a relationship with a another dude for 2 years?
6. A university student who was a pot head, enjoyed parties, sex and cocaine?
7. I young man who knew he needed help and sought that help with two years of counseling? A mother and father who are crazy about their children, sacrificing, willing to pay for this counseling because he could afford not to?
8. A man who has fully rediscovered his heterosexuality and embracing it? What of his masculinity is this threatening?
9. A man who is joyfully dating a member of the opposite sex?
10. A man no matters what he had done always knew God was present in his life?
11. A man in the last few days has been the victim of a cyberbully? The bully spending hours on the net digging up information on him then threatening what he found to use against him?
What you got now Mike?
Who’s being scandalous here?
Where’s the embarrassment Mike you keep promising to bring against me? I did it for you-laid my cards out right here for all to see.
I have been blogging almost 3 years and my life has been an open book. The regular visitors there know my story, know my history. What of their stories? What of their lives? What of the encouragement I gave and received from these men? What of the happiness I received from these men with same sex inclinations who frequent my blog? What of the countless prayers we have said for one another? I know their struggles and I also know they are men of faith and I love them. There is no secrets. There is no shame.
You think I am a hypocrite because I didn’t share my past openly on Matt’s website. And maybe you’re right. Maybe I am a hypocrite. But that was my willful decision to make, not yours.
You want to shut me up. But has this authority been given to you from the administrator of this blog? Or are you a blog Nazi? Are you a fascist?
I must clear my comments through you? What if I don’t? What if I do write something you don’t like? What then? More threats? Actions?
You have threatened me on my blog, in emails and have done it twice on this blog. Do whatever you feel you need to do. There is absolutely nothing I can do to stop you, but you wont shut me up.
All this and you dare you dare to call me a “friend”! Clear as crystal you are NOT a friend. I don’t even know who you are. You are a complete stranger to me.
Francesco Davide
PS Bite me
Davide: “…I am a hypocrite because I didn’t share my past openly on Matt’s website [and further more I chose to verbally abuse gay people for doing the very same sins that I do (did)].”
Nobody is against you Davide. We are all feeble souls (myself included) just tryin to get into the Kingdom of Heaven.
*yawn*
they propperly they might of smugde it! if i was a judge to CHOSES THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND FASHINOL I WOULD GIVE THE RANTING:0 OUT OF 10 THEY SMUDGE SO MUCH INTO THE BAG. cheap louis vuitton bags online free shipping http://pinterest.com/babyvictoriaa/louis-vuitton-handbags/