<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>GAMC: Civil Unions-Christian Marriage committee approves preliminary draft report</title>
		<description>Comments for GAMC: Civil Unions-Christian Marriage committee approves preliminary draft report at http://www.pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.pres-outlook.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:36:02 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Atlanta, GA</title>
			<link>http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/9222-civil-unions-christian-marriage-committee-approves-preliminary-draft-report.html#comment-4930</link>
			<description>The American church abdicated its authority over marriage when it
allowed the government into the marriage business and when it allowed divorce to be legalized by the government.

There can not be two governing authorities in this matter.  It is
either the church or the government.

Since the church depends upon the government for permission to sign the marriage license then it must obey the spiritual authority of the government.

The church has brought this upon themselves when their ministers, who as agents of the state, began to say who can and can not get married contrary to the law.  My wife is not a Christian, as I am, and the church refused to marry us on the grounds of her non-belief.  Are they saying that only Christians should be allowed to marry?  Isn't it a message of confusion that the church doesn't want single people 'living in sin' together but refuses to marry them simply because they dont belong to the church?  We were forced to get our marriage performed by a notary public.

The answer is this... remove the power of signing a marriage license from the church so that they may reject or accept whomever they wish to and make all people take their oath before a government official, at their leisure, for the purpose of getting a legally binding marriage contract. - Frank Butler</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:40:25 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Atlanta, GA</title>
			<link>http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/9222-civil-unions-christian-marriage-committee-approves-preliminary-draft-report.html#comment-4928</link>
			<description>The American church abdicated its authority over marriage when it allowed the government into the marriage business and when it allowed divorce to be legalized by the government. 

There can not be two governing authorities in this matter.  It is either the church or the government.  

Since the church depends upon the government for permission to sign the marriage license then it must obey the spiritual authority of the government. 

The church has brought this upon themselves when their ministers, who as agents of the state, began to say who can and can not get married contrary to the law.  My wife is not a Christian, as I am, and the church refused to marry us on the grounds of her non-belief.  Are they saying that only Christians should be allowed to marry?  Isn't it a message of confusion that the church doesn't want single people 'living in sin' together but refuses to marry them simply because they dont belong to the church?  We were forced to get our marriage performed by a notary public. 

The answer is this... remove the power of signing a marriage license from the church so that they may reject or accept whomever they wish to and legally make all people take their oath before a government official, at their leisure, for the purpose of getting a legally binding marriage contract. - Franklin Thomas</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:28:21 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>San Leandro, CA</title>
			<link>http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/9222-civil-unions-christian-marriage-committee-approves-preliminary-draft-report.html#comment-4892</link>
			<description>One wonder about our church role in the love arena.  Love is the reason why people get married and why is was thought to be a covenant not found in the Bible.  Yet we try to rule love and tell others how it should be lived.  When Jesus was confronted with the accused prostitute by the knowledgeable law observers, Jesus stood up for the broken woman when she knew she was dead already. Love did it.  God given love does it every time.

Our surrounding is changing due to pressure or whatever.  I think that as a church, we are to be very careful about who are leaving out or not embracing when enacting rules and laws that are conflicting with God's love.  - Linda Gruel</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:22:23 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bethesda, MD</title>
			<link>http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/9222-civil-unions-christian-marriage-committee-approves-preliminary-draft-report.html#comment-4864</link>
			<description>Why proscribe matters further with the first recommendation when, as the report states, “What is the place of covenanted, same-gender partnerships in the Christian community? The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) cannot agree&quot;?

Certainly our diversity on non-essential tenets with our unity as Christ's body -- per our rich and deep Presbyterian heritage -- is stronger than that! - Rev. Charles Booker-Hirsch</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:46:49 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bethesda, MD</title>
			<link>http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/9222-civil-unions-christian-marriage-committee-approves-preliminary-draft-report.html#comment-4863</link>
			<description>If, as the report states, “The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) cannot agree&quot; about the role of same-gender, covenanted partners ... why then the first recommendation? Sounds like just another attempt to proscribe matters for the whole church, rather than celebrating the diversity on non-essential tenets within our unity as Christ's body -- per, as we need to affirm, our deep &amp; rich Presbyterian heritage. - Charles Booker-Hirsch</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:43:44 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>North Canton, Ohio</title>
			<link>http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/9222-civil-unions-christian-marriage-committee-approves-preliminary-draft-report.html#comment-4856</link>
			<description>  
I think the PCUSA needs to realize that this is bigger then they can imagine.

History will record this as segregation. Gay marriage will pass. Its not about sex.

Its about Love. The Church has no right to tell people who they can love, who they cant Love!



Scientific and gene research is being done. If it is discovered that this is a part of life then you don't have a leg to stand on.
Universal health care passes. You can't use this as a crutch anymore. Everyone will have healthcare. 
Baptism: How many babies have been baptized in the PCUSA and have grown up Gay. Are you going to fine the church who baptized them? If you are baptized in Christ name you are allowed all the privileges. Meaning; Marriage, Ministry and so forth. 
Being Gay does not have an affect on ones belief in God. Gay people have the right to be married and be welcomed into the church. It is segregation no matter how you put it.
Your own moderator Jack Rodgers who wrote &quot; Jesus, the Bible  and Homosexuality&quot; said it was not a sin. Re-read his book!


I think the church needs to re-think its role in the Global Community. Christ accepted everyone he came into contact with in his ministry. He never rejected anyone. The Church is Christ. So except everyone! Like I said, &quot;It will happen.&quot;

They said 30 years ago a black man will never be president. Guess what?
 - walt Poe</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:19:38 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
