Thursday, January 5, 2012

Open Letter to Rick Santorum



In this video, Brian Anthony Bowen reveals Scriptures the Church never talks about which prove that Jesus taught that LGBT people are born this way...and that prove the Apostle Paul ordained Gay Marriage...IN THE BIBLE!

This changes EVERYTHING!
More info:
http://BrianBowenMinistries.com

**************************************************************


The Holy Spirit distinctly and expressly declares
that in latter times
some will turn away from the faith,
giving attention to deluding and seducing spirits
and doctrines that demons teach,
Through the hypocrisy and pretensions of liars
whose consciences are seared (cauterized),
Who forbid people to marry
(1 Timothy 4:1-3)



Dear Mr. Santorum


Greetings in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ! 

My name is Brian Anthony Bowen, and I am the author of a forthcoming book entitled, “The Bed Keeper” which has already begun to shift the marriage equality debate within every major denomination of the Christian religion in the United States, and around the world.  Please review open letters sent to some of those most familiar with recent developments thus far:










Please also review the response shared with a debate panel regarding the Bible's position on homosexuality, that reveals the unScriptural stance "ex-gay" theology manifests itself as here.

I am most specifically writing you today in response to some of the points discussed in regards to gay marriage in a recent College Convention in Concord, New Hampshire as recorded in this video:

I do so not only to answer these points directly to you, but to anyone who continues to raise them in their opposition to marriage equality in the United States of America for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples, because I believe they are points that are worthy of an intelligent, reasoned and rational response.  I have transcribed the discussion below, and will insert "BROTHER BRIAN" when offering my own responses.

The first question was from a student who asked:

STUDENT 1: "Honestly, how does [gay marriage] affect you personally if two men or two women get married, and why not (if you take the religion part of it), why not just have equal legal marriage, and not a religious marriage?"

SANTORUM:   "If we're going to have a discussion on this, I would just say this: "who's attempting to change the law?" 

BROTHER BRIAN:  Any tax paying United States citizen who believes marriage inequality is discriminatory to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender couples (including a large swath of heterosexual Americans).

*************

SANTORUM:  The law for 230 years in this country was marriage was between a man and a woman.

BROTHER BRIAN:  This is the same argument used by those who stubbornly opposed freedom, citizenship and voting rights for blacks, interracial marriage, women's voting rights, and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  In each of these historic examples, discrimination was proven to be discrimination regardless of how long that discrimination had been enshrined in law, or against whom.  The United States Supreme Court has historically shown that the question is not how long the law has been on the books, but whether the law should be on the books at all in light of the Constitutional protections of equal rights under the law for all Americans.  The law only needs be proven as discriminatory (and absent of any compelling governmental interest for enforcement) in order to be properly declared unconstitutional.

*************

SANTORUM:  So if you're going to change the law, what obligation do you have if you're going to come forward and say, "I want to change the law?"  What obligation do you have?

BROTHER BRIAN:  All citizens of our great nation have a permanent civic and obligation to ensure that laws do not discriminate any fellow citizen, just as we have civic obligations to serve as a jury of an accused person's peers in determining guilt or innocence of violating laws, and a civic duty to vote.  It is not only a civic obligation, but also a moral obligation that each citizen of conscience has been empowered by the US Constitution with the right to exercise.  In order for freedom and liberty to survive, it is up to each generation of Americans to ensure our nation continues to live up to the vision of our founding fathers who held these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

*************

SANTORUM:  Don't you have to make the positive argument why the law should be changed?  

BROTHER BRIAN:  Yes, but this isn't a matter of determining why a law has to be changed.  States would not just now be deciding to add constitutional amendments over the past 15 years in order to confine the definition of "marriage" as being only between one man and one woman if the law had not already been changed by these very states themselves by amending their constitutions.  The question in regards to marriage equality is not about changing laws (which did not exist prior to these state constitutional amendments).  Instead, this is a question of ensuring that these constitutional amendments are in fact constitutional, and non-discriminatory.

*************

SANTORUM:  That was not the question. Your question was "why don't you want to change the law?" 

BROTHER BRIAN:  Indeed that was not the question either.  Let's review the actual question:   

STUDENT 1: "Honestly, how does [gay marriage] affect you personally if two men or two women get married, and why not (if you take the religion part of it), why not just have equal legal marriage, and not a religious marriage?"

SANTORUM:  So let's start with a fundamental question.   Don't you think that's right?   If I'm going to go out and say "we need to build a bridge over the river," you're going to say, "well, why do you want to build a bridge?   You wouldn't say "why don't you want me to build that bridge?"  Wait a minute...I'm not the one proposing we build a bridge!" 

BROTHER BRIAN:  Actually, in your example, it IS you who suggested we need to build a bridge, but your analogy remains a useful one to the discussion.

*************

SANTORUM:  You tell me; YOU (the one who wants to do this) tell me the justification. What is the public purpose?  What is the public purpose served in changing the law?   So let's just start from there.   Is that a fair thing to do, that if you're going to make the case, you need to make the case as to why the law needs to be changed.   Right?  

BROTHER BRIAN:  Again, we're not really talking about "changing the law" but are attempting to ensure that laws passed by (even a majority vote of the public) to change state constitutions to confine the definition of "marriage" to only one man and one woman are indeed constitutional, in that they do not tend to discriminate against other United States citizens without a compelling governmental interest for doing so, especially those in a minority group.

But let's do take a moment to use your own analogy to discuss why we need to "build a bridge across a river" and "what public purpose is served in doing so."  The short answer is because "people can't walk on water, and it takes a bridge to get from one side of the river to the other."  The entire population on both sides of the river are served by bridging two groups of people in two different locations.  Bridges help us traverse treacherous waters of fear, bigotry, and isolation that currently separate Americans from one another in a way that takes the determination of both groups to indeed bridge the gulf.  It is my hopes that this communication will aid in doing so for those who are on each side of the river as it pertains to the question of marriage equality.  The REAL question that needs to be asked in the particular exchange you had with the college students is "Why there are some on one side of the river who do not wish to have the bridge built?"  And "What public purpose is served by not building it?"

*************

STUDENT 1:   The reason why you would change the law to begin with is because two people who love each other what want to legally be able to see each other if they are in the hospital, what want to have the same right as you and your wife do.

SANTORUM:   Okay, I'll try to address these one at a time.   People who want to have the right to visit each other in the hospital.   So can that right legally be done now through contract?   Yes, it can.   So now let's move to the next thing. 

BROTHER BRIAN:  While it is indeed possible to have such contracts made between the people involved, it currently often remains a decision left up to the hospital (and the patient's family) as to who can visit and who cannot in many cases. 

*************

STUDENT 2:  How about the idea that all men are created equal and have the rights to happiness?

SANTORUM:  Okay, so are we saying that everyone should have the right to marry? Everyone?   Okay, so anyone can marry anybody else?   Okay, so anybody can marry anybody else, so anybody can marry several people?  So if everybody has a right to be happy, so if you're not happy unless you're married to five other people, is that okay?   If every person has a right to their own happiness...so if your point is people should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy...

STUDENT 2:   As long as they don't harm other people

SANTORUM:  Okay, so if they're not harming other people. Who determines if they're harming other people or not? 

STUDENT 2:  Everyone can understand that.

SANTORUM:  Oh everybody can understand it! Ohhhh! So everybody can understand it, so we're not going to have courts

STUDENT 2:   It is morally right for 2 men to have the same rights as a man and woman.

SANTORUM:   What about 3 men?   So if it makes 3 people happy to get married, based on what you just said, what makes that wrong, and what you said right? 

STUDENT 2:   That's irrelevant.   What I'm asking you is how you justify your belief based on these high morals you have about all men being created equal when 2 men who want to marry....

SANTORUM:   Well what about 3 men? 

STUDENT 2:   That's not what I'm talking about.   I'm talking about the basic right you give a man and woman.

SANTORUM:  It's important if we're going to have a discussion based on rational, reasoned thought that we employ reason.   Reason says that if you think it's okay for 2, then you have to differentiate with me as to why it's not okay for 3.

BROTHER BRIAN:  For the same reasons it's not okay for more than 2 heterosexual people to marry (discussed in detail below).

*************

SANTORUM:  Let's just have a discussion about what that means, okay?   What we're saying here and if [STUDENT 2] reflects the values of everybody else...if [STUDENT 2] reflects the values that marriage can be for anybody or any group of people, as many as necessary, any 2 people, or any 3 or 4, marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.   Here's what I would just suggest: Go out and make that case, but don't go to the courts and say, since the public may or may not be there (and it may be there), go out and make that case in the public square.

BROTHER BRIAN:  Proponents of marriage equality have never raised the issue in any context except marriage between two, non-related, consenting adults.  Your response is a non-sequitor that has no place in the discussion of the current marriage equality debate, except to illicit fear in many Christian circles who fear the advantages of plural marriages vis-a-vis accelerated procreation, which may tend to enable certain other Christian sects to outpace the growth of the others, yielding them more political influence.  As the students said, it is irrelevant to any discussion in regards to marriage equality between two non-related, consenting adults of the same gender.

However, in light of the uniqueness of the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate line-up at this point, it is equally important to now consider your continued use of this argument as a thinly veiled attack on your opponent, Mitt Romney, who affirms himself a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church), against which the only Federal marriage regulation specifically targeting a minority religious group, (and not simply its practice of plural marriages) was enacted under the Lincoln Administration.

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law, signed by President Lincoln in 1862 has continued to prevent marriages of more than two people for nearly 150 years.  It is my considered opinion that the reason it should be deemed as non-discriminatory in its nature is the state has a compelling governmental interest in preventing plural marriages.  They prove to be exceedingly difficult and costly for the tax-payer funded state to regulate the division of marital property, assign alimony, provide and oversee child custody, and enforce child support payments in cases wherein one person in a plural marriage divorces the rest of the members within the plural marriage, among many other examples.

Please also consider from Wikipedia:

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (37th United States Congress, Sess. 2., ch. 126, 12 Stat. 501) was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. Sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, the act banned bigamy and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.[1]

The act was designed to target the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory.  The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and Lincoln chose not to enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War.[2] General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862 was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.[2]

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was amended in 1882 by the Edmunds Act, and then again in 1887 by the Edmunds–Tucker Act.

The Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882,[1] is a United States federal statute, signed into law on March 23, 1882, declaring polygamy a felony.  The act is named for U.S. Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont. The Edmunds Act also prohibited "bigamous" or "unlawful cohabitation" (a misdemeanor),[2] thus removing the need to prove that actual marriages had occurred.[1]  It was passed in a wave of Victorian-era reaction to the perceived immorality of polygamy,[3] or at least polygyny, which was often compared to slavery.[1]

The act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked polygamists' right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office.

A claim was made that the law violated the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws; that is, polygamists were charged for polygamist marriages solemnized before passage of the statute.  A challenge to the statute was framed on these and other grounds. The Supreme Court ruled, in Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885), that the statute was not ex post facto because convicts were charged for their continued cohabitation, not for the prior illegal marriage.[4]  Some modern scholars suggest the law may be unconstitutional for being in violation of the Free Exercise Clause,[5] although the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that neutral laws that happen to impinge on some religious practices are constitutional.[6]

The Edmunds Act restrictions were enforced regardless of whether an individual was actually practicing polygamy, or merely stated a belief in the Mormon doctrine of plural marriage without actually participating in it.

All elected offices in the Utah Territory were vacated, an election board was formed to issue certificates to those who both denied a belief in polygamy and did not practice it, and new elections were held territory-wide.

The Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887 was passed in response to the dispute between the United States Congress and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) regarding polygamy.  The act is found in US Code Title 48 & 1461, full text as 24 Stat. 635, with this annotation to be interpreted as Volume 24, page 635 of United States Statutes at Large.  The act is named after its congressional sponsors, Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont and Congressman John Randolph Tucker of Virginia.

The act was repealed in 1978.

The act disincorporated both the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigration Fund on the grounds that they fostered polygamy.  The act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years.  It dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000.  The act was enforced by the U.S. marshal and a host of deputies.

The act:
  • Dissolved the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, with assets to be used for public schools in the Territory.[1]
  • Required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials.
  • Annulled territorial laws allowing illegitimate children to inherit.
  • Required civil marriage licenses (to aid in the prosecution of polygamy).
  • Abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists, thus requiring wives to testify against their husbands.[2]
  • Disfranchised women (who had been enfranchised by the Territorial legislature in 1870).
  • Replaced local judges (including the previously powerful Probate Court judges) with federally appointed judges.
  • Abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of the Territory of Utah the right to appoint a commissioner of schools. Also called for the prohibition of the use of sectarian books and for the collection of statistics of the number of so-called gentiles and Mormons attending and teaching in the schools.[3]
In 1890 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the seizure of Church property under the Edmunds–Tucker Act in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States.

This act was repealed in 1978.[4][5]

*************

SANTORUM:  I disagree with what New Hampshire did.   But at least I would give the fact that New Hampshire did it the right way, they passed it through the legislature.   They didn't have the court impose it like they have in other states.

BROTHER BRIAN:  Again, the courts have never "imposed" marriage equality on anyone.  They have simply ruled as to the constitutionality of laws passed by a majority vote of the people to determine if they were discriminatory or not.  Courts don't get involved until laws are passed.  Any law that is passed (even by a majority vote of the public) cannot undue any right guaranteed under the US Constitution.  For instance, no majority vote of the public would be able to ban the right of any citizen to bear arms, or peaceable assemble, or the right to free speech.  Likewise, no law that is passed (even by a majority vote of the public) is immune from scrutiny by the courts when it impinges on someone else's constitutional protections to equal treatment under the law.  The cases in which courts have ruled marriage equality as unconstitutional are performing the function as a checks and balances against legislative branch of government, as established by the founding fathers.  We may not all agree with the court, but that does not mean they are somehow "imposing" marriage equality on anyone.  They are instead simply preventing marriage equality from being withheld from otherwise qualified marriage candidates for marriages comprised of two, non-related, consenting adults. 

SIDE NOTE:  Your apparent lack of awareness may explain why you believe it would be possible to impose divorce or dissolution of single gender marriages already legally obtained under state laws governing marriage.  Such misunderstandings (or lack of understanding) is exactly why our founding fathers established the courts to begin with, thus charging them with interpreting laws within the constitution, not based on an elected officials level of understanding of said laws.

Such a lack of awareness erodes any candidate's credibility, but especially one seeking the highest executive office in the nation.  It may be a good investment of your time to become more familiar with the functional relationship between the three legislative branches of governments, and the relationship between state and federal law before proposing such drastic and unconstitutional measures in the future.

*************

BROTHER BRIAN:  Finally you answer STUDENT 1's question which again was: 

STUDENT 1: "Honestly, how does [gay marriage] affect you personally if two men or two women get married, and why not (if you take the religion part of it), why not just have equal legal marriage, and not a religious marriage?"

SANTORUM:  And for those of you who say, "well, I want to keep marriage as what I believe marriage is, in fact what marriage has always been which is the union of a man and a woman."  Why? Because I believe you are made that way. 

BROTHER BRIAN:  Marriage equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people would in no way impede or change your belief, nor does it seek to.  However, marriage has not "always" been defined as a union of a man and a woman. 

Most of us have heard speculation about the relationship between David and Jonathan from the Biblical accounts found in 1 Samuel 18:1.  I draw on Scripture here because not only is it Holy Writ, but is also validated human history.  Many people say there is no indication that David and Jonathan were "married" but in actuality, there is. Let's take a look at 1 Samuel 18:1:

When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own life.

Later we see that David and Jonathan once again recognized, reaffirmed, and honored their covenant between them as Jonathan meets David in a field to swear his protection from Jonathan's father, Saul:

And Jonathan caused David to swear again by his love for him, for Jonathan loved him as he loved his own life.  1 Samuel 20:17

Nowhere does Scripture ever relate an account of two people's souls being knit together.   The closest it comes are several passages indicating that two people can "become one flesh."

While these portions of Scripture alone don’t necessarily prove a marriage between David and Jonathan, Saul's reaction to their relationship does:

Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan and he said to him, You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do not I know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother who bore you?   1 Samuel 20:30

Once again we again see David and Jonathan revere their covenant with each other, and this time reveals an even closer resemblance to marriage when Jonathan tells David,

He said to him, Fear not; the hand of Saul my father shall not find you. You shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you.   Saul my father knows that too.

And the two of them made a covenant before the Lord.   1 Samuel 23:17-18

Notice in verse 17 about, Jonathan not only prophesies to David that he would become king of Israel, but Jonathan goes on to add, "and I shall be next to you."

Finally, in David's eulogy after Jonathan's death he says,

"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me. Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."   2 Samuel 1:26

One has to stop and ask a very important question:  If David and Jonathan were already in covenant with each other, why do we see them “reaffirm” their covenant twice more?   Either they were in a covenant relationship or not.   If they were not, re-entering a covenant relationship a 2nd or 3rd time seems to indicate the first covenant didn’t “take,” even though their souls had been knit together, indicating the likelihood of a 2nd or 3rd attempt would be equally unsuccessful. 

On the other hand, repeatedly making covenant to each other before God indicates to me this is more likely a reaffirming of the original covenant through sexual relations.   While I am aware of nothing in Scripture that actually proves that, considering that each time Scripture says “they made their covenant by “swearing their love to other” or because “they loved each other as their own life” is a repeated mantra from Paul in Ephesians 5, “Husbands should love their spouse, even as Christ loved the Church and gave His Own life for her….for a husband loves his spouse even as he loves his own life.”   I believe that’s something that should definitely be considered, especially in light of the next two examples of Scripture referring to same gender marriages:

We also see Jesus speaking of the rapture saying,

I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left.   Luke 17:34

And

The Holy Spirit distinctly and expressly declares that in latter times some will turn away from the faith, giving attention to deluding and seducing spirits and doctrines that demons teach, through the hypocrisy and pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, Who forbid people to marry... 1 Timothy 4:1-3 

I ask you, Mr. Santorum, who else beside gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are "forbid to marry" in the latter times through hypocrisy and pretensions of those whose consciences are seared as exemplified in the 50% divorce rate in our country, both inside and outside the Church?  And who is doing the forbidding besides those who claim adherence to the Christian faith, and yet seem to not recognize the Holy Spirit's warning that forbidding people to marry is indeed a "doctrine that demons teach?"

Finally, the Apostle Paul ordained marriage for single gender couples in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. Please see Chapter 2: God Sanctioned Gay Marriage for a complete detailed analysis.

*************

SANTORUM:  God made man and woman, and men and women come together to have a union to produce children which keeps civilization going and provide the best environment for children to be raised. 

BROTHER BRIAN:  I'm glad you're bringing Christian teachings into this discussion, because it allows me an opportunity to illustrate why it's important to realize that Jesus verified that gay people are also made by God.  Please see Chapter 1: Born This Way for more details.  It's also important to note that Scripture verifies God made us male and female (Isaiah 55:11-56:12), referring to us as "sons" and "daughters."  Please see Chapter 4:  Messengers of The King for more details.  And it may be surprising to note, but gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are as equally capable of having children as heterosexual people are, even if we choose not to.  Many LGBT people have produced biological children with opposite gender partners or former spouses, and so it would stand to reason that if we were going to base our argument for marriage equality on "producing children," "keeping civilization going," and "providing the best environment for children to be raised," that at the very least you would support marriage equality for LGBT people who already have biological children, even if they are no longer in relationship with their biological opposite gender parent.

Conversely, we do not invalidate or prevent marriages between a man and woman who choose not to have children, or who cannot.  Further, statistics show nearly 40% of children are born out of wedlock, and yet that does not prevent men and women from marrying whom they choose to.  Finally, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have been around since the beginning of time, and indeed civilization has only grown in size, now sporting 7 billion people on the planet.  It could very well be that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are nature's way of ensuring those who have children do not outstrip the earth's ability to feed everyone, by acting as a natural population control.

In none of these cases does the argument that "God made man and woman, and men and women come together to have a union to produce children" rise to the level of a sound reason for preventing marriage equality for LGBT couples, (based upon Scripture or otherwise).  Come to that, it's equally important to note that God's initial intent for creating women was because "it's not good for man to be alone," not because "it's not good for man to not have children."  Both Jesus and the Apostle Paul recognized these truths, as illustrated by Jesus exempting us from heterosexual marriage in Matthew 19:11-12, and in Paul's ordination of single gender marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.  Please see Chapter 2: God Sanctioned Gay Marriage for more details. 

This illustrates God's initial purpose for creating man and woman was indeed not for producing children, but for providing each other companionship.  That means every person's God given birthright as human beings is to have companionship.  Marriage equality proponents seek nothing more, and nothing less.  Please see REBUTTAL: The Illogic of Homosexual Unions for more details, wherein I address the most common religious based arguments that compare same gender marriages to polygamy and/or incest, as well as examine the Natural Law doctrine from whence many religious based arguments opposing gay marriage are derived.

*************

SANTORUM:  I think that [marriage] is something that society should value, and should give privileged status over a group of people who want to have a relationship together.

BROTHER BRIAN:  So you at least admit that marriage for opposite gender couples indeed provides a "privileged status" that is denied to same gender couples.  That is the very definition of "discrimination" under the US Constitution, even as you provide no compelling governmental interest in preventing same gender couples from being equally valued by society. 

*************

SANTORUM:  It's great if they want to have that relationship, but the uniqueness of marriage simply provides an intrinsic good to society.

BROTHER BRIAN:  Agreed!  By denying marriage equality to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people further denies our entire society other intrinsic good, such as increased numbers of stable familial units (even without biological children), but which then further results in additional stable familial units in which adoptive and foster children can be cared for. 

Single gender marriage results in decreased sexually transmitted diseases as LGBT people are provided with the opportunity to avoid lives of chance sexual encounters.  That translates into yet another intrinsic good to society in reduction for medical care and treatment for people with sexually transmitted diseases, thereby reducing the entire tax burden on all citizens. 

Single gender marriage provides the entire society increased centers of concentrated wealth among LGBT people with which to invest in real property, thereby increasing all housing values as well as increasing property tax revenues for municipal and state governments.  All society benefits from the increased economic activity as married LGBT people become willing to make such important mutual investments, knowing that they are protected through the same laws regulating inheritance and other laws as are provided to heterosexual married people.  Please see this Open Letter to Members of the United States Congress for more details on how marriage equality benefits all of society with an immediate 450 Billion Dollar Economic Stimulus in the short term (with no new taxes), and approximately 7 Billion Dollars increased economic activity per year on a permanent basis thereafter.

*************

SANTORUM:  ALL relationships provide some good to society, but [marriage between one man and one woman] is unique, because it is the union that causes children to be created and to be raised in an environment that is their birthright.  

BROTHER BRIAN:  Many studies debunk the notion that children raised by same gender couples are somehow prevented this same uniqueness within the bonds of single gender marriages, many of whom are being raised by at least one of their biological parents.  Conversely, just because a child is born out of wedlock in no means indicates that if their biological parents choose not to marry that it becomes an impediment to that child's welfare, in cases where they choose to not marry, but only to live together.  Even children of divorced parents often have access to not only their own biological parents, but to their step parents as well.  More than 1,000,000 children per year witness their parents' first divorce, and half of them go on to witness their parents' second divorce.  While many children of divorced households indeed suffer as a result, it's equally true that many children of married heterosexual households often suffer as well, especially in cases where one or both parents are guilty of neglect or abuse of their biological children.

Confining the definition of marriage to one man and one woman in no way ascertains that their children will be born into wedlock, will be raised in a more stable or loving home than same gender couples, will be successful in life, or will be protected from harm, neglect or abuse from these heterosexually married parents themselves.  The definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is no a guarantee of a challenge-free environment for their children...not to mention that marriage is not even necessary for producing children in the first place, let alone serve as any main purpose for confining marriage licenses to only heterosexual couples.

*************

SANTORUM:  Every child in America, every child in the world, deserves to know and be loved by their mother and father.  

BROTHER BRIAN:  Agreed.

SANTORUM:  And when we say that that is not the case, ...and that we can deny children (and we in fact do by saying other forms of relationships are okay)...when we deny children that birthright, then I think we are harming children, I think we are harming society, and we're not promoting what is best.

BROTHER BRIAN:  But that's the thing; NOBODY has ever said it's not the case.  But it has nothing to do with marriage equality, but only parenting.  They are not the same thing.  Marriage equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in no way impedes any heterosexual couple's decision to have children (or not have children).  Conversely, we do not invalidate heterosexual couple marriages simply because they choose not to have children.  Again, marriage is not even necessary for producing children, nor for ensuring children are loved by and/or know who their mother and father are.  Parenting and marriage are not the same thing.  One is not dependent upon the other, and one does not guarantee nor impeded the success of each other.  

*************

In closing, I want to thank you for taking the time to review this information.  While I understand many of your potential constituents may compel you to ignore this in an effort to secure their votes, I am nevertheless making myself available to you or anyone on your campaign staff who would care to continue the discussion via email by contacting me at thebedkeeper@gmail.com.

It is my hope that reviewing this information has enlarged your vision of the discussion from a legal, constitutional, historical and Scriptural perspective, and that it leaves you well prepared to respond as you continue to address the question in public venues. 

Sincerely,


Brian Anthony Bowen
Author, The Bed Keeper

***************************************************************

Dear Valued Readers,
This blog continues to be a work in progress. As recent revelations and events throughout Christendom have created an increasingly fluid situation, updates will no longer be published at the end of each post, but rather only at the beginning of the corresponding posts so impacted.  As of August 1, 2013, the only updates to appear at the end of each post will be churches that are personally endorsed by The Bed Keeper as a "SAFE SPACE."

Readers may email thebedkeeper@gmail.com to discuss or comment on any posting.  Please note that while all feedback is highly valued and appreciated, it may not be possible to reply to each email.
 
UPDATE 01.15.12:
Lakewood Church officially endorsed as a SAFE SPACE for LGBT people to worship! Details here.

UPDATE 11.22.11:

Eagle Mountain International Church officially endorsed as a SAFE SPACE for LGBT people to worship! Details here.

THANK YOU for your generous support of this work!
 
Let him who receives instruction in the Word of God share all good things with his teacher, contributing to his support.
Galatians 6:6