A domestic partnership or even a civil union is still not marriage.

I think that’s exactly the point.

If anyone, whether unfaithful spouses, or unmarried couples, or homosexuals or anyone else think they are smarter than God and chooses to disobey God’s sexual instructions, it is not the US government’s role to take away their choice. But neither is it the government’s role to classify just any “loving” relationship as a marriage. A committed boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is not a marriage. Two lovers living together is a not a marriage. Incest is not marriage. A domestic partnership or even a civil union is still not marriage.

That would be rather like claiming that to allow Jews into Institution X is equivalent to letting child-murderers in, and then denying that you were invoking the blood libel - “I didn’t say they were child murderers - how dare you call me antisemitic, you pedlar of christophobic hate speech!” - but if he ever feels the need to defend this statement directly, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the line he took.

But if we try to take his argument seriously without the grossly homophobic subtext, it’s difficult to make sense of at all

But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

So polygamy is a modern affront to 5000 years of tradition, brother-sister marriage wasn’t practised by the Pharaohs, and child brides are only now coming to be thought of as brides? Warren’s 5000 year definition looks weirdly modern and parochial - the bible itself would need to be rewritten to accommodate it.

I think that Rick Warren should come out with a statement that he apologizes for saying that he never said “oh yes I do”.

This guest has no proof of what she is saying that Rick has said. Let’s see the video.

This guest also implies that Rick supports misogyny. She failed to prove that.

She said that it’s on the web site and Rachel didn’t show that in order to substantiate it.

I think that her guest simply created more convoluted arguments to add to the slander and it would have been more credible if she had showed the video clips as Rachel did and showed the material on the web site she was referencing as Rachel did.

There is nothing wrong with Rick Warren stating that he is against gay-marriage and that he loves gays. I addressed this “controversy” at my own blog.

I don’t object to Rick Warren quoting the scripture in the Bible about wives submitting to their husbands - as long as he is correctly defining submission in the context that it was intended and not using societal interpretations.

I would hope that he would also present the scripture in the Bible about husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church if he’s going to quote the scripture about wives.

Those who claim that Rick Warren doesn’t believe that women should have ministerial roles don’t know that he financed his wife’s global ministry - that she leads and that she is an author and preacher.

I am not on a Rick Warren soap box but I am just saying that there are many inaccuracies that are floating around in order to slander him. Rick has made many missteps on his own…there’s no need for these pundits to bring on guest to “manufacture” lies about him to discredit him.

There’s plenty Rick has out there that they can critique.